Bill 20 dissent still going
The UCP is flopping hard on Bill 20 and their list of detractors is only growing.
This week in AB
Rick Bell typically alternates between broken record and broken clock, which probably means he is still worth every dime as one of the last columnists standing in the pages of Alberta’s legacy print media.
When Edmonton Mayor Amarjit Sohi sounded the alarm on provincial funding for the low-income bus pass, which was very marginally propped up by the government of Alberta — less than 14 per cent; to the tune of $6.2 million for each Calgary and Edmonton — on the same day that Danielle Smith released her champagne wishes and caviar dreams for a provincial commuter rail system, it was a shock.
Between the fact that Smith promised to expand the public transit pass coverage during the election, and that the amount from the province was 0.00018 per cent of the 2024 budget, it appeared to be an entirely political, rather than fiscal, decision.
In the world of political manoeuvres, if it was intentional to change the channel from taking hit after hit on Bill 20, it was well-timed and well-done.
Minister of Seniors, Community, and Social Services Jason Nixon initially said that his government was going to reverse the cut because the cities “clearly” could not afford to fund the program on their own — but that statement had the unintended consequence of reminding people that the government of Alberta owes the city of Edmonton more than $60 million in unpaid property tax.
A spokesperson for the same Ministry responded with a list of other funding the province provides while adding that “transit is a municipal responsibility” — a comment that brought everyone back to the province’s proposed Bill 20 that seeks to remove authority from municipal governments.
The province backtracked in less than 24 hours.
At this point, we’re all just cartoon characters with stars and exclamation points circling above our heads.
Twists and turns
Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver, after defending Bill 20 last week, said he would now work with municipalities to amend the amendment legislation.
Prior to that, rumour had it that Take Back Alberta’s David Parker was having a hard time selling Bill 20 to his TBA crowd. They, apparently, have a better sense of how over-reaching legislation might affect them generally, even if not specifically in a circumstance where the UCP is not perpetually in power.
As one of my very conservative friends said last week, “whenever you pass a law, you should always ask: ‘what would my (political opponent) do with this new power?’ If that question makes you uncomfortable, don’t pass the law.”
I can hardly believe that needs to be said, but in Alberta, where we’ve only recently decided we can change governments, maybe stating the obvious necessary.
Especially when it’s not obvious.
That the UCP’s Bill 20 includes a ban on electronic vote tabulators is nothing short of catering to the feelings before facts crowd, but without the province setting itself up for a lawsuit a la FOX news and infotainment.
A number of people have accepted that the governing party of Alberta is going to legislate at the behest of the more evidence-challenged in their circles — but the reality is that our governments make promises or legislation to address “feelings” all the time.
We’re mostly familiar with it as it relates to crime and punishment.
People generally fear becoming victims of random crime far more than they fear being targeted personally, despite the fact that evidence shows most victims of crime actually know the perpetrators — anywhere between blood relative and significant other to friend, neighbour, or co-worker.
And when it comes to punishment, most people are rooting for this cabal of unknown perpetrators to have the book thrown at them but don’t want that “tough on crime” stance to affect their kid/sibling/spouse/loved one for “making a mistake” — even if that “mistake” had serious consequences for someone else.
Take the most recent decision by the UCP to increase police presence in downtown Calgary. It makes people “feel” safer, even though the activity or people that made them uncomfortable in the first place still exist in the same spaces.
Other times, there is an easier fix, like banning electronic vote tabulators that allowed initial results to come in faster, but were always hand-counted before a result was considered “official” anyway. Unfortunately, sometimes we have the privilege of advocating for evidence-based policy and sometimes we have to admit that “feelings” matter, too.
And finally — amendments be damned, it’s “party” time
There is a rampant misconception that municipal parties will simply be extensions of provincial parties and allow the truly partisan to easily identify their ideological enemies without having to expend any effort to learn about them as individuals.
Even using the above tweet — what is the conservative position to take on garbage pickup? Do conservatives even like garbage pickup? Do Liberals prefer if your garbage is picked up more regularly or less? Would the NDP try and unionize your already unionized garbage pickup… harder?
Inquiring minds want to know.
“Well, we would know how they would vote on taxes,” you might say.
Yes, just like every candidate already runs on a platform saying they will work to keep your taxes low, or refuse to support tax increases, or ensure taxes go to things you really need.
Last week, Ric McIver said that his government was listening to the 70 per cent of Albertans who don’t want their municipal politics to mirror the dumpster fire at the provincial and federal levels because the UCP was only going to “pilot” municipal parties with 50 per cent of the population. Actually, he said “only two of almost 300 municipalities will pilot the project” which is far less than 70 per cent of municipalities. Even though 100 per cent of Alberta’s municipal associations have also come out against the move. Potato/potahto.
It’s likely quite tiresome for the provincial government to constantly be the scapegoat for municipal politicians who can claim they’re going to stand up to the province. Tiresome, indeed, to have to deal with constant finger-pointing and blame when the province is just trying to keep its promises to cut spending by telling municipalities they’ll just have to find a way to cover those costs that the province used to cover.
Don’t even get me started on how difficult it must be for the province to champion things like a provincial police force when municipal leaders are out there listening to their constituents and pushing back because rural areas don’t want to give up their RCMP.
Despite there seeming to be nothing but downsides to this sketchy little plan, I finally found something.
As a political observer, I think municipal parties will make those elections easier, and potentially more interesting, to watch. Instead of having to keep up with so many candidates in so many ridings, since I don’t live there, it will be easier to keep up with from the outside. There will also be the added bonus of figuring out who is aiming to be the most UCP-adjacent in two cities that a majority voted “not UCP” provincially.
It’s the most entertaining thought I’ve had over the last week and I’m going to cling to it with all I’ve got.
Final thoughts
Women of ABpoli is a reader-powered publication. Many thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and supports our work by becoming a free or paid subscriber. You are appreciated!
Sure, the UCP may be incompetent, petulant and bigoted. And yes, they may lie about policy and govern according to Fox News conspiracies. And they may waste gobs of money on Smith’s delusional paranoia projects. But socialism!