Recall legislation that’s serious

That a politician would decry the use of a political gambit made during an election campaign to become a political leader, as political, is comical.

In Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney says politician recall legislation being misused (Free Press, Dec. 2025) we read “The architect of Alberta’s politician recall legislation says it was never meant to be used as a political weapon…” and Kenney is quoted: “We have it as an ultimate tool of accountability if a politician does something absolutely egregious, illegal, grossly unethical.”

This is despite this 2019 election campaign statement (as quoted by the Canadian Taxpayers’ Association in September 2020, Alberta needs recall legislation now): “Albertans want their MLAs to be accountable to them. That’s why a United Conservative government would introduce a Recall Act allowing voters to fire their MLA in between elections if they have lost the public’s trust…”

Trust can be lost well shy of “egregious,” so this was just politics (populous-pleasing without substance). Nevertheless, when somebody initiates the process, which is quite easy to do, it’s criticized as political. How humorous.

Where the recall process becomes onerous in Alberta and British Columbia is in the formidable mustering of gusto and resources needed to see it through. The burden is on process rather than on establishing cause, so much so that since 1995, no recall petitions have led to a recall election in British Columbia. The multitude of current Alberta submissions will likely fare the same. Perfect, politically.

Recall legislation as enacted, then, amounts to wooing voters with little threat of subsequent accountability. The tactic risks, therefore, an even more laissez-faire attitude towards democracy, in the name of democracy — don’t analyze too much; vote for me ’cause I’ll empower you (democracy!) to change your mind; don’t fuss over the details.

Free Press columnist Deveryn Ross argues for recall legislation in Manitoba (Time to consider recall legislation, Dec. 9, 2025) in case, after we “blindly entrust politicians with their (citizens’) rights,” and cede “the ability to rescind that authority when necessary” should an electee do “what they think is best during their mandate” with “no right to object.”

One might counter that we have numerous avenues by which to express objection and to apply pressure. A more fundamental counter might be that we get the government we deserve. Going “blindly” is a choice, particularly in this age of information. It is on us to make judgments based on credible sources, applying critical thinking and all forms of literacy; we deserve to endure the consequences if we don’t. To a point, perhaps.

Ross goes on to give compelling examples of delinquencies — broken promises (for example, retail sales tax), actions reflecting an undisclosed agenda (such as school book censorship by school trustees), and “decisions that impair the well-being of their respective communities and fellow citizens” in the context of municipal politics (parental rights comes to mind) — that might justify and motivate a recall.

This provokes thought about how recall legislation might be designed to have effect.

Such legislation could shift the burden from administrative slogging by the petitioner to establishing that a certain act has taken place. The list might also include a change to political affiliation (such as crossing the floor), supporting a use of the notwithstanding clause individually or by party association (common, along with claims of being unresponsive to constituents, in the Alberta petitions), a crime, an undisclosed conflict of interest, lies or misleading statements, or a change to legislation (including recall) reflecting an agenda undisclosed prior to election. (A category reflecting statements or acts that are uncivil or anti-democratic might merit consideration.)

While some such acts are objectively clear when they occur, others may require an impartial judgment, a role for an ombudsman, perhaps.

If a recall process is reasonably possible to complete (not just initiate) once cause from the legislated list is established, we might have higher standards of comportment and rhetoric. There may be less in the way of commitments to balance the budget by…, to cut hospital wait times by…, and not to raise taxes, and more thought-out and realistic platforms reflecting facts and the limits of government influence.

There might also be less pandering to our gullibility or earnest hopes without accountability (“we inherited a mess…”) for a failure to mitigate as promised. Hopefully such legislation would never lead to a recall while having a productive effect.

As it exists now out west, it’s a bit of a joke.

Ken Clark, retired after career stops in industry, education and government, writes from Winnipeg.