Cory Morgan: Bad Faith Use of Recall Legislation Is Creating a Dilemma for Smith

Commentary

Implementing a system of direct democracy, where citizens can impose or repeal government policies and recall elected officials through popular initiatives, has been more of an academic discussion in Canada than a reality. Canadians tend not to be interested in heading to the polls for general elections any more than they must, and they certainly haven’t been clamouring for regular referendums to be held. The concept is popular among populists, but it hasn’t taken hold among the general public.

That changed in Alberta when Premier Jason Kenney enshrined legislation in 2019 allowing for citizen-initiated referendums and recall. Kenney set the petitioning bar so high, however, that initiating a referendum or recall was nearly impossible. For example, in Calgary, a recall petition was initiated against Mayor Jyoti Gondek in 2024. While only 390,000 people voted in the 2021 mayoral election that elected Gondek, the recall legislation demanded 514,000 signatures to be gathered on a petition to initiate the recall. It was an absurd requirement, and the initiative fell well short of the target.

In July 2025, the UCP government under Premier Danielle Smith amended the legislation and reduced the number of petition signatures required for recalls and initiatives while extending the timelines to garner the signatures. Now, though, the legislation may be backfiring on her government as activists are taking advantage of it to gum up the system.

Western independence supporters welcomed the legislative changes and began working to initiate a separation referendum in Alberta. To head them off, former politician Thomas Lukaszuk applied for and was approved to petition for a referendum affirming the status quo under the name “Forever Canadian.” Lukaszuk successfully filed over 400,000 signatures and may have triggered an independence referendum. He is now saying he doesn’t really want a referendum, and says he prefers the provincial government ensure the province remains part of Canada.

Meanwhile, an application to initiate a petition filed by the Alberta Prosperity Project was mired in provincial courts for months. The electoral officer had determined it may not be constitutional, and a court ruled last week that it indeed is not. Independence activists have been getting frustrated, and took some of that ire out on Premier Smith at her party’s recent AGM.

On the recall front, activists are organizing recall petitions against all 44 of the UCP members of the legislature. The likelihood of a few, if any, of the recall attempts being successful is slim, considering the popularity of the Smith government. Their efforts are making a mockery of the direct democracy legislation, though, and gumming up the provincial electoral office. Elections Alberta asked for $13.5 million in additional funding to deal with it.

If Smith intervenes to block any recall efforts, it will appear self-serving and her government will have egg on its face. That’s exactly what happened in Alberta in the 1930s when Social Credit Premier William Aberhart was facing recall. If Smith does nothing, though, she risks potentially losing a seat or two while the process is discredited.

The Smith government has moved to amend the referendum legislation to remove the requirement of court approval for an independence referendum. This will allow the Alberta Prosperity Project to begin petitioning soon, and it looks likely that the province will see a referendum held on independence sometime in 2026. Support levels for independence have never polled highly enough to create winning referendum conditions in Alberta, but a six-month campaign on the issue may shake things up.

If Smith can withstand the efforts to sandbag her direct democracy legislation, it could evolve into a lasting part of Alberta’s democratic system. Switzerland leads the world in direct democracy and has held hundreds of referendums since 1891. When direct democracy was first introduced in Switzerland, anti-government activists played the system heavily, leading to only 50 percent of the government’s bills being successful. To resolve this, the government imposed stronger consultation requirements upon itself before passing legislation. It was a democratic win, and while referendums are commonly held in Switzerland, they tend to only have an 11 percent success rate. The system forces accountability upon the government and allows for citizen-initiated changes.

Switzerland experienced growing pains as it embraced direct democracy, as Alberta will. If citizens accept the spirit of the legislation, it can be productive. Recalls must only be initiated in rare circumstances where an elected official has breached trust so badly that most of the local citizens can’t wait for a general election. Referendums should only be initiated on large questions where it’s best for every citizen to have a say on them.

Direct democracy empowers citizens and forces elected members to take the public’s consideration into account before imposing legislation. If not managed properly, though, it can create a circus, as we are seeing in Alberta. The Smith government must find the elusive balance between allowing frivolous actions and not allowing citizen initiatives at all. It can be done, but it will take tenacity to get there.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.