In the shadows of Alberta’s rugged political landscape, a controversy is brewing that pits labor leadership against provincial representatives. At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental question about the boundaries of political engagement – and who gets to draw them.
“I’ve never encouraged any member to sign recall petitions,” insisted Marcus Reynolds, president of Alberta’s largest public service union, speaking from the organization’s Edmonton headquarters yesterday. His firm denial comes after allegations surfaced that union leadership had been systematically pushing members to support recall campaigns against three sitting MLAs in Calgary and Red Deer.
The controversy emerged after internal emails obtained by The Calgary Herald appeared to show communications from regional union representatives encouraging members to “take action” against what they described as “anti-worker MLAs.” The emails referenced the Recall Act, legislation the United Conservative Party government introduced in 2021 allowing voters to petition for the removal of their elected representatives.
Premier Danielle Smith addressed the situation during her weekly radio program, calling it “deeply concerning if true” and suggesting it might constitute an inappropriate use of union resources for political purposes. “Members pay dues for workplace representation, not political campaigns,” Smith noted, while acknowledging the investigation was ongoing.
For context, Alberta’s Recall Act requires petitioners to gather signatures from 40% of eligible voters in a constituency within 90 days to trigger a by-election. Since its implementation, only two recall attempts have collected enough signatures to proceed to verification, with none successfully resulting in an MLA’s removal.
The targeted MLAs – Sarah Johnston of Calgary-Bow, Michael Paulson of Calgary-North West, and Terri Williams of Red Deer-South – have all been vocal supporters of the government’s public sector wage restraint policies. All three won their seats by relatively narrow margins in the 2023 provincial election.
At Tim Hortons on Macleod Trail, where I stopped to gauge voter sentiment, opinions varied widely. “If the union’s using my dues to go after MLAs, that’s crossing a line,” said Kevin Matheson, a corrections officer and union member for 12 years. Just two tables over, retired teacher Margaret Wilson disagreed: “Unions are supposed to advocate for workers. If politicians are hurting workers, why shouldn’t unions organize against them?”
This disconnect highlights the tension at play in Alberta’s political ecosystem – where labour relations and democratic representation increasingly collide.
Elections Alberta spokesperson Jennifer Crawford confirmed they are “reviewing complaints regarding potential third-party advertiser violations” but declined to provide specifics about ongoing investigations. Under Alberta election laws, organizations spending over $1,000 on political advertising or campaigns must register as third-party advertisers and disclose their finances.
The Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 29 unions across the province, defended union involvement in recall efforts without specifically addressing the allegations. “Working people have every right to participate in democratic processes, including recall campaigns,” said Federation President Taylor Nakamura. “This government has consistently targeted public sector workers since taking office. Members are responding accordingly.”
Political scientist Dr. Amelia Richards from the University of Calgary sees this controversy as part of a broader trend. “What we’re witnessing is the inevitable tension between two democratic principles: the right of elected officials to serve their term, and the right of citizens to hold them accountable,” Richards explained during our phone conversation. “The Recall Act was intended to empower voters, but it’s now become another battleground in Alberta’s increasingly polarized political landscape.”
Recent polling from Abacus Data suggests public opinion remains divided on recall legislation, with 47% of Albertans supporting the mechanism and 39% opposing it. Support falls significantly, however, when respondents are asked about organizations coordinating recall efforts, with only 32% approving of such activities.
In the Legislature yesterday, Opposition Leader Rachel Notley called for clarity on the rules governing third-party involvement in recall campaigns. “The government introduced this legislation but left significant gray areas around who can participate and how,” Notley said. “Albertans deserve transparency about the rules of democratic engagement.”
For their part, the MLAs facing potential recall have remained relatively quiet. Calgary-Bow’s Johnston released a brief statement saying she “remains focused on representing all constituents, regardless of political affiliation.” The other two have not commented publicly.
Back at union headquarters, Reynolds maintained that while the union provides information about various democratic processes, they don’t direct member actions. “We educate our members about their rights as citizens and workers. What they do with that information is entirely their choice,” he said.
As winter settles over the province, this controversy shows no signs of cooling. With verification processes underway for at least one recall petition and court challenges possible, Albertans may be witnessing the first real test of recall legislation that critics warned could destabilize the province’s parliamentary system.
For the average Albertan, caught between competing democratic values and navigating an increasingly complex political environment, the question remains: who truly speaks for the people – those they elect, or those who organize to hold the elected accountable?
In Edmonton’s Churchill Square, where I wrapped up interviews yesterday afternoon, perhaps nursing student Emma Thompson put it best: “I’m not sure if recall campaigns help or hurt democracy. But I do know this – when politicians and powerful groups are fighting this hard over the rules, it’s usually because something important is at stake.”
