Alberta chief electoral officer warns UCP proposed bill will hurt investigations
Alberta's chief electoral officer is warning the government that proposed legislation will impair the election commissioner's power to investigate election rule breaking.
A controversial bill introduced last month, if passed, will make sweeping changes to voting and referendums in the province, and is making its way through debate in the legislature.
In documents sent to Justice Minister Mickey Amery and all legislature members, chief electoral officer Gordon McClure warns that some changes in the bill will reduce the election commissioner's ability to investigate and enforce compliance with election law, including financial contribution rules.
View image in full screen
Alberta's Chief Electoral Officer, Gordon McClure, warns new UCP legislation will reduce the election commissioner's ability to investigate and enforce compliance with election laws. Global News
A summary of concerns attached to the email says that under one of the bill's proposed changes, none of the significant investigations undertaken by the election commissioner in the last five years would have happened and some current investigations would need to be abandoned.
Story continues below advertisement
Amery says all of the bill's proposals are meant to protect democracy, deliver fair and open elections, and restore confidence in every vote cast by Albertans, but he did not directly address McClure's concerns.
Opposition NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir says McClure's letter makes it clear the United Conservatives are undermining investigations into election law, which would let those who break the rules off the hook.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
13 hours ago
- Global News
World Pride celebrations end with defiant politics on display in Washington
After the raucous rainbow-hued festivities of Saturday's parade, the final day of World Pride 2025 in Washington kicked off on a more downbeat note. Thousands gathered under grey skies Sunday morning at the Lincoln Memorial for a rally and protest march, as the community gathers its strength for a looming fight under U.S. President Donald Trump's second administration. 'This is not just a party,' Ashley Smith, board president of Capital Pride Alliance. 'This is a rally for our lives.' Tweet This Click to share quote on Twitter: "This is a rally for our lives." Smith acknowledged that international attendance numbers for the bi-annual World Pride were measurably down, with many potential attendees avoiding travel to the U.S. due to either fear of harassment or in protest of Trump's policies. 'That should disturb us and mobilize us,' Smith said. Story continues below advertisement Protesters cheered on LGBTQ2 activists taking the stage while waving both traditional Pride flags and flags representing transgender, bisexual, intersex and other communities. Many had rainbow glitter and rhinestones adorning their faces. They held signs declaring 'Fight back,' 'Gay is good,' 'Ban bombs not bathrooms' and 'We will not be erased.' Trump's campaign against transgender protections and oft-stated antipathy for drag shows have set the community on edge, with some hoping to see a renewed wave of street politics in response. 'Trans people just want to be loved. Everybody wants to live their own lives and I don't understand the problem with it all,' said Tyler Cargill, who came wearing an elaborate costume with a hat topped by a replica of the U.S. Capitol building. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Wes Kincaid drove roughly six hours from Charlotte, N.C., to attend this year. Sitting on a park bench near the reflecting pond, Kincaid said he made a point of attending this year, 'because it's more important than ever to show up for our community.' Story continues below advertisement Reminders of the cuts to federal government programs were on full display, Sunday. One attendee waved a pole bearing a massive rainbow flag along with a large USAID flag; another held a 'Proud gay federal worker' sign; and a third held an umbrella with the logos of various federal program facing cuts — including the PBS logo. Trump's anti-trans rhetoric had fuelled fears of violence or protests targeting World Pride participants; at one point earlier this spring, rumors circulated that the Proud Boys were planning to disrupt this weekend's celebrations. Those concerns prompted organizers to install security fencing around the entire two-day street party on a multi-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue. 5:06 What changes in U.S. gender policy mean for Canadians But so far, the only clear act of aggression has been the vandalizing of a queer bar last week. Late Saturday night, there was a pair of violent incidents near Dupont Circle — one of the epicentres of the World Pride celebrations. Two juveniles were stabbed and a man was shot in the foot in separate incidents. The Metropolitan Police Department says it is not clear if either incident was directly related to World Pride. Story continues below advertisement A cold rain began falling around noon Sunday as the rally speakers cut short their comments and prepared to march. Some attendees filtered away while others huddled under umbrellas and ponchos. 'Rain will not stop us, and after rain comes rainbows,' said one speaker from the stage. The speeches didn't just target the Trump administration or the Republican party. Some turned their ire on Democratic politicians, who they say have wilted under the pressure of Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress. 'We have to call out people who have abandoned our movement,' said Tyler Hack of the Christopher Street Project. 'Being a Democrat is more than carrying the party affiliation,' Hack added. 'It's about unapologetic support for the trans community.' Tweet This Click to share quote on Twitter: "It's about unapologetic support for the trans community." While the main march headed toward the U.S. Capitol, a separate group splintered off and headed toward the White House, unfurling a large 'TRUMP MUST GO NOW' banner. Those who stayed to brave the weather said their presence amid less-than-ideal circumstances was vital. 'People are still out here, despite the rain, despite their exhaustion,' said Gillian Brewer, a university student studying physics from Silver Spring, Maryland. 'We're not going anywhere.' Story continues below advertisement Brewer expressed some frustration that the turnout for Sunday's protest march was lower than for the World Pride parade the day before, which she decided to skip. 'This is more important,' Brewer added. 'You can party all you want but at the end of the day, the protest is why we can party.' Natalie Farmer, who traveled from San Diego with her wife, attributed the difference in numbers between the march and Saturday's parade to people being tired from celebrating the previous night. 'Some of us have to do the rallying to keep the party going,' Farmer said. 'We all fight in different ways.'
Global News
16 hours ago
- Global News
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Story continues below advertisement Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. Story continues below advertisement But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. Story continues below advertisement George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Story continues below advertisement Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
Global News
16 hours ago
- Global News
U.S. envoy closely eyes Canada defence spending; says NATO about collective defence
The American ambassador to Canada is closely watching as Ottawa shapes its defence budget, but says the U.S. will not dictate what the Canadian government must spend. 'We're not expecting anything; that's not our job to make those expectations,' Ambassador Pete Hoekstra said in an interview with The Canadian Press this past Friday, a day after NATO defence ministers endorsed new spending targets. Hoekstra also said the point of the NATO military alliance is to defend each other when under attack. He noted Americans haven't forgotten the 'investment and the sacrifice' Canadian troops made in Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked the NATO treaty's article on collective defence. 'They were fulfilling the commitment that they made to NATO — that when one of us is attacked we are all attacked, and we will defend each other,' Hoekstra said of Canadian soldiers. Story continues below advertisement Hoekstra was not directly commenting on U.S. President Donald Trump's statement in March that Washington would not necessarily come to the aid of countries that don't pay their fair share on defence and that Canada has been freeloading on American defence of the continent. He did acknowledge Canada's defence spending has been an 'irritant' in the relationship with the U.S. This past week, defence ministers from NATO countries met in Brussels to discuss raising the member spending target on defence to as much as five per cent of GDP. Canada has never met NATO's existing spending target of two per cent since it was established in 2006. Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney are engaged in what both sides have characterized as 'intensive' discussions toward the new economic and security deal the two leaders agreed to work on once the Canadian election concluded in April. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy NATO figures suggest Canada's defence spending rose from about one per cent in 2014 to 1.33 per cent in 2023. The NATO secretary-general's annual report, released in April, said Canada's defence spending would hit 1.45 per cent for 2024. In terms of absolute dollars, a Canadian Global Affairs Institute analysis last year said Canada ranks as the seventh largest spender in NATO, and the 14th largest in the world. Story continues below advertisement Carney promised during the recent election campaign to move up Canada's deadline for meeting the 2 per cent threshold from 2032 to 2030 or sooner but has not yet shown a plan for how to do that. It will require Canada to add billions of new dollars annually. The prime minister is set to join other heads of government from NATO countries for an annual summit starting June 24 in the Netherlands. They are expected to approve a new defence investment plan that defence ministers hammered out this week, which would have member nations invest 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence spending, and 1.5 per cent on defence and security-related investment such as infrastructure and resilience. That proposal is coming amid waning American commitments and a revanchist Russia. In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have urged Canada to boost its Arctic defence, and the previous Biden administration praised much of what Ottawa outlined in an Arctic foreign policy last year. Trump has suggested defence of the Arctic is part of his 'Golden Dome' plan for a continental missile-defence shield. On May 27, the president said he told Ottawa it would cost US$61 billion to be part of the project. Hoekstra said he hasn't seen a breakdown of the costs, but said the 'really awesome technology' is likely estimated at 'proportionally what we think the Canadian share should be.' Story continues below advertisement Defence Minister David McGuinty said Canada was reviewing its defence spending from 'top to bottom' and would have more to say about its plans soon, though the government isn't planning to table a budget until the fall. Hoekstra framed NATO as part of the wide partnership the U.S. has with Canada in security, which also includes secure energy flows and stopping illicit drugs. 'We need to do the things that will keep our citizens safe,' Hoekstra said. 'There are a lot of things that Americans and Canadians have in common, and we're looking forward to great days.' Hoekstra said Trump is trying to take the U.S. off an unsustainable trajectory, which he framed as millions of people crossing the U.S. border undocumented, spending way beyond government revenue and large trade deficits. 'The president is transforming that, because we need to,' he said. Trump's discussions with Carney will likely include the sweeping reform of border security that the Liberals tabled in Parliament last week. Hoekstra had yet to go through the legislation as of Friday. The ambassador said he's focused on win-win policies for both countries and not the prospect of Canada becoming an American state, despite Trump raising the notion as a way for Canadians to save on the cost of joining his Golden Dome project. Story continues below advertisement Former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson has said Hoekstra is limited in how much he can diverge from Trump's comments. But he said the ambassador has great access to the president, and his public messaging likely reveals how he has been advising Trump.
