Shannon writes:

The Liberal news release contains what appears to be a factual error. Taft says he will bring any amendments to give constitutional status and recognition to municipalities before the Legislature, but the problem is, the Alberta Act that he wants to amend is not provincial legislation. The Alberta Act is a federal statute which forms an Annex to the Canadian Constitution. Now the Alberta Act can be amended with the consent of the federal Parliament, but it can't be amended in the Legislature.

Giving constitutional recognition to municipalities would need to be done at the federal level with all the affected provinces needing to give their consent to amendments to the consitutional annexes that establish their respective provinces.

The first paragraph is fine; no quibbles there. But Shannon mis-understands what the Alberta Act is, and what would be needed to recognize municipalities.

The Alberta Act is the piece of federal legislation that brought the province of Alberta into existence. It's actually pretty simple, and can be summed up as follows:

• Sets the boundaries of the province;
• Specifies that the Constitution Acts 1867-1886 apply as if it was an original province;
• Provides initial representation in the House and Senate and handles voter qualifications, reapportionment (since dealt with elsewhere), and the like;
• Establishes the Executive Council (aka cabinet), provincial capital, and Great Seal of the province until the province deals with them;
• Continues all powers that the Territories had in the province, continues all Territorial legislation that used to exist, continues corporate bodies, and continues the Territorial judicial system that used to exist until the province deals with them;
• Sets up the Legislature, provincial elections, and so on until the province handles that;
• Sets up an education system and constitutionally freezes the system that was in place in the Territories for the purposes of s. 93 of the Constitution Act '67;
• Sets up subsidies to the province;
• Reserves Crown land to the dominion (since transferred by the Alberta Natural Resources Transfer Act, 1931);
• Provides for the division of assets & liabilities between Alberta and Saskatchewan; and
• Limits the powers of the province with respect to the Hudson's Bay Company and the Canadian Pacific Railroad (yep, that's right folks, some private companies have constitutional status in Alberta).

You'll notice that most of that is simply bootstrapping the province into existence, and providing for how things work until the province gets around to handling things for itself. There's nothing there about the powers of the province (except for the CPR and the Bay). Why's that? Because it's found in the Constitution Act 1867, instead. The relevant part of that Act is s. 92, which specifies powers that are exclusively within the provinces' control. Until 1982, s. 92 read:

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. The Amendment from Time to Time, notwithstanding anything in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.
...
8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.

The Constitution Act 1982 replaced s. 92(1) with something functionally equivalent, for our purposes (note: s. 41 of the '82 Act specifies the stuff that requires unanimous consent — getting rid of the Queen, the Supreme Court, and so on; it's not relevant here):

Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

So. Where does that leave us? Provinces are absolutely free to amend their constitutions with respect to municipalities and a wide range of other things. If Alberta wants to specify that municipalities have some sort of constitutional status such that the province can't abolish them without consent of the municipalities (much like Alberta's done with Métis lands --- see the Constitution of Alberta Amendment Act 1990), Alberta's perfectly free to do so. All constitutionalizing the municipalities would do would be to change the way in which the province can exercise its powers --- it wouldn't transfer them to the federal government in any way, so it's an internal change, rather than one affecting any other level of government.

While Shannon's right that the Alberta Act is the wrong place to do this sort of thing (if it's a good idea, and I'm by no means sure that it is), Taft's proposal isn't impossible to do without the feds. All it would require is the Legislature saying it wants to amend the provincial constitution, and presto, it'd happen.

In a sky full of stars, you're a graceful comet
When I think about you, I manage not to vomit,
Without you there would be no US imperialism
There'd also be no Iraqi materialism,
Among your peers, you're no ugly duckling
George thinks you're the one who keeps the world from sucking,
When you're cute as a button, and cuddly too
Who really should care when WMD ain't true?
So get well, Dick, you crazy buccaneer,
'Cause if you croak, who'll be Bush's puppeteer?

Municipal politics have much in common with picking the next Pope. There’s really not a whole lot that anyone disagrees about. One candidate complains about taxes, and the rest commence a frantic dead horse kicking orgy. A cardinal can’t so much as mention his dislike of abortion, without a whole pack of clergy firing off baby-eating sermons. Fortunately, the Popelarvae don’t blame their ecclesiastical woes on a higher power. The same cannot be said of municipal politicians.

Why has Edmonton so many potholes, so few buses, and such a diminutive LRT? Blame the province. Why is it so bloody cold? Clearly, it’s Ottawa’s fault. Our chronic space-dome shortage lies on the black and crinkled heart of our provincially beloved Premierial hobo-mocker.

Why should the responsibility for our metaphorical pony shortfall go down to Klein? After all, he has better things to do. Like fill his right honourable hot-tub with beer. And artificial hip-replacements. Then again, the province has got all of the money stashed away in their socialist-proof vault. What better to do with gobs and gobs of cash than give it to other levels of government?

But wait. Where does this money come from? Taxes. From where stem taxes? Citizens. And who else has the power to tax citizens? Surely not City Council. The same council that’s out in arms with dollar-matching and pony-extracting schemes, wanting to get its grubby little pyramidal hands onto the Provincial surplus?

The entire situation is not unlike the antics of an overstressed set of parents attempting to withhold candies from an over-prescribed nine year old. “I need some glucose in my bloodstream!” pleads Johnny. Mommy, though, knows that Scary Old Granny Financial-Conservative is looking over her shoulder. “No, Johnny. You know very well that sugar is White Death, and your thyroid is going to implode and spew Red Dye #3 all over the chesterfield. Go ask your father.” Of course, Johnny’s dad, being moderately (though stealthily) fond of drink—not to mention large signs overenthusiastically proclaiming financial stability—tells Johnny to fuck off and find some carcinogens in the playground, like all the other children.

On his way over to suckle upon arsenic-treated playstructures, Johnny is run over by the Popemobile.

When the municipal government wants to squander money on police, or lights, or roads that don’t suck, City Council should have the courage to open up the candy jar itself. Council has access to as much taxation as it needs. That they should blame the province for municipal shortfalls is indicative more of their own cowardly failing to ask, responsibly, for greater property taxation to support improved programs. Instead, they pawn it off on the Province’s tightfistedness.

1. Rachel wants to ensure that large and unrepresented or underrepresented groups in Canada are actually represented in Parliament. Suppose that there is a political party out there with 0.33% support of the electorate. That should (assuming rounding) qualify them for one seat in a Parliament of 300 (1 our of every 300 people supports that party). However, in Rachel's system, they would only get to compete for 150 of the 300 seats and thus they would not have the support to win any seats in Parliament. Has this system really eliminated nonrepresentation of deserving groups?
2. There are probably on the order of 5% of Canadians who support the Green Party. However, the Green Party never gets any seats in Parliament. Under your system, they might, but they'd only get 5% of the 150 seats proportionally allotted, none of the 150 representatives's seats. So about 7 seats. In the Parliament of 300, Green-supporters making up 5% of the electorate would only have a little over 2% of Parliament. Has this system really eliminated underrepresentation?
3. The NDP commands close to 20% support in Canada. That should qualify them for almost 62 seats in a 309-seat Parliament. Likewise, the Conservatives have 25% support from Canadians. This should qualify them for 77 seats. Yet, the Conservatives elected 99 MPs recently, while the NDP elected only 19. In Rachel's system, the NDP would have won 50 seats (still not equivalent to the 50% support they deserve) while the Conservatives would have elected 88 (still more than the 77 their popular support should warrant). Has Rachel's sytem really eliminated distortions in Parliament?
4. Take a strongly Catholic riding in eastern Canada. The majority of these people are anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage. Yet they like the seasonal employment provisions in the EI program and they like the existance of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Fund. Unfortunately, no political party exists that holds this complement of policies? Isn't this group forced to go unrepresented in Parliament?

5. Let's consider the West's underrepresentation in Parliament. Is this a function of the electoral system (we have plenty of western MPs). Or is this a function of there being very few MPs in the Liberal Causus, very few in Cabinet, and none in 24 Sussex? Wouldn't a, say, Liberal majority under Rachel's system continue to result in Western underrepresentation?

How do you respond to these Rachel?