Recall efforts are a ‘nuclear option’ that smack of desperation by NDP
By Lethbridge Herald on December 6, 2025.
Editor,
Did Ryan Tanner (Nov. 26) ever attempt to contact Nathan Neudorf’s constituency office, or visit in person, before filing a recall petition?
I myself made a point of visiting to ask. I was told Ryan Tanner’s name is not recognized. As far as they know, he had not been in touch, and did not try to resolve any issue in person.
Instead, he resorted unawares to a nuclear option that couldn’t possibly have connection with the thirteen other petitions filed that same week.
This manipulation becomes especially odious in the case of Airdrie-East MLA Angela Pitt. At the end of October, she made a decision to discontinue her in-person town hall meetings. She cited threats, a “hostile atmosphere,” and safety concerns.
Maybe these tough guys weren’t aware of how menacing behavior can affect a woman. Or maybe they were aware: an air of menace could be used as pretext.
Airdrie resident Derek Keenan, a school principle (no ATA connection, of course), filed a recall petition against Pitt because she no longer holds town hall meetings.
Exploiting Pitt’s concerns to punish her. Thinking themselves so clever, they didn’t consider how it actually looks.
That Naheed Nenshi couldn’t refrain from commenting just makes the ploy more obvious: an abuse of process to undo the seat count and simply throw power to the NDP. The Alberta left has become impatient, and they’re not pretty.
Tom Yeoman
Lethbridge
12-11
These recall petitions may be a nuclear option but that’s what is required to get rid of politicians who are destroying our province.
Could it be Tom that these people you find smart to criticize are former Conservative supporters like me and my friends and are fed up with watching these Reformers destroy our children and grandchildren’s future? In true Reform Party Fashion you find it smart to blame it on the NDP that true conservatives want elected. Where is the intelligence in that?
Can you explain to us true Conservatives where these Reformers are going to find the billions of dollars to pay for the oil well cleanup mess, the $89 billlion debt , and the $20 billion deficit and growing that these Reformers have created, because we can’t? Do you care?
Excellent points. I can see why you call yourself Fedup Conservative. By reading your comments, I can clearly see that you know what actual Conservatives are. The UCP are not Conservatives. They also mirror the Social Credit Party, which Peter Lougheed fought so hard to get out of power, and emulate Ralph Klein, who destroyed the great things that Peter Lougheed created for the good of us all. Danielle Smith is the worst premier in Alberta’s history.
A good friend of mine was a Social Credit MLa and he understood why our family didn’t support them. He agreed with everything Lougheed did and told me that’s why their party disappears so quickly they all agreed with him.
One has to ask what hubris was required to write the legislation allowing petitions and recalls in the first place. Maybe the same one using the ‘nuclear’ notwithstanding clause for bigotted and unconstitutional legislation?
How many times will the UCP keep stepping on its own rake?
Good questions. Well said.
Tom doesn’t want to hear about the four times the UCP have invoked the notwithstanding clause to circumvent legal challenges to their otherwise unconstitutional laws. But citizens using a law that a PC premier put in place makes him apoplectic. Bit hypocritical don’t u think?
Yeah, recalls are pretty serious. They’d only be justified if the UCP did something really awful, like override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for no reason other than political convenience.
What rights are those. As er the constitution or those read in by your favorite activist unelected judge. You really need to do some research. Especially for the use of the NWC.
I’m very familiar with the NWC, thank you. It is only used when the government writing the legislation believes that their law violates charter rights as that is all it does. Technically the UCP cast a wide net with it, meaning that Bill 2 can’t be challenged for violating any rights in Section 2 or 7-15 of the charter, as well as in the Alberta Bill of Rights (yes, they overrode our own Bill of Rights as well, which the UCP ran on strengthening).
Specifically in this case, Bill 2 violates Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Association, and most likely Freedom of Expression. There are others that could likely be argued in court, which is why the UCP didn’t only override Section 2. For example a the $500 per day punishment for individuals or $500,000 per day for the union would almost definitely be considered an unusual punishment which violates Section 12.
These are all very basic readings of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – the nonsense you’re spouting about activist judges is comical. No sane person would argue that Freedom of Assembly suddenly doesn’t apply when the people you’re assembling with happen to be coworkers.
Reading in a right to strike is activism. Hence good use of the NWC in upholding a child’s right to an education. Unions have been shown who they work for. Can only assume you would like to be ruled by nine and not by a duly elected government. Governments make the laws, judges interpret them. Judges do not make up laws, that is parliament (the peoples job). Hope that clears things up for you.
You have a lot to learn. It shows.
“Did Ryan Tanner (Nov. 26) ever attempt to contact Nathan Neudorf’s constituency office, or visit in person, before filing a recall petition?”
There is much speculation about this, and even the Herald has written a piece about what is not going on. Not many people are willing to say on record what this is about but certainly you can go look up the speculation of the relationship between the two.