Why Recall Ric McIver
The answer is simple:
Ric McIver has not been representing his constituents for years.
Emails and phone calls to his office frequently go unanswered. When responses are received, they often fail to meaningfully address concerns. In some cases, constituents report being treated inappropriately, including instances where Mr. McIver allegedly hung up on them. Prior to becoming Speaker of the House in the spring of 2025, his voting record consistently showed loyalty to party over accountability to the people of McKenzie Towne, McKenzie Lake, New Brighton, and Copperfield. He has shown little follow-through on promises made during election campaigns.
Professionalism and Conduct
Ric McIver promised professionalism and steady leadership. However, his record shows otherwise. He was ejected from the Legislature in 2016 for disruptive behaviour, and as Speaker in 2025, he struggled to remain impartial during the Fall Sitting. Many constituents report no replies, no engagement, and no leadership on local issues. Some report inappropriate responses, and others say the only time they received a reply was after threatening to speak to the media about his performance.
Undermining Local Democracy
Ric McIver also promised to strengthen local democracy, improve municipal governance, and ensure fiscal accountability. Instead, his actions have strained relationships with municipalities. While in government, he stalled Calgary’s Green Line funding, contributing to the loss of millions of taxpayer dollars.
As Minister of Municipal Affairs, he introduced Bill 20, which significantly eroded municipal democracy by allowing the provincial government to overreach into local affairs. Bill 20 gave the province the power to overturn municipal bylaws and remove elected mayors and councillors. Under this authority, Mr. McIver dismissed half of Chestermere’s city council without due process.
Ethical Concerns
Ric McIver promised ethical and accountable government, yet his past actions raise serious concerns. In 2016, he questioned electricity policy in the Legislature while his wife owned an electricity retail company affected by those policies. The Ethics Commissioner found this to be a conflict of interest. Mr. McIver was fined and required to apologize in the Legislature.
Support of the Notwithstanding Clause
Most importantly, Ric McIver has a long record of prioritizing party loyalty over the needs of his constituents. As Speaker of the House during the Fall Sitting, he did not vote on the use of the notwithstanding clause in Bill 2 and Bill 9. While the Speaker does not vote, Mr. McIver expressed full support for his party’s decisions in conversations with constituents.
The notwithstanding clause was never intended to be used as a routine political tool. It allows governments to override fundamental freedoms (freedom of expression, religion, and assembly), legal rights (Sections 7–14), and equality rights (Section 15). Ric McIver’s voting history and stated support for these measures indicate that he supports how the UCP has used the notwithstanding clause and would continue to support its use going forward.
Why Now?
Some ask, why now?
The petition was filed when it was because Mr. McIver’s expressed support for the use of the notwithstanding clause, shared directly with constituents, was the final confirmation needed to take action. It completed a long-standing pattern of conduct that demonstrated a failure to represent, engage, and be accountable to the people of this riding.
