Breakenridge: Bill 20 needs no amendment; it should be removed

Content of the article

It's not often that we see governments admit their mistakes and change course, and when that happens we should welcome it. However, this should not insulate the government from criticism for its original mistake, especially if their newfound flexibility is more strategic than sincere.

The sudden push for compromise and favoritism over Alberta's new Bill 20 (which, ironically, wasn't the only government repeal last week) raises more questions about why the legislation exists in the first place.

Content of the article

Content of the article

The bill, as originally proposed, revises both the Law on Municipalities and the Law on Elections of Local Authorities. Among the many changes, the most important would be to expand the province's powers to remove elected municipal officials and repeal local bylaws.

These changes have caught the attention of municipal governments across the province. While the Alberta government enjoyed the disapproval of its political enemies in the two big cities, there was clearly a greater sensitivity to the broader reaction.

So last week, the Minister for Municipal Affairs released a statement (no further public comment or comment) announcing that Bill 20 would be amended to recognize that “this power (to remove elected officials) should only be used as a last resort” and only in “very limited circumstances”. .

As for the ability to break legislation, this too applies only in “very limited circumstances” “primarily to areas under provincial supervision”.

There was no accompanying explanation of the parameters of these “limiting circumstances,” leaving the term open to interpretation. Frankly, this province can mean whatever it wants to mean.

Content of the article

Content of the article

The sweeping changes originally proposed under Bill 20 meant an urgent need to repair a broken system. Now it is not clear what problem this bill is aimed at solving.

While these “amendments” are an attempt to save the bill, they return us to the status quo regarding existing provincial powers. Why bother with a bill if the dramatic expansion of power is unplanned?

The possibility of removing elected municipal officials from office already exists, as we saw recently with the decision to remove Chestermere's mayor and three city councillors. It was a very complicated process, as such a monumental decision should be.

In addition, the province has the power to dissolve municipalities or to deny them the ability to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Two examples often cited by the premier — Edmonton's masking law and Calgary's reluctance to regulate electricity — only serve to make the case for the legislation.

Content of the article

The Mask Act proposed legislation to clarify that any such mandate would require provincial approval. When the province decided it needed to act to lower Calgary's local entry fees, legislation was introduced to do so. No doubt the province would prefer to skip the hassle of reporting and passing a bill. But when it comes to flexing such power, it shouldn't be easy.

Bill 20 may still have political value for the government. It still serves to promote the cause of the municipal political parties, something that the UCP has established. It opens the door to union and corporate donations for any cause. It also proposes a ban on electronic voting tabulators, which would cost a fortune but could serve to appease the conspiratorial among the UCP base.

The province still says the bill is about making local elections more transparent and making elected officials more accountable. It's hard to see how he can achieve both goals, and confidence in such pure intentions quickly falters.

If the government really realizes its mistake here too late, withdrawing the bill in its entirety would be the right move.

Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge airs weekdays from 12:30-3:00pm on QR Calgary (770AM/107.3FM).

[email protected]

X: @RobBreakenridge

Content of the article