Bill 20: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, and the Downright Miserable

On Thursday, the Provincial Government introduced Bill 20 which amends the Municipal Government Act (MGA) and the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA).

Those who pay attention to Alberta politics were expecting this Bill to contain a single major and deeply unpopular change: the introduction of political parties into municipal elections. At a recent Alberta Municipalities Convention, the Premier said parties are needed largely because of alleged problems with big money being spent in municipal politics.

However, instead of that one anticipated change, Bill 20 includes MANY changes not just to municipal elections but also to municipal governance. These DRASTICALLY weaken local democracy across Alberta. And if the Premier was worried about corporate and unions spending money in elections before, she should be terrified now: they are poised to be able to donate directly to candidates.

Bill 20 is an incredibly troubling piece of legislation. The most problematic part of it: by taking away power from voters and assigning it to the provincial Cabinet, it fundamentally weakens Council as local democratic bodies.

Which is too bad, because Bill 20 actually contains some positive changes. But many of them are poorly thought out, which means they won’t be as impactful as possible. And the good is grossly overshadowed by the negative.

Following is the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Downright Miserable highlights I see in Bill 20.

Important note: I serve as a Grande Prairie City Councillor and as a Vice President for Alberta Municipalities. But this is a personal blog. Any opinions or mistakes expressed here belong to me and me alone.

The Good

There are some good changes being proposed in Bill 20. However, worth noting: many were a complete surprise to municipalities. There was zero consultation while Bill 20 was being developed. This means that the good changes won’t have nearly as much positive impact as they could’ve if they had been shaped alongside the dedicated Mayors, Councillors, and Administrators who will be implementing them.

Some of the GOOD parts of Bill 20:

Automatic Disqualification of Councillors in some circumstances: Sometimes, a Councillor becomes disqualified from holding their position. For example: if they go a long period of time without attending Council meetings, or they move out of the municipality. Right now, the Municipal Government Act (MGA) requires them to resign. But if they refuse to, the municipality has to apply to the Court of Kings Bench to force a resignation. Which is a time consuming and expensive process. Bill 20 will reverse this process. It will allow Council to declare the Councillor disqualified while also allowing the Councillor to file an Appeal with the Court of Kings Bench. This will save municipalities a lot of money and lead to disqualified Councillors being replaced quicker, while still having a guardrail to make sure they are being treated fairly. This is a great change.
Allow Criminal Record Checks for Candidates: Municipalities will be allowed to require candidates to get Criminal Record Checks which will be disclosed to voters. I like having this option, especially because it is just that: an option. However, I don’t understand why municipalities can’t also require a Vulnerable Sectors Check since Councillors are often put into positions of trust with vulnerable people. I also have to wonder: if the province thinks this idea has merit, why isn’t it doing the same for candidates running to be an MLA…? I welcome increased accountability of Councillors to voters. But if the province sees this idea as having merit, it should embrace it too.
Election Postponement Possible: In the case of a natural disaster, it can become impossible for voters to give a local election the attention it deserves. They also may have challenges just getting to a voting station. In exceptional cases, Bill 20 will create the opportunity for local elections to be postponed by the province. This is a good change.
Mandatory Orientation Training: Right now, orientation training needs to be offered to newly elected Councillors. But there is no requirement for them to attend. Bill 20 will make attendance at training required, which is a positive change.
Make the Province Responsible to Validate Recalls: If a Recall Petition is initiated against a Mayor or Councillor, the municipality’s Chief Administration Officer (CAO) is responsible for validating its signatures. This can be real awkward for the CAO who works for Council and could create issues of Conflict of Interest. This can also be an expensive process. Bill 20 will mean that the province will take over validating Recall Petitions, which is a good change.

The bad

Some aspects of Bill 20 will have negative impact. But not terrible impact. Those include:

Allow fundraising outside of election years: right now, sitting Councillors are very limited in what they can raise for the next election prior to the year in which it happens. Bill 20 will allow them to start fundraising significant money for the next election from the start of a term. This will inject more money into local elections, which is never a good thing. Additionally, most people don’t think about running for Council until about a year out and donation rules are mores strict in election years. New candidates will have significantly less time and more rules to fundraising than incumbents who started fundraising early in a term. Incumbents already have too many advantages. Adding to the incumbent advantage is a bad change.
Banning Vote Tabulators: There are some who allege that vote tabulators are providing wrong results. However, I have seen no real evidence that this is a thing in Alberta (typically when this comes up people provide examples of American jurisdictions using VERY different processes and technology than is allowed in Alberta). During his press conference announcing Bill 20, the Minister said (this is a real quote) “I don’t care” if there is any real evidence of tabulators giving wrong results: he is banning them anyways. This means that elections will get a lot more expensive to operate. And for many municipalities, results won’t be known until the next morning. If there were concerns about tabulators, rules granting losing candidates broader abilities to demand manual recounts should’ve been instituted. I’d actually be VERY supportive of that type of change. But to ban technology that makes elections more efficient is not justified.

The Ugly: partisan politics

Bill 20 introduces partisan politics into local elections by establishing municipal parties.

This will happen on a “pilot basis” in Calgary and Edmonton for the 2025 election. Depending on how it goes, it may be rolled out to the rest of Alberta for 2029.

So what is the provincial government measuring to see if this is successful? We don’t know.

In his press conference, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said he doesn’t know either. Which sure makes me suspect that the primary measurement of the provincial government is going to be “do we like who got elected?”

I don’t see how part politics will enhance local politics. And I’m not alone. In two seperate engagements done by the province and in research commissioned by Alberta Municipalities, a strong majority of Albertans said “no” to municipal political parties.

But the province is pushing through regardless.

Despite words to the contrary, this sure appears to be an attempt by the UCP government to control local municipal races. For example, there is a UCP Cabinet Minister participating in meetings to organize candidates to run together. And a party organising itself that claims to be “the municipal version of the [UCP].”

Concerns I have about municipal partisanship:

Right now, as a municipal Councillor who might run in the next election, there is only one group of people I am accountable to: the voters of Grande Prairie. And I like it that way. It means I can say whatever I think needs to be said, and vote however I think I need to vote, to represent the interests of voters. I don’t see how those voters are well served by having a party tell me what I can say and how I must vote.
Right now, it is difficult to get good people to run for municipal Councils. A huge reason for this: because they see the polarization political conversations receive and the poor treatment politicians are sometimes subject to and decide “I don’t want that in my life.” But these are much stronger concerns at the provincial and federal levels than at the municipal level. I strongly believe that is because a partisan environment that is about “beating them!” inherently encourages hostility. It’s going to get even harder to recruit quality candidates if they have to sign up to engage in partisan fighting.
Right now, alliances on Council are constantly shifting. So frequently that it occurs multiple times in a single meeting! It isn’t at all unusual for me to argue hard AGAINST a colleague on one agenda item, then 5 minutes later finding myself arguing WITH them to convince Council to our way of thinking on the next issue. And there isn’t a single member of Council that I refuse to listen to myself or I feel fails to listen to me. I don’t see how our Council decision making process will be improved if we end up being made up of several warring factions rather than being made up of 9 independent individuals.
Right now, Council decisions are made in public. Prior to any votes happening, you can watch Council debate live in Chambers or streamed over YouTube. Often, Councillors have no firmly set decision about how they are going to vote prior to a meeting: you are watching them get new information and form their opinion live. Under a party system, Councillors would caucus in private prior to a meeting to decide on how they will vote, This kills transparency and good decision making processes.
Right now, Council elections are fought on conversations like “what is the appropriate mixture of property taxes vs user fees?”, “should we be prioritizing roads or recreation?”, “how are we going to attract people to our community,” and “how can the municipality become more efficient?” Once every four years, we get the best feedback we ever get as these issues become front and centre. I fail to see how residents will have a stronger say on local issues when municipal elections instead are about “is your sign blue, red or orange and what are the provincial and federal folks of the same colour up to in their level of government?”

A tangible example of how the non-partisan nature of Council drives better decisions:

Grande Prairie spent years exploring the implementation of a Stormwater Utility Fee. Over the years, this had many public conversations at Council. A year ago, if you would’ve asked me if Council was going to move forward with it, I would’ve told you that a few Councillors opposed it, but a majority seemed to be on board. However, Council learned more about how Stormwater Fees would be implemented and had many more conversations with residents than we had previously had. In the end, Council unanimously chose to walk away from a Stormwater Utility Fee. I doubt that Council changing its mind (nevermind changing its mind unanimously!) would’ve happened if we had parties. We changed our minds because we were 9 individuals working TOGETHER to find the best solution for our community. Nobody was entrenched or working to “beat” others on Council.

Different decisions will get made if instead Council becomes 2 or 3 groups working AGAINST each other to win the conversation of the day. And those decisions won’t be better.

Parties will not enhance municipal democracy and governance. That is why a strong majority of Albertans have repeatedly told the provincial government they are uninterested in them.

The UGLY: Union and corporate money

Union and corporate donations are coming back!

Right now, only individuals can donate to municipal candidates. In the next election, unions and corporations will be able to donate too. This will inject more money into our elections, create less transparency to financial disclosures (giving through a numbered company provides anonymity), and create risk of candidates being in a huge conflict of interest if elected.

Since there are no tax credits for giving to municipal candidates, this could fundamentally create an unfair playing field. People who give through a corporation may be able to give with pre-tax money, while those who give personally have to give with after-tax money. So if you own a company, it could be cheaper for you to donate to or self fund a campaign than if you are an employee. This isn’t fair.

I’ve had at least some residents tell me they support many other aspects of Bill 20 that I classified as “bad” or “ugly.” I don’t think most Albertans want those other changes. But some Albertans will.

However, during my six years in municipal politics, something I have NEVER heard someone say: “I sure wish money played a bigger role in our elections!” I’ve also had many residents wrongly assume unions and corporations already can donate. When this misunderstanding comes up, it is because a resident is telling me how strongly they disagree with union or corporate donations. I have NEVER heard someone say “I sure hope we START letting unions and corporations give you money to run for Council.”

Only individuals should be able to donate to candidates. Injecting corporate and union money into local elections is a miserable change.

the downright miserable: cabinet Power grab

The most miserable, terrible, horrendous, unjustifiable, ridiculous part of Bill 20:

Aspects of Bill 20 wreak of an extreme power grab. Even if they are well intentioned, they are a HUGE overreach that is poorly thought out.

The Premier has been talking a lot about how she wishes the Federal Government would stay out of provincial business and focus on its job. But instead of focusing on her job, she is pushing forward changes that will take over local Council business by being the final authority on municipal Bylaws. The Premier is also taking on the job of local voters by becoming the final authority for who serves on Council.

Instead of treating municipal Councils as duly elected orders of government accountable to voters, Bill 20 seeks to treat them like departments of the provincial government.

This is profoundly disrespectful to voters.

Bill 20 will allow provincial Cabinet to remove municipal elected officials it doesn’t like. Cabinet will be able to remove Mayors and Councillors if Cabinet decides doing so is “in the public interest.” But there is no definition of Public Interest and no due process required. Which really means Cabinet can remove Mayors and Councillors for any reason it so chooses. Such as, for example, publicly disagreeing with the provincial government.

I actually support providing the province with more tools to remove Councillors who clearly violate the duties of their office. But there has to be clear guidelines about what warrants removal and a clear, transparent, fair process to initiate it. Cabinet being able to decide behind closed doors “we don’t like that elected official so they are gone”? In a democratic society, that should be the role of voters, not politicians from another level of government.

Bill 20 will also allow Provincial Cabinet to repeal municipal Bylaws.

Right now, the provincial government can and does set a limits on what exactly can and cannot be put into Municipal Bylaws. Municipalities must obey these rules. If they don’t, a judge may rule a Bylaw as invalid And I’m ok with that! If the provincial government made the decision to change these rules: I’d be ok with that.

But Bill 20 will allow Cabinet to repeal or change any Bylaw Cabinet chooses to repeal or change for any reason. And whether or not a Bylaw is changed or repealed will be decided in a closed room rather than in an open Court.

This is absolutely absurd. Municipal Councils are duly elected. As democratic bodies, they should be the ones making the decisions which are within their jurisdiction to make. To allow the province to unilaterally change Council decisions fundamentally undermines them. This is a power grab that is seeking to relegate Councils from being a local order of government to being a department of the provincial government. Again, it is profoundly disrespectful to the voters who elect local Councils to make local decisions.

Cabinet is a group of people from all across Alberta that make their decisions behind closed doors while working in Edmonton. Local voters, not Cabinet, are the people best positioned to decide if Councils are acting “in the public interest.” And elected officials who are holding a public meeting in open to the public in their community are way better positioned than Cabinet to establish local Bylaws. Reserving the right to interfere in the most basic democratic decisions is an ugly decision by our provincial government.

to those excited about bill 20

I know that there are some who are excited about Bill 20 simply because of who is currently elected.

But it is important to note that Bill 20 makes changes which will outlast the next elections.

My observations:

Most people cheering on Bill 20 are doing so because they support the UCP provincial government and/or they don’t like their current Council.

To be clear: it is COMPLETELY OK to have the position of liking those currently in power provincially and not liking those in power locally. There are lots of Albertans who feel that way. No matter who is elected, there always will be. That is the nature of democracy: not everyone will ever have voted for whoever won the previous election.

But if you love Bill 20 based on who is elected today: I will ask you to think about the few years. Say a Council very aligned to your views gets elected in 2025, then the NDP wins government in 2027.

If that hypothetical NDP government decides your Council is too right wing: do you want to see the new provincial government having power to remove the Council you support halfway through its term? If that hypothetical NDP government decides that your Council isn’t going far enough to address its priorities, would you be ok with it changing municipal Bylaws to, say, complement provincial climate objectives? Because under Bill 20, that NDP government would have the power to do both those things….

When we make the rules that govern our democratic systems, we can’t just think about who is in government today. Because that changes. We also need to think about what will suit us in the future.

No matter what you think of current governments: if you wouldn’t be comfortable with a provincial government you oppose using these rules against a Council you support, I’d suggest that you should be very worried about Bill 20.

That’s a lot you just read through. And it could’ve been longer: Bill 20 will make A LOT more changes to municipal government.

Some changes are good. But few are as good as they could’ve been if they had been made in consultation with municipalities. And the good of Bill 20 is far outweighed by the bad.

I know many people are mad about this terrible Legislation. Is that you? Then two suggestions on what you can do:

Contact your MLA, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Premier’s Office to tell them why you are mad. Those online forms work, but a phone call is better. However, if calling and you get a real person, please remember: that person isn’t a decision maker. So tell them why you are mad at their boss. But please be kind to the person on the phone!
Don’t stand for it next municipal election. If Bill 20 passes, there are parts that you can stand against as a municipal voter. For example, you might consider asking candidates to refuse corporate and union donations, ask them to disclose their finances prior to the election so you know they did so, and refuse to vote for anyone who won’t commit to these requests.

As always, I welcome your thoughts, questions, and pushback.

You can email me at dbressey@cityofgp.com or call me at 780-402-4166. I’m happy to talk through email or over the phone. But better yet: I’d love to setup a time to meet for either coffee or another beverage of your choice.

Thanks for reading!

-Dylan

Dylan BresseyApril 30, 2024Comment