Amending Bill 20 doesn't cut it, just withdraw it

It's not often we see governments admit mistakes and change course, and we should certainly welcome it when it happens. However, that should not shield government from criticism over the original mistake, especially if their new-found flexibility is more strategic than heartfelt.

In the case of Alberta's new Bill 20, (which, oddly enough, wasn't the only government reversal last week) the sudden willingness to compromise and make nice only raises more questions as to why this legislation exists in the first place.

The bill, as it was initially presented, would overhaul both the Municipal Government Act and the Local Authorities Election Act. Most notable among the many changes would be an expansion of the province's power to remove elected municipal officials and to rescind local bylaws.

Those changes definitely got the attention of municipal governments across the province. While the Alberta government might relish the disapproval of their political foes in the two biggest cities, there was clearly a greater sensitivity to the broader backlash.

So, last week, the municipal affairs minister released a statement (absent any further public comment or explanation) announcing that Bill 20 would be amended to recognize that “this authority (to remove elected officials) should only be used as a last resort” and only “in very limited circumstances.”

As for the power to squash bylaws, that, too, would only be used in “very limited circumstances” that would be “related to areas that are primarily overseen by the province.”

There was no accompanying clarification as to the parameters of these “limited circumstances,” which certainly leaves the term open to interpretation. Frankly, it can mean whatever the province wants it to mean.

The sweeping changes initially proposed under Bill 20 implied an urgent need to fix a broken system. Now, it's not even clear what problem this bill aims to fix.

While these “amendments” are obviously an attempt to salvage the bill, they also bring us back to the status quo concerning the province's existing powers. If the dramatic expansion of power is off the table, why bother with the bill at all?

The power to remove elected municipal officials already exists, as we saw recently with the decision to remove Chestermere's mayor and three city councillors. It was quite a process, as such a monumental decision should be.

Furthermore, the province has authority to overrule municipalities or negate their efforts to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The two examples frequently cited by the premier — Edmonton's masking bylaw and Calgary's reluctance to adjust electricity fees — only serve to undercut the case for the legislation.

On the masking bylaw, legislation was brought forward to make it clear that provincial approval would be required for any such mandate. When the province decided that action was necessary to lower Calgary's local access fee, legislation was introduced to make it so. Undoubtedly, the province would prefer to skip the hassle of tabling and passing a bill. But when it comes to the flexing of such authority, it shouldn't be so easy.

Bill 20 may still have political value for the government. It still serves to advance the cause of municipal political parties, something the UCP has become fixated on. It reopens the door to union and corporate donations, to whatever end. It also, curiously, seeks to ban electronic vote tabulators, a move that will come at considerable cost but will perhaps serve to placate the more conspiracy-minded among the UCP base.

The province still insists that this bill is about making local elections more transparent and making elected official more accountable. It's hard to see how it accomplishes either objective, and the credibility of such claims of pure motives is quickly eroding.

If the government has truly and belatedly realized a mistake here, then the right move is to withdraw the bill entirely.