Bill 22 presents problems with UCP credibility

The controversy over Alberta’s Bill 22 may soon seem like a tempest in a teapot compared to the coming showdown between the government and public sector unions.

The battle lines were abundantly clear over the weekend, as well over 1,000 protesters gathered outside the hotel where inside over 1,500 members of the UCP were enthusiastically showing their support for their leader — and, of course, Alberta’s premier — Jason Kenney.

While some labour leaders were talking about the possibility of a general strike, Kenney made it quite clear in his speech that he believes there’s little appetite among Albertans for such drastic action. He’s probably quite correct.

However, if Kenney is going to keep public opinion on his side through the tumultuous period ahead, he needs to have credibility on these matters. A significant revelation last week concerning Bill 22 will likely cause him some damage on that front.

As we all know by now, Bill 22, among other things, fired election commissioner Lorne Gibson and rolled his position into the office of the chief electoral officer. This legislation was touted as a means to “deliver more savings for Albertans” by eliminating “unnecessary government spending.”

The budget request for 2020-21 from the chief electoral officer includes a price tag of $1.63 million for the compliance and enforcement duties that his office is now responsible for — about $78,000 more than the $1.55 million Gibson was seeking for that year.

The finance minister’s office claims there are still some savings to be found in redundancies in IT and administrative costs, but it turns out those reductions had already been factored in by Gibson.

So, it would appear that the government has not been square with Albertans as to the impact — and possibly the intent — of Bill 22. There likely is a considerable amount of public support for cost-cutting measures, but the government should not be taking advantage of that to achieve other means. If the mantra of cost-cutting gives the government a convenient cover for settling political scores or pursuing other agendas, then it makes it difficult to take such claims in future at face value.

The premier claims that after the election, finance officials revealed to him a $6-billion hole in the budget, a hole that was the direct result of the NDP government’s over-projection of revenues.

That would indeed represent a serious challenge to the new government, if true. But, as we’ve seen, some government claims shouldn’t be taken at face value.

If not to save money, why then was Gibson fired? Why the changes to the position of election commissioner? It’s not unreasonable to expect the government to be honest with us.

Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge” airs weekdays 12:30-3:30 p.m. on 770 CHQR