BARRHEAD - County manager Debbie Oyarzun has some major reservations about the United Conservative Party's (UCP) government Bill 50 and its potential impact on municipalities, especially its chief administrative officer.
Bill 50, or the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, if passed, proposes to change three existing laws: the Local Authorities Election Act, the Municipal Government Act, and the New Home Buyer Protection Act.
She noted the bill is just one of a slew of recent legislation introduced by the province that will impact municipalities, referring to Bill 40 [the Professional Governance Act], Bill 44 [Agricultural Operation Practices Amendment Act] and Bill 20 [Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act].
The latter changes two pieces of municipal-related legislation stipulating how municipalities govern local elections: the Local Authorities Elections Act (LAEA) and the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
"Some of the changes [especially in the LAEA] have been very effective," Oyarzun said.
She also believed allowing rural municipalities to determine whether they needed or wanted to have an Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF) agreement was a positive addition to Bill 20.
For instance, she suggested that the municipality might opt to forgo an ICF with Sturgeon County, where the municipality only shares a relatively small border.
"Do we want to continue having an ICF with them or just chat when we have issues," Oyarzun said.
ICF agreements are established between neighbouring municipalities on various issues that impact both communities, such as recreation, shared water and sewer, and joint land planning.
She also called the change in the LAEA requiring municipal councillors to undergo mandatory orientation training and restricting municipalities to appointing one CAO as positive.
Concerns
However, she said she is confused about some changes, including one regarding conflict of interest.
"Before [it had to do with] strictly a pecuniary interest," Oyazun said. "The requirement [prior to the introduction of the act] was if [councillor, family member or employer was impacted financially] by a decision, you were required to disclose that conflict and required to recuse yourself from participating in any discussion and voting on the issue."
Pointedly, she said the legislation changes the definition of "conflict of interest" has been expanded to include more than just a financial interest.
"What literally confuses me is [under the new legislation] councillors 'may disclose' that they have a conflict of interest," Oyarzun said.
She added that even if a councillor did choose to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, councillors have the discretion to remove themselves from the discussion and subsequent voting.
"It is almost as if [the province] has taken out the whole idea of conflict of interest," Coun. Walter Preugschas said.
Oyarzun agreed, adding she wasn't clear on how the change would play out in a real-world situation.
Eliminating municipal codes of conduct
She also questioned the rationale of Bill 20, which was to eliminate municipal councillor codes of conduct.
Oyarzun noted that the requirement for municipalities to have a code of conduct policy or bylaw was relatively recent, dating back to 2018.
The province has argued that councillors have "weaponized" the codes to silence, diminish or hurt fellow council members with whom they disagree.
"My concern is, by getting rid of the code of conduct bylaw, you are not setting the ditches of acceptable conduct and now don't have a mechanism to deal with violations to the code," she said.
Oyarzun added the government has stated that the councillor code of conduct should only apply when they are in council meetings, so they are looking at changing our meeting procedures bylaw and developing a province-wide perspective.
"If they go that route, that does concern me because we operate differently than the large urban cities like Edmonton, so how can they have a standard meetings procedure bylaw for all municipalities when we are all different," she said.
CAO natural powers
What concerns Oyarzun the most is the need for municipal CAOs to inform councils whenever they exercise one of their "natural person powers" under Bill 50 that they would be required to notify their councils within 72 hours about their actions.
"That is ridiculous. The amount of time it would take to send e-mails to every councillor that may not even read, every time I exercise my natural person powers would be very time-consuming."
Oyarzun said that CAO powers are clearly defined under provincial legislation.
She added that councils further define the CAOs' roles and powers through CAO bylaws and policies.
"Council has given me my ditches, and I have no issues informing council about what I'm doing when I am teetering on the sides of those ditches or when I exceed my authority," Oyarzun said. "If council and CAO dynamics aren't working, you don't use legislative changes to fix them. If CAOs are operating outside the authority their councils have given them, then you terminate them or deal with it in some other fashion. There are processes already in place."
Oyarzun also said the province seems to be rushing the passage of Bill 50 to get it in place for the upcoming municipal election slated for Oct. 20, 2025.
Other notable features of the legislation are that it sets new limits on expenses for local election campaigns, allowing for union and corporate donations, banning vote tabulators or counting machines, and creating rules to allow for political parties in Calgary and Edmonton. The bill would also give the provincial government cabinet the power to remove a municipal councillor by ordering a vote by the public to determine whether a councillor should be removed and give cabinet the authority to repeal or alter bylaws passed by councils.
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
