“This is actually going to come down to us doing it a few times to understand how it works, how it feels, how it flows and what is the most appropriate way to create that space to have conversations around conflict and perceived conflict.”

CANMORE – An updated process for declaring potential conflicts of interest will move ahead for Canmore council following legislative changes in the Municipal Government Act (MGA) were made by the provincial government.

Canmore’s elected officials decided that rather than make a motion to discuss potential or perceived conflicts of interests in decision-making, a discussion can still occur in council chambers allowing council to ask questions on the reason for the request.

The decision, which was an alternative option brought forward by Coun. Tanya Foubert, is relatively minor but would still allow further discussion by elected officials.

Foubert noted any potential or perceived conflict would likely be discussed well before the meeting, but the change would likely be ironed out after being tested.

“This is actually going to come down to us doing it a few times to understand how it works, how it feels, how it flows and what is the most appropriate way to create that space to have conversations around conflict and perceived conflict,” she said at the April 1 meeting.

Foubert said she had seen in the past when a perceived conflict had been weaponized in the public realm.

She said the ability to address it in council chambers, therefore, is “really useful and really effective … and what it actually means in our community to have a conflict of interest.”

“It’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a conversation because we all have them,” she said.

Coun. Jeff Hilstad highlighted it could change in the future, especially once it’s used by council and deemed to need further amending.

“To me, this is going to play out as it plays out and maybe in the future term they might change how it goes once you actually get it going and see how it plays out during council meetings,” he said.

The provincial government amended the MGA on Oct. 31, 2024, with the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act to add provisions for pecuniary interest and conflict of interest.

A staff report from Cheryl Hyde, the Town’s manager of municipal clerks office, noted that if an elected official has a pecuniary interest, they have to disclose general information about the reason, avoid voting and discussing the topic, and leave council chambers.

A conflict of interest could be a private interest or an employer of the council member, or when an elected official should know it may impact the private interest of their family, stated the report.

Hyde’s report added the MGA didn’t address conflicts of interest that weren’t pecuniary before the amendments. Since it was in council’s code of conduct, the recommendation is to repeal that aspect of council’s code of conduct.

Hyde noted council had a workshop on the legislative changes, with the report stating there were talks about elected officials declaring a conflict of interest in error or to avoid voting on specific topics.

The report added the method for a council member to address a lack of disclosure if they think another elected official may have a conflict of interest.

As part of the procedural bylaw discussion in the workshop, a suggestion of giving council members the chance to challenge an elected official’s decision to provide information about a reason to abstain through a motion to direct the council member to reconsider was discussed.

“The consequences of failing to follow legislation are quite different. Pecuniary interest can get quite serious. If you are in contravention of pecuniary interest legislation, it can ramp up to being disqualified from council,” Hyde said at the meeting. “There’s fairly serious consequences. With conflict of interest, it’s a lot more permissive.

Declared conflicts of interest have been extremely rare this council term.

The highest profile one was Couns. Karen Marra, Joanna McCallum and Hilstad declaring a conflict when council adopted the Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek area structure plans.

The three are named in an ongoing lawsuit brought by Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Limited against the 2017-21 council after it voted down the two development plans. The lawsuit, which hasn’t been tested in court, claims by voting down the plans the last council acted in a misfeasance in public office and the decision was a de facto expropriation of the lands.

The Land and Property Rights Tribunal determined in 2022 the submitted plans were legal and followed the Natural Resources Conservation Board’s 1992 decision, while the Court of Appeal in 2023 upheld the tribunal’s decisions.

At council’s 2022 annual organizational meeting, Coun. Wade Graham declared a pecuniary interest when elected officials were preparing to select members for the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board because his common law partner was seeking nomination.

Mayor Sean Krausert said conflicts should only be used in very specific circumstances and not as an option for getting out of a tough vote.

“Especially in a small community, there’s a great opportunity that you know the people in front of you, have some relation to the topic at hand and it would be very easy using these rules to get out of a vote and that undermines civic governance.”