Bill 23 amends multiple Alberta statutes to (1) restrict when citizens may start or continue initiative petitions around general elections, terminate in‑progress petitions during blackout windows, and add a scrutineer regime for initiative and recall verifications; (2) create a new offence and administrative powers to block or remove misleading political "deepfakes" and attach per‑day fines; and (3) change public‑sector compensation disclosure thresholds and several technical election law provisions.
These are practical, implementable changes rather than conceptual reforms: the bill builds enforcement tools for administrators (publication duties, retention periods, Election Commissioner directions, scrutineer access rules) and shifts reporting thresholds for compensation. For election law stakeholders — proponents, third parties, campaign staff, platforms, election administrators and legal counsel — the bill replaces some procedural flexibility with a regimented, legally enforceable compliance architecture that raises timing, privacy, and resource questions in day‑to‑day operation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars submitting notices of intent or continuing initiative petition processes during three specified windows around general elections and terminates any petitions in progress; it creates a statutory role for scrutineers (licensed lawyers) during signature verification for initiatives and recalls and obliges publication and retention of records. Separately, it defines "deepfake" narrowly for political contexts, criminalizes creating or (with intent) publishing misleading deepfakes, and gives the Election Commissioner power to direct removal and impose daily fines.
Who It Affects
Proponents and supporters of citizen initiative petitions and recall applicants, third parties doing political advertising, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commissioner, political actors who might be targeted by deepfakes, digital platforms and publishers, and public sector employers subject to compensation disclosure thresholds.
Why It Matters
The bill tightens the transactional rules governing Alberta's direct‑democracy mechanisms and gives administrators coercive tools to address deceptive synthetic media — both moves that change operational compliance and litigation risk for campaigns, platforms and proponents. It also reindexes public disclosure thresholds to a wage‑settlements metric, altering which employees appear in annual compensation lists.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act reorganizes how initiative petitions intersect with Alberta general elections. It creates three explicit timing windows during which an elector may not submit a notice of intent: the 12 months before the fixed election date, the period from issuance of writs for an early election through that election day, and the 12 months after the last general election day.
If a notice or petition is already underway when a prohibited period starts, the bill terminates that process immediately and prescribes steps the proponent must take — returning or destroying original and copied signature sheets and filing an affidavit confirming compliance. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) must publish notices when proponents submit signature records and has updated time limits for completing determinations on signature validity.
To increase transparency and create an evidentiary record for challenges, the bill adds a scrutineer regime for both initiative petitions and recall verification. Scrutineers must be active lawyers in good standing with the Law Society of Alberta; the proponent and, in recalls, the member named may each appoint scrutineers (but no more than one per side may observe at the same time).
Scrutineers can observe specific parts of the verification process, record notes for potential judicial review, and are subject to confidentiality obligations, except when disclosure is necessary for court proceedings. The CEO can designate where scrutineers stand and limit numbers to avoid interference.On synthetic media, the Act creates a tailored definition of "deepfake" limited to depictions of political actors so realistic that a reasonable person would be misled and that rely substantially on technological means.
It prohibits creating deepfakes likely to mislead electors and prohibits publishing or distributing such deepfakes where the distributor intends to mislead. The Election Commissioner can direct creators or publishers to stop and destroy offending content, grant reasonable deadline extensions, and impose administrative penalties or pursue prosecution for non‑compliance; the bill sets per‑day fines with higher amounts for entities than for individuals.
The Act also expands the Election Commissioner's enforcement schedule to include contraventions of the deepfake rules.Beyond elections, the bill alters the Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act by raising the disclosure "threshold" to $130,000 for 2026 and thereafter indexing that threshold to Alberta public‑sector wage settlements (rather than CPI). It also streamlines or repeals a handful of provisions that previously required timing of referendums around fixed election dates and extends retention obligations for initiative and recall materials (including a two‑year retention period for signature sheets where the CEO has certified a petition).
Collectively, the changes shift operational responsibilities onto proponents, third parties, platforms, and election administrators and create new enforcement pathways.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act forbids submitting a notice of intent for a citizen initiative during three windows: 12 months before the fixed general election date, from writ issuance for an early election through that election day, and 12 months after the most recent general election.
If an initiative signing period is terminated under the new rule, proponents must return all original signature sheets to the Chief Electoral Officer, return or destroy all copies, and file an affidavit confirming compliance before any further action.
The bill requires scrutineers to be lawyers who are active members of The Law Society of Alberta; each side may appoint scrutineers but only one scrutineer per side may be present at the same time during a verification or determination.
The Act creates a statutory deepfake offence limited to realistic, technology‑dependent depictions of political actors and empowers the Election Commissioner to order removal/destruction and impose daily administrative fines up to $10,000 per day for persons and $100,000 per day for entities.
The public‑sector compensation disclosure threshold is set at $130,000 for 2026 and will be indexed thereafter by the year‑over‑year weighted average percentage change in public‑sector wage settlements as published by the Government of Alberta.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Election blackout windows and automatic termination of initiatives
This provision creates three explicit blackout windows when electors cannot submit notices of intent and provides that any notices, applications, or signing periods in progress at the start of a prohibited window are terminated. The mechanics of termination are prescriptive: the petition ends, it is deemed unsuccessful, canvassing must stop, originals must be returned to the CEO, copies returned or destroyed, and the proponent must file an affidavit confirming those steps. The provision shifts control to the CEO and reduces ad hoc continuations that formerly relied on discretionary processes when writs were issued mid‑petition.
Publication duties, accelerated determinations and scrutineer framework
Section 6 now requires the CEO to publish a notice when proponents submit signature records. The time limit for the CEO's determination remains 21 days but is clarified and tied to submission dates, with notice obligations about dates/places of determination. The new sections 10.1 and 10.2 authorize appointment of scrutineers (lawyers), specify what they may observe (witnessing, statement signatures, required information on sheets, and random sampling procedures), limit simultaneous scrutineers, allow the CEO to designate observation zones, and require scrutineers to provide proof of appointment before admission. These mechanics are designed to create an auditable verification while containing disruption.
Confidentiality carve‑outs and two‑year retention for certified petitions
The Act adds a confidentiality duty for scrutineers, but permits disclosure of that information for judicial review or proceedings tied to the Act. It also requires the CEO to retain all original signature sheets and copies for two years where the CEO has certified that a petition met statutory requirements — a clear evidence‑preservation rule that may affect privacy and records management practices at the CEO's office.
Deepfakes: definition, prohibitions, director powers and penalties
The bill inserts a narrowly tailored definition of "deepfake" for political actors that hinges on realism and heavy reliance on technology. It prohibits creators from producing deepfakes likely to mislead electors and prohibits distributors/publishers from releasing them where they intend to mislead. The Election Commissioner gains authority to issue written directions to stop and destroy deepfakes, set compliance deadlines or grant extensions, and impose administrative penalties for non‑compliance — with statutory daily fines ($10,000/day for individuals, $100,000/day for non‑person entities). It also explicitly authorizes removal actions and exempts the CEO from trespass liability if removal involves taking down physical signage.
Enforcement schedule expanded to cover deepfakes and related directions
The existing administrative penalty framework is expanded so the Election Commissioner can issue notices of administrative penalty for contraventions of the deepfake prohibition and for failing to comply with directions under the new powers. The bill sets maximums and per‑day calculations for penalties, integrating the deepfake regime into the Commissioner's investigative toolkit.
Disclosure threshold reset to $130,000 and new indexation rule
The Act replaces the prior CPI‑based threshold methodology with a $130,000 base for 2026 and thereafter indexes thresholds by the year‑over‑year weighted average percentage change in public‑sector wage settlements as published by the province, rounded to the nearest dollar. The change affects who is captured in annual compensation disclosures and shifts indexing from consumer prices to negotiated wage movements.
Recall verification scrutineers, publications and petition retention
The Recall Act gains parallel scrutineer provisions: applicants and the member named may appoint lawyer scrutineers who can observe verification steps, subject to the same proof, confidentiality and one‑per‑side limit. The CEO must publish when a valid recall petition is submitted, notify parties of verification times/places, and retain a recall petition until the recall vote, official count, and any recounts or appeals conclude. These measures mirror initiative rules and standardize evidence retention in recall proceedings.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters concerned about manipulation: The deepfake offence and the Election Commissioner’s takedown and penalty powers create a legal route to remove and sanction synthetic media that is likely to mislead electors, reducing the risk that viral fabricated media will distort an election.
- Chief Electoral Officer and Election Commissioner offices: The bill supplies statutory authority (publication duties, scrutineer rules, retention periods, removal powers) that clarifies administrative responsibilities and gives enforceable tools to manage petitions and deceptive media.
- Legal counsel and litigants: The formal scrutineer role (limited to lawyers) and mandated affidavit/retention rules produce clearer evidentiary records, facilitating judicial review and post‑petition challenges for parties with legal resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- Proponents of initiatives and recall applicants: They must comply with strict termination mechanics (return/destroy signature copies, file affidavits), absorb the administrative burden and potential delays, and pay for any scrutineers they appoint; termination rules can waste resources on midstream campaigns.
- Digital platforms, publishers and third parties: Platforms may face takedown directions, potential exposure to large daily fines, and operational costs to detect and remove prohibited deepfakes, especially when intent is disputed.
- Office of the Chief Electoral Officer: The CEO will need systems for publishing notices, managing scrutineer access, securely storing signature sheets for two years, and handling increased administrative and oversight duties without explicit new funding in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting electoral integrity and preserving open democratic participation: the Act tightens procedural controls and gives administrators coercive removal and penalty tools to curb misinformation and election timing manipulation, but those same controls increase compliance costs, concentrate advantages with better‑resourced actors (lawyers, platforms, institutional proponents), and risk chilling grassroots petitioning and political expression when rules are triggered by election timing or ambiguous standards like "likely to mislead."
The Act resolves several enforcement gaps but creates hard implementation questions. The deepfake prohibition hinges on two fact‑intensive standards — whether a depiction is "so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it" and whether distribution occurred with the "intent to mislead" — both of which will require operational definitions and evidentiary protocols.
Platforms and publishers will press for clearer safe harbours and notice/appeal processes; the bill gives the Election Commissioner power to direct removal and impose fines but does not prescribe a neutral, expedited adjudication pathway for contested orders.
On direct‑democracy rules, automatic termination during election windows reduces discretionary continuity (previously allowed under section 7) but raises fairness questions: proponents who begin expensive signature drives months in advance risk complete loss if an early writ is issued, and the affidavit/return requirements create logistical and privacy burdens for volunteers. Requiring scrutineers to be lawyers professionalizes observation but privileges parties able to pay counsel, and confidentiality rules with carve‑outs for judicial review will generate disputes about what may be shared and when.
Finally, indexing compensation thresholds to negotiated wage settlements rather than CPI introduces a different volatility profile that may diverge materially from public expectations and comparators if wage settlements spike or stagnate.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.