Why open meetings matter in Alberta
When government officials attempt to limit who can attend press conferences or public meetings, they are not making a simple procedural choice. They are testing the strength of democratic accountability.
We have seen this play out recently in the United States, where Donald Trump has tried to restrict media access and framed press access as something to be granted or withdrawn at will. While Canada is not the United States, the instinct to control scrutiny is not foreign to us. It has surfaced here, including in Alberta, when governments or public bodies have attempted to influence who qualifies as legitimate media or whether journalists should be allowed in the room.
In Canada, freedom of the press is constitutionally protected. Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Courts have consistently recognized that this protection carries a strong presumption in favour of openness and transparency in public institutions. That protection includes the right of the press to gather information and to attend and report on what occurs in open, public forums, subject only to narrow and lawful limits.
Public meetings of elected bodies fall squarely within that democratic expectation.
Alberta has its own history with this issue. In the 1930s, the province introduced legislation that would have forced newspapers to publish government ordered corrections and disclose sources. That effort became part of a landmark constitutional battle commonly known as the Alberta Press case, which helped establish that governments cannot use their authority to control or intimidate the press. Decades later, Alberta again saw controversy when the provincial government attempted to block Rebel News from accessing the legislature, prompting strong pushback from journalistic organizations that argued governments do not get to decide who is and is not a journalist.
Those examples matter because similar misunderstandings continue to surface at the local level when it is suggested that the press being present in council chambers is a privilege. Councils do have the authority to manage procedure, decorum and safety in chambers. They can set reasonable rules for conduct, recording and participation that apply to everyone in the room. What they cannot do is treat press access itself as discretionary or conditional based on approval, behaviour or the tone of coverage.
Under Section 197 of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, meetings of council and council committees must be open to the public except in limited circumstances set out in law, reinforcing the expectation that public business is conducted transparently.
Public meetings are public for a reason. Whether it is a council meeting, a committee meeting, a public hearing or a press conference, these forums exist so decisions can be explained, debated and justified on behalf of the people. While reasonable limits may apply in narrow circumstances, access to observe and report on those proceedings cannot be restricted arbitrarily or because coverage is uncomfortable or critical.
The press does not attend these meetings as a courtesy. It attends because democratic systems depend on independent scrutiny and an accurate public record of what is said and done.
This distinction is especially important at a time when anyone can publish content online. Not all content is journalism. Verified newspapers operate under professional standards, ethical codes and legal accountability. The Pass Herald is a verified newspaper with professional journalists and is a member of News Media Canada and the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association. That membership reflects adherence to recognized journalistic standards, editorial oversight and accountability to readers.
This is where the role of local newspapers matters most. The press is often described as the fourth pillar of democracy because it serves as a check and balance on the other three. Legislatures make the laws. Courts interpret them. Governments administer them. The press observes all three, asks questions on behalf of the public and documents the answers for the historical record.
That role does not disappear when coverage is critical. It becomes more important.
In an age of artificial intelligence, deepfake videos and computer generated misinformation, the value of reliable journalism has never been higher. Anyone can publish content online. Not everyone can be held accountable for it. Newspapers operate under professional standards, legal obligations and ethical frameworks that do not exist on social media or anonymous platforms.
Accurate journalism requires access. It requires being in the room, hearing discussions in full and reporting them fairly and responsibly. When access is restricted, controlled or framed as a privilege, it undermines public trust and weakens democratic accountability.
The Pass Herald attends government meetings not because permission is granted, but because openness is a legal and democratic expectation rooted in the Charter’s protection of freedom of the press. That expectation exists on behalf of the community it serves. When reporters sit through lengthy agendas, ask difficult questions or publish stories that make people uncomfortable, they are not exercising privilege. They are fulfilling a responsibility.
Democracy does not depend on positive news coverage. It depends on honest coverage.
Government officials should welcome scrutiny, not resist it. Transparency is not a threat to effective governance. It is evidence of it. Attempts to marginalize, limit or redefine the role of the press should be challenged clearly and early, before they become normalized.
Freedom of the press is not about protecting newspapers. It is about protecting the public’s right to know. Once that principle is treated as optional, democratic accountability itself is weakened.
That is a risk we cannot afford to ignore.