ST. ALBERT, Alberta – The St. Albert Public Library Board has estimated it will cost about $100,000 next year to comply with the United Conservative Party Government’s unprecedented library censorship scheme, which is now the law of the land.
Bearing in mind that the UCP book ban is a policy intended to solve a problem that doesn’t exist but which meshes nicely with the government’s MAGA-adjacent program of distracting voters with never-ending culture wars, that’s $100,000 that could have been spent on, you know, books – not to mention other library materials and activities.
The $100,000 figure comes from the minutes of the May 20 meeting of the St. Albert Public Library Board, soon after the UCP book ban was passed into law. The figure came with a caveat.
According to the minutes, the library’s recently appointed chief executive officer, Laura Winton, “advised that the proposed Bill 28 allocation is a placeholder pending the release of regulations. The Board expressed support for increasing the planning provision for Bill 28 impacts to $100,000.”
Bill 28, of course, is the shorthand commonly used to describe the Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, the law passed by the Legislature on May 13 this year, and given Royal Assent the next day. It includes Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Williams’ plan to make it difficult for borrowers read books he doesn’t approve of – starting with graphic novels and memoirs by LGBTQ+ authors but ending up God and the UCP Cabinet only know where.
The regulations have since been published by the government. The complicated censorship scheme, which allows the minister to intrude in unprecedented ways into the operation of public libraries, is found in section 35 of the regulations. They will require library staff to determine which books must be held in a secure storage area, like dirty movies in the golden age of VCR rentals – allowing the government to pretend that it’s not the one banning and restricting books.
“Bill 28 is now law, and as a public library we are legally required to comply with its requirements,” Ms. Winton told me last week. “Like many Alberta public libraries, SAPL is working closely with the Coalition of Alberta Public Libraries (CAP Libraries) to coordinate our approach and develop shared solutions wherever possible.”
“As we continue our planning and receive additional provincial guidance, our understanding of the implementation requirements and associated costs may continue to evolve,” she said.
Its’s reasonable to assume, though, that the Library Board, advised by senior library staff, were given a reasonable assessment of what the complying with the censorship scheme will cost, what with the requirement for the storage of books deemed inappropriate for UCP sensibilities in a sealed off area of the library and staff time to process requests for access. The result, if course, will simply be that many libraries stop purchasing materials the UCP morality police don’t like.
Of course, there are options for public library boards other than meekly knuckling under.
In a thoughtful blog post published on July 27, James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, examined the flaws of the legislation and set out three possible responses for library boards, along with pros and cons
Option 1: “Accept the government’s legal requirement that each public library identify all library material to be restricted, i.e., agree that the library will determine what is to be censored within the government’s open-ended framework in the Regulation.” In other words, roll over. This appears to be the trend in Alberta.
This “ensures the library will suffer no financial or other penalties from the Alberta government,” Dr. Turk wrote, and “provides the library the ability (at least initially) to minimize the range of materials deemed to fall within the government’s open-ended restrictions by interpreting those restrictions as narrowly as possible in its identification of library materials to be restricted.”
It also “abandons public libraries’ foundational commitment to intellectual freedom by carrying out the government’s order and serving as agents of censorship on the government’s behalf,” he observed. In addition, it means there will be no legal challenge of this constitutionally questionable law.
Option 2: “Acknowledge that the government is asserting its authority to regulate the public’s access to public library material but demand that the government provide a list of the titles of all ‘library materials’ to be restricted and advise the government that the libraries’ compliance is contingent on a government list of restricted titles.”
This way, Dr. Turk wrote, libraries can “at least nominally uphold their commitment to intellectual freedom by refusing to draw up the lists of what is to be restricted – requiring the censoring body to do so.” The possibility of a legal challenge remains.
On the downside, this “leaves public libraries vulnerable to penalty if the government refuses to provide the list of specific library materials to be restricted but rather insists that each library comply with the regulations as currently written.”
Option 3: “Advise the government that its actions are an unconstitutional infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ Section 2(b) Right to Freedom of Expression and that libraries will be seeking to launch a constitutional challenge.”
That, Dr. Turk argued, would uphold “public libraries’ foundational principle of intellectual freedom for Canadians,” obstruct implementation of an unconstitutional ban, and fire a shot across the bow of any other government considering similar policies.
Alas, he noted, public libraries would have to cover the costs, and doing that would “subject the libraries to vehement criticism by the Government of Alberta and by parental rights groups that pressured the government to introduce the challenged legislation.”
This is Alberta, so we be assured that is exactly what would happen.
“It appears libraries are going with Option 1,” said Peter Bailey, who retired last year as the St. Albert Library’s CEO and is a senior fellow at the Centre for Free Expression. “It’s disappointing. Freedom of expression is at the core of what libraries are. We can’t be seen as enabling the government’s efforts to limit that freedom.”
There are about 220 public library boards in Alberta governing 325 branch facilities. While the sums will be different at small community libraries and large metropolitan library systems, one way or another that’s likely to mean a hell of lot of money that should be going to library services will be spent instead of another of the UCP’s intentionally divisive culture war tactics.
From the government’s perspective, though, this is infinitely superior to having voters focus on the scandals from dodgy health care contracts, to dangerous separation referendums, to open-pit coal mines seemingly wanted by no one outside the UCP caucus and some Australian billionaires that continue to dog the government.
Needless to say, this is another example of how seriously we should take Premier Smith when she claims, as she did last week, “in Alberta we believe in free speech. Full stop.”
Full disclosure: The author of this post is a former member and chair of the St. Albert Public Library Board.
