Summary#

On October 6, 2026, Edmonton City Council referred a proposal about speaking time to the Council Services Committee. No change to Bylaw 18155 was approved. The proposal’s stated aim is to set a standard three-minute speaking time for approved speakers at committee and applicable Council meetings, except statutory public hearings.

• The proposal, moved by Councillor Michael Janz, would direct City staff to prepare amendments to Bylaw 18155, the Council Procedures Bylaw.
• An amendment moved by Councillor Erin Rutherford would replace “approved speakers” with “members of Council.”
• Council referred the motion and associated amendment to the November 20, 2026, Council Services Committee meeting. The referral carried 12 to 0.

What it means for you#

• People who speak at Council or committee meetings: No speaking-time rule changed under this decision. The proposal has not been decided.
• Council members: The referred amendment would replace “approved speakers” with “members of Council” in the proposal. The materials do not explain how that wording would affect speaking time in practice.
• Next step: The Council Services Committee is to consider the referred motion and amendment on November 20, 2026.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The proposal asks City staff to prepare bylaw amendments, but the materials give no estimate of staff time or cost.

What is unclear#

• The materials do not explain why a three-minute limit is proposed or how it would compare with current speaking times.
• “Applicable Council meetings” is not explained.
• The materials do not say how the proposal would affect different types of speakers or whether any exceptions would apply beyond statutory public hearings.
• The motion and amendment were referred, not decided; their final wording and outcome are unknown.

Case for#

• A standard three-minute limit could make speaking times consistent across committee and applicable Council meetings. This is an inference from the proposal; no supporting reasons were supplied.

Case against#

• The materials do not explain why three minutes is the right limit or what effect it could have on people’s ability to present their views.
• The proposed amendment changes the wording from “approved speakers” to “members of Council,” but the materials do not explain the intended effect of that change.