Wildrose suggests 31 MLAs may have conflict
‘Close personal ties’ to unions cited
The Wildrose Party wants the ethics commissioner to clarify if 31 government MLAs with ties to unions are able to take part in debate about the government’s new labour bill.
The bill, introduced Wednesday, makes changes to the labour relations code and some rules around union certification.
“I am expressing concern about the possibility of members speaking to the bill and voting on the bill while they have close personal ties with various unions,” the letter from Wildrose MLA Dave Hanson reads.
Ethics commissioner Marguerite Trussler said the conflict of interest act doesn’t allow her to even confirm that she received a letter from the Wildrose Party, never mind comment on any potential investigation.
According to the act, a conflict of interest is defined as taking part in a decision that furthers the private interest of a member or someone directly associated with that member, such as a spouse or child.
“For the most part, a private interest is one where you would have some financial gain,” said Trussler.
“To the best of our knowledge, no one in the NDP or their spouses is involved on the ownership side with a unionized firm,” the Wildrose letter reads.
Government house leader Brian Mason said belonging to a general category means you don’t have a conflict of interest, “because it’s not specific to you.” He said the complaint was “pretty dubious.”
NDP MLA Estefania CortesVargas made a statement in the legislature Thursday expressing pride that the party reflects “Alberta’s diverse population,” and a variety of professions.
“That’s a far cry from the conservative insiders who ran this province for too long,” she said.
Earlier this year, Progressive Conservative caucus leader Ric McIver was fined $500 for a conflict of interest in debates in November about electricity legislation. His wife, Christine, is the sole shareholder and director of a power retailer called Brighter Futures Energy Inc.