Opposition bill to strengthen conflicts of interest act voted down by UCP MLAs

United Conservative Party MLAs voted down an opposition bill on Thursday that the NDP says would have strengthened Alberta's conflicts of interest act.

UCP MLAs on the Private Bills and Private Members Public Bills committee said the scope of Bill 202 was "too broad" and would have "unintended consequences." 

The UCP majority on the committee voted against sending Bill 202 back to the legislative assembly for debate. 

"To me, this entire bill is just ultimately a trainwreck," said R.J. Sigurdson, UCP MLA for Highwood. "And out of anything, it's for the purposes of you building on your continued witch hunts and I'm sure this is the intent of this bill in its entirety."

• Bill to fire Alberta election commissioner passes final reading
• UCP denies political interference over plan to fire election commissioner

Bill 202, the Conflicts of Interest (Protecting the Rule of Law) Amendment Act, was introduced in the legislative assembly by Calgary-Mountain View NDP MLA Kathleen Ganley.

Since the UCP took office last year, private members bills are reviewed and recommended by a committee made up of government and opposition MLAs before they return to the legislative assembly for debate. 

Ganley, her party's justice critic, told the committee on Thursday that her bill was based on several recommendations made by Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler in 2017. 

Ganley said the current conflict of interest act is much narrower in scope than legislation in other provinces. For instance, the Alberta law only only considers financial benefit as private interest for MLAs.

"This [bill] will make it more clear that it's more than just a financial interest," she told the committee. "It can include the interest in an outcome of a proceeding, including an investigation." 

Bill 22, which passed into law last fall, gave the government the power to fire Elections Commissioner Lorne Gibson while he was in the middle of his investigation into the UCP leadership race eventually won by Kenney. 

Ganley said work on her bill started before that. She said Bill 202 was inspired by concerns the election commissioner's budget would be cut due to his investigations into financial irregularities during the 2017 UCP leadership race.

Ganley's bill expands the definition of "associate persons" from an MLA's immediate family members to other close associates such as political party leaders. The bill also gave the ethics commissioner the power to compel privileged documents, a power Trussler requested in her 2017 report.

Some of six UCP members on the committee took issue with Ganley's suggestion to expand conflicts of interest to more than just immediate family members. 

They said the new definition left them wondering if they should consider second and third cousins when determining conflicts of interest. They argued that as representatives of communities, they also have an interest in an outcome of a decision for their constituents that they may benefit from as well. 

Ganley said none of those situations would create problems under her legislation. She said she based her definitions for associates on federal ethics legislation and rulings. 

The debate soon devolved into a partisan bickering. Cardston-Siksika UCP MLA Joseph Schow said he took issue with the bill allowing the commissioner to compel privileged documents.

He directed his comments toward toward Ganley and Edmonton-Whitemud NDP MLA Rakhi Pancholi, who are both lawyers.

"This bill is an affront to the legal community," he said. "Anyone who's a lawyer, which there's two in the room, should be ashamed of that."

Ganley wanted to have witnesses come before the committee including Kenney and former Wildrose leader and UCP leadership contestant Brian Jean. 

The committee voted against that motion before ultimately voting 6-4 against recommending the bill for debate in the assembly. 

The committee's decision will be put into a report that will be tabled in the legislature committee. MLAs will then vote whether to accept the committee's recommendation. 

In an interview with CBC News after the meeting, Ganley said she was disappointed but not surprised the UCP majority voted against her legislation. 

"They definitely went in with the purpose of killing the bill," she said. "It was pretty clear from the outset they had no intention of letting stakeholders appear or letting it proceed any further."

Ganley said if the UCP didn't think the government did anything wrong by firing the election commissioner, then they should have supported her bill.