Former MLA’s request for investigation of premier’s dishwashing post blown off by office of Ethics Commissioner

The office of the Alberta Legislature’s Ethics Commissioner has blown off a request by a former MLA for an investigation of what he sees as Premier Danielle Smith’s use of her office to further a private gain by tweeting about her shift washing dishes in her husband’s restaurant hours before the business was put up for sale. 

In a terse email that sounded more like it was written by one of the United Conservative Party’s notoriously rude political aides, the office told former Banff-Cochrane MLA Cameron Westhead it isn’t going to look into Ms. Smith’s June 11 social media post because the railcar restaurant is owned by the premier’s husband, not the premier. 

“Thank you for your email,” begins the unsigned June 15 email from the office of the Ethics Commissioner. “You should be aware that the Premier does not own the restaurant. Her husband does.” (Emphasis added.)

“Your complaint is not within our jurisdiction,” the email continued. “Both sections 2 and 3 of the Conflicts of Interest Act require that the Member uses their office to influence a government decision that furthers their private interest. The sections are extremely narrow in scope. There is nothing to prevent a Member from touting a business.”

Mr. Westhead called this response “extraordinarily flimsy” and said he thinks it is a misinterpretation of the statute. 

In his original email to the commissioner’s office, he wrote: “It has come to my attention that MLA Smith has promoted her restaurant business through official government channels, and that she is also attempting to sell the restaurant. It is apparent to me that she is attempting to use the power and influence of her position as MLA and Premier to advertise and promote her restaurant which would materially benefit herself and her husband. This seems to be in direct conflict with the Conflicts of Interest Act.”

After having his request summarily dismissed by the unidentified respondent in the office of Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler, Mr. Westhead wrote again later the same day, requesting further clarification of the office’s reasoning and a reconsideration of the decision.

“I disagree with your assessment,” he stated. “It does not matter that the premier does not personally own the restaurant, because it is owned by a direct associate of hers and therefore would be captured by the act. 

“It is improper for the Commissioner to dismiss my complaint based on the fact that the premier does not personally own the restaurant since it is owned by her direct associate and that is contemplated by the act and therefore within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction.”

In addition, he argued that the act is not limited as the email claimed. “In this case, the premier made a decision to amplify the profile of her restaurant and also directly referenced her husband. The Commissioner should interpret the word ‘decision’ in its broadest scope since the act is silent on the definition of this word.”

Mr. Westhead also asserted that the preamble to the act, which states that MLAs are expected to conduct their private affairs in ways promote public confidence in their integrity and the dignity of the Legislature, is relevant because “MLA Smith has not conducted her private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and is unbecoming of the Assembly’s dignity because she has used her position to promote the private interest of her direct associate.” 

Section 2 of the act, Westhead noted, emphasizing the relevant passages, states: “A Member breaches this Act if the Member takes part in a decision in the course of carrying out the Member’s office or powers knowing that the decision might further a private interest of the Member, a person directly associated with the Member or the Member’s minor or adult child.”

“To wit,” he concluded, “the premier made a decision to promote her husband’s restaurant which is currently listed for sale. This decision would further the private interest of MLA Smith’s direct associate.

“I ask again that you reconsider your initial response to me and investigate this action by MLA Smith to publicly promote her direct associate’s business that is listed for sale, and that such promotion would further the private interest of him.”

Mr. Westhead said yesterday he has not yet received a response to his second email. 

Mr. Westhead was an MLA in the NDP Government from 2015 to 2019. He is Second Vice-President of United Nurses of Alberta and has been a Registered Nurse for 19 years. 

Sabir letter demands special prosecutor investigate premier’s interference in justice system

Meanwhile, NDP Deputy House Leader and Justice Critic Irfan Sabir yesterday posted a copy of a letter to Justice Minister Mickey Amery on social media asking that Premier Smith’s “interference in the justice system, including potential criminal code violations, be investigated in full by a special prosecutor.”

Citing Ms. Trussler’s May 17 report, which found Ms. Smith had attempted to interfere in the administration of justice when she met with then justice minister Tyler Shandro to discuss the criminal case against street preacher Artur Pawlowski that stemmed from actions the preacher took during the 2022 convoy blockade of the international border at Coutts. 

Mr. Pawlowski was found guilty in May of criminal mischief and breaching a release order in connection with a speech he gave at the blockade. 

While the scope of Ms. Trussler’s investigation was limited, Mr. Sabir wrote on in his June 14 letter, “the fact remains that Premier Danielle Smith interfered in the justice system and broke the law.”

“This was not an administrative error, or simple mistake,” he said. “Albertans have the right to know the full extent of her interference and there needs to be consequences to ensure that people can continue to have faith in the independence of the judicial system.”

“We believe this investigation must be independent and a special prosecutor must be assigned to oversee it,” he concluded.