UCP kicking ‘n barring MLAs who speak up for Albertans

The United Conservative Party (UCP) has booted one member of the legislative assembly (MLA) from caucus and put another on probation. And what transgression did these MLAs commit? Seemingly just daring to stand up for Albertans’ interests. Scott Sinclair, MLA for Lesser Slave Lake, was kicked from caucus for threatening to vote against the UCP’s budget. Alongside this, the UCP has put Peter Guthrie, former minister of infrastructure, on probation. This comes after he resigned over concerns of corruption after the allegations came out about the government possibly influencing Alberta Health Services‘ (AHS) procurement process. 

The UCP’s treatment of these two MLAs is a sign that it’s not looking to serve Albertans. Instead it’s actively disrespecting Albertans’ choice in who represents them. Voters chose Sinclair and Guthrie on the belief that these candidates would best represent their interests. So why does it seem they’re being punished for doing so?

Sinclair threatened to vote against the budget because he wanted more money allocated to rural infrastructure.  He was only looking to properly represent those who elected him. The issue was if the vote for the budget failed, it could have triggered an election as it would have been a vote of non-confidence. Nevertheless that still does not justify Sinclair’s dismissal. 

One of the UCP’s stated principles is “respect for taxpayers’ money.” I’d argue the neglect of rural infrastructure is disrespectful to rural taxpayers. It’s similarly disrespectful to remove their representatives when they have an issue with it. Rural Albertans deserve to be properly represented and their needs deserve to be respected. But instead of listening to Sinclair’s very valid concerns, the UCP punished him for raising them.

Lac Ste. Anne-Parkland MLA and government whip Shane Getson said “all government MLAs are expected to vote in favour of a tabled budget.” If a lack of unity is how they’re justifying Sinclair’s dismissal, why isn’t Premier Danielle Smith receiving the same backlash? In January, Smith refused to sign a nationwide response to the tariffs threatened by the United States (U.S.). Smith’s justification was that she was looking out for the well-being of Albertans. This is almost the same as Sinclair’s justification for his decision. 

Guthrie’s 30-day probation for resigning is also disrespectful. Guthrie recently resigned from his position as minister of infrastructure after the recent AHS procurement scandal. Leading up to his resignation, Guthrie had called for the removal of Health Minister Adriana LaGrange for the duration of the investigation. Additionally, Guthrie had attempted to investigate another issue regarding a potential conflict of interest in 2024, but was unsuccessful.

After the UCP didn’t take his concerns seriously, he ended up deciding to leave his post as a minister. Guthrie said that the party “should have core values and being against corruption should be one of those, right? I can’t sit around a table where a cabinet feels it’s fine that dishonesty and conflict of interest is a normal course of business.” 

If this is how the UCP treats elected MLAs, then the party obviously does not have the interest of Albertans at heart.

Smith’s stance of “for me, but not for thee” when it comes to looking after Albertans does not look good. Ousting those who want to ensure proper conduct looks similarly bad. It also completely disregards the choices of voters. The UCP needs to remember that MLAs are accountable to voters, not the party’s whims.