Alberta Premier Danielle Smith hid behind a lawsuit that doesn’t exist Monday to avoid answering reporters’ questions about her sympathetic telephone chat with an unsavoury political ally facing criminal charges.
If this gambit proves anything, I suppose, it’s that there’s never a dull moment in Alberta politics nowadays. A secondary conclusion might be that the United Conservative Party (UCP) government is counting on the public’s understandable ignorance of the complexities of defamation law to put a new spin on a story that so far has been a disaster for Premier Smith.
Monday, a copy of a letter sent by a lawyer representing Smith to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) conveniently found its way into the hands of a couple of reporters at publications known to be generally sympathetic to the UCP government.
The desired journalistic output saying Premier Smith really meant what she said soon appeared in print. “She’s going there,” exclaimed Postmedia political columnist Rick Bell. “She’s really going there.”
The lawyer’s letter threatened the CBC with a defamation lawsuit if it doesn’t retract and apologize for a report published in early January that said someone in the Premier’s Office sent letters to the Crown Prosecution Service that amounted to an attempt to interfere with cases stemming from the Coutts border blockade last year.
“Should you fail to comply with this request by Friday, April 28, 2023,” the letter said, “the Premier will take such further legal action as may be advised. We hereby provide notice of our client’s intention bring an action against the CBC, as may be required under the Defamation Act …” (That’s a lot of mays, just sayin’.)
“Absent an apology, retraction and correction from the CBC, the Premier will not be commenting further on this matter,” it concluded.
When Smith showed up at a news conference on an unrelated topic and encountered obviously expected questions about a more recent and only peripherally related CBC story describing similar behaviour – the broadcaster’s account of her sympathetic conversation with far-right street preacher Artur Pawlowski – she boldly refused to comment on the grounds that “this is likely to be the subject of defamation proceedings.”
“I have the ability to seek advice from my Justice officials, it’s actually part of their job, the advice that I received from my Justice officials is that there were several court actions that were taking place and until they were resolved before the court, no further action could be taken,” she said. “I follow this advice.”
Every time a reporter asked a question about the Pawlowski conversation, she repeated a version of this formula.
READ MORE: Premier Smith tried to get criminal charges against Convoy pastor dropped
Does this mean Smith is getting personal legal advice from government lawyers? That is not clear. Perhaps this question will require further clarification too, as seems to be a pattern whenever Alberta’s premier opens her mouth.
Readers need to understand, though, that without further action in the form of a statement of claim, a demand letter from a lawyer doesn’t really mean anything beyond the fact someone had enough cash on hand to pay a lawyer to write the letter.
If you receive one of those things, your lawyer will likely advise you to ignore it and call back if you get a statement of claim. That’s the one that says, “You are being sued,” and you do need to respond promptly to that. In the meantime, though, it’s all just fun and games. I speak from some experience here.
So Smith is refusing to comment on an essentially unrelated story based on a matter that is not now before the courts and may never be.
That’s rather cute, and it may or may not prove to be effective at bullying the media into silence. Given how effective the UCP government’s previous attempts to suppress this story have been, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it being successful, though. But any old port in a storm, if readers will forgive a mixed metaphor.
As Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt explained the premier’s political (not legal) strategy, by conflating the two stories and then saying she won’t comment, “it allows Smith to try and defuse a volatile and damaging issue.” She can “use this line in dealings with the press, but also in a potential leader’s debate” with NDP Leader Rachel Notley, he added.
It also helps Smith with the UCP’s defund-the-CBC base, he observed. “It is notable that it is the only media outlet being threatened, even though all covered the Smith-Pawlowski video.”
Another Mount Royal political science prof, Lori Williams, commented, “I don’t recall anyone being this evasive in Alberta history.”
“It’s unheard-of for someone facing criminal charges to get the Premier on the phone,” NDP Justice Critic Irfan Sabir said in remarks emailed to media Monday. “What’s more, Smith chose to interfere in the criminal prosecution of someone accused of encouraging violence against police and participating in an illegal blockade that cost Albertans nearly a billion dollars in economic damage, who also has a long record of hateful and illegal behaviour.”
“Albertans know that Danielle Smith is not focused on their needs when she spends her time and energy trying to put her thumb on the scales of justice for him,” said Sabir, a lawyer.
What’s Smith going to do about that? Threaten to sue Sabir too?
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
