Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she is no longer taking questions about alleged judicial interference due to a potential defamation lawsuit.
“There’s been a great deal of inaccurate, misleading and likely defamatory reporting about my discussions with justice officials regarding amnesty for COVID prosecutions,” Smith said during an unrelated news conference on Monday.
“I have been clear that neither I nor anyone within my staff have contacted any Crown prosecutors, as has been alleged.”
Smith’s statement comes after the Opposition NDP raised concerns about judicial interference when a video of a phone call between Calgary preacher Artur Pawlowski and Smith surfaced online.
The video, also posted on Pawlowski’s YouTube page titled “January 26, 2023,” documents the roughly 11-minute conversation between the two about his criminal charges in connection with the Coutts, Alta. border blockade.
In the video, Smith could be heard saying, “Once the process is underway, I can ask our prosecutors, ‘Is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction and is it in the public interest?'”
“And I assure you, I have asked them that almost weekly ever since I got started here.”
Pawlowski went on trial in Lethbridge court to answer those charges on Feb. 2.
It is unclear who is subject to the defamation lawsuit. While the CBC first reported on the allegations, Global News and other media outlets have also since reported on it.
Smith has avoided questions about why she was on a call with Pawlowski, and whether or not she took advice from her justice advisors before doing so.
“I have sought advice from my justice officials on several matters, and the advice that they have given is that they are matters that need to be resolved before the courts,” she said.
“Nothing more can be done until those court cases are decided, and I have taken that advice.”
Smith also did not clarify whether she talked to anybody else on other matters.
“I have always said that I need to stay in my legal lane… My legal lane is the only thing I can ask: is it in the public interest and is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction?” she said.
Get breaking National news
Smith confirmed on Tuesday that the United Conservative Party will be paying for the lawsuit.
NDP Opposition justice critic Irfan Sabir told reporters on Monday he is shocked by Smith’s response to questions about alleged judicial interference.
He said Smith should answer questions from the media and accused Smith of trying to influence a serious criminal court case.
“She is not representing the issues facing our voters,” Sabir said.
“She took 11 minutes to talk to somebody who is charged with serious crimes… I think that shows who Danielle Smith is.
“She must be investigated for this breach.”
Opposition leader Rachel Notley told reporters on Tuesday that legal threats are a way for Smith to avoid letting Albertans know the truth before the election.
She accused Smith of trying to “confuse the issue” and breaching judicial independence by talking to the deputy attorney general, who is also a Crown prosecutor, about Pawlowski’s case.
“It is profoundly hypocritical and ludicrous for a premier in this province to say that she cannot speak to the public about the matter because it could potentially be before the courts several weeks from now,” Notley said.
“What we know is that she previously has spoken to the deputy attorney general regularly… That in itself is an attempt to influence.
“Waving around these threats for three weeks and fighting a civil case that won’t be solved in a few weeks or even years is a way to hide from accountability and hide from transparency.”
Notley also accused Smith of pandering to extremists who have been charged with threatening police officers, trying to murder police officers or trying to incite violence at the Coutts border blockade.
“Danielle Smith spends her time in her office pandering to extremists and not focusing on the issues affecting families across Alberta,” Notley said.
“These are the people that Smith is talking to.”
Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said Smith’s statement is a political strategy to diffuse a major controversy ahead of the provincial election — which is scheduled to be held at the end of next month.
In an interview with QR Calgary, Bratt said Smith may be refusing to answer questions because she wants the issue to be forgotten by the time the writ drops.
“All of this is part of the (alleged) ‘Notley-Trudeau-CBC alliance,'” Bratt said.
“Trudeau is not popular in the province, and if she can successfully link Notley to Trudeau, then that helps the UCP.”
Lori Williams, another political scientist at Mount Royal University, said she is confused about why Smith is filing a defamation suit.
Williams said Smith’s potential lawsuit and refusal to answer questions about it may affect the public’s perception of her.
“The number three issue for voters, according to several polls, is leadership and competence. Trust may come into play here,” she told QR Calgary.
“If we’ve got someone around where there are questions swirling about competence, about trust, about judgement… Does it display good judgement to be speaking with somebody about a case that’s coming before the courts?
“That may raise questions in the minds of some voters, particularly those that are on the fence about whether Danielle Smith is the leader that they want to carry them into the future.”
Both Bratt and Williams said this is the first time an Alberta politician has ever threatened a lawsuit against the media.
Politicians have refused to answer questions before, but not to this extent, they said.
“I don’t recall anyone being this evasive in Alberta history,” Williams said.
“We see political campaigns strategizing to either beef up the exposure of their leader to media because they tend to do very well with the media.”
“But the problem for Danielle Smith is that there’s quite a lot that the Premier has said and written in the past that has raised questions about her position on things like health care.”
Bratt said Smith’s lawsuit threat is different from politicians who choose not to answer media questions.
“(Politicians have) refused to answer questions. They’ve skipped forums, but this is different,” he said.
“This is suing or threatening to sue a major media outlet on the eve of an election to diffuse a major political controversy.”
Smith did not specify who she might be suing but has asked for an apology from the CBC for its coverage. The CBC said it stands by its reporting.
— With files from The Canadian Press
Comments