Opposition resumes questioning Redford on tobacco litigation

Meanwhile, Election Act amendments need to be debated before session wraps

Opposition MLAs got back to questioning the premier Tuesday about the role she played in selecting law firms to pursue a $10-billion lawsuit against tobacco companies, one day after the Speaker’s interpretation of parliamentary rules blocked them from raising the issue.

Speaker Gene Zwozdesky concluded Monday that Premier Alison Redford did not mislead the legislature when asked about a potential conflict of interest handling the issue as justice minister.

Until he ruled on the allegation, raised by the Wildrose as a point of privilege, he refused to allow MLAs to ask almost any question about the tobacco lawsuit.

All but one Wildrose MLA left the chamber in protest, at least briefly.

Tuesday, there was less tension in the legislature.

But Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said that Zwozdesky’s ruling “did nothing to remove the cloud of doubt that lingers over the premier’s handling of the tobacco lawsuit.”

“I am asking the premier to put herself in the shoes of Albertans trying to understand what went on here,” Smith said during question period. “Given that she believes there is no conflict of interest under Section 3 of the act, why does she refuse to accept responsibility for making the decision in the first place?”

Redford responded to several of the questions from the opposition about the tobacco litigation Tuesday, saying she was proud that the province decided to sue big tobacco while she was justice minister.

“I know when the decision was made. I stand by my personal integrity and principles,” Redford said.

The Wildrose, along with the NDP and Liberals, have argued that documents obtained through freedom of information requests raise questions about whether Redford violated the province’s Conflict of Interest Act under Section 3, which prohibits an MLA from improperly furthering another person’s private interest.

The problem, they allege, is that the government ultimately awarded the potentially lucrative litigation contract to a legal consortium that included her ex-husband’s law firm.

They point to a December 2010 memo where Redford, then justice minister, identified International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers as the best choice. But Redford, and several cabinet ministers, have said she did not make the decision since she was not in cabinet when the final deal was signed.

Later, responding to a question from Liberal Leader Raj Sherman asking why she did not recuse herself as justice minister to prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest, Redford said, “There was nothing for me to recuse myself from because I didn’t make the decision.”

As of early Tuesday evening, it appeared as though the legislature would sit for at least one more day. MLAs said there were still several opposition amendments related to Bill 7, the Election Amendment Act, to debate.

The PC government gave notice Monday that it might impose time limits on the debate, but house leader Dave Hancock said on Tuesday that did not mean the party would trigger those limits.

Deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk said Tuesday that the government is proud of the work that it has done in the session, pointing to the Education Act and an act establishing a single regulator for energy projects.

But opposition parties said the session has been acrimonious and frustrating.

NDP Leader Brian Mason said he hopes the PCs will rethink the way they work with other parties.

In particular, he said, it is frustrating to see the government ignore proposed amendments from the opposition.

“It’s like an assembly line and all the opposition work and ideas just go straight into the scrap heap because it’s from the opposition and not because it’s bad idea in many cases,” Mason said.

Smith said by her count, the PCs rejected all but two of the more than 90 amendments on the 10 bills introduced by the government.