Premier Should Stop Playing Victim Card

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the latest controversy swirling around Premier Alison Redford, and her assertion that she is the subject of "personal attacks":

The word “attack” can simply mean to take the offence, but it can also imply a particular aggressiveness or nastiness.
Certainly, the latter applies when speaking of political attacks, so it’s ironic that claiming to be on the receiving end of such an attack can in its own way be a form of going on the offensive.
It’s a tool frequently deployed to garner sympathy or to avoid answering difficult questions (usually both). Criticism, however, in no way constitutes an attack, nor does asking legitimate questions.
Premier Alison Redford would have us all believe that she’s been the victim of an ongoing series of personal attacks, not only perpetrated upon her, but also members of her family. In fact, judging by her remarks last week, these “personal attacks” are even traumatizing her daughter’s schoolyard playmates.
And indeed, who would stand for such a thing?
But could it be that all we actually witnessed here was scrutiny, criticism and a demand for answers? Understandably, it’s much more effective to raise the spectre of “personal attacks” without ever specifying the nature of the attacks themselves or from whom they originate.
Recent weeks have produced a series of controversies for the Redford government, so it’s not surprising that they’d just as soon turn the page to something else.
We’ve had revelations, for example, about the sizable donation to the PC party from billionaire Daryl Katz, and whether loopholes were used to help underwrite a flagging Tory campaign. We’ve had revelations that the premier’s sister, while a top executive with the Calgary Health Region, attended Tory fundraisers and billed those expenses back to the health region.
And, of course, last week brought revelations about the manner in which the province selected the law firm to handle a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Documents surfaced showing that while Justice minister in December 2010, Redford wrote a memo declaring that of the three firms shortlisted, the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers consortium would be “the best choice.”
That consortium includes the law firm where her ex-husband, Robert Hawkes, happens to be a senior partner. Not only were the two once married (granted, many years ago), they remain close enough that Hawkes went to work for Redford’s subsequent leadership campaign and even led the transition team when Redford became premier.
Despite this potential conflict, Redford apparently made the decision anyway. Perhaps it was not truly a conflict, at least by the letter of the law, but one that was never addressed, or even, it seems, considered at the time. But rather than argue that no conflict existed, Redford instead tried to argue that she didn’t make the decision. It’s true that the agreement was finalized in 2011 under Justice Minister Verlyn Olson, but as even Olson conceded last week, there was a “preferred candidate” when he took office, and negotiations commenced. Certainly a negotiating partner is needed for there to be negotiations in the first place.
Not only that, but further documentation emerged indicating that officials interpreted Redford’s memo as a decision. Memos were sent to the “successful” and “unsuccessful” consortiums and a briefing note from the assistant deputy minister in January 2011 states that “shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the (International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers).”
So not only did we have legitimate questions about a possible conflict of interest, we had questions about whether the premier had been less than honest. It should go without saying that we deserved answers to those questions, but instead, this was twisted to somehow represent an attack on the premier.
Late Monday, Speaker Gene Zwozdesky said he believes Redford’s version of events — that she did not pick the firm.
Last week, the premier informed us all that there are “lots of issues that we need to talk about” and that MLAs need to be “getting down to the business of . . . governing the province.”
It remains to be seen how interested the Tories are in involving the other parties in “governing the province,” but if we’ve been distracted from other pressing matters, then that is the fault of the government.
The premier is no victim here. Should this gambit succeed, the only victims will be those demanding accountability from their government.