In a public statement, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said the confrontation NDP MLA Marlin Schmidt (Edmonton-Gold Bar) instigated against United Conservative Party MLA Jackie Lovely (Camrose) was unacceptable.

“I happened to be at an event with MLA Lovely that evening and I can confirm for you that she was scared, that she was rattled and she was afraid to go back to a committee meeting where she feared she might face another confrontation with this individual,” said Smith at an April 10 press conference.

According to Lovely, Schmidt became enraged over a debate they were having in the chamber regarding a private member’s bill on urban parks.

“Afterwards, he chased me and screamed at me in private to the point where security had to intervene,” said Lovely.

“This is the latest in a long pattern of behaviour from this NDP MLA that is not only unbecoming of a member but downright disturbing. He’s personally attacked UCP MLAs, celebrated the death of a female politician, and made other disparaging remarks.
“I urge this NDP MLA to reflect on his behaviour and seek anger management training and psychological help for what is clearly a negative pattern of behaviour.”

The April 9 Alberta Hansard 959 reported the following regarding the incident.

Alberta Government House Leader Joseph Schow raised a point of privilege (an MLA brings a motion to address a serious issue with another one’s conduct)  regarding an altercation that occurred outside the Chamber where the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar intimidated and obstructed the Member for Camrose in the performance of her parliamentary duties.

“Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I’m at a loss for words here; I truly am. While we all represent our constituents in this place, collectively we represent all Albertans. Of course, any member can speak to any provincial matter of importance, either to them personally or matters which their constituents feel strongly about. To insinuate that members can only speak to matters in their own constituencies is completely absurd.

“There’s nothing wrong with expressing your dislike for another member’s opinion; in fact, I believe that’s the whole point of this debate. But there are rules, Mr. Speaker, with a bit of latitude built in so as not to prevent one member or the other from being able to freely express their opinions. It makes for good and thorough debate.

“However, the reason I chose to raise this point of privilege is because there is a difference between heated remarks made during the course of debate in the Chamber and to have a member intentionally seek out another member in order to verbally intimidate and prevent them from fulfilling their parliamentary duties, something they were duly elected to do.”

In the report, Schmidt said that it was not his intent to intimidate, mock or make MLA Camrose (Lovely) feel threatened.

“I recognize and take seriously the fact that the Member for Camrose felt threatened and intimidated, and I regret my behaviour in making her feel that way. I know that many of my colleagues here have expressed on numerous occasions times that they have felt threatened and intimidated by members of this very Legislature, and I take that seriously. It was by no means my intent to make the Member for Camrose feel threatened or intimidated, nor was I attempting in any way to obstruct her ability to do her work here in this House.

“That’s my version of events, Mr. Speaker, and I’m pleased to put that on the record. I’m also apologizing directly to the Member for Camrose for my own actions yesterday. Like I said, I acknowledge that she has felt threatened and intimidated, and I sincerely regret having made her feel that way. I will do anything that I can to restore a feeling of safety and wellness in this workplace, and I commit to the entire House that my behaviour will reflect that improvement and that consideration going forward.”

The Speaker of the House said, “I have made a decision. That is to accept the apology. I’ve provided my ruling. This matter is dealt with and concluded.”