By Sheila Pratt, Edmonton Journal

By Sheila Pratt, Edmonton Journal

By Don Braid, Calgary Herald November 30, 2012

CALGARY — During another riveting day with little precedent in the Alberta legislature, the premier stood accused of contempt of parliament, Wildrose rolled out new damaging documents, and the NDP called on Alison Redford to step down until the allegations are resolved.

She won’t leave, of course. And Speaker Gene Zwozdesky reserved his ruling on the contempt citation until next week.

If he says a premier of his own party must answer for her actions, that will be a rare thing indeed in Alberta.

It would also have the unintentionally hilarious effect of sending the case to the infamous no-work, no-meet committee that enriched so many MLAs and became a scandal last spring.

Finally, something for that crowd to do.

But there was little levity in the old chamber Thursday, as the mood switched abruptly from Wednesday’s angry vitriol to quiet tension.

That’s because this matter is very serious. The speaker himself said exactly that, after hearing debate on the Wildrose motion to find Redford in contempt for deliberately misleading the legislature.

Wildrose said again that the premier decided to award the contract for a huge lawsuit against the tobacco industry to a consortium that included the law firm of her ex-husband, Robert Hawkes.

That in itself is not illegal. But Redford, instead of dealing with the initial conflict allegation, focused on the decision to award the contract.

She says she did not make that call. Redford and her ministers argue that the deal wasn’t done until four months after she quit cabinet to run for the PC leadership.

The PCs’ counter-story was best outlined by Verlyn Olson, her successor as justice minister, who described steps and negotiations he was involved in that led to a final contract.

“Nobody ever explained to me it’s a done deal,” he said. “This was far from a decision having finally been made.”

That had some impact; Olson is admired on both sides of the house as an honourable man.

But the PCs clearly face a big problem.

Wildrose has paper, plenty of it, released through Freedom of Information.

They’ve got a stack of e-mails and memos prepared by Redford, justice department officials, and the winning law firm.

On Dec. 14, 2010, Redford said in a signed memo that “the best choice for Alberta will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers” (the group that includes Hawkes’ firm.)

A month later, a senior official wrote: “shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.”

Further memos showed that the losing firms were notified of the decision in late December. So was the winning group.

A memo to the government from JSS Barristers, Hawkes’ Calgary firm, said “we were very happy to learn that we will be working with you on the health care recovery claim.”

All that was written before Redford stepped out of cabinet in February.

But the government argues that when lawyers are paid on contingency, there is no deal until the final terms are signed. And that didn’t happen until June 21, 2011.

One’s impressions go back and forth. These are complex matters explained by smart people.

But Wildrose has a paper trail. So far, the PCs offer only words.

It’s unlikely they can escape damage here without releasing documents that prove their own case.

However that works out, new shades of this story are starting to emerge.

Alberta’s claim on the tobacco companies is $10 billion in compensation for tobacco-related health-care costs.

If the contingency fee is 20 per cent, as suggested Wildrose MLA Shayne Saskiw, $2 billion in fees could be up for grabs.

So far, the PCs won’t explain the terms, or release any documents.

They’re asking for trust. To this point, it’s a frail defence against a pile of their own documents.

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the [email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

By Keith Gerein, Edmonton Journal November 29, 2012 10:38 AM

EDMONTON – An angry Premier Alison Redford, an outraged opposition and allegations of a conflict of interest provided the ingredients for an emotionally charged day at the Alberta legislature Wednesday.

The animosity reached its pinnacle in question period, when Wildrose and NDP leaders accused Redford of political patronage over the awarding of a lucrative contract to a law firm that employs her ex-husband.

“This raises disturbing questions of conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest, manipulation of the process, and at the very least horrible judgment,” Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said.

That was followed by an explosive exchange between Redford and Wildrose critic Rob Anderson, who suggested he might make a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about Redford’s conduct.

“The tangled web never ends, does it?” he said, noting the president-elect of the society is a senior partner at the same firm in question.

An enraged Redford fired back at Anderson that he was denigrating the entire legal community. Staring down the Wildrose caucus, she dared him to make good on his threat.

“This getting absolutely absurd,” she said to loud applause from her caucus. “If this person (Anderson), who theoretically should understand what the Law Society is, is now prepared to malign the legal profession, I have no idea where this discussion is supposed to go. But I’ll tell you, if this honourable member decides to make a complaint, go ahead.”

The firm in question, Calgary-based Jensen, Shawa, Solomon, Duguid and Hawkes, is part of a consortium known as Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP representing the province in a $10-billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Robert Hawkes, one of the named partners, was married to Redford for five years while both were in their 20s. The two have stayed friends and Hawkes led Redford’s transition team after she was elected PC leader.

The government insisted earlier this year that Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP was chosen through a competitive bid process in December 2010, when Redford was still justice minister. A review committee was appointed to consider three bidders.

However, an internal government memo obtained by CBC and the Wildrose indicates Redford was involved in the selection.

The Dec. 14 memo, from Redford to deputy justice minister Ray Bodnarek, says: “I note that the review committee considers all three firms interviewed to be capable of adequately conducting the litigation and believes that while no consortium stood above the others, all three have unique strengths and weaknesses.

“Considering the perceived conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest, the structure of the contingency arrangements and the importance of a ‘made in Alberta’ litigation plan, the best choice for Alberta will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.”

The opposition said the memo shows Redford acted improperly by picking a firm whose partners included a close personal and political friend. They said the proper thing to do would have been to remove herself from any role in the decision.

However deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk and current Justice Minister Jonathan Denis came to Redford’s defence.

While Redford decided which of the three firms the government should negotiate with first, she did not make the final call, Denis said.

He said that following Redford’s memo, the province hired a separate firm to negotiate a contract with Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP, a process that took six months. When the contract was eventually signed in June 2011, the justice minister at the time was Verlyn Olson as Redford had stepped down to run for the PC party leadership.

As such, the final decision was made by Olson, Denis said.

“I’m not aware of any particular conflict of interest. I don’t see how any members of the cabinet or premier could benefit from this,” he said. “A person’s former spouse is not listed as one of the conflicts of interest.”

Glenn Solomon, a senior partner at the successful firm, confirmed Denis’s timeline. He said no contract was awarded or promised until the negotiations concluded during Olson’s tenure.

“What we were told, in no uncertain terms, was that the government was going to enter into discussions with us to see if we could reach an agreement. If that failed, they would turn to other bidders,” he said.

“At the time the deal was struck … Alison Redford had no input on that. She wasn’t in the picture.”

One of the other bidders was national firm Bennett Jones, which is leading the litigation against big tobacco for up to six other Canadian provinces. But Denis said Alberta decided to go with separate representation in part to avoid a legal conflict of interest in the case.

“One of the issues is that if (the national firm) is acting for another province as well as acting for Alberta, what could potentially happen is somewhere down the road in the litigation, you will find a situation where our interests as the province of Alberta may actually be different than another province,” he said. “And that can cause us a lot of problems in the litigation.”

Denis said Hawkes was not involved in the bid or the negotiation, and will have nothing to do with the case.

However, as NDP Leader Brian Mason pointed out, Hawkes could stand to financially benefit.

Though it is expected to take years to resolve, the massive lawsuit could be highly lucrative for both the government and its lawyers, who are conducting the case on a contingency-fee basis. That means the law firms involved take on all the upfront costs, but are expected to get a percentage of any eventual settlement or award, which could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Wildrose, which plans to file a complaint with the provincial Ethics Commissioner, used all nine sets of questions allotted to them Wednesday to ask about Redford’s role in the hiring decision. That led to countless shouts across the aisle and duelling points of order, forcing Speaker Gene Zwozdesky to interject several times to demand decorum.

A battle also broke out on social media, as Denis and his press secretary sparred with Wildrose members and a CBC reporter.

Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University, said the opposition and media were blowing the controversy out of proportion.

“Not every issue is a serious conflict, and we need to be able to separate what is a fact of doing business here and what is ethically wrong,” he said.

He said the opposition would likely be crying foul no matter which of the three firms were chosen, since all have personal ties to the PCs and have donated money to the party. In the case of Bennett Jones, the firm has been a regular contributor to the PCs, and was represented for years by former premier Peter Lougheed. More recently, one of the firm’s senior advisers, Jack Major, was appointed to review MLA pay.

Bratt said the prevalence of such ties between major law firms and the PCs is a reality of having the same government in power for four decades.

“I think that if you go through almost every law firm, you’d find ties to every party here,” Denis said. “There are binders full of lawyers everywhere around this province.”

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

By Sarah O’Donnell, Edmonton Journal November 28, 2012

EDMONTON – Alberta is on track to run a deficit as high as $3 billion in the 2012-13 fiscal year, provincial finance officials said Wednesday, drawing sharp criticism from the opposition.

Speaking to the second-quarter results, Finance Minister Doug Horner said the budget problems revealed in the first-quarter financial update continued during July, August and September. Overall, he said, the province has a bright economic future. But of particular concern is lower than expected energy revenues.

“The biggest factor affecting our resource revenue now is market access for our oil,” Horner said. “We have one customer and one way to get our product to them. On the other hand, our customer has many different suppliers to choose from. This isn’t a good situation to be in and it’s costing us.

“Right now the difference between the world price for a barrel of oil and what our producers can get for Alberta bitumen is about $28. Multiply that by 2.5 million barrels per day and the money adds up very quickly.”

In the first six months of the year, resource revenue was $1.4 billion lower than expected.

Bitumen royalties fell $369 million short of six-month projections, while crude oil was $139 million short. Natural gas was $349 million short and Crown lease income was about half of the $1.1 billion expected.

The province has revised its price for a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude downward from $99.25 in the budget to $92.50 in the second quarter update.

Those shortfalls matter because about a quarter of the province’s $40-billion budget is funded with resource revenue.

Alberta Finance also reported that expenses for the first six months were $293 million higher than expected. The reason, they said, was dealing with disasters such as forest fires and severe hailstorms.

The second quarter update continued the trend of quarterly reports that paint a less rosy picture than anticipated in the government’s February budget. Instead of an $886-million deficit projected for the year, finance officials said the deficit looked like it would range between $2.3 billion and $3 billion.

During that August update, Horner said the government was asking departments to look for $500 million in savings and to re-evaluate all planned building projects.

Horner said Wednesday that they still expect departments to find those savings. The government is also looking at deferring some construction projects, although he said those have not been identified yet beyond a decision to cancel the police training centre in Fort Macleod.

The deficit will be covered through the province’s sustainability fund, which is essentially a provincial savings account. But that fund had dipped to $5 billion as of Sept. 30 and that is expected to end the year in the $3 billion to $3.7 billion range, according to the second quarter update.

The shrinking sustainability fund is one of several red flags opposition parties raised after Horner’s presentation. Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said she found the fiscal update troubling.

“It is an absolute train wreck that we have a government overseeing one of the strongest economies in North America that can’t balance its budget,” Smith said.

“What is happening here is this is a government that has always relied on energy revenues to bail them out of their overspending. This time it’s not working for them.”

NDP Leader Brian Mason accused the Progressive Conservatives of making promises during the election campaign based on an unrealistic budget.

“The Progressive Conservatives stole the last election by misleading Albertans about the state of Alberta’s finances,” Mason said. “It’s clear from this budget those promises will be broken and this is a broken promise budget.”

Liberal finance critic Kent Hehr described the second quarter update as an “exercise in voodoo math.” He said it is unrealistic for Albertans to keep expecting to balance its books on fossil fuel revenue and borrowing.

“You have to ask the taxpayer to pay for these priorities and I believe Albertans are willing to do that,” Hehr said. “They understand the need for schools, roads and hospitals.”

Horner said the government will not introduce a sales tax or increase income taxes to help balance the budget. He also said that the government will borrow to build some infrastructure, but said they will also put forward a savings plan in the next budget.

“There is a tremendous cost to our communities if they do not get the infrastructure they need,” Horner said. “This is not a cost you can put a price tag on, but it is something that impacts quality of life in everyday Alberta. To simply say ‘wait’ to a community simply isn’t good enough.”

In August, it was more than just the budget projections that prompted concerns about the first-quarter update; Alberta Finance also was critiqued for the way it presented that financial information.

Merwan Saher, Alberta’s auditor general, said in October his office was investigating whether the department broke provincial laws by failing to provide detailed financial projections, capital planning or financial asset information. It also offered a range for a projected deficit, rather than an actual number.

There was more data provided in Wednesday’s second quarter update, but opposition parties and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the documents still lacked the detail that the government is obligated to provide.

[email protected]

twitter.com/scodonnell

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

By Dave Cooper, Edmonton Journal November 22, 2012

EDMONTON – Enbridge says it has received the support of oil shippers for a $1.8-billion pipeline project linking Edmonton and Hardisty, the hub for Alberta’s oil exports.

The project will include a 36-inch, 179-kilometre pipeline along with new tankage and terminal facilities in both Edmonton and Hardisty.

The line will initially be able to move 570,000 barrels per day and could be in service by mid-2015. It will follow the route of the existing Enbridge Line 4 Pipeline.

“The Edmonton to Hardisty expansion program will align the capability of our system with our shippers’ plans for how their growth in crude oil volumes will be divided between volumes entering our system at the Edmonton and Hardisty crude oil hubs,” Stephen Wuori, president of liquids pipelines for Enbridge, said in a statement.

“The agreement with shippers on terms for the expansion … (ensures) that we provide the facilities and services they need to maximize the value of their crude oil.”

The new line is part of a $12-billion plan to expand Enbridge’s North American pipeline and terminal network primarily to support broadening access of oilsands production to U.S. refining markets.

Enbridge anticipates filing an application with the National Energy Board by the end of the year, with construction beginning in early 2014. The company said representatives will be consulting with interested parties and First Nations communities along the right-of-way to seek their input and to provide updates on the project.

Enbridge’s regional oilsands infrastructure includes the Athabasca and Waupisoo pipeline systems, which currently connect six producing oilsands projects. That will increase to eight projects by 2014.

The new Edmonton to Hardisty line is needed as volumes of crude from the oilsands continues to increase, and will become part of Enbridge’s main line system, which heads for the Chicago area and from there takes a southwest track to Cushing, Okla., and then to Houston and the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

Competitors TransCanada and Kinder Morgan also operate export pipelines which leave from Hardisty and head south through the U.S.

Enbridge is Canada’s largest transporter of crude oil, with approximately 24,738 kilometres of crude pipeline, delivering on average more than 2.2 million barrels per day of crude oil and liquids. It also exports 65 per cent of western Canadian oil.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

By Sheila Pratt, Edmonton Journal November 23, 2012 7:07 AM

EDMONTON – Doctors will look at “novel” ideas, such as donating a day’s pay to Alberta’s opposition parties or local charities, as they figure out their next step in the dispute with the province, says Dr. Michael Guiffre, head of the Alberta Medical Association.

But “it would be a sad thing” if doctors had to resort to such tactics, he said Thursday. The AMA would prefer to restart talks “with a clean slate” with Health Minister Fred Horne on a fee schedule and on the Redford government’s new family care clinics that doctors have not been consulted about.

Guiffre is meeting doctors this week and next to devise a strategy to deal with what they have called the government’s “offensive” decision to impose a fee schedule and leave doctors out of plans for health care reform initiatives.

Physicians were angered last week when Horne imposed a $463-million fee package that includes a 2.5-per-cent increase and cost-of-living increases for three years, but also reduced funding for some specialties. Doctors said they would lose $210 million over the next five years.

Guiffre said money is not the issue, it’s the lack of consultation with doctors and the province’s decision to impose a contract.

When it comes to family care clinics, “we’re not even at the table, and what a terrible message that is for doctors,” Guiffre said.

Guiffre said the AMA has no problem in principle reviewing the fees paid to specialists, “but the ministers can’t just cherry pick a few specialists” and unilaterally lower fees. It requires an open process and an independent third party, he said.

At a Wednesday meeting with doctors, Dr. Lloyd Maybaum, president of the Calgary and area Medical Staff Association, suggested that doctors could donate a day’s pay, minus overhead — up to $4 million if all 8,000 doctors contribute — to charities or the opposition in the Alberta legislature to protest Horne’s decision to impose the fee dispute.

“This is not about money, it’s about having the AMA represent doctors,” said Maybaum, adding his idea was well received by doctors at the meeting.

If his proposal to donate to opposition parties is accepted, “this is going to be healthy for democracy in this province,” he said.

About 20 months ago, an eight -year agreement “that worked well” expired between doctors, the Ministry of Health and Alberta Health Services, Guiffre said. It required consultation between all parties and decision by consensus.

A lot of progress was made with innovations to recruit doctors, get them into rural areas and devise alternative payment plans, Guiffre said. But “that’s all gone now and its insulting to doctors.”

Maybaum noted that in a recent survey, more than 80 per cent of doctors agreed that some fee codes are “outliers” and need to be rolled in, he said, but the issue cannot be resolved internally in the AMA.

“We need a transparent process with an independent, neutral body to set fee codes,” he said. “The health minister wants the AMA to get torn apart.”

The AMA had such high hopes when Horne was appointed health minister because he had “a brilliant career of 30 years” in health care policy, he said.

“Our expectations were through the roof in terms of co-operation and new scenarios, and then, bang, ‘it’s my way or the highway.’”

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Yesterday, Nov. 21, 2012, Bill 2 got third reading in the legislature. 

Bill 2 (and the amendments) was debated for over 18 hours on Tuesday, Nov 20, 2012 and well into the early morning, and afternoon of Nov. 21, and although all opposition parties were not in favor of the Bill as such, their efforts to have amendments considered by the PC party went unheard.  The Bill got third and final reading on the afternoon of Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2012.  See Calgary Herald Article attached or at this link: http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/bill2.htm

 This is a sad day for Albertans.

Well, perhaps heard, but ignored by the PC government, the amendments brought forward by the oppositions were designed to protect Landowners.  Dispite the many efforts by the Liberals, Wildrose, and New Democrate members, amendments that were brought forward were shot down by the PC government.  The PC’s have claimed that they are listening to Albertans, and Minister Ken Hughes claims that Bill 2 protects Landowners.  However, the many experts who do not agree with Minister Hughes feel that Bill 2 will be a colosal mess for Landowners, Environmental Groups, and Industry alike.  View the opinions of U of C Professor Nigel Bankes, U of C Professor Nickie Vlavianos, U of C Professor Shaun Fluker, Environmental Law Centre Lawyer Cindy Chiasson, U of A Law Professor Russel Brown, Prominent Surface Rights Lawyers, Darryl Carter and Keith Wilson on our website under “Bill 2” or by going to this link:  http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/bill2.htm

Again, one can only conclude that like Landowner requests to repeal Bills 19, 24, 36 and 50, this government is not willing to listen to landowners.  Their arrogance is astounding!  They repeatedly tell us that they are listening, yet none of the serious amendments that have been sought by Landowners have been addressed.  Attached is an article from the Calgary Herald, posted on our website at this link:  http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/bill2.htm  It demonstrates that Minister Hughes clearly doesn’t understand the gravity of Bill 2 and it’s affect on Landowners , and our democratic rights.

This government is running a course, and it is not altering it’s direction in any way, shape or form.  And unfortunately, that course is directly running roughshot over landowner rights in Alberta, and destined to cause conflict for Landowners, Environmentalists and Industry.  How, can this possibly make the process easier for anyone?

Here is a summary of the most important amendments that were supported by the Opposition, but rejected by the PC majority.

• An amendment that would restore the basic right of Albertans to be notified and have a hearing if they would be directly affected by an energy development project
• An amendment that would legislate a standard timeline for applications to ensure red tape is actually reduced
• An amendment to restore the ability of landowners to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board when damages to land and the environment were not corrected or compensated for
• Prohibiting the Energy Minister from being able to demand any personal information he desires (such as medical and school records)
• An amendment that would mandate the new regulator to uphold property rights
• An amendment that would have mandated the new regulator to have representation from individuals with expertise in energy industry, landowner rights and environmental conservation
• An amendment to re-insert the concern for the “public interest” after the term was removed from the legislation

 There is still time to stop this Bill

Bill 2 will be implemented in June, 2013.  Althought the BIll is now passed, we will not see it come into action until early summer of 2013, so you still have time to let the Energy Minister know that you are not happy with the Bill.  We will keep you updated, and ask you to continue sending your emails, letters or phone calls ( toll free RITE Operator 310-0000) to Energy Minister Ken Hughes, and to your own MLA.  Again, the addresses can be found at this link: http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/MLA%20listing-Contact%20Information.csv

There are numerous Surface Rights Organizations, Grazing Lease Organizations, Stockholder and Landowners Organizations across the province who are adamantly opposed to Bill 2.  As we have done in the past, we will continue to strengthen in our united front to have  Bill 2 repealed.  Join in, and make yourself heard.  It is important for all Albertans.

 Rutherford Show-Lawyer Keith Wilson as a Guest Speaker

On Wednesday, November 28, at 10:00 am, Lawyer Keith Wilson will be on the Dave Rutherford Show to speak about the recent passing of Bill 2.  They will be discussing how Bill 2 will affect Landowners and how we feel about this Bill.

Nov 28, 10:00 am on 630 CHED -Keith WIlson

Nov 28, 10:00 am on AM 770 – Keith Wilson

For all information regarding Bill 2, go to this link on our website, AlbertaLandonwersCouncil.com

http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/bill2.htm

The fight has begun!  We will keep you posted.

Alberta Landowners Council

CALGARY, Alberta, Nov. 21 (UPI) — An executive at Canadian pipeline company Enbridge told an energy conference in Alberta that the nation’s oil pipelines “are pretty much full.”

The Globe and Mail newspaper in Toronto reports that industry analysts had expected pipeline capacity to reach its limit by 2014. Vern Yu, a vice president at Enbridge, told a petroleum conference in Calgary, however, that capacity has reached its maximum.

“All of the crude oil export pipelines are pretty much full, running at maximum capacity,” he was quoted as saying. “And we’re not likely to see any meaningful capacity added to these networks until the end of next year.”

Enbridge aims to build its Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta oil sands projects to ports on the western Canadian border. Yu said Enbridge was planning to petition national regulators to reverse an existing pipeline so western Canadian crude oil can reach markets in Montreal.

Yu’s statements in Alberta came as Canadian officials met with European leaders in London to press for a stronger oil trade. Advocacy group Oil Change International said about two dozen protesters tried to disrupt the conference.

First posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 07:18 PM MST | Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 07:57 AM MST

Premier Alison Redford’s sister needs to answer questions about using taxpayer dollars to boost Alberta’s Tories because she is “a person of interest.”

That’s according to the opposition Wildrose Party, which sent a letter Tuesday to Justice John Vertes — the commissioner appointed to Alberta’s Preferential Access Inquiry — demanding that Lynn Redford testify.

“We are of the opinion that these circumstances would make Lynn Redford a person of interest for the Health Services Preferential Access Inquiry,” party leader Danielle Smith wrote in the letter.

“Indeed, we think that she should be one of the first persons called to testify at the inquiry.”

Lynn Redford was acting as a government relations adviser in the Calgary Health Region when she expensed tickets to PC and Liberal fundraisers.

Vases, ice, booze and flowers were also expensed.

Of her expenses, 40% of the $7,668.28 between 2005 and 2008 went to political causes, revealed documents obtained by the Wildrose Party through a freedom of information request.

“Albertans are very concerned with the allegation that our limited health resources were accessed preferentially by some members of the political class and their delegates,” Smith said.

“It’s in everyone’s interest to get to the bottom of these issues are restore public confidence in the integrity of the health care system.”

In question period Tuesday, opposition parties continued to hammer the Tories on the spending allegations, but it was Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk who fired back.

He called the allegations “innuendo” and accused Smith of expensing a federal political party fundraising dinner for her and her husband.

Smith said the allegations were false.