Non-apology means comments will continue to sting

It seems pretty clear, based on the way events have unfolded over the past couple of weeks, that Manitoba Progressive Conservative Leader Obby Khan messed up.

That’s not uncommon in the rough-and-tumble realm of provincial politics; elected representatives are no less inclined to make mistakes than the ordinary folks whose votes allow them to serve in the legislature.

What’s of greater concern is how the leader of the official Opposition has chosen to handle the apparent misstep, opting for a response that is guaranteed to compound its damage rather than contain it.

On March 17, during a particularly combative legislative session — and that’s saying something, given the appalling lack of civility that has become the norm in the Broadway chamber — Khan was accused of directing an offensive remark toward Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara.

The MLA for Union Station, who also serves as deputy premier, is the first non-binary MLA elected in this province and uses “they/them” as pronouns. In a raucous exchange of back-and-forth heckling during the March 17 session, Khan was heard calling Asagwara “a terrible person … whatever you are.”

The comment drew immediate outrage from the government benches, with Khan being accused of bigotry and his remark being described as derogatory and disgusting.

The health minister demanded an apology; Khan denied having made the comment, insisting instead “whatever you are” was part of a longer invitation for Asagwara to repeat one of their statements outside the protected confines of the legislative chamber.

Government House Leader Nahanni Fontaine complained to Speaker Tom Lindsey about Khan’s alleged remark, and Lindsey pledged to review the matter. Upon doing so, he released a brief audio clip of the exchange in question and described the Opposition leader’s comment as dehumanizing and hurtful.

In response, Khan doubled down on his contention the released audio did not portray the entirety of his verbal barb, and offered a weakly worded non-apology focused not on his intention but on the way his words might have been interpreted: “I look forward to seeing the full audio or listening to the full audio of that. But if that’s the interpretation of the Speaker, I apologize for that. I apologize for any harm those comments may have made.”

Khan’s refusal to directly address what the Speaker confidently concluded took place is an absolute clinic on how not to deal with a misstep or transgression. In a commonly used crisis-management catchphrase, “mess up” is immediately followed by “fess up” and “dress up,” meaning the preferred remedy is to admit the mistake and declare publicly what will be done to correct it and ensure no similar wrongdoing occurs in the future.

For contrast, consider the manner in which Families Minister Fontaine reacted last June after she was heard complaining inappropriately about having to share space on a graduation-day stage with a sign-language interpreter: she immediately owned up to the transgression, issued apologies (both written and verbal) and reached out to community organizations, and then outlined the steps she would take to ensure she and her staff received appropriate training and understanding to better inform future actions.

In so doing, Fontaine effectively laid the issue to rest, allowing her and the government to move forward focused on other legislative priorities.

Khan, on the other hand, has opted for an approach that front-loads defensiveness and leaves questions about his apparent locker-room-level behaviour simmering on a figurative back burner.

And as a consequence, it won’t take much to bring concerns about his leadership back up to a full boil.