Friday, February 13, 2015

High River gun grab report released. Surprise! Much of it was illegal.

Yesterday the long awaited report into the RCMP gun grab in High River Alberta was released and you can read it here: https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/chair-initiated-complaint-and-public-interest-investigation-rcmps-response-2013-flood-high-river

There is plenty there to digest but to sum it up: The RCMP had a legal right to enter (some but not all) homes under Alberta's Emergency Management Act without warrant during a certain time frame ( they abused this time frame) and were allowed by the Criminal Code to seize unsecured guns ( they were not allowed to seize properly stored guns but did so anyway) that were in 'plain sight'. But because the RCMP never lived up to its obligations under the criminal code to take the guns they had seized without warrant before a judge as required by the Criminal Code, it made virtually every single gun seizure by the RCMP done High River an illegal act. That is correct, every single gun seized was seized illegally.

Some of the findings:  
Finding No. 11: It was reasonable for the RCMP members to secure buildings after completing their search. ( it is well known that the RCMP did not secure many residences after they were done searching)

Finding No. 23: In a number of cases, RCMP members' forcible entries to facilitate home inspections caused significant damage and were not reasonable in circumstances where buildings were unaffected by the flood.

Finding No. 24: The secondary entries for the specific purpose of seizing unsecured firearms were not authorized by the Emergency Management Act.

Finding No. 28: RCMP members were authorized to seize unsecured firearms pursuant to section 489 of the Criminal Code.  ( see next finding)

Finding No. 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.

Finding No. 30: RCMP members were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms. (FYI: A gun in 'plain sight' may indeed be properly stored, where it is located is not the major criteria for defining safe storage)

Finding No. 32: RCMP supervisors failed to provide sufficient guidance to members involved in the seizure of firearms.

Finding No. 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the common law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.

Finding No. 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.

Finding No. 39: RCMP members failed to report to a justice to show that they had reasonable grounds to undertake warrant less seizures pursuant to paragraph 489.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  ( this is the big one showing that ALL seizures were illegal)

Finding No. 46: Overall, the RCMP's communications approach to the High River flooding crisis was ineffective and resulted in a negative impact on RCMP emergency operations and reputation.


Again I suggest you read it all for yourself. This was not a whitewash as some have suggested but rather a thorough investigation of what actually happened in High River.  

A couple of other points: First, to blow my own horn, I sort of nailed a lot of this, mainly on the AEMA back in September 2013 with this post: http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-happened-in-high-river-is-going-to.html  I took a lot of heat for that at the time from many who said I was completely wrong about AEMA not giving police any special powers to seize property (guns). Strangely all of those people are silent today.

The other thing is that as much as I like to dump on the PC gov't here in Alberta; this was NOT the fault of Solicitor General Jonathan Denis or the Alberta Government. In fact Denis when he first learned what happened wrote a letter to the RCMP asking for details and clarification on the seizures. He has taken plenty of grief over this and frankly does not deserve any of it. I alluded to this in my Sept 2013 post but wanted to state it again because once again he and the gov't are getting dumped on. Did the PC's try to play politics with this and smear the Wildrose Party as lawless gun nuts? Yes they did and should be called out over it, but in the end they were not responsible for the RCMP's actions.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Open Nominations. Edmonton Mill Woods Edition.

Varinder Bhuller, the candidate who already was green-lighted for the Liberal Party of Canada's nomination in Edmonton Mill Woods dropped a bombshell right in Justin Trudeau's lap with his latest Facebook post https://www.facebook.com/VoteBhullar/posts/857414177614337  

(Highlighting mine) "I received my Green Light from the party in March 2014 and I was promised that there would be a nomination prior to Edmonton’s Sikh Parade in May 2014 so that I could campaign as a candidate there. In April 2014, however, I found out that Councillor Sohi came into the picture, and since then everything has stalled on the nomination front. Various party officials met with me in May, June and August 2014, pressuring me to withdraw my name in favour of Councillor Sohi so he wouldn’t need to contest a nomination. They tried to bribe me, threaten me and ultimately expired all my memberships by delaying the nomination beyond December 31, 2014 in the hope that our team would not renew their memberships. Once they noticed that a large number of members had started renewing their memberships, the party used their last weapon to revoke my Green Light by accusing me of membership infractions. This is only the second case in all of Canada where the Liberal Party has gone out and cancelled a candidate’s Green Light. Coincidentally, the other one was also in a riding where their preferred candidate (General Andrew Leslie) was at risk of losing in a nomination."

We all, and I mean everyone, already knows that Justin's pledge of open nominations is a joke and this just adds to the long list of other examples of the nominations being anything but open, but this one is a bit different in that it alleges that the LPC tried to "bribe me and threaten me"; both illegal acts. So far I have not seen any media on this but as they say, stay tuned because this one is going to cause some trouble.


Saturday, March 15, 2014

Alberta's 'anti-bullying' Minister Sandra Jansen provides a side show on a very busy day, but we all missed something.

What a crazy day in Alberta politics Friday March 14, 2014 turned out to be. A day when news that former Alberta Health Services executive Allaudin Merali is suing AHS and Health Minister Fred Horne for $6 Million dollars, which would normally be a huge front page story, is lucky to make it to page 5 in any Alberta paper tomorrow.

What happened today:

Premier Redford continues to be under siege.  (not new today but continues to be a hot story)

We had Doug Griffiths, Minister of Service Alberta, Tweeting out subtle tweets on Redford's leadership.

We had a PC riding association President openly call for Redford to resign.

We had another Minister, Thomas Lukaszuk, Tweeting out a defense of Len Webber, the PC MLA who will now sit as an independent and caused quite the fire storm by saying that Redford was "not a nice lady" among other things, and later Lukaszuk Tweeted out a defense of electricians in response to another Minister's comments on national TV. (more on that later)

We had a 'bar fight' among Alberta MLA's.

And to end the day we had news that the Executive Director of the PCAA, Kelley Charlbois, of $400,000 for verbal advice to Gary Mar fame, is no longer in his role with the PC party.


Keep in mind that most of this took place within a 6 hour window!  The Alberta advantage exists even in political news I guess as the day seemed to get crazier as it went on with the comments I eluded to earlier by Minister Sandra Jansen topping the crazy with the fire storm they created, and the buried lede that most people missed.


Watch Jansen's comments for yourself  here.
 http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=307697&binId=1.1201914&playlistPageNum=1 


Here is the comment that set off the fire storm.  Jansen:  "I would say right now, you know,  if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician."

The backlash was immediate. Twitter lit up with the negative response to what Jensen had said concentrating on what was a shot not only a Len Webber but perceived to be a shot at electricians in general in that somehow the job is in some way lesser than a politicians. It was ugly, but Jansen's electrician comment was not the worst part about what she said.

Yes the electrician comment was stupid, newsworthy, and deserved to be called out, but from the responses/reports that I have seen it seems that everyone was so focused on the electrician bit that we all missed the big story.


Let me explain and have some fun with this at the same time. Lets look at her comment again but this time
lets substitute other people, places etc into the 'blanks' and see if you think the same way about what she said.

Original quote (with underlined areas indicating 'blank' area to insert your choices): I would say right now, you know,  if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician.

Go ahead. Give it a try as I did in the following examples:

I would say right now, you know, if your kid had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, than maybe he should perhaps reconsider going to that school.

If brown people have such a problem with what they perceived as bullying, than maybe they should perhaps reconsider coming to this country and go back to where they came from.

I could go on but I think you get my point.



What an absolutely abhorrent thing for a so called Anti-bullying Minister to say to a victim of bullying. To tell anyone, it doesn't matter who, that if they do not like what they perceive as bullying (what does that mean anyway?) that it is THEY (the victim) who should alter their lives, remove themselves from doing what they want to do, and go do something else if they don't like being bullied. Bullied at work, quit your job. Bullied at school, move schools, etc.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.Ever.


I am not in the habit of doing this, because I realize people do make mistakes and I have been known to say some pretty stupid things myself, but the fact that Jansen did say what she did shows that she is clueless and has no idea how to do her job and she needs to immediately apologize, step aside and resign as Minister.







Thursday, March 13, 2014

The ugly truth behind Premier Redford's decision to pay for her South Africa trip.

Yesterday Alison Redford did what she has said for over a month now that she would not do. She paid back nearly $45,000 for the costs associated with her trip to South Africa to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela.

 For over a month the Premier has steadfastly claimed that the expenses were government business and that she would not be paying back the money. She even went so far as to tell us what we were thinking on the matter, that we (Albertans) were ready to forgive her and that we were ready to move on from this matter.

Was she ever wrong. Albertans were not ready to move on from this and in fact the outrage continued. Even the tried and true PC method of waiting it out or waiting for the next screw-up to take over headlines so Albertans forget about the previous one didn't work. Although it may have worked had the next 'screw-ups' not also involved the Premier's questionable use of the government air fleet; the issue continued to simmer and the outrage over the incident(s) continued among the electorate.

But what changed yesterday. What was it that made Premier Redford do a complete about face and pay back the money that for over a month she absolutely refused to do.

It wasn't the outrage level from thousands of Albertans who were angry about the waste of tax dollars by the Premier. That has been pretty much constant throughout so that did not change

No, the difference was not the thousands of Albertans upset over this but rather it was just 18 - 20 Albertans, who also happen to be PC MLAs within her caucus who voiced their outrage over the incident, that made the difference.

The fact of the matter is that Alison Redford could not have cared less about what thousands of Albertans thought about this. Their (our) opinions meant nothing to her because there is nothing that we can do about it for at least 2 years until the next election, but she does care about what 20 very specific Albertans think because they can do something about it today.

It is all about self preservation for Alison Redford and what those 20 people thinks matter to her more than the opinions of thousands of Albertans.

And that is the ugly truth.




Monday, March 03, 2014

Minister Tim Uppal to run for the CPC nomination in Edmonton Millwoods.

The Honourable Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Multiculturalism will soon be announcing that he is running for the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in the newly formed riding of Edmonton Millwoods.


You heard it here first.  

MAP  

The current MP for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, Mike Lake, announced that he will seek the CPC nomination in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin where he now lives thanks to where Elections Canada decided to draw a line across the current riding. With Tim running in Edm-Millwoods, this now leaves the newly redrawn riding of Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan up for grabs with no incumbent running.

Stay tuned.

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Warren Kinsella: ten reasons why Trudeau’s Senate move is a bad one.

If you have not read Warren Kinsella's latest.

You really should do so.

 Now. 

 >  >  >   http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/




 You can thank me later.

How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.fmSHEWeB.d
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.dpuf
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at:
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.d

Friday, January 31, 2014

Justin Trudeau abandons Alberta as he kicks out the only Alberta voices from the Liberal caucus.

On Wednesday Justin Trudeau, in what some have referred to as a 'bold' move, kicked out the only Alberta representatives, Senators Grant Mitchell and Claudette Tardiff, from the caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada. According to Trudeau: "I no longer want to have a relationship as a leader to these people, and they are no longer part of my party"
 
So with no elected Liberal MPs and now with no Liberal Senators, when the Liberal caucus gathers together to discuss issues or formulate policy etc, Albertans will no longer have anyone in the room to represent or speak for them.  How can this be considered a good thing to do for either the people of Alberta or the Liberal Party?

It isn't, and having no one in the caucus room to speak on behalf of 3.7 million people from a province which is considered by some to be the 'economic engine of Canada' is not 'bold', it's a half baked, short sighted, political stunt.



While we are on the topic of Alberta and the senate; something else has been bothering me about Justin Trudeau's plan and future Alberta Senators

In Alberta we vote and choose who we want to represent Alberta in the senate. If there is to be some type of panel or committee choosing who will be appointed to the senate, will they respect the choice of Albertans and select those who have been chosen in fair democratic elections?  This 'panel' of elites, choosing other elites to help govern us based on who knows what criteria, are supposed to be independent (which also means unaccountable) why would they be under any obligation to actually do so?

Could guidelines be written for the 'panel' saying that those who are elected in provincial senate elections must be the choice of this panel?  Yes, but how likely would it be for a Liberal government to write
any type of law/guidelines etc for any such panel which would be supportive of the election of Senators considering that the Liberal Party has been against senate elections for years and which they could never win because Liberal Senators can no longer exist? It seems very unlikely that they would and if respecting the choice of Albertans wouldn't be included in such rules/guidlines, what would?



What a mess. Trudeau's plan seems to be creating more questions than it does to be giving us any real answers or solutions.

Who would choose this panel? Who would make up the panel?  What powers would they have? What of the process? And as written above. What about Alberta's duly elected Senators in waiting?

Many questions. With more being asked everyday as people start see the reality of Trudeau's plan. Questions which Mr. Trudeau needs to answer. Questions which Mr. Trudeau needs to answer soon, long before the next election.


So be 'bold' Justin. Answer the questions. Canadians deserve the answers.








Related links:

Devastating rebuke, in the Toronto Star no less, of Trudeau's plan and his trampling of the Liberal Party constitution.

JT's senate plan: 'A breathtaking confusion of stupidities'

More from the the Toronto Star here and here