The following YouTube video is 6 minutes and 30 seconds long and it is perhaps the best commentary available on the PC end game election strategy out there.
Excellent work.
The only thing that I think is missing is some content on why most of the PC's fear/smears are in reality non issues, which is our laws and our Charter of rights.
The law is the law people, no government in the land could pass the type of legislation that the PCs are claiming that the Wildrose party would bring in if elected and that is just simple fact. It cannot happen, due to our already existing laws/Charter!
I have had this discussion many times with the Wildrose haters on Twitter and have stopped them all in the tracks with the following question:
Be specific. Which 'conscience right' or 'legislation' would allow the government or a government employee, to ever violate Section 15.1 of the Charter of Rights and freedoms?
The answer is simple: there is none. It is impossible as the law is the law and anyone who claims to tell you otherwise is just trying to scare you.
And one would think, or at least hope, that a human right lawyer like Alison Redford would be fully aware of what our laws are and how they would apply. Perhaps she is too busy running that clean campaign that she promised numerous times to know that this has become an issue in the election, but somehow I really doubt that to be the case. She is fully aware of what is going on but is choosing to try and scare Albertans instead.
And that I do find to be scary.
Speaking of scary: The PC record.
Showing posts with label Alberta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alberta. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
On that Globe and Mail endorsement....
The Globe and Mail editorial board endorses Redford and The Albertaardvark editorial board calls bullshit.
Not on the endorsement itself because they can do what ever they like, on the BS that they use to justify it. It reads like someone in Toronto read a PC campaign pamphlet and wrote this up, with no idea of the reality on the ground in Alberta. As a blogger I would be embarrassed to post this kind if drivel and here is so much wrong that I don't know where to start; but instead of trying I might as well do little fisking since it's been awhile.
Globe and Mail italicized in blue
Ardvark editorial board comments in black
The answer is surprising. As a change agent, Wildrose is remarkably change-averse.
Yes, a party less than 5 years old with a fresh vibrant leader and new ideas is not change. Got it. Thanks G&M.
In health care, the Conservatives are also more constructive and imaginative. They promise 140 family care clinics, where not only doctors, but nurses can provide services, an innovation that will relieve the pressure on emergency wards. They also talk about “fast-track” emergency rooms, where obvious ailments will be diverted for quick treatment. In response, Wildrose promises wait-time guarantees, failing which the procedures will be done out of province or in private facilities – sort of a hangman’s approach to health care.
After reading this paragraph it was clear that the Globe and Mail had no clue as to what is going on out here if they are using the clinics and 'fast track' promises as a selling point for Redford. The clinic idea was announced by Redford last month BEFORE the election call and was only to be 3 clinics in a pilot project to see how the idea would work. Fast forward 1 month later and before any of the 3 opened their doors or could have possibly be evaluated, it has morphed into 140 and will radically alter health care in this province in spite of a direct promise from Redford to follow "all 21 recommendations" of the HQCA. BTW the main recommendation was: 'that the government undertake no further major re-structuring of the health-care system without a clear rationale, a transition plan and consultation'; which is just one reason why the Alberta Medical Association is against Redford's 140 clinics. You would think that the Globe and Mail might just mention that Alberta's doctors are against this but why ruin an agenda with silly facts like this or that Alberta has not only a doctor shortage but a nursing one as well, so who is going to staff these 140 clinics, or how much will they come up with the 700 million that these would cost? I am aware that the PC's claim that they will cost us nothing as they will reallocate existing health care money to the clinics but that leaves out the big question as to what they will cut in order to find that 700 million. As for the fast track idea, well that was written off almost as soon as it was announced because it is essentially what our hospitals are already doing. That days biggest joke was that Redford invented 'triage' but it really is no laughing matter as the head of emergency medicine said of Redford fast track plan "so out of touch it's startling"
In 2008 Albertans were foolish enough to believe the PC's and the change from within that they promised would occur with that fresh new leader Ed Stelmach. It is the same promise again from the PC's with Redford but this time Albertans are not buying it. BTW which Wildrose polices is the G&M referring to? If mentioned they were glossed over or dismissed outright yet the G&M "Clearly" claim that they could not possibly account for the raise in support. It is a cheap blogger trick and should be beneath the G&M but yet clearly wasn't.
Some of it may relate to its adoption of “Alberta first” or “firewall” rhetoric. Despite Alberta’s enormous, and growing, economic might in Canada, and its considerable political influence nationally – with a Conservative government led by a Calgary MP – Wildrose has still found fertile ground with the insular little Alberta narrative.
I guess endorsing Redford also means that the G&M also gets to use the PC fear mongering too; "firewall"? There is no firewall mentioned ANYWHERE in any Wildrose policy, that is the same stuff that the Liberals and Toronto media have been trotting out for years to scare people about PM Harper. Stay classy G&M. If looking at the feasibility of a provincial pension plan or police force is a firewall, which is where this smear came from, than I think the G&M had better look a lot closer to home because both Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police force, and Quebec it own pension plan. How 'insular" is that?
But Wildrose’s growth began, not coincidentally, when the province was hit hard by falling energy prices in 2008-9. Government spending had jumped, public sector pay greatly outpacing the rest of the country. Then, the Alberta government saw a projected $8.5-billion surplus evaporate, and instead posted a $1.4-billion deficit. The government responded to the recession by joining the worldwide consensus in favour of stimulative spending.
The timing may be correct for the start of the, 2008-09 but they fail to mention the numerous other issues that many people had at that time with the government Ed Stelmach, oil royalties, the 30% pay raise, land use laws, and a gov't that appeared to run out of ideas.
The Conservative record on fiscal policy, then, is the central issue in the current campaign.
Thanks Toronto for telling Alberta what the "central" issue of the campaign "is" and get it completely wrong. How did Alberta ever make it this far without you. Oh and I would say it is the incompetence, arrogance and abandonment of anything remotely conservative by the present government that is the issue; fiscal policy is part of that but hardly the 'central issue'.
Wildrose has been campaigning with a “debt clock” and has launched fierce rhetorical attacks over Conservative “mismanagement.” Its leader, Ms. Smith, is an effective communicator and a fresh face, but there’s little fresh in Wildrose’s response on fiscal policy; many of its ideas come from the halcyon era of King Ralph. In the 1990s, Progressive Conservative premier Ralph Klein was a leader among Canada’s first ministers in deficit reduction. His government introduced balanced budget legislation in 1995. By 2004, he was able to announce that Alberta was “debt-free” and, awash with energy royalties, his government awarded Albertans a $400 “prosperity bonus” (popularly known as “Ralph bucks”).
Imagine that, Albertans happy with a government that does not spend more money than it has. Pure insanity! (you have to remember the G&M is from Ontario and the concept is totally foreign to them out there. They did did endorse McGuinty after all) Also notice how they mention that Ralph passed balanced budget legislation but fail to mention how Stelmach, with Redford in his cabinet, rescinded that law?
For its part, Wildrose promises to restore the balanced budget legislation, and – yes – to pay Albertans energy dividends, now called “Dani dollars.” The party projects these payments as totalling $12,000 for an Alberta family of four over the next eight years. As for Alison Redford, she has been the Premier for only six months, but is answerable for one budget, which saw nearly every ministry receive increases; health-care spending went up by 7 per cent. More restraint should have been shown.
They get something correct, more restraint should have been shown but this gov't cannot seem to cut anything, ever.
It is clear that the Globe and Mail are not the biggest fans of the Wildrose, in fact they were forced to change 2 very misleading headlines ( which they did without ever acknowledging the changes or theirbias error), and I get that coming from a Toronto paper, but shouldn't Canada's so called "paper of record" at least make the effort to provide its readers with the facts rather than just crib from the PC Alberta website? I know as a blogger I would be embarrassed to publish this void of reality nonsense.
Not on the endorsement itself because they can do what ever they like, on the BS that they use to justify it. It reads like someone in Toronto read a PC campaign pamphlet and wrote this up, with no idea of the reality on the ground in Alberta. As a blogger I would be embarrassed to post this kind if drivel and here is so much wrong that I don't know where to start; but instead of trying I might as well do little fisking since it's been awhile.
Globe and Mail italicized in blue
Ardvark editorial board comments in black
After four decades in power, their traditional base fractured by defections on the right, Alberta’s governing Progressive Conservatives suddenly find themselves underdogs in Monday’s election, trailing the Wildrose Party. There is a mood for change in Alberta. The question is, which party best represents change: The upstart Wildrose under leader Danielle Smith, with its populist brand of conservatism? Or, odd as it may sound, the Conservatives under Premier Alison Redford?
Yes, there is mood for change in Alberta but is not just change for changes sake, which in itself is never a bad thing with any government in power for long periods of time, it is because the PC's have been a bad government and their record has been terrible, including the disastrous 6 months under Redford. Redford isn't change, or at least real change.They are just as inept and secretive as they have always been and one has to look no further than the Gary Mar situation or how she handled the no-meet committee situation.
The answer is surprising. As a change agent, Wildrose is remarkably change-averse.
Yes, a party less than 5 years old with a fresh vibrant leader and new ideas is not change. Got it. Thanks G&M.
The party shows no leadership with regard to Alberta’s critical oil-sands industry. Its main policy document barely mentions the oil sands (and then only to complain about public funding for two “anti-oil-sands documentaries”). Ms. Redford, by contrast, is more positive; her Canadian Energy Strategy would facilitate the shipment of oil-sands oil to Asia, the U.S. and Central Canada; she also promises to help fund oil-sands extraction technology.
For the record the Wildrose green policy book has 10 pages dealing with energy/resources while the PC's has 2, but that is a side issue; this is Alberta. Energy is tied into almost everything that we do here in one way or another, to claim the Wildrose has no ideas or has shown no leadership on this issue is asinine. As for Redford's NEP lite, getting our oil to other markets is not exactly a new idea and her promise to fund that technology comes at a cost of 3 billion dollars that was not in her 2012 budget.
In health care, the Conservatives are also more constructive and imaginative. They promise 140 family care clinics, where not only doctors, but nurses can provide services, an innovation that will relieve the pressure on emergency wards. They also talk about “fast-track” emergency rooms, where obvious ailments will be diverted for quick treatment. In response, Wildrose promises wait-time guarantees, failing which the procedures will be done out of province or in private facilities – sort of a hangman’s approach to health care.
After reading this paragraph it was clear that the Globe and Mail had no clue as to what is going on out here if they are using the clinics and 'fast track' promises as a selling point for Redford. The clinic idea was announced by Redford last month BEFORE the election call and was only to be 3 clinics in a pilot project to see how the idea would work. Fast forward 1 month later and before any of the 3 opened their doors or could have possibly be evaluated, it has morphed into 140 and will radically alter health care in this province in spite of a direct promise from Redford to follow "all 21 recommendations" of the HQCA. BTW the main recommendation was: 'that the government undertake no further major re-structuring of the health-care system without a clear rationale, a transition plan and consultation'; which is just one reason why the Alberta Medical Association is against Redford's 140 clinics. You would think that the Globe and Mail might just mention that Alberta's doctors are against this but why ruin an agenda with silly facts like this or that Alberta has not only a doctor shortage but a nursing one as well, so who is going to staff these 140 clinics, or how much will they come up with the 700 million that these would cost? I am aware that the PC's claim that they will cost us nothing as they will reallocate existing health care money to the clinics but that leaves out the big question as to what they will cut in order to find that 700 million. As for the fast track idea, well that was written off almost as soon as it was announced because it is essentially what our hospitals are already doing. That days biggest joke was that Redford invented 'triage' but it really is no laughing matter as the head of emergency medicine said of Redford fast track plan "so out of touch it's startling"
Clearly, these policies do not account for the surge in Wildrose support. This is a party that failed to elect a single MLA in the 2008 election. Now, polls suggest it will form the next government. So what, then, is behind its rise?
In 2008 Albertans were foolish enough to believe the PC's and the change from within that they promised would occur with that fresh new leader Ed Stelmach. It is the same promise again from the PC's with Redford but this time Albertans are not buying it. BTW which Wildrose polices is the G&M referring to? If mentioned they were glossed over or dismissed outright yet the G&M "Clearly" claim that they could not possibly account for the raise in support. It is a cheap blogger trick and should be beneath the G&M but yet clearly wasn't.
Some of it may relate to its adoption of “Alberta first” or “firewall” rhetoric. Despite Alberta’s enormous, and growing, economic might in Canada, and its considerable political influence nationally – with a Conservative government led by a Calgary MP – Wildrose has still found fertile ground with the insular little Alberta narrative.
I guess endorsing Redford also means that the G&M also gets to use the PC fear mongering too; "firewall"? There is no firewall mentioned ANYWHERE in any Wildrose policy, that is the same stuff that the Liberals and Toronto media have been trotting out for years to scare people about PM Harper. Stay classy G&M. If looking at the feasibility of a provincial pension plan or police force is a firewall, which is where this smear came from, than I think the G&M had better look a lot closer to home because both Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police force, and Quebec it own pension plan. How 'insular" is that?
But Wildrose’s growth began, not coincidentally, when the province was hit hard by falling energy prices in 2008-9. Government spending had jumped, public sector pay greatly outpacing the rest of the country. Then, the Alberta government saw a projected $8.5-billion surplus evaporate, and instead posted a $1.4-billion deficit. The government responded to the recession by joining the worldwide consensus in favour of stimulative spending.
The timing may be correct for the start of the, 2008-09 but they fail to mention the numerous other issues that many people had at that time with the government Ed Stelmach, oil royalties, the 30% pay raise, land use laws, and a gov't that appeared to run out of ideas.
The Conservative record on fiscal policy, then, is the central issue in the current campaign.
Thanks Toronto for telling Alberta what the "central" issue of the campaign "is" and get it completely wrong. How did Alberta ever make it this far without you. Oh and I would say it is the incompetence, arrogance and abandonment of anything remotely conservative by the present government that is the issue; fiscal policy is part of that but hardly the 'central issue'.
Wildrose has been campaigning with a “debt clock” and has launched fierce rhetorical attacks over Conservative “mismanagement.” Its leader, Ms. Smith, is an effective communicator and a fresh face, but there’s little fresh in Wildrose’s response on fiscal policy; many of its ideas come from the halcyon era of King Ralph. In the 1990s, Progressive Conservative premier Ralph Klein was a leader among Canada’s first ministers in deficit reduction. His government introduced balanced budget legislation in 1995. By 2004, he was able to announce that Alberta was “debt-free” and, awash with energy royalties, his government awarded Albertans a $400 “prosperity bonus” (popularly known as “Ralph bucks”).
Imagine that, Albertans happy with a government that does not spend more money than it has. Pure insanity! (you have to remember the G&M is from Ontario and the concept is totally foreign to them out there. They did did endorse McGuinty after all) Also notice how they mention that Ralph passed balanced budget legislation but fail to mention how Stelmach, with Redford in his cabinet, rescinded that law?
For its part, Wildrose promises to restore the balanced budget legislation, and – yes – to pay Albertans energy dividends, now called “Dani dollars.” The party projects these payments as totalling $12,000 for an Alberta family of four over the next eight years. As for Alison Redford, she has been the Premier for only six months, but is answerable for one budget, which saw nearly every ministry receive increases; health-care spending went up by 7 per cent. More restraint should have been shown.
They get something correct, more restraint should have been shown but this gov't cannot seem to cut anything, ever.
Even with such increases, defended as necessary in a province that leads the country in population growth, the Conservative budget still projects Alberta’s deficit will be eliminated in 2013-14, with a $5.2-billion surplus in 2014-15. This will be achieved without any new taxes, or even any user fee increases. Instead, Alberta will accomplish it from an expanding tax base through population increases and resource royalties expected to nearly double from 2011-15.
We lead in per capita spending, even with that population growth, but do not lead in results/value for money. We have heard the deficit promises before and the reality is that the PC's have not lived up to them. The Stelmach gov't promised that we would ALREADY be out of deficit and "back in the black before the Redford budget was even written, and the promise of a 400 million surplus by next year has been blown out of the water with Redford's 7 billion dollars in un-budgeted election spending promises. As for the numerous claims about no tax increases, that has also proven to be nothing but a lie as the education portion of our property taxes has already been increased.
The Conservatives have signalled their intent to save more, not just by replenishing the rainy day Sustainability Fund that was used to maintain Alberta’s debt-free status, but possibly also to build up the Heritage Fund. As a TD analysis of the budget put it, “having to make a choice between saving for tomorrow or spending today is a challenge that other provinces in Canada could only dream of.”
Wildrose’s message of change, then, is concerned less with what Alberta can be, than with what Alberta was. It is a political response to a fiscal dilemma that has all the trappings of a failure of confidence. Canada needs Alberta to step up, not step back. The Conservatives have ruled for a very long time, but they have a new leader and are the party that speaks for the best kind of change. It is time for a big Alberta on the national stage.
Yes Redford did more than signal an intent to put more money into those funds she made a promise. A forgotten one because if she was to put the promised 4-5 billion dollars/year into the Heritage and
Sustainability funds, how would a 5 billion dollar surplus be possible in 2014-15 as she has also promised? It can't be both, unless you are the G&M and then anything Redford says is gospel even if reality says otherwise. The next part of this paragraph again goes into the big bag of PC rhetoric and pulls out the loaded terms 'can be' vs 'was', 'step up' or 'step back' as if there really was a time machine that could take us back. The reality is there is ONLY the future and if that future is a choice between the fiscal responsibility of Klein vs the incompetence of a McGuinty (who the Globe and Mail also endorsed) than I think the majority of people would go with Klein way. BTW the WIldrose promises not only balanced budgets and also contributing to both the sustainability and Heritage Trust funds but also a surplus as well. More inconvenient truths left out of the Globe and Mail fluff piece endorsement of the tired PC government and Redford.
It is clear that the Globe and Mail are not the biggest fans of the Wildrose, in fact they were forced to change 2 very misleading headlines ( which they did without ever acknowledging the changes or their
Friday, April 13, 2012
The "Real Wildrose" Attack site: Is it the work of Sandra Jansen's campaign manager?
Politics in Alberta has taken a nasty turn of late as the floundering Progressive Conservatives led by Alison Redford having collapsed in polls lash out at Danielle Smith and the Wildrose; this after numerous claims by Redford, both before and during the election, that the PC's were going to take the high road and run a clean campaign.
It has become a campaign of smear and fear mongering with the target being the Wildrose, the only party that stands in the way of a another PC victory in Alberta, and numerous 'sock puppet' twitter accounts have appeared which have no purpose other than to lie, smear, spread fear, and even libel the Wildrose. One such twitter account is called "WiltedRose" and the average tweet reads similiar to the following made April 12 at 4:31
"@drryancarter @heather4mla she took a bribe (http://realwildrose.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/paid-to-cross-the-floor/) & lied about it (http://realwildrose.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/anderson-and-forsyth-lying/). #wrp can not be trusted. #abvote"
Pure BS, probably libelous, and is just one of many tweets of similiar nature that have been posted from this account.
The profile page of "WiltedRose" provides no real information as to its author other than a link to a WordPress blog called "Real Wild Rose" which is much of the same fear mongering as the twitter account but providing the author more than 140 characters to do so. Again there is no information openly listed on the blog as to its author, political affiliations (if any), or anything else of an identifiable nature.
Did you notice that I wrote the words "openly listed"?
Sandra Janson, she of CTV Newsnet fame, is running for the PC's in the riding of Calgary-North-West in what is sure to be a tough race if the polls are anywhere near accurate. Her campaign manager is a fellow named Piotr Pilarski, who already has quite the twitter presence of his own, and is well known in Alberta political circles having been part of both Redford's and Doug Griffiths' campaign for the PC leadership.
Different browser, from page 1 of same PPT.
Could the ppilarski who "last modified" or "last saved" these pages be the same P Pilarski who manages Sandra Jansen's campaign? The one who Doug Griffiths said "really wanted a splashy campaign," when referring to his leadership run?
I don't know but Pilarski did tweet on Thursday afternoon: "@TheInvisibleDan @Albertaardvark @wiltedroseparty not my blog guys, sorry. #abvote" to a question asking if realwildrose.wordpress.com was his, but that was before the debate and before knowing that someone had found the name ppilarski attached to the attack site.
I guess I will have to ask him again, and also ask Sandra Jansen if she thinks these types of things are appropriate in a so called 'clean campaign.
Updated: Peter Pilarski responds in the comments:
Thanks Alberta Ardvark.
Like I’ve told you before, I can say with confidence that I did not create this blog. The document you question is something that was sent to me early in the year; I forwarded it to all the PCs I knew. After all, if you had your opponents strategy wouldn’t you do the same? The document I have sent has hit hundreds of inboxes since January (the date in which your screenshots show my “last modification”).
Also for anyone that has managed a provincial campaign and worked a full time job you know there is no way I would have time to put into a site like this one. There are not enough hours in my day.
And lastly for those of you that follow me on Twitter you know I say what is on my mind and don’t back down. If I were to do something like this you would know it was me. I don’t believe in hiding behind fake accounts or secret blogs. You all know my opinions and how I feel. I put it out there and I don’t apologize for it.
So no, this blog isn’t mine. Nice try though.
PP
It has become a campaign of smear and fear mongering with the target being the Wildrose, the only party that stands in the way of a another PC victory in Alberta, and numerous 'sock puppet' twitter accounts have appeared which have no purpose other than to lie, smear, spread fear, and even libel the Wildrose. One such twitter account is called "WiltedRose" and the average tweet reads similiar to the following made April 12 at 4:31
Pure BS, probably libelous, and is just one of many tweets of similiar nature that have been posted from this account.
The profile page of "WiltedRose" provides no real information as to its author other than a link to a WordPress blog called "Real Wild Rose" which is much of the same fear mongering as the twitter account but providing the author more than 140 characters to do so. Again there is no information openly listed on the blog as to its author, political affiliations (if any), or anything else of an identifiable nature.
Did you notice that I wrote the words "openly listed"?
Sandra Janson, she of CTV Newsnet fame, is running for the PC's in the riding of Calgary-North-West in what is sure to be a tough race if the polls are anywhere near accurate. Her campaign manager is a fellow named Piotr Pilarski, who already has quite the twitter presence of his own, and is well known in Alberta political circles having been part of both Redford's and Doug Griffiths' campaign for the PC leadership.
From the WordPress Blog "Real Wild Rose" / "The Party" / "WRP Weapons of war"/ comes a link to a Power Point file = http://realwildrose.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/wrp-weapons-of-war.ppt
Click on properties and what do you see...
Different browser, from page 1 of same PPT.
Could the ppilarski who "last modified" or "last saved" these pages be the same P Pilarski who manages Sandra Jansen's campaign? The one who Doug Griffiths said "really wanted a splashy campaign," when referring to his leadership run?
I don't know but Pilarski did tweet on Thursday afternoon: "@TheInvisibleDan @Albertaardvark @wiltedroseparty not my blog guys, sorry. #abvote" to a question asking if realwildrose.wordpress.com was his, but that was before the debate and before knowing that someone had found the name ppilarski attached to the attack site.
I guess I will have to ask him again, and also ask Sandra Jansen if she thinks these types of things are appropriate in a so called 'clean campaign.
Updated: Peter Pilarski responds in the comments:
Thanks Alberta Ardvark.
Like I’ve told you before, I can say with confidence that I did not create this blog. The document you question is something that was sent to me early in the year; I forwarded it to all the PCs I knew. After all, if you had your opponents strategy wouldn’t you do the same? The document I have sent has hit hundreds of inboxes since January (the date in which your screenshots show my “last modification”).
Also for anyone that has managed a provincial campaign and worked a full time job you know there is no way I would have time to put into a site like this one. There are not enough hours in my day.
And lastly for those of you that follow me on Twitter you know I say what is on my mind and don’t back down. If I were to do something like this you would know it was me. I don’t believe in hiding behind fake accounts or secret blogs. You all know my opinions and how I feel. I put it out there and I don’t apologize for it.
So no, this blog isn’t mine. Nice try though.
PP
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
How did Edmonton-McClung MLA David Xiao rack up so many kilometers driving to work in Edmonton?
Updated December 5th, 2012 (see bottom of page) with April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 figures.
Edmonton-McClung MLA David Xiao likes to drive. He likes to drive so much that we taxpayers have spent $29,135 dollars on “kilometer reimbursement" to cover his driving costs for 2008-2010.
Xiao was elected to his first term as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Edmonton-McClung on March 3, 2008. In addition to his role as an MLA, David serves as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transportation and is a member of the Cabinet Policy Committee on Finance.
In 2009-2010 Xiao billed the taxpayers for 35,182 kms and the year before that 31,796 kms. We still don’t know much he charged for 2010-2011 he won’t tell us and the Redford government won’t release the data.
But we do know that in those two years $29,135 of taxpayer money went to David for mileage (43.5 cents per Km).
How did he do it? Thanks to Google maps we will see if we can figure out how an Edmonton MLA managed to rack up so many kilometers.
His house is less than 3km from his constituency office, and his constituency office is less than 14 kms from the Legislature. So if David drove from home to his constituency office and then to the Legislature and back every day he would do just under 34Km per day.
Unfortunately 34 goes into 31796 over 930 times and there are less than 260 work days in a year.
Hmmm.
Maybe David went home for lunch every day…
and 2 coffee breaks…
every single working day of the year.
So 260 days times 3 trips times 34Kms is only 26,520km…
Hmm David must have taken the scenic route, after all Edmonton is such a lovely city.
We will ignore that he really only needs to go to the Legislature maybe 100 days a year and assume that he went there every day – 3 times.
Now, I know what you’re thinking… SO he fudged a bit on his mileage…
I mean the government only gives him 43.5 cents a kilometer and gas is expensive. This isn’t too too excessive.
There is just one problem…
You see David buys his premium gas using a government credit card. That’s right. He gets 40cents a km on top of FREE gas. The 66000 kms using premium gas cost the taxpayer --and not David-- another approximately $14,000 in those two years.
Oh, did I mention that the government also pays for his windshield washer fluid and oil changes…
It is time to stop the PC gravy train. It is time to vote Wildrose.
Update: David Xiao for April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 billed $34,390 to the taxpayer for mileage. link
As far as I am aware the Alberta Legislature has not moved locations and remains in his riding.
Edmonton-McClung MLA David Xiao likes to drive. He likes to drive so much that we taxpayers have spent $29,135 dollars on “kilometer reimbursement" to cover his driving costs for 2008-2010.
Xiao was elected to his first term as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Edmonton-McClung on March 3, 2008. In addition to his role as an MLA, David serves as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transportation and is a member of the Cabinet Policy Committee on Finance.
In 2009-2010 Xiao billed the taxpayers for 35,182 kms and the year before that 31,796 kms. We still don’t know much he charged for 2010-2011 he won’t tell us and the Redford government won’t release the data.
But we do know that in those two years $29,135 of taxpayer money went to David for mileage (43.5 cents per Km).
How did he do it? Thanks to Google maps we will see if we can figure out how an Edmonton MLA managed to rack up so many kilometers.
His house is less than 3km from his constituency office, and his constituency office is less than 14 kms from the Legislature. So if David drove from home to his constituency office and then to the Legislature and back every day he would do just under 34Km per day.
Unfortunately 34 goes into 31796 over 930 times and there are less than 260 work days in a year.
Hmmm.
Maybe David went home for lunch every day…
and 2 coffee breaks…
every single working day of the year.
So 260 days times 3 trips times 34Kms is only 26,520km…
Hmm David must have taken the scenic route, after all Edmonton is such a lovely city.
We will ignore that he really only needs to go to the Legislature maybe 100 days a year and assume that he went there every day – 3 times.
Now, I know what you’re thinking… SO he fudged a bit on his mileage…
I mean the government only gives him 43.5 cents a kilometer and gas is expensive. This isn’t too too excessive.
There is just one problem…
You see David buys his premium gas using a government credit card. That’s right. He gets 40cents a km on top of FREE gas. The 66000 kms using premium gas cost the taxpayer --and not David-- another approximately $14,000 in those two years.
Oh, did I mention that the government also pays for his windshield washer fluid and oil changes…
It is time to stop the PC gravy train. It is time to vote Wildrose.
-----
Update: David Xiao for April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 billed $34,390 to the taxpayer for mileage. link
As far as I am aware the Alberta Legislature has not moved locations and remains in his riding.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
The Alberta Liberal Party is "firmly opposed to the concept" of a Charter Right!
Updated.
Yes you read that correctly. The Alberta Liberal Party is "firmly opposed" to the concept of a specific charter right. In this case section 2.a of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
"The Alberta Liberals are firmly opposed to the concept of conscience rights, and are deeply disturbed by the Wildrose Party's suggestion that there is a place for such a repugnant and antiquated notion in contemporary Alberta."
This is not about certain instances of an individual expressing their freedom of conscience, and I do not want to even get into that here, this is about not just being opposed, but firmly opposed to the concept of an existing Charter right.
Now who are supposed to be the scary ones again?
Are they really opposed to the idea of it? I don't think so, it seems they are more likely to be the victim of a very poorly worded press release than actually against the concept of a charter right, but it did provide for some interesting discussion on the entire issue over the weekend.
Including a guest appearance from Justin Trudeau, whose father Pierre was instrumental in giving us our Constitution and Charter of Rights, and the weird part was that I was in agreement with him on both the Charter and the law.
The bottom line on all of this is that our Charter and our existing laws make all those claims that the Wildrose will somehow be able to take rights away due to conscience rights total BS. It hasn't happened in Alberta where someone has been denied a government service that they were entitled to and it will never happen because can't happen thanks to already existing laws.
Namely Section 15.1 of the Charter, and the law is very clear on this when it comes to individuals working on behalf of the government; they cannot discriminate.
And yes, that does include those that perform civil marriages. Because that is ALREADY the law of Canada and any law that is written that tries to change that will never survive a Charter challenge.
This is such a non issue I can't believe that sane people are buying the BS. It just will not happen.
Glad to go at it in the comments if you disagree but fair warning; the charter, the law and Justin Trudeau are on my side. ;-)
Yes you read that correctly. The Alberta Liberal Party is "firmly opposed" to the concept of a specific charter right. In this case section 2.a of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
- (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
- (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
- (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
- (d) freedom of association.
"The Alberta Liberals are firmly opposed to the concept of conscience rights, and are deeply disturbed by the Wildrose Party's suggestion that there is a place for such a repugnant and antiquated notion in contemporary Alberta."
This is not about certain instances of an individual expressing their freedom of conscience, and I do not want to even get into that here, this is about not just being opposed, but firmly opposed to the concept of an existing Charter right.
Now who are supposed to be the scary ones again?
Are they really opposed to the idea of it? I don't think so, it seems they are more likely to be the victim of a very poorly worded press release than actually against the concept of a charter right, but it did provide for some interesting discussion on the entire issue over the weekend.
Including a guest appearance from Justin Trudeau, whose father Pierre was instrumental in giving us our Constitution and Charter of Rights, and the weird part was that I was in agreement with him on both the Charter and the law.
The bottom line on all of this is that our Charter and our existing laws make all those claims that the Wildrose will somehow be able to take rights away due to conscience rights total BS. It hasn't happened in Alberta where someone has been denied a government service that they were entitled to and it will never happen because can't happen thanks to already existing laws.
Namely Section 15.1 of the Charter, and the law is very clear on this when it comes to individuals working on behalf of the government; they cannot discriminate.
And yes, that does include those that perform civil marriages. Because that is ALREADY the law of Canada and any law that is written that tries to change that will never survive a Charter challenge.
This is such a non issue I can't believe that sane people are buying the BS. It just will not happen.
Glad to go at it in the comments if you disagree but fair warning; the charter, the law and Justin Trudeau are on my side. ;-)
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Today's PC smear: Conscience rights. But what is the role of government?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
Our Charter provides us as individuals with certain rights, and is intended to protect us from any government passing laws infringing on those rights.
So would anyone who is currently aghast about the PC smear du jour of conscience rights and spinning that rights are going to be violated, why should anyone have to surrender their charter guaranteed right of freedom of conscience just because they happen to 'work' for the government? And that invitation also includes Premier Redford, a lawyer and 'human rights' expert, who called the conscience policy "frightening". Our charter is frightening? I don't think so but would be happy to hear you try to defend that and your playing politics with charter rights.
So now that we got that charter right business out of the way lets look at what the governments role in all of this is, or at least should be.
Someone is entitled to receive a 'government service'. They get that government service.
Done. That's it.
That is the role of government.
It isn't to force a specific individual to surrender his freedom of conscience by forcing them to perform that service, it is just to make sure that the service does get performed.
And that is why this isn't near the issue that it has been blown up to solely for political reasons. The truth is that no one has been denied a government 'service' because of conscience rights and everyone who has been entitled to be married has been given that opportunity and everyone who was entitled to any other government service has also received that service.
It just isn't happening and it hasn't happened for a long long time in Alberta and even then it they ended up getting the services they were due through the courts. Because that is what courts are for when it appears that rights collide.
Which incidentally is exactly what Danielle Smith said this morning.
"
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
- (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
- (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
- (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
- (d) freedom of association. "
Our Charter provides us as individuals with certain rights, and is intended to protect us from any government passing laws infringing on those rights.
So would anyone who is currently aghast about the PC smear du jour of conscience rights and spinning that rights are going to be violated, why should anyone have to surrender their charter guaranteed right of freedom of conscience just because they happen to 'work' for the government? And that invitation also includes Premier Redford, a lawyer and 'human rights' expert, who called the conscience policy "frightening". Our charter is frightening? I don't think so but would be happy to hear you try to defend that and your playing politics with charter rights.
So now that we got that charter right business out of the way lets look at what the governments role in all of this is, or at least should be.
Someone is entitled to receive a 'government service'. They get that government service.
Done. That's it.
That is the role of government.
It isn't to force a specific individual to surrender his freedom of conscience by forcing them to perform that service, it is just to make sure that the service does get performed.
And that is why this isn't near the issue that it has been blown up to solely for political reasons. The truth is that no one has been denied a government 'service' because of conscience rights and everyone who has been entitled to be married has been given that opportunity and everyone who was entitled to any other government service has also received that service.
It just isn't happening and it hasn't happened for a long long time in Alberta and even then it they ended up getting the services they were due through the courts. Because that is what courts are for when it appears that rights collide.
Which incidentally is exactly what Danielle Smith said this morning.
Monday, April 02, 2012
More policy on the fly from Redford: Family Care Clinics
Updated: see bottom of post!
Today Premier Redford announced if she is elected that 140 family care clinics will be created in Alberta over the next 3 yrs. Sounds wonderful but it looks like a desperation move and policy on the fly on her part for a number of reasons.
It was only a couple of weeks ago, March 22nd, that she announced 3 family care clinics that were to be built as a "pilot" project. What happened in 2 weeks to turn a small pilot project of 3 into 140?
The cost for the 3 was to be 15 million dollars, making the cost of 140 ( if you believe the gov't numbers which are almost ALWAYS wrong) to be 700 million dollars. 700 million dollars that were NOT in the budget and which will make Redford's promises on a surplus next year all but impossible to keep. ( Don't forget that pre-election spending spree of at least $182 million un-budgeted dollars as well)
Also, how does 700 billion in new spending fit into Bill 1, the 'results based' budgeting bill where all money spend was to be evaluated based on results? This was entirely possible with the 3 'pilot' clinics, but to jump to 140 without knowing if the results does not exactly fit with what Redford passed as law in Alberta.
And lastly and perhaps the most important of all: Where will all the doctors, nurses and other staff come from to staff these 140 clinics? We already have a known doctor shortage in this province and now with the gov't deciding to open 140 clinics, where will these doctors come from? Will they decide to close their private offices to work in a government run clinic, creating other problems? The same can be said about nurses, who currently find themselves often working short due to staff shortages in our existing hospitals and it is already creating undue stresses on the staff and the system. Where are we planning to get enough nurses to not only fix the existing shortages but also staff 140 new clinics?
It's more policy on the fly from a premier scrambling to stem the bad poll numbers with only 2 weeks to go before the election and the possible end of a 41 year political dynasty.
Update: Redford claims that the new clinics can be funded with existing money from AHS and will not cost any additional money. How is that even possible? You would have to reduce money going somewhere else and the PCs never cut anything so where would it come from, and that does not even get into the issue of staffing the new clinics unless of course they plan to move existing staff out of hospitals and into the clinics!!!
To put it nicely the claim that this will not cost any additional cash is BS.
Alberta Medical Association president Dr. Linda Slocombe: Tory party campaign promise also goes against the Health Quality Council of Alberta recommendation earlier this year that the government undertake no further major re-structuring of the health-care system without a clear rationale, a transition plan and consultation.
Wildrose press release on the issue.
Today Premier Redford announced if she is elected that 140 family care clinics will be created in Alberta over the next 3 yrs. Sounds wonderful but it looks like a desperation move and policy on the fly on her part for a number of reasons.
It was only a couple of weeks ago, March 22nd, that she announced 3 family care clinics that were to be built as a "pilot" project. What happened in 2 weeks to turn a small pilot project of 3 into 140?
The cost for the 3 was to be 15 million dollars, making the cost of 140 ( if you believe the gov't numbers which are almost ALWAYS wrong) to be 700 million dollars. 700 million dollars that were NOT in the budget and which will make Redford's promises on a surplus next year all but impossible to keep. ( Don't forget that pre-election spending spree of at least $182 million un-budgeted dollars as well)
Also, how does 700 billion in new spending fit into Bill 1, the 'results based' budgeting bill where all money spend was to be evaluated based on results? This was entirely possible with the 3 'pilot' clinics, but to jump to 140 without knowing if the results does not exactly fit with what Redford passed as law in Alberta.
And lastly and perhaps the most important of all: Where will all the doctors, nurses and other staff come from to staff these 140 clinics? We already have a known doctor shortage in this province and now with the gov't deciding to open 140 clinics, where will these doctors come from? Will they decide to close their private offices to work in a government run clinic, creating other problems? The same can be said about nurses, who currently find themselves often working short due to staff shortages in our existing hospitals and it is already creating undue stresses on the staff and the system. Where are we planning to get enough nurses to not only fix the existing shortages but also staff 140 new clinics?
It's more policy on the fly from a premier scrambling to stem the bad poll numbers with only 2 weeks to go before the election and the possible end of a 41 year political dynasty.
Update: Redford claims that the new clinics can be funded with existing money from AHS and will not cost any additional money. How is that even possible? You would have to reduce money going somewhere else and the PCs never cut anything so where would it come from, and that does not even get into the issue of staffing the new clinics unless of course they plan to move existing staff out of hospitals and into the clinics!!!
To put it nicely the claim that this will not cost any additional cash is BS.
Alberta Medical Association president Dr. Linda Slocombe: Tory party campaign promise also goes against the Health Quality Council of Alberta recommendation earlier this year that the government undertake no further major re-structuring of the health-care system without a clear rationale, a transition plan and consultation.
Wildrose press release on the issue.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
The facts on Alberta, the PC Party and electricity.
Seen your power bill lately? Wondering about why the PCs plan on spending billions of dollars, which WILL increase your power bill in the future, on new power lines? Interested in knowing the real facts on electricity in Alberta?
If you are interested, and even if your not, I suggest that you take some time, sit back and watch the following videos of a recent presentation from Joe Anglin on the subject. The 6 videos total about 1&1/2 hr in length ; watch them all at once or one at a time, but they are definitely worth watching and will open up your eyes to what is really going on here in Alberta. This is important and it does effect every person and business on Alberta.
1 (if you are having problems watching the videos here try this link)
2
3
4
5
6
Bonus video. Minister of Transportation, Luke Ouellette, and Minister of Sustainable Resource Development actually flew down to southern Alberta on tax dollars to bully their way onto the stage of one of Joe Anglin's presentations on electricity!
A must read on the subject. RETA: Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans.
If you are interested, and even if your not, I suggest that you take some time, sit back and watch the following videos of a recent presentation from Joe Anglin on the subject. The 6 videos total about 1&1/2 hr in length ; watch them all at once or one at a time, but they are definitely worth watching and will open up your eyes to what is really going on here in Alberta. This is important and it does effect every person and business on Alberta.
1 (if you are having problems watching the videos here try this link)
2
3
4
5
6
Bonus video. Minister of Transportation, Luke Ouellette, and Minister of Sustainable Resource Development actually flew down to southern Alberta on tax dollars to bully their way onto the stage of one of Joe Anglin's presentations on electricity!
A must read on the subject. RETA: Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Could 1 single tweet be the final nail into the Alberta PC coffin?
The tweet: “If @ElectDanielle likes young and growing families so much, why doesn’t she have children of her own? #wrp family pack = insincere” – Amanda Wilkie, "Executive Assistant to the Executive Director of the Office of the Premier (Southern Alberta Office)". March 30, 2012 (via Twitter).
The response:
March 31, 2012 (Calgary, AB): Today Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith issued the following statement in response to comments made by a Staffer in Premier Redford’s Calgary office regarding the Wildrose Family Pack.
“In the last day the question has been raised about why I don’t have children of my own. When David and I married in 2006 we intended to have children together. After a few years we sought help from the Calgary Regional Fertility Clinic. I appreciated the support and assistance of the caring staff as we went through tests and treatments, but in the end we were not successful.
“I consider myself very fortunate to have a terrific stepson, Jonathan, David’s son from a previous marriage. I am also blessed to have grown up in a large family with four siblings who have given me the opportunity to be the auntie of 5 terrific nieces and nephews: Emily, Sam, Chloe, Seyenna and Logan.
“Family is very important to me and I consider this to be a very personal matter. I will not be commenting on it further.”
-----------
Say goodbye to the positive campaign: Redford:“We’re working really hard to make it a positive campaign & we’re going to keep doing that." as there is no spinning that one anymore and the PCs might want to think twice about the "scary" "angry" Wildrose meme they are using as well.
After the poor last few weeks the PCs had and now this, which will be covered by ALL the media, there will be no recovery.
It's over.
The response:
March 31, 2012 (Calgary, AB): Today Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith issued the following statement in response to comments made by a Staffer in Premier Redford’s Calgary office regarding the Wildrose Family Pack.
“In the last day the question has been raised about why I don’t have children of my own. When David and I married in 2006 we intended to have children together. After a few years we sought help from the Calgary Regional Fertility Clinic. I appreciated the support and assistance of the caring staff as we went through tests and treatments, but in the end we were not successful.
“I consider myself very fortunate to have a terrific stepson, Jonathan, David’s son from a previous marriage. I am also blessed to have grown up in a large family with four siblings who have given me the opportunity to be the auntie of 5 terrific nieces and nephews: Emily, Sam, Chloe, Seyenna and Logan.
“Family is very important to me and I consider this to be a very personal matter. I will not be commenting on it further.”
-----------
Say goodbye to the positive campaign: Redford:“We’re working really hard to make it a positive campaign & we’re going to keep doing that." as there is no spinning that one anymore and the PCs might want to think twice about the "scary" "angry" Wildrose meme they are using as well.
After the poor last few weeks the PCs had and now this, which will be covered by ALL the media, there will be no recovery.
It's over.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Redford flip flops again. Desperation on committee pay issue boils over.
Premier Redford has flip flopped again on the committee pay issue as she announced today that PC MLAs on the infamous no-meet committee MUST pay back all the money they were paid.
A sad history of Redford's so called "real life leadership" on the issue:
Story breaks March 8th and Redford claims she that she was unaware of the situation: "I did not know," she said “This, to me, is a ridiculous situation. It isn’t the way Albertans want politicians to be paid." "It is not right"
March 9th: The truth comes out and she gets caught in a lie when we learn that she sat on that very same committee from Oct 09 until Feb 2010.
March 11th: Avoiding any leadership, Redford says that it is up to each individual member of her caucus to give back money they were paid for being on a committee that failed to meet for 39 months. “It’s a personal decision,” She will NOT make anyone pay the money back.
March 12th: The first big flip flop as Redford changes her mind and announces that it is no longer is a personal decision and that pay for committee work has been suspended for Tory members.
Also worth noting is that Redford called opposition MLAs giving the money back a "stunt" "I find it terribly interesting that a number of people in this house, who today have come up with a convenient stunt to try and polarize an issue, are people who were fully aware of what they were receiving for payment and did nothing about it until today, we will do exactly what I've committed to doing, which is to have an independent commission make a recommendation to not only how government members are paid, but all members in the legislature.
March 20th: Under pressure PC MLAs ( but not all of them) announce that they will be giving back pay from no-meet committee, but only 6 months worth, the time which Redford was Premier. On which Redford said "I can't revisit the past,"
March 26th: Writ dropped and election called. PC use smear poll to find out why they are losing voters by the thousands.
March 27th: Redford goes all revisionist history and says that: "And I say again, I was the first person to identify (the committee) as an issue, and as soon as I became leader I took steps to correct it." This in spite of her not knowing a thing about the committee back on the 9th.
March 29th: Redford flip flops on her flip flop and orders her MLA's to return the money. Forgetting that there are PC MLAs from that committee who will not ever pay back a single penny. (Snelgrove and Prins anyone?) and that she really does not have the authority to make these changes. Its a Hail Mary but I believe the public won't buy it and will see it for the desperate political stunt that it is.
March 30th: Dissension in the ranks. Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills MLA Richard Marz is not too happy with the way the Premier has handled this and questions why she should pay back some of the 30% (34% actually) that Redford voted to give herself in 2008.
Which brings up the question: If Redford's cabinet gets $3,500/month in lieu of committee pay, why shouldn't they return some of it?
Previously:
PC MLA Genia Leskiw on the no-meet committee:
Previous posts on the no-meet committee can be found here and here.
A sad history of Redford's so called "real life leadership" on the issue:
Story breaks March 8th and Redford claims she that she was unaware of the situation: "I did not know," she said “This, to me, is a ridiculous situation. It isn’t the way Albertans want politicians to be paid." "It is not right"
March 9th: The truth comes out and she gets caught in a lie when we learn that she sat on that very same committee from Oct 09 until Feb 2010.
March 11th: Avoiding any leadership, Redford says that it is up to each individual member of her caucus to give back money they were paid for being on a committee that failed to meet for 39 months. “It’s a personal decision,” She will NOT make anyone pay the money back.
March 12th: The first big flip flop as Redford changes her mind and announces that it is no longer is a personal decision and that pay for committee work has been suspended for Tory members.
Also worth noting is that Redford called opposition MLAs giving the money back a "stunt" "I find it terribly interesting that a number of people in this house, who today have come up with a convenient stunt to try and polarize an issue, are people who were fully aware of what they were receiving for payment and did nothing about it until today, we will do exactly what I've committed to doing, which is to have an independent commission make a recommendation to not only how government members are paid, but all members in the legislature.
March 20th: Under pressure PC MLAs ( but not all of them) announce that they will be giving back pay from no-meet committee, but only 6 months worth, the time which Redford was Premier. On which Redford said "I can't revisit the past,"
March 26th: Writ dropped and election called. PC use smear poll to find out why they are losing voters by the thousands.
March 27th: Redford goes all revisionist history and says that: "And I say again, I was the first person to identify (the committee) as an issue, and as soon as I became leader I took steps to correct it." This in spite of her not knowing a thing about the committee back on the 9th.
March 29th: Redford flip flops on her flip flop and orders her MLA's to return the money. Forgetting that there are PC MLAs from that committee who will not ever pay back a single penny. (Snelgrove and Prins anyone?) and that she really does not have the authority to make these changes. Its a Hail Mary but I believe the public won't buy it and will see it for the desperate political stunt that it is.
March 30th: Dissension in the ranks. Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills MLA Richard Marz is not too happy with the way the Premier has handled this and questions why she should pay back some of the 30% (34% actually) that Redford voted to give herself in 2008.
Which brings up the question: If Redford's cabinet gets $3,500/month in lieu of committee pay, why shouldn't they return some of it?
Previously:
PC MLA Genia Leskiw on the no-meet committee:
Previous posts on the no-meet committee can be found here and here.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Redford's PC's, illegal donations, the culture of corruption and the rules written to hide it all.
I have written before on a couple of specific incidences of the Alberta Progressive Conservatives being on the receiving end of illegal donations and how Redford tried to spin it by blaming the donors rather than her own party for cashing the cheques, but with new revelations this past week and with Elections Alberta revealing that they had found 23 instances of illegal donations and have opened 73 files on the matter, it is time to revisit the issue again and shine more light onto the culture of corruption created by the ruling PCs and the rules which they wrote to hide it all from YOU.
The latest from Elections Alberta: 'Alberta’s chief electoral officer has found 23 cases where improper donations to political parties and constituency associations were made by municipalities and other public bodies.'
'Elections Alberta also reported a significant jump in cases that have been reviewed or are under review. There are now 73 files, compared to 53 cases two weeks ago.'
'All public cases known to have been referred to Elections Alberta for investigation have involved the ruling Progressive Conservatives.'
This type of thing has been going on for years in Alberta politics. It is a symptom of a one party state and is what happens when ANY party has unlimited majority power for over 40 years with the PC's being the beneficiary of the culture of corruption they have created by instilling the idea that in order to get provincial grants/money one has to play the game and contribute to the long ruling PCAA. Think I am kidding or going over the top on this? Well perhaps you might want to read about what happened openly at a political forum in Rimbey Alberta back in October 2010 before passing judgement:
Mayor Dale Barr and his incumbent councillors had to answer at an election forum Oct. 6 for attending Progressive Conservative party functions with taxpayer’s dollars. “I would like to know how you would have thought, for one second, that it was okay to take money out of my pocket and support the political party of your choice?” Levi Blackmore asked.
Barr explained the town has to spend money to make money. Attending these functions benefited the town; and Rimbey attended them because other municipalities were also attending the Premier’s Dinners and golf tournaments to become friendly with government members."
“In the last three years Rimbey has gotten approximately $15 million in additional funding that wasn’t coming our way. You figure it out from the dollars that were spent on theses functions, it works out to .05 per cent. That’s a fifth of one per cent was spent to get over $15 million worth,” added incumbent Wayne Clark.
Unbelievable. A mayor and a councillor publicly say that using tax dollar to attend partisan PC functions is an investment because that is how it is done in Alberta! If that isn't the smoking gun to prove a culture of corruption exists in our one party state, I don't know what would be. (But just in case here are a couple of links to recent events of the PC's putting their foot down on those that dare question the PC party: AUMA Fiasco, Holy Family Catholic School Division, and do I really need to bring up intimidation of our doctors and nurses?)
The rules on political donations are clear so there is no need to go over them again but here is something that I bet few Albertans are aware of: Elections Alberta is explicitly forbidden by legislation from revealing any details about these investigations including who made the donation, which party received the money, who was found at fault and how much they’ve been penalized for breaking the rules. In other words, the legislation written by the PC's and which is now protecting the PC's from public scrutiny, prevents you, the public, from finding out who broke the rules, and the worst part is that Premier Redford is 100% in support of this nonsense! Redford said the laws are about “maintaining the integrity and independence” of the Chief Electoral Officer, What a load of tripe from Redford! I can understand why it is not a good idea for Elections Alberta to discuss unproven allegations or even investigations in progress but there is no reason, other than to protect politicians, that the results of these investigations should ever be kept secret from Albertans, the ones that all of government, including Elections Alberta are here to serve. Sorry Premier, but hiding the facts from Albertans is not real life leadership, not even close.
Before I wrap this up I would like to touch on one last thing and that is Redford's spin on this entire matter. As I wrote back in January, Redford and the PCs have taken to blaming the donor rather than her party, who happily took the money and cashed the cheques, in a sad attempt to deflect and make themselves look better.
Redford: "and we are going to have no part in any kind of practice or procedure that would suggest that that was acceptable." and "Municipal leaders, who are also elected by their communities, have a responsibility to follow the rules. There is no doubt that auditors who are in place understand the rules, and I fully expect that everyone who is elected and fully engaged in auditing should understand the rules well enough to make sure that these things aren’t happening."
All sounds well and good but how can she explain it when PC party members Steve Christie, the current PC candidate for Lacombe-Ponoka who also happens to be the Mayor of Lacombe as well as past(?) president of their local PCAA board, and Carol Lund, president of the Athabasca-Redwater Conservative riding association and Athabasca University’s University Secretary, responsible for its policies, including conflict of interest, both were responsible for illegal donations making their way to the PC party.
Christie: (claimed $500 for a Progressive Conservative fundraiser as a municipal expense) “As past president of the Lacombe-Ponoka PC association, I definitely knew the rules,” he said. “It’s definitely there in black and white and my signature is on it.”
Lund: (personally signed off on several requisitions for Tory fundraisers, including for the Athabasca-Redwater riding association. Lund also actively recruited university executives to attend these functions.)
BTW: CBC has done a great job following the money from Athabasca University to the PC's and it is well worth the time to check out the actual paper work here.
Now what was it Redford said again about elected officials and those responsible for auditing knowing the rules and the PC's not having any part in anything that would suggest that this type of thing was acceptable?
For all of our sakes this tired party and the culture of corruption which it sowed and reaped the benefits of has to go, and go soon. Albertans deserve so much better than this.
The latest from Elections Alberta: 'Alberta’s chief electoral officer has found 23 cases where improper donations to political parties and constituency associations were made by municipalities and other public bodies.'
'Elections Alberta also reported a significant jump in cases that have been reviewed or are under review. There are now 73 files, compared to 53 cases two weeks ago.'
'All public cases known to have been referred to Elections Alberta for investigation have involved the ruling Progressive Conservatives.'
This type of thing has been going on for years in Alberta politics. It is a symptom of a one party state and is what happens when ANY party has unlimited majority power for over 40 years with the PC's being the beneficiary of the culture of corruption they have created by instilling the idea that in order to get provincial grants/money one has to play the game and contribute to the long ruling PCAA. Think I am kidding or going over the top on this? Well perhaps you might want to read about what happened openly at a political forum in Rimbey Alberta back in October 2010 before passing judgement:
Mayor Dale Barr and his incumbent councillors had to answer at an election forum Oct. 6 for attending Progressive Conservative party functions with taxpayer’s dollars. “I would like to know how you would have thought, for one second, that it was okay to take money out of my pocket and support the political party of your choice?” Levi Blackmore asked.
Barr explained the town has to spend money to make money. Attending these functions benefited the town; and Rimbey attended them because other municipalities were also attending the Premier’s Dinners and golf tournaments to become friendly with government members."
“In the last three years Rimbey has gotten approximately $15 million in additional funding that wasn’t coming our way. You figure it out from the dollars that were spent on theses functions, it works out to .05 per cent. That’s a fifth of one per cent was spent to get over $15 million worth,” added incumbent Wayne Clark.
Unbelievable. A mayor and a councillor publicly say that using tax dollar to attend partisan PC functions is an investment because that is how it is done in Alberta! If that isn't the smoking gun to prove a culture of corruption exists in our one party state, I don't know what would be. (But just in case here are a couple of links to recent events of the PC's putting their foot down on those that dare question the PC party: AUMA Fiasco, Holy Family Catholic School Division, and do I really need to bring up intimidation of our doctors and nurses?)
The rules on political donations are clear so there is no need to go over them again but here is something that I bet few Albertans are aware of: Elections Alberta is explicitly forbidden by legislation from revealing any details about these investigations including who made the donation, which party received the money, who was found at fault and how much they’ve been penalized for breaking the rules. In other words, the legislation written by the PC's and which is now protecting the PC's from public scrutiny, prevents you, the public, from finding out who broke the rules, and the worst part is that Premier Redford is 100% in support of this nonsense! Redford said the laws are about “maintaining the integrity and independence” of the Chief Electoral Officer, What a load of tripe from Redford! I can understand why it is not a good idea for Elections Alberta to discuss unproven allegations or even investigations in progress but there is no reason, other than to protect politicians, that the results of these investigations should ever be kept secret from Albertans, the ones that all of government, including Elections Alberta are here to serve. Sorry Premier, but hiding the facts from Albertans is not real life leadership, not even close.
Redford: "and we are going to have no part in any kind of practice or procedure that would suggest that that was acceptable." and "Municipal leaders, who are also elected by their communities, have a responsibility to follow the rules. There is no doubt that auditors who are in place understand the rules, and I fully expect that everyone who is elected and fully engaged in auditing should understand the rules well enough to make sure that these things aren’t happening."
All sounds well and good but how can she explain it when PC party members Steve Christie, the current PC candidate for Lacombe-Ponoka who also happens to be the Mayor of Lacombe as well as past(?) president of their local PCAA board, and Carol Lund, president of the Athabasca-Redwater Conservative riding association and Athabasca University’s University Secretary, responsible for its policies, including conflict of interest, both were responsible for illegal donations making their way to the PC party.
Christie: (claimed $500 for a Progressive Conservative fundraiser as a municipal expense) “As past president of the Lacombe-Ponoka PC association, I definitely knew the rules,” he said. “It’s definitely there in black and white and my signature is on it.”
Lund: (personally signed off on several requisitions for Tory fundraisers, including for the Athabasca-Redwater riding association. Lund also actively recruited university executives to attend these functions.)
BTW: CBC has done a great job following the money from Athabasca University to the PC's and it is well worth the time to check out the actual paper work here.
Now what was it Redford said again about elected officials and those responsible for auditing knowing the rules and the PC's not having any part in anything that would suggest that this type of thing was acceptable?
For all of our sakes this tired party and the culture of corruption which it sowed and reaped the benefits of has to go, and go soon. Albertans deserve so much better than this.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Fun and games in Alberta politics leads to some serious questions ...
As Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk tweeted early this morning: "We are such an interesting province for politics." in reference to the Rob Anderson parking lot incident that seemed to not only consume the PC cheerleaders who are desperate for anything at all to talk about, but for our media as well who were all over the story and it was fun and games in Alberta politics. But when the dust settled some serious questions emerged.
Who tipped off the media?
Recreating the timeline from media reports here is what we know:
The incident occurred Tuesday night at approx 7:30 PM in the parking lot at the Alberta Legislature.
On Wednesday the incident was known to the press who then spoke with Anderson about it.
But who tipped off the press?
This from The Edmonton Sun: "Solicitor-General Jonathan Denis said Wednesday he was aware there had been a parking issue. "I had heard outside that Mr. Anderson had an issue with parking in the premier's parking spot,"
This from the CBC: 'Solicitor General Jonathan Denis says Anderson was the aggressor in this case, according to the report filed by the sheriff.'
This from the Edmonton Journal: 'Solicitor General Jonathan Denis informed media Wednesday morning about the incident,...'
Now isn't that interesting. Our Solicitor General, Jonathan Denis who is in charge of our Alberta's Sheriffs, apparently was the one who informed the media. But why would he do so? What made this event so special that it was even brought to the attention of the Solicitor General in the first place, considering no charges were laid or fines issued, and even if it was brought to his attention was it appropriate or common practice to tip off the media about details which IMHO should have been confidential?
While I doubt that I we will get any answers to those questions, as it appears to be just some of those Alberta political games being played where someone has a gotcha moment over an opponent, buried in the Journal story is this very interesting line that calls for more than just a simple answer:
'... the sheriff said in her incident report, obtained by the Journal.'
Yes, you read that right. The Sheriffs incident report, that we know from media reports that the Solicitor General had himself read, was somehow obtained by the Journal from someone within the building which not only houses the Alberta Legislature, but also the offices of the Solicitor General who has ministerial responsibility over our Alberta Sheriffs.
So now a more important question:
Minister Denis, are you planning to investigate who leaked the sheriffs incident report to the press and how such a leak occurred under your very nose from within the building in which you work?
This is not fun and games anymore.
Who tipped off the media?
Recreating the timeline from media reports here is what we know:
The incident occurred Tuesday night at approx 7:30 PM in the parking lot at the Alberta Legislature.
On Wednesday the incident was known to the press who then spoke with Anderson about it.
But who tipped off the press?
This from The Edmonton Sun: "Solicitor-General Jonathan Denis said Wednesday he was aware there had been a parking issue. "I had heard outside that Mr. Anderson had an issue with parking in the premier's parking spot,"
This from the CBC: 'Solicitor General Jonathan Denis says Anderson was the aggressor in this case, according to the report filed by the sheriff.'
This from the Edmonton Journal: 'Solicitor General Jonathan Denis informed media Wednesday morning about the incident,...'
Now isn't that interesting. Our Solicitor General, Jonathan Denis who is in charge of our Alberta's Sheriffs, apparently was the one who informed the media. But why would he do so? What made this event so special that it was even brought to the attention of the Solicitor General in the first place, considering no charges were laid or fines issued, and even if it was brought to his attention was it appropriate or common practice to tip off the media about details which IMHO should have been confidential?
While I doubt that I we will get any answers to those questions, as it appears to be just some of those Alberta political games being played where someone has a gotcha moment over an opponent, buried in the Journal story is this very interesting line that calls for more than just a simple answer:
'... the sheriff said in her incident report, obtained by the Journal.'
Yes, you read that right. The Sheriffs incident report, that we know from media reports that the Solicitor General had himself read, was somehow obtained by the Journal from someone within the building which not only houses the Alberta Legislature, but also the offices of the Solicitor General who has ministerial responsibility over our Alberta Sheriffs.
So now a more important question:
Minister Denis, are you planning to investigate who leaked the sheriffs incident report to the press and how such a leak occurred under your very nose from within the building in which you work?
This is not fun and games anymore.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Representatives of all 7200 Alberta doctors call for a proper health inquiry.
Representatives of all 7200 Alberta doctors call for a proper health inquiry.
"In a strongly worded statement that accuses the government of “stonewalling” and brushing over an “inconvenient truth” on the eve of an election, physician representatives of all 7,200 provincial doctors are calling on Albertans to bring in a “tsunami of change” and demand a public health inquiry into the issue of physician intimidation."
Having written the terms of reference so narrow that it is all but impossible for an inquiry to even consider looking at bullying and intimidation in healthcare, it is clear that Premier Redford is trying to whitewash the entire thing.
Who are you going to believe? Redford or our physicians?
I know who I trust more.
Bring on the tsunami.
Update: Corbella: MLAs paid nearly 1 million dollars after 14 minutes of work.
'And yet Prins, who is paid $18,000 a year to chair the standing committee on privileges and elections, standing orders and printing, was quoted in Friday’s Herald saying: “I have done nothing wrong. Why would I give money back?”
It’s an outrageous statement and highlights his overblown sense of entitlement.'
Braid's latest on the mighty tsunami election battle. (Love the picture of Redford they used)
"In a strongly worded statement that accuses the government of “stonewalling” and brushing over an “inconvenient truth” on the eve of an election, physician representatives of all 7,200 provincial doctors are calling on Albertans to bring in a “tsunami of change” and demand a public health inquiry into the issue of physician intimidation."
Having written the terms of reference so narrow that it is all but impossible for an inquiry to even consider looking at bullying and intimidation in healthcare, it is clear that Premier Redford is trying to whitewash the entire thing.
Who are you going to believe? Redford or our physicians?
I know who I trust more.
Bring on the tsunami.
Update: Corbella: MLAs paid nearly 1 million dollars after 14 minutes of work.
'And yet Prins, who is paid $18,000 a year to chair the standing committee on privileges and elections, standing orders and printing, was quoted in Friday’s Herald saying: “I have done nothing wrong. Why would I give money back?”
It’s an outrageous statement and highlights his overblown sense of entitlement.'
Braid's latest on the mighty
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Redford flounders on committee pay issue.
Thursday: News breaks on a committee that has not met since 2008 but yet pays MLAs $1000 per month. Redford responds that she was unaware of the situation: "I did not know," she said “This, to me, is a ridiculous situation. It isn’t the way Albertans want politicians to be paid." "It is not right"
Friday: We find out that Redford was not as unaware as she claimed when we learn that she sat on that very same committee from Oct 09 until Feb 2010.
Sunday: Redford said it is up to each individual member of her caucus to give back money they were paid for being on a committee that failed to meet for 39 months. “It’s a personal decision,”
Monday: It is no longer is a personal decision as Redford says that pay for committee work has been suspended for Tory members.
What a disaster this has been for the PC's. More of the entitlements that they voted for themselves get exposed to the light of day and a leader doing damage control who changes her story/position almost daily. And if the polls are any indication Alberta voters, who now are starting to pay more attention due to the upcoming election, are not finding the PC's and Redford's reactionary damage control very attractive.
Here is something to think about: The standing committee on privileges and elections was a category B ( MLAs paid per meeting) back in 2007 but the PCs changed that in 2008 making it category A ( meaning that MLAs get paid just because) Coincidentally 2008 was also the year that the Chair, PC MLA Ray Prins, last called the committee to meet. Odd isn't it.
Want a good laugh. Read the minutes of the last time the standing committee on privileges and elections met back on November 17 2008 8:07AM.
Some highlights:
Prins (Chair): Right. Following this motion, they’ll be approved by
the chair. If we didn’t do that, you wouldn’t be able to see them till
the next meeting, which could be 20 years from now.
Okay. All in favour of that motion?
Mr. Liepert: Well, I just want to get on the record that I find those
comments rather amusing considering the fact that this is as open
and transparent a way to discuss changes to the democratic process
– are you suggesting that we do it behind closed doors? I think this
is quite telling, Mr. Chairman.
Prins: Thank you.
If there are no further comments, I just want to add one more
comment myself, and that is that the final report back to the
Legislature from this committee will be tabled in the House as soon
as it can be put together, probably later this week, and we’ll look
forward to that.
We do have a motion to adjourn on the floor, so without further
comment all in favour?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Chair: Then we’re adjourned. Thank you very much.
.
The committee adjourned at 8:21 AM and has not met since. The pay cheques though continued.
Friday: We find out that Redford was not as unaware as she claimed when we learn that she sat on that very same committee from Oct 09 until Feb 2010.
Sunday: Redford said it is up to each individual member of her caucus to give back money they were paid for being on a committee that failed to meet for 39 months. “It’s a personal decision,”
Monday: It is no longer is a personal decision as Redford says that pay for committee work has been suspended for Tory members.
What a disaster this has been for the PC's. More of the entitlements that they voted for themselves get exposed to the light of day and a leader doing damage control who changes her story/position almost daily. And if the polls are any indication Alberta voters, who now are starting to pay more attention due to the upcoming election, are not finding the PC's and Redford's reactionary damage control very attractive.
Here is something to think about: The standing committee on privileges and elections was a category B ( MLAs paid per meeting) back in 2007 but the PCs changed that in 2008 making it category A ( meaning that MLAs get paid just because) Coincidentally 2008 was also the year that the Chair, PC MLA Ray Prins, last called the committee to meet. Odd isn't it.
Want a good laugh. Read the minutes of the last time the standing committee on privileges and elections met back on November 17 2008 8:07AM.
Some highlights:
Prins (Chair): Right. Following this motion, they’ll be approved by
the chair. If we didn’t do that, you wouldn’t be able to see them till
the next meeting, which could be 20 years from now.
Okay. All in favour of that motion?
Mr. Liepert: Well, I just want to get on the record that I find those
comments rather amusing considering the fact that this is as open
and transparent a way to discuss changes to the democratic process
– are you suggesting that we do it behind closed doors? I think this
is quite telling, Mr. Chairman.
Prins: Thank you.
If there are no further comments, I just want to add one more
comment myself, and that is that the final report back to the
Legislature from this committee will be tabled in the House as soon
as it can be put together, probably later this week, and we’ll look
forward to that.
We do have a motion to adjourn on the floor, so without further
comment all in favour?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Chair: Then we’re adjourned. Thank you very much.
.
The committee adjourned at 8:21 AM and has not met since. The pay cheques though continued.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Redford's misleading attack ad. Where did the PC's get their numbers from?
Have you heard the PC attack ad against Danielle Smith and the Wildrose yet?
BTW: It is the very first time in PCAA history that they have EVER named an opposition party or its leader in an ad. Take a listen:
Quite a piece of work isn't it. Pure fear mongering that not only is a total misrepresentation and fabrication of the Wildrose position on impaired driving (more on this later) but they also used a number that cannot be found in any research, study, academic work or from any government agency; 300.
"Since 1998 300 Albertans have been killed by drivers who blew 0.08 or less."
Putting aside for a moment the ludicrous wording that 300 deaths were caused by ANY driver who blew less than 0.08, including the vast majority who had absolutely NO measurable amount of alcohol in their system,which would make the number much higher, the 300 number it turns out is the work of one solitary journalist.
The ruling PC's who have the resources of an entire government at their disposal, as well as Transport Canada information and others, decided not to use any government statistics/research and instead decided to use those of a journalist who said of the 300 number "the estimate is my own". Yes, an estimate! Since I don't want to turn this into a dueling numbers thing I will just leave it by saying what should be obvious; the PCs didn't like what they found looking at their own governments data and went number shopping instead to find what they were looking for to fit their political motives, in this case the attack ad. If you want to look more at some numbers that actually came from a reliable source, Alberta Transport, take a look at this recent blog post from Rob Harvie at Searching for Liberty.
But the story doesn't get better for the PC's. Their campaign chair, Susan Elliot of deleting Facebook posts fame, did an interview the other day in which as Dave Rutherford described it; "Susan Elliot in fact was not telling the truth in the interview.Torquing the story, cranking it up. And she is now the spokesperson for the PC party." Dave was being kind. Speaking as the voice of the PCAA, Elliot flat out lied in order to mislead Albertans for political purposes and in defense of a bad law that was written to pander for votes after a tragedy on Alberta roads. And now these lies will taint every other claim that the PC's will make in the upcoming election because if they will lie about this, they will lie about anything and probably everything. WTG Campaign Chair!
You can listen to the interview here:
I don't know about yourself but I hate being lied to and we can see the PCs have already shown that they are more than happy to do just that so they can remain in power and have more time at the taxpayer funded trough.
This is going to backfire on the PC's big-time. A desperate attempt to mislead the very people that they claim to represent into again casting a ballot for their party made worse by the fact that they are treating us like idiots who can't see through the easily proven lies and spin.
It is like Redford and the PC's don't think we are worthy of the truth.
Enough is enough. Redford and the PCs have to go; Albertans deserve better than this.
h/t to Rob Breakenridge, Colby Cosh, Matt Solberg.
Related: This is not the first time that the PC's have lied about Bill 26.
BTW: It is the very first time in PCAA history that they have EVER named an opposition party or its leader in an ad. Take a listen:
Quite a piece of work isn't it. Pure fear mongering that not only is a total misrepresentation and fabrication of the Wildrose position on impaired driving (more on this later) but they also used a number that cannot be found in any research, study, academic work or from any government agency; 300.
"Since 1998 300 Albertans have been killed by drivers who blew 0.08 or less."
Putting aside for a moment the ludicrous wording that 300 deaths were caused by ANY driver who blew less than 0.08, including the vast majority who had absolutely NO measurable amount of alcohol in their system,which would make the number much higher, the 300 number it turns out is the work of one solitary journalist.
The ruling PC's who have the resources of an entire government at their disposal, as well as Transport Canada information and others, decided not to use any government statistics/research and instead decided to use those of a journalist who said of the 300 number "the estimate is my own". Yes, an estimate! Since I don't want to turn this into a dueling numbers thing I will just leave it by saying what should be obvious; the PCs didn't like what they found looking at their own governments data and went number shopping instead to find what they were looking for to fit their political motives, in this case the attack ad. If you want to look more at some numbers that actually came from a reliable source, Alberta Transport, take a look at this recent blog post from Rob Harvie at Searching for Liberty.
But the story doesn't get better for the PC's. Their campaign chair, Susan Elliot of deleting Facebook posts fame, did an interview the other day in which as Dave Rutherford described it; "Susan Elliot in fact was not telling the truth in the interview.Torquing the story, cranking it up. And she is now the spokesperson for the PC party." Dave was being kind. Speaking as the voice of the PCAA, Elliot flat out lied in order to mislead Albertans for political purposes and in defense of a bad law that was written to pander for votes after a tragedy on Alberta roads. And now these lies will taint every other claim that the PC's will make in the upcoming election because if they will lie about this, they will lie about anything and probably everything. WTG Campaign Chair!
You can listen to the interview here:
I don't know about yourself but I hate being lied to and we can see the PCs have already shown that they are more than happy to do just that so they can remain in power and have more time at the taxpayer funded trough.
This is going to backfire on the PC's big-time. A desperate attempt to mislead the very people that they claim to represent into again casting a ballot for their party made worse by the fact that they are treating us like idiots who can't see through the easily proven lies and spin.
It is like Redford and the PC's don't think we are worthy of the truth.
Enough is enough. Redford and the PCs have to go; Albertans deserve better than this.
h/t to Rob Breakenridge, Colby Cosh, Matt Solberg.
Related: This is not the first time that the PC's have lied about Bill 26.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
The Alberta PC campaign is running scared and after yesterday it is clear why.
Former Ralph Klein COS Rod Love wrote in a blog posting titled "Three weeks of hell":
I haven’t been in government for a while, but I sure know a bad few weeks when I see it.
And the question a lot of provincial Tories are asking themselves is: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN EDMONTON??? (Be sure to read the entire post. It is an eye opener and a good primer on what is wrong with the PCs)
I wonder what Mr. Love has to say about the disaster that Wednesday was?
A recap:
First up we found out that their has been a government committee where 21 members have been receiving $1,000/month to sit on a committee that has not met since 2008. The money spent has cost Alberta taxpayers $261,000 over the past year alone.That is bad enough but to make matters worse PC Bonnyville-Cold Lake MLA Genia Leskiw sounded almost foolish when she answered questions, or tried to, on the matter. You seriously have to listen to this nonsense.
Next up we learned that patronage is still alive and well within the PCAA as already failed candidate for Calgary-Hawkwood and money man for Redford's leadership campaign, Farouk Adatia was appointed as the PC candidate for Calgary-Shaw. With the recent shenanigans in Calgary-West with former AHS superboard head and Redford pal Ken Hughes, I am surprised that they would be so blatant with this appointment, but when it comes to arrogance the PCs are second to none.
And finally we have what has to be topper of the day and confirmation that the PC's are running scared as news broke of the PC ad campaign, which as Don Braid noted "The Tories haven’t done anything like this before – not ever, not once in the long period since they were elected on Aug. 30 1971" directed squarely at the Wildrose where they purposely misrepresent the Wildrose position on Bill 26 and fear monger purely for votes. And all of this after PC Campaign Manager Susan Elliot claimed that they would not run attack ads.
The PC spin on this is unbelievable. They want us to think that they are so concerned about impaired driving that they decided to run political ads on it but yet DO NOT plan on implementing the law until September. The fact that Premier Redford promised that the law would be in place by Christmas of 2011 has of course been completely forgotten in their attempt to again use this as a political wedge to their advantage.
The PC for the first time in 40 yrs are running scared and judging by their failed record on health, electricity, the budget, along with Redford's many broken promises, and mishandled communications (this in spite of recently doubling the communications staff in the Premiers office) it is easy to see why. They are in trouble and they know it. As I noted last week, we can expect them to lash out even more and the nastiness to increase as the reality of their situation becomes more apparent . Which probably means tomorrow because no one is buying their BS anymore.
A bit on Bill 26. It is flawed legislation for a number of reasons:
The legal limit in the criminal code is 0.08.
Police become the judge and jury and can take your license and seize your vehicle without appeal or due process at the roadside.
It does nothing to improve enforcement of existing law and in fact may do the opposite as limited police resources will now be tied up dealing with people who are not doing anything illegal.
If existing law, including losing your license for 1yr, heavy fines and insurance increases, are not deterring drunk driving, how can one expect that another piece of paper will manage to do so?
Put simply it is bad law written to make the Redford government appear that they are doing something about a serious issue. Having them delay it until September (so they have something to use against the Wildrose?) puts all of their spin about it being a safety issue into the BS pile.
A comment made on this blog a while back sums it up nicely: The PC's argument for Bill 26 seems to be that we are not currently catching enough impaired drivers so lets lower the limit and create even more.
Think about it.
And think about it again when you are at the ballot box.
Update: Some related reading.
Searching for Liberty has a interesting look at the real numbers.< good job with this one.
It's our money.
The PC's are a well oiled machine.
I haven’t been in government for a while, but I sure know a bad few weeks when I see it.
And the question a lot of provincial Tories are asking themselves is: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN EDMONTON??? (Be sure to read the entire post. It is an eye opener and a good primer on what is wrong with the PCs)
I wonder what Mr. Love has to say about the disaster that Wednesday was?
A recap:
First up we found out that their has been a government committee where 21 members have been receiving $1,000/month to sit on a committee that has not met since 2008. The money spent has cost Alberta taxpayers $261,000 over the past year alone.That is bad enough but to make matters worse PC Bonnyville-Cold Lake MLA Genia Leskiw sounded almost foolish when she answered questions, or tried to, on the matter. You seriously have to listen to this nonsense.
Next up we learned that patronage is still alive and well within the PCAA as already failed candidate for Calgary-Hawkwood and money man for Redford's leadership campaign, Farouk Adatia was appointed as the PC candidate for Calgary-Shaw. With the recent shenanigans in Calgary-West with former AHS superboard head and Redford pal Ken Hughes, I am surprised that they would be so blatant with this appointment, but when it comes to arrogance the PCs are second to none.
And finally we have what has to be topper of the day and confirmation that the PC's are running scared as news broke of the PC ad campaign, which as Don Braid noted "The Tories haven’t done anything like this before – not ever, not once in the long period since they were elected on Aug. 30 1971" directed squarely at the Wildrose where they purposely misrepresent the Wildrose position on Bill 26 and fear monger purely for votes. And all of this after PC Campaign Manager Susan Elliot claimed that they would not run attack ads.
The PC spin on this is unbelievable. They want us to think that they are so concerned about impaired driving that they decided to run political ads on it but yet DO NOT plan on implementing the law until September. The fact that Premier Redford promised that the law would be in place by Christmas of 2011 has of course been completely forgotten in their attempt to again use this as a political wedge to their advantage.
The PC for the first time in 40 yrs are running scared and judging by their failed record on health, electricity, the budget, along with Redford's many broken promises, and mishandled communications (this in spite of recently doubling the communications staff in the Premiers office) it is easy to see why. They are in trouble and they know it. As I noted last week, we can expect them to lash out even more and the nastiness to increase as the reality of their situation becomes more apparent . Which probably means tomorrow because no one is buying their BS anymore.
A bit on Bill 26. It is flawed legislation for a number of reasons:
The legal limit in the criminal code is 0.08.
Police become the judge and jury and can take your license and seize your vehicle without appeal or due process at the roadside.
It does nothing to improve enforcement of existing law and in fact may do the opposite as limited police resources will now be tied up dealing with people who are not doing anything illegal.
If existing law, including losing your license for 1yr, heavy fines and insurance increases, are not deterring drunk driving, how can one expect that another piece of paper will manage to do so?
Put simply it is bad law written to make the Redford government appear that they are doing something about a serious issue. Having them delay it until September (so they have something to use against the Wildrose?) puts all of their spin about it being a safety issue into the BS pile.
A comment made on this blog a while back sums it up nicely: The PC's argument for Bill 26 seems to be that we are not currently catching enough impaired drivers so lets lower the limit and create even more.
Think about it.
And think about it again when you are at the ballot box.
-----------------------------
Update: Some related reading.
Searching for Liberty has a interesting look at the real numbers.< good job with this one.
It's our money.
The PC's are a well oiled machine.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Is the Redford government in breach of the legislature with budget ads?
Right now on almost every radio station in the province ads are playing touting what 'Budget 2012' WILL do for Albertans.You probably have heard them yourself, and with the amount of tax dollars they are spending for saturation, you have probably heard them more than once. ( Herald story on 425K spent on budget ads)
But the thing is that budget 2012 is not yet passed into law and although it probably will pass there are NO guarantees that it will and as far as everything that I know about our parliamentary system assuming future actions of any parliament/legislature is in itself a breach.
I am not sure if 'breach of legislature' is the correct wording but terminology aside I think a case can be made that Redford's government has breached the privilege of the Alberta Legislature and its members by running advertisements on a budget that has NOT yet passed into law or received royal assent. (Does the fact that the budget may not pass, slim but indeed a possibility, elevate these ads to possibly be misleading advertising?)
A recent example from Ottawa illustrates this nicely. Back in December the CPC put up a web site entitled "scrappedtheregistry.com" (notice the past tense) and put out ads saying that the gun registry was "almost gone". It should be noted that these were from a political party and NOT the government, as is the case with Redford/PC budget ads, and the issue was brought up as being a breach of privilege.
"“The government, and that includes the Conservative Party, cannot misinform the public that a bill has passed when in fact it’s not passed,” said Mr. Bryant. “And it’s contemptuous of Parliament because it presumes a parliamentary result before there’s been a vote.”
Here is Kady O'Malley from the CBC wrote on the subject. Of note is a ruling the Speaker made back in 1989 when the government of the day ran ads on the GST before it was passed into law. Fraser warned that he would "not be so generous" if such a controversy presented itself in future.
While I doubt that Speaker Kowalski would actually find the PC's to be in breach over this obvious attempt to use tax payer dollars to campaign on something that is not even law, it does speak to a problem we in Alberta have with regards to advertising and political games so close to an election. Something the now Premier spoke out herself against back when she was running for PC leader.
"It is about playing politics and whether it's a real advantage or not there are many people who perceive it to be an advantage," Redford said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"It's the way that politics used to be done, and nothing in our campaign has been about the way that politics used to be done.
"Redford said she would commit to calling an election in March 2012 and every four years from that date. She said Albertans are supportive of the idea and that several other provinces already use the same model.
"They understand the issues that are coming. They don't believe any political party should have even if it is a theoretical upper hand in managing the political agenda and then picking the date accordingly," she added."
But now that she is won the job we can see that nothing at all has changed and her party continues to play games and use taxpayer money to promote the PC party.
This is not doing politics differently, this is doing it exactly the same as it has been done for 40 years under PC rule and to make matters worse we still don't know the "fixed election date"yet!
Quick Update: I asked Kady O'Malley if there was a follow-up to her piece linked to above.
AA: @kady Off topic but was there ever a follow up to this: bit.ly/vTMQ3M FYI Happening right now in AB: bit.ly/x4VSyM
Kady: @Albertaardvark I've been following that - seems to me at the very least could be a point of privilege in your leg. (Is it sitting atm?)
AA: @kady Yes it is currently sitting.
Kady: @Albertaardvark The relevant precedent for your speaker would seem to be Fraser's ruling re: GST ads placed by the Mulroney govt.
AA: @kady That is what I too was also thinking. Now the question is, will it be brought up in the #ableg? Thanks.
But the thing is that budget 2012 is not yet passed into law and although it probably will pass there are NO guarantees that it will and as far as everything that I know about our parliamentary system assuming future actions of any parliament/legislature is in itself a breach.
I am not sure if 'breach of legislature' is the correct wording but terminology aside I think a case can be made that Redford's government has breached the privilege of the Alberta Legislature and its members by running advertisements on a budget that has NOT yet passed into law or received royal assent. (Does the fact that the budget may not pass, slim but indeed a possibility, elevate these ads to possibly be misleading advertising?)
A recent example from Ottawa illustrates this nicely. Back in December the CPC put up a web site entitled "scrappedtheregistry.com" (notice the past tense) and put out ads saying that the gun registry was "almost gone". It should be noted that these were from a political party and NOT the government, as is the case with Redford/PC budget ads, and the issue was brought up as being a breach of privilege.
"“The government, and that includes the Conservative Party, cannot misinform the public that a bill has passed when in fact it’s not passed,” said Mr. Bryant. “And it’s contemptuous of Parliament because it presumes a parliamentary result before there’s been a vote.”
Here is Kady O'Malley from the CBC wrote on the subject. Of note is a ruling the Speaker made back in 1989 when the government of the day ran ads on the GST before it was passed into law. Fraser warned that he would "not be so generous" if such a controversy presented itself in future.
While I doubt that Speaker Kowalski would actually find the PC's to be in breach over this obvious attempt to use tax payer dollars to campaign on something that is not even law, it does speak to a problem we in Alberta have with regards to advertising and political games so close to an election. Something the now Premier spoke out herself against back when she was running for PC leader.
"It is about playing politics and whether it's a real advantage or not there are many people who perceive it to be an advantage," Redford said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"It's the way that politics used to be done, and nothing in our campaign has been about the way that politics used to be done.
"Redford said she would commit to calling an election in March 2012 and every four years from that date. She said Albertans are supportive of the idea and that several other provinces already use the same model.
"They understand the issues that are coming. They don't believe any political party should have even if it is a theoretical upper hand in managing the political agenda and then picking the date accordingly," she added."
But now that she is won the job we can see that nothing at all has changed and her party continues to play games and use taxpayer money to promote the PC party.
This is not doing politics differently, this is doing it exactly the same as it has been done for 40 years under PC rule and to make matters worse we still don't know the "fixed election date"yet!
Quick Update: I asked Kady O'Malley if there was a follow-up to her piece linked to above.
AA: @kady Off topic but was there ever a follow up to this: bit.ly/vTMQ3M FYI Happening right now in AB: bit.ly/x4VSyM
Kady: @Albertaardvark I've been following that - seems to me at the very least could be a point of privilege in your leg. (Is it sitting atm?)
AA: @kady Yes it is currently sitting.
Kady: @Albertaardvark The relevant precedent for your speaker would seem to be Fraser's ruling re: GST ads placed by the Mulroney govt.
AA: @kady That is what I too was also thinking. Now the question is, will it be brought up in the #ableg? Thanks.
Friday, March 02, 2012
More intimidation/threats from Redford's PC's
There will be consequences if you dare criticize the Redford government.
From the Edmonton Journal:
“In order for your community to have the opportunity to receive a new school, you and your school board will have to be very diplomatic from here on out.”
In the Feb. 9 letter, Goudreau warns Betty Turpin, superintendent for the Holy Family Catholic School Division, that criticism of the government could imperil her district’s chances of funding for a new school.
“I advise you to be cautious as to how you approach future communications as your comments could be upsetting to some individuals. This could delay the decision on a new school,” states the letter from the Dunvegan-Central Peace MLA. He does not say who “some individuals.” might be.
Read the letter yourself:
Turpin Letter
From the Edmonton Journal:
“In order for your community to have the opportunity to receive a new school, you and your school board will have to be very diplomatic from here on out.”
In the Feb. 9 letter, Goudreau warns Betty Turpin, superintendent for the Holy Family Catholic School Division, that criticism of the government could imperil her district’s chances of funding for a new school.
“I advise you to be cautious as to how you approach future communications as your comments could be upsetting to some individuals. This could delay the decision on a new school,” states the letter from the Dunvegan-Central Peace MLA. He does not say who “some individuals.” might be.
Read the letter yourself:
Turpin Letter
From doctors advocating for patients, Linda Sloan and AUMA, and even school boards doing their jobs, intimidation and threats seem to be the PC way.
Let's fix that come election time.
Let's fix that come election time.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Dangerous words: Redford changes her tune on electricity after days of saying there is no problem.
Electricity prices have skyrocketed in Alberta over the last 2 months and it has not gone unnoticed. In the Alberta legislature Premier Redford has been asked for days if her government would do something and for days she has repeated her standard answer: That Alberta has some of the lowest rates in the country, which is not at all true, and that there is no problem because consumers can just sign up to one of the many fixed rate programs offered.
Some quotes from Redford's answers: (highlighting mine)
"What we know is that, as the Minister of Energy has
said, with a deregulated market we are able to provide some of the
lowest cost electricity in the country, Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Speaker. What we know is that while there are a number
of companies that provide options, the customers only have to
make one call, and that's to the Utilities Consumer Advocate, to
get the information that they need."
These same talking points were also repeated by Ted Morton, Minister of Energy.
"Mr. Speaker, we're quite proud of the fact that we
give residential consumers this choice. It's not very complicated.
Albertans every day make a choice when they go to borrow
money for a mortgage. Do they want a fixed rate, do they want a
variable rate, or do they want some combination? It's exactly the
same situation with respect to electricity, and Albertans appreciate
that choice."
"I will say this very, very slowly for the benefit of the
Leader of the Opposition. There are 11 different providers, all of
them having a contract at 8 to 9 cents which can be cancelled in a
30- to 45-day period if you don't like it."
So there is NO problem. All is well and in fact they said that having the government involved would not be a good thing.
Redford: "Mr. Speaker, dangerous words were government
involvement. Dangerous words were presuming that the solution
to this is for government to fix the problem."
Morton: "Mr. Speaker, the members opposite always seem to
think the solution is more government involvement; we don't
think so. The facts speak for themselves."
But yesterday this non problem has seemed to turn into a problem, at least in terms of this being an election issue, and now it demands that the government do something.
"The Premier has ordered that an independent panel review the regulated variable rate option to consider the ability to reduce volatility and costs. The Premier will also direct the Utilities Consumer Advocate to represent consumers' interests to the independent panel. The advocate's mandate in this process is to ensure the costs associated with electricity are just and reasonable for consumers."
So some action may be required after all in spite of what both the Premier and Morton have been saying for days on the issue and even odder that it will include those dangerous words of government involvement.
But before anyone gets their hopes up I have to remind you that like that "discussion on taxes" or the judicial, or maybe not judicial, inquiry into healthcare, that will be taking place after the election when it will be a matter us accepting whatever it is the government intends to do with no recourse.
So why are they doing it now? Simple, they are scared and are trying to defuse a potentially damaging election issue by pretending to do something now when they really are not doing anything and hope to ride it out hoping the usual PC smoke and mirrors again fool Albertans into voting for them.
Forming a task force to study, what they said was not a problem, is not action, it is pure fluff to appease the masses. To borrow the words of Ted Morton, the facts speak for themselves.
Related (how well our PC government looks after the consumer) Trans Alta fined $370,000 for manipulating power market. BTW: Trans Alta made an estimated $5.5 million from gaming the system.
Can someone explain to me how a $5 million dollar profit (after paying the pittance of a fine) deters them or anyone else from doing it again, and again, and....?
.
Some quotes from Redford's answers: (highlighting mine)
"What we know is that, as the Minister of Energy has
said, with a deregulated market we are able to provide some of the
lowest cost electricity in the country, Mr. Speaker."
"Mr. Speaker. What we know is that while there are a number
of companies that provide options, the customers only have to
make one call, and that's to the Utilities Consumer Advocate, to
get the information that they need."
These same talking points were also repeated by Ted Morton, Minister of Energy.
"Mr. Speaker, we're quite proud of the fact that we
give residential consumers this choice. It's not very complicated.
Albertans every day make a choice when they go to borrow
money for a mortgage. Do they want a fixed rate, do they want a
variable rate, or do they want some combination? It's exactly the
same situation with respect to electricity, and Albertans appreciate
that choice."
"I will say this very, very slowly for the benefit of the
Leader of the Opposition. There are 11 different providers, all of
them having a contract at 8 to 9 cents which can be cancelled in a
30- to 45-day period if you don't like it."
So there is NO problem. All is well and in fact they said that having the government involved would not be a good thing.
Redford: "Mr. Speaker, dangerous words were government
involvement. Dangerous words were presuming that the solution
to this is for government to fix the problem."
Morton: "Mr. Speaker, the members opposite always seem to
think the solution is more government involvement; we don't
think so. The facts speak for themselves."
But yesterday this non problem has seemed to turn into a problem, at least in terms of this being an election issue, and now it demands that the government do something.
"The Premier has ordered that an independent panel review the regulated variable rate option to consider the ability to reduce volatility and costs. The Premier will also direct the Utilities Consumer Advocate to represent consumers' interests to the independent panel. The advocate's mandate in this process is to ensure the costs associated with electricity are just and reasonable for consumers."
So some action may be required after all in spite of what both the Premier and Morton have been saying for days on the issue and even odder that it will include those dangerous words of government involvement.
But before anyone gets their hopes up I have to remind you that like that "discussion on taxes" or the judicial, or maybe not judicial, inquiry into healthcare, that will be taking place after the election when it will be a matter us accepting whatever it is the government intends to do with no recourse.
So why are they doing it now? Simple, they are scared and are trying to defuse a potentially damaging election issue by pretending to do something now when they really are not doing anything and hope to ride it out hoping the usual PC smoke and mirrors again fool Albertans into voting for them.
Forming a task force to study, what they said was not a problem, is not action, it is pure fluff to appease the masses. To borrow the words of Ted Morton, the facts speak for themselves.
Related (how well our PC government looks after the consumer) Trans Alta fined $370,000 for manipulating power market. BTW: Trans Alta made an estimated $5.5 million from gaming the system.
Can someone explain to me how a $5 million dollar profit (after paying the pittance of a fine) deters them or anyone else from doing it again, and again, and....?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
