Earlier this evening Infrastructure Minister Jeff Johnson (link now dead*) held a press conference where he announced that the proposed new Royal Alberta Museum in downtown Edmonton was indefinitely put on hold Wednesday after Ottawa pulled $92 million in funding.
Indeed breaking news but there are couple of small problems with what the Minister claimed: First the federal government only promised to commit 30 million to the RAM project, as can be seen here in this Alberta Government press release which reads: "The new museum is expected to cost a total of $340 million. Budget 2011 includes $180 million over the first three years for the project, which includes $30 million previously committed by the Government of Canada." and second, that 30 million dollar commitment has not been pulled. It still stands.
Another day, another screw up.
So what happened?
Paula Simons from the Edmonton Journal had these thoughts: It’s even possible, I suppose, that the Redford government, lacking, perhaps, in enthusiasm for Ed Stelmach’s legacy project, was looking for an excuse to mothball the project, and made federal funding a convenient scapegoat.
No doubt there will be lots more on this tomorrow.
* The dead link was from Alberta Premier Comms which stated that "Infrastructure Minister Danyluk" was holding the press conference even though Danyluk is not actually the Infrastructure Minister, Johnson is. I guess deleting tweets is just part of the change we can expect from this government.That and they don't even know who holds what portfolio within their own government. #fail
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Well played Mr. Prime Minister. Well played.
Michael Den Tandt nails it with his latest in the Ottawa Citizen: "Harper proves his political marksmanship."
Here's the not-so-secret weapon underlying the Conservatives' incremental takeover of the mainstream of Canadian politics: they listen.
Not in Ottawa, where the Tories are hard of hearing to most voices but their own - but in the country proper. Through a combination of anecdotal reports from their MPs and relentless polling, the Conservatives appear to listen rather well, indeed. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+proves+political+marksmanship/5606184/story.html#ixzz1bu6pyEBN
The base is happy. Very happy.
HT BC Blue.
Here's the not-so-secret weapon underlying the Conservatives' incremental takeover of the mainstream of Canadian politics: they listen.
Not in Ottawa, where the Tories are hard of hearing to most voices but their own - but in the country proper. Through a combination of anecdotal reports from their MPs and relentless polling, the Conservatives appear to listen rather well, indeed. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+proves+political+marksmanship/5606184/story.html#ixzz1bu6pyEBN
The base is happy. Very happy.
HT BC Blue.
Monday, October 24, 2011
After 40 years in power: This is business as usual in Alberta.
Hot on the heels of Friday's fiasco on transmission lines miscommunications comes news that certain energy firms in Alberta had the jump on everyone, including PC cabinet ministers who had yet to the approve the deal, on an ethane incentive program worth $350-million.
From the Edmonton Journal: Energy companies learned of potentially lucrative changes to a $350-million incentive program before cabinet ministers approved it, documents obtained by the Alberta Liberals show.
Internal emails reveal that days before cabinet approved the program, aides to then-energy minister Ron Liepert were working with a Williams Energy lobbyist who was already preparing to announce the company's plan to take advantage of the incentives.
The records also show a former vice-president and lobbyist for Nova Chemicals helped redesign the program, aimed at boosting ethane production, which ultimately benefited his one-time employer.
The timeline reveals a cozy relationship with the ministers office.
In an email dated March 17, Royer wrote to Liepert's executive assistant, Courtney Luimes: "As mentioned last week, Williams is preparing a draft ... for when the announcement is eventually made. You'll see there is a spot in there for a quote from the minister."
The request for a comment from the minister was passed to Liepert's communications director, Jay O'Neill, who is now communications director for Premier Alison Redford.
On March 21, one day before cabinet approved the changes, O'Neill drafted a quote and sent it to Luimes. Luimes responded: "He wants us to use this instead: 'I'm pleased to see that Williams is the first of what I believe will be many companies to benefit from the recent changes to our ethane policy.' " It is not clear from the exchange who "he" is.
The quote appears in the Williams news release, which also notes the company set aside money for the investment back in February - more than a month before the program was announced.
Call me old fashioned, but I like my governments to actually approve programs and the spending of $350-million before staff from a ministers office go around helping private business write their press releases by providing quotes from the minister.The rot is deep.
The documents used by the Journal for their story.
From the Edmonton Journal: Energy companies learned of potentially lucrative changes to a $350-million incentive program before cabinet ministers approved it, documents obtained by the Alberta Liberals show.
Internal emails reveal that days before cabinet approved the program, aides to then-energy minister Ron Liepert were working with a Williams Energy lobbyist who was already preparing to announce the company's plan to take advantage of the incentives.
The records also show a former vice-president and lobbyist for Nova Chemicals helped redesign the program, aimed at boosting ethane production, which ultimately benefited his one-time employer.
The timeline reveals a cozy relationship with the ministers office.
In an email dated March 17, Royer wrote to Liepert's executive assistant, Courtney Luimes: "As mentioned last week, Williams is preparing a draft ... for when the announcement is eventually made. You'll see there is a spot in there for a quote from the minister."
The request for a comment from the minister was passed to Liepert's communications director, Jay O'Neill, who is now communications director for Premier Alison Redford.
On March 21, one day before cabinet approved the changes, O'Neill drafted a quote and sent it to Luimes. Luimes responded: "He wants us to use this instead: 'I'm pleased to see that Williams is the first of what I believe will be many companies to benefit from the recent changes to our ethane policy.' " It is not clear from the exchange who "he" is.
The quote appears in the Williams news release, which also notes the company set aside money for the investment back in February - more than a month before the program was announced.
Call me old fashioned, but I like my governments to actually approve programs and the spending of $350-million before staff from a ministers office go around helping private business write their press releases by providing quotes from the minister.The rot is deep.
The documents used by the Journal for their story.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Is incompetent too strong a word?
Another day another flip flop or in this case a "miscommunication" from Alberta's ruling PC government.
Earlier today (approx 10:30am) it was announced a decision by the Alberta Utilities Commission on a controversial power line west of Sherwood Park is on hold after it received a letter from Energy Minister Ted Morton saying the the government was going to review the project. Link.
Big news, and rightly so as this seemed to be a complete reversal for the govt, and it swept across the news wires and twitter for most of the day. That is until Premier Redford announced 4 hours later (approx 2:30pm) that there was a "miscommunication" and that the AUC process on the Heartland transmission project will continue after all.
4 hours to correct a supposed 'miscommunication' on something this big that every major media org in the province was covering since it was announced?
Something stinks, and it is not that it took 4 hrs to correct something that would have been done in minutes if it indeed had been just a simple miscommunication problem.
For the record here is Mortons letter to the AUC, written 2 days ago, that seems about as clear as it can be in what it says.
So far, and in spite of promises of change, we have had a broken promise on fixed election dates, a fall session which was cancelled one day then rescheduled the next and eventually shortened to 2 days next week and 6 days in November/December, the appointment of what looks more like a Gary Mar cabinet filed with good ol' boys, Gary Mar being appointed as Alberta's trade rep to Asia and being paid a salary greater than that of the premier, and a 'miscommunication' flip flop on power lines in just 4 hours. Meanwhile the smell of pork from 40 years of being in power still wafts through the air.
Is incompetent too strong a word to describe what is going on?
For what it's worth: The Government of Alberta still has this totally wrong information up on its website 1 full day after the heartland fiasco Friday.
Earlier today (approx 10:30am) it was announced a decision by the Alberta Utilities Commission on a controversial power line west of Sherwood Park is on hold after it received a letter from Energy Minister Ted Morton saying the the government was going to review the project. Link.
Big news, and rightly so as this seemed to be a complete reversal for the govt, and it swept across the news wires and twitter for most of the day. That is until Premier Redford announced 4 hours later (approx 2:30pm) that there was a "miscommunication" and that the AUC process on the Heartland transmission project will continue after all.
4 hours to correct a supposed 'miscommunication' on something this big that every major media org in the province was covering since it was announced?
Something stinks, and it is not that it took 4 hrs to correct something that would have been done in minutes if it indeed had been just a simple miscommunication problem.
For the record here is Mortons letter to the AUC, written 2 days ago, that seems about as clear as it can be in what it says.
So far, and in spite of promises of change, we have had a broken promise on fixed election dates, a fall session which was cancelled one day then rescheduled the next and eventually shortened to 2 days next week and 6 days in November/December, the appointment of what looks more like a Gary Mar cabinet filed with good ol' boys, Gary Mar being appointed as Alberta's trade rep to Asia and being paid a salary greater than that of the premier, and a '
Is incompetent too strong a word to describe what is going on?
For what it's worth: The Government of Alberta still has this totally wrong information up on its website 1 full day after the heartland fiasco Friday.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Our Media: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Update: It appears as though the government of Ontario lets anyone run licence plates for a fee. They don't give out address info ( the name and a phone book or google should do that easily enough) but the owners name is given out. As noted on the comments: They should call it the "stalker search" or better yet, the 'need to know the name of that hot blond' you saw driving the other day search.
And so with that I eat my words as there really is nothing to see here other than privacy laws that offer no privacy as long as the government gets their $18 bucks for the search.
Remember how Canadian media went nuts over the 'phone hacking' story that came from the UK?
Where are the multiple stories and live tweets over this?
From today's Toronto Star: "Leung would only give his first name, but the Star was able to find his full name by putting a trace on his licence plate."
"Over the past few weeks, the Star has tracked the makes and plates of dozens of cars in the neighbourhood."
The Star openly admits that it traced dozens of licence plates, which can only be done through Ontario Ministry of Transport computers, and we have almost complete silence from the Canadian media. I guess that phone hacking was much more important for our media to cover, and live tweet, than it is when a home grown media outfit like the Toronto Star uses private information protected under legislation and most likely illegally obtained through Ontario government sources. ( I can't see ANY way that it was done legally.)
If only there was some way to tie Rupert Murdoch to this; then I could guarantee you that our MSM would be all over it.
Update: My tweet to the author of the Star story Antonia Zerbisias:
.@AntoniaZ Who's your licence plate info source? Would be interesting to run some plates from around certain 'clinics'. #oops #cdnpoli
And so with that I eat my words as there really is nothing to see here other than privacy laws that offer no privacy as long as the government gets their $18 bucks for the search.
Remember how Canadian media went nuts over the 'phone hacking' story that came from the UK?
Where are the multiple stories and live tweets over this?
From today's Toronto Star: "Leung would only give his first name, but the Star was able to find his full name by putting a trace on his licence plate."
"Over the past few weeks, the Star has tracked the makes and plates of dozens of cars in the neighbourhood."
The Star openly admits that it traced dozens of licence plates, which can only be done through Ontario Ministry of Transport computers, and we have almost complete silence from the Canadian media. I guess that phone hacking was much more important for our media to cover, and live tweet, than it is when a home grown media outfit like the Toronto Star uses private information protected under legislation and most likely illegally obtained through Ontario government sources. ( I can't see ANY way that it was done legally.)
If only there was some way to tie Rupert Murdoch to this; then I could guarantee you that our MSM would be all over it.
Update: My tweet to the author of the Star story Antonia Zerbisias:
.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Alberta PC's: Getting by with a little help from their friends.
With the PCAA being in power in Alberta for the last 40 years; is it any surprise that this type of crap routinely happens?
A top municipal official in St. Paul, Alta., used the city's email system to solicit votes during the Conservative leadership race in a bid to ensure a local MLA remained in cabinet, a CBC News investigation has found.
Ron Boisvert, the town's chief administrative officer, also helped organize a golf tournament in June to raise campaign funds for MLA Ray Danyluk. Boisvert participated in the tournament at the town's expense, along with the mayor and two councillors.
Another town (Cardston) gives the PCAA a sweetheart deal on a golf tournament.
(PDF)
Premier’s Golf Tournament:
Council discussed the request of Pat Shimbashi with the P.C. Party to have the Town of Cardston host their fund raising golf tournament in Cardston on September 15, 2009.Moved by Cou. Bengry to waive the green fees and cart fees for the P.C. Party GolfTournament on September 15, 2009. Carried
Just business as usual inQuebec Alberta politics.
When nobody at the municipal or even at the provincial level see nothing wrong with this type of thing; it is seriously time for a change.
Update: More Municipal Councillors use taxpayer dollars to attend a PCAA fund raising golf tournament.
(PDF)
May 30, 2008 Battle River - Wainwright Progressive Conservative AssociationGolf Tournament is being held.632 /08 MOVED by Councilor Fossum THAT up to 4 Councilors be allowed to attend the Battle River - Wainwright Progressive Conservative Association golf tournament.
CBC video: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Edmonton/1305516385/ID=2153249329
A top municipal official in St. Paul, Alta., used the city's email system to solicit votes during the Conservative leadership race in a bid to ensure a local MLA remained in cabinet, a CBC News investigation has found.
Ron Boisvert, the town's chief administrative officer, also helped organize a golf tournament in June to raise campaign funds for MLA Ray Danyluk. Boisvert participated in the tournament at the town's expense, along with the mayor and two councillors.
Another town (Cardston) gives the PCAA a sweetheart deal on a golf tournament.
(PDF)
Premier’s Golf Tournament:
Council discussed the request of Pat Shimbashi with the P.C. Party to have the Town of Cardston host their fund raising golf tournament in Cardston on September 15, 2009.Moved by Cou. Bengry to waive the green fees and cart fees for the P.C. Party GolfTournament on September 15, 2009. Carried
Just business as usual in
When nobody at the municipal or even at the provincial level see nothing wrong with this type of thing; it is seriously time for a change.
Update: More Municipal Councillors use taxpayer dollars to attend a PCAA fund raising golf tournament.
(PDF)
May 30, 2008 Battle River - Wainwright Progressive Conservative AssociationGolf Tournament is being held.632 /08 MOVED by Councilor Fossum THAT up to 4 Councilors be allowed to attend the Battle River - Wainwright Progressive Conservative Association golf tournament.
CBC video: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Edmonton/1305516385/ID=2153249329
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Alison Redford: Alberta's 14th Premier.
Early this morning Alison Redford was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta and will become Alberta's 14th Premier.
I know that this makes at least a couple of federal Liberal candidates very happy, along with an assortment of other loons, but considering the total number of PC party members who voted yesterday is down by a whopping 66,000 voters from the 2006 second ballot vote, I have to wonder how many longtime rank and file PC members are even happy with the result and the PCAA itself. The funny thing with 'instamembers' is that once they have voted, they don't stick around to do the work needed (at all levels) for a party to be successful.
Congratulations on your win Alison, but considering the dwindling number of party faithful who voted and the fact that 48 PC MLAs endorsed Gary Mar believing that he was better to lead the party than you were, you do have your work cut out for you. ( But not as much as Raj Sherman, you have more Liberal support than he does.)
I know that this makes at least a couple of federal Liberal candidates very happy, along with an assortment of other loons, but considering the total number of PC party members who voted yesterday is down by a whopping 66,000 voters from the 2006 second ballot vote, I have to wonder how many longtime rank and file PC members are even happy with the result and the PCAA itself. The funny thing with 'instamembers' is that once they have voted, they don't stick around to do the work needed (at all levels) for a party to be successful.
Congratulations on your win Alison, but considering the dwindling number of party faithful who voted and the fact that 48 PC MLAs endorsed Gary Mar believing that he was better to lead the party than you were, you do have your work cut out for you. ( But not as much as Raj Sherman, you have more Liberal support than he does.)
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Gary Mar unrepentant on improper membership sales.
Gary Mar is above the rules, but he isn't doing it for himself, he is doing it for the good of democracy.
What a guy.
PCAA leadership candidate Gary Mar said his campaign volunteers did nothing wrong by selling party memberships within 50 metres of an Edmonton polling station. Adding that his supporters were only trying to help people who can't speak English. "Within the polling station, the advance polling station, you could buy a membership from the party," Mar said. "Except that there's no one at the party table that speaks three different dialects of Chinese."
So there you go. Even though selling memberships within 50 meters of a polling location is totally against PCAA rules, Gary doesn't care and claims that his volunteers did nothing wrong. Rules and ethics are for others I guess (which might just explain how this happened back in 2001-2004 while Mar was the Minister of Health)
When he entered the race for leader Mar signed an agreement with the PCAA to follow the rules of the leadership contest, not just the rules he liked or agreed with, but all of the rules. I guess a signature on an agreement doesn't mean as much as it used to.(ud)
Honestly, is this the type of person that you want to lead our province? If this type of stuff happens during a leadership campaign can you imagine how a Mar led government would operate.
Pathetic.
On the bright side at least no volunteers were blamed or scapegoated today; although campaign spokesman Mark Kastner might not feel that way as it was yesterday when Kastner blamed the improper membership sales on "overzealous supporters" only to have his boss say today that nothing was wrong with those very same sales. Ouch.
Update: A scrutineer from the advanced vote says that she "spoke with at least 3 volunteers who were acting as interpreters and always available."
Why does this not surprise me.
What a guy.
PCAA leadership candidate Gary Mar said his campaign volunteers did nothing wrong by selling party memberships within 50 metres of an Edmonton polling station. Adding that his supporters were only trying to help people who can't speak English. "Within the polling station, the advance polling station, you could buy a membership from the party," Mar said. "Except that there's no one at the party table that speaks three different dialects of Chinese."
So there you go. Even though selling memberships within 50 meters of a polling location is totally against PCAA rules, Gary doesn't care and claims that his volunteers did nothing wrong. Rules and ethics are for others I guess (which might just explain how this happened back in 2001-2004 while Mar was the Minister of Health)
When he entered the race for leader Mar signed an agreement with the PCAA to follow the rules of the leadership contest, not just the rules he liked or agreed with, but all of the rules. I guess a signature on an agreement doesn't mean as much as it used to.(ud)
Honestly, is this the type of person that you want to lead our province? If this type of stuff happens during a leadership campaign can you imagine how a Mar led government would operate.
Pathetic.
On the bright side at least no volunteers were blamed or scapegoated today; although campaign spokesman Mark Kastner might not feel that way as it was yesterday when Kastner blamed the improper membership sales on "overzealous supporters" only to have his boss say today that nothing was wrong with those very same sales. Ouch.
Update: A scrutineer from the advanced vote says that she "spoke with at least 3 volunteers who were acting as interpreters and always available."
Why does this not surprise me.
Another bad day for Team Gary Mar.
"If you can't run the campaign with integrity, then how can you promise integrity after?" PCAA leadership candidate Doug Griffiths.
Yesterday was advanced voting day for the PCAA leadership race here in Alberta, and as it turns out, it was also another bad day for team Gary Mar.
Representatives from Gary Mar's leadership campaign were seen breaking party rules Tuesday by selling Progressive Conservative memberships outside an Edmonton advance polling station.
Mar membership sellers were also shooed away from the Calgary polling station on Tuesday.
Team Mar's response, which seems to be the norm of late, was to blame volunteers: "Mar campaign spokesman Mark Kastner blamed the membership sales on "overzealous supporters"
You might think that after the free membership fiasco where Team Mar also laid blame on a hapless volunteer that they would have tried to be a bit more careful and made sure that ALL of their people were properly trained and following the rules to the letter. But after yesterday it appears that neither of these were that high on their priority list, making me wonder how this bunch would ever run a government if they can't even properly train their volunteers in a leadership campaign on the basic rules.
Team Mar wasn't done yet as they went old school by busing in elderly supporters to the advanced poll. (Something that I oddly happened to write about yesterday morning. See 2nd last paragraph)
Gary Mar bus parked within 50 meters of polling place. Photo Credit: P. Pilarski
Now busing in supporters is not against the rules per se as Team Mar were quick to point out: Mar campaign spokesman Mark Kastner said the busing is allowed under party rules, and Gary Mar said "I'm not going to apologize because we are better organized than other campaigns", but it is definitely bad optics and reeks of good ol' boy politics that have turned so many away from politics in the past.
How Team Mar managed to find 100's of elderly supporters in both Edmonton and Calgary who all just happened to not be able to vote in the regular poll this coming Saturday (rules state the voters must sign a form saying that they are unable to vote in the regular polls to be able to vote in the advance poll) remains a mystery, but being the ethical bunch they are I am sure that there is a very logical explanation for this mathematical odds defying event.
More on Team Mar's bad day can be found here at Global Edmonton.
"I'm disappointed to hear this today because that sort of conduct, I think, speaks to a pretty cynical approach to politics," PCAA leadership candidate Alison Redford.
Yesterday was advanced voting day for the PCAA leadership race here in Alberta, and as it turns out, it was also another bad day for team Gary Mar.
Representatives from Gary Mar's leadership campaign were seen breaking party rules Tuesday by selling Progressive Conservative memberships outside an Edmonton advance polling station.
Mar membership sellers were also shooed away from the Calgary polling station on Tuesday.
Team Mar's response, which seems to be the norm of late, was to blame volunteers: "Mar campaign spokesman Mark Kastner blamed the membership sales on "overzealous supporters"
You might think that after the free membership fiasco where Team Mar also laid blame on a hapless volunteer that they would have tried to be a bit more careful and made sure that ALL of their people were properly trained and following the rules to the letter. But after yesterday it appears that neither of these were that high on their priority list, making me wonder how this bunch would ever run a government if they can't even properly train their volunteers in a leadership campaign on the basic rules.
Team Mar wasn't done yet as they went old school by busing in elderly supporters to the advanced poll. (Something that I oddly happened to write about yesterday morning. See 2nd last paragraph)
Now busing in supporters is not against the rules per se as Team Mar were quick to point out: Mar campaign spokesman Mark Kastner said the busing is allowed under party rules, and Gary Mar said "I'm not going to apologize because we are better organized than other campaigns", but it is definitely bad optics and reeks of good ol' boy politics that have turned so many away from politics in the past.
How Team Mar managed to find 100's of elderly supporters in both Edmonton and Calgary who all just happened to not be able to vote in the regular poll this coming Saturday (rules state the voters must sign a form saying that they are unable to vote in the regular polls to be able to vote in the advance poll) remains a mystery, but being the ethical bunch they are I am sure that there is a very logical explanation for this mathematical odds defying event.
More on Team Mar's bad day can be found here at Global Edmonton.
"I'm disappointed to hear this today because that sort of conduct, I think, speaks to a pretty cynical approach to politics," PCAA leadership candidate Alison Redford.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Free memberships and the PCAA. The real elephant in the room.
My first post on Team Mar giving away free memberships can be read here. My second post which contains an audio clip of a volunteer stating "a donor is paying for student memberships" can be found here.
Both of those posts caused quite a stir and I must admit that it was entertaining watching Team Mar try to spin their way out of a 'problem', although having myself accused of fabricating the entire thing or being a partisan hack was not, but here is the rub; there are absolutely NO rules ( according to the PCAA who I called to clarify before Fridays blog post and now also verified by the Edmonton Sun) as to anyone, including the candidates, buying or paying for the memberships of others!
Yes it is true. Giving away 'free memberships' breaks absolutely no rules what so ever within the PCAA and if a donor paying for student memberships the PCAA has no problem what so ever with them doing so as long as they get their 5 bucks. Honestly I was shocked to hear this, as I am sure most of you are as well, and that is why I never wrote or made the accusation that Team Mar was breaking the rules as some have claimed, because the sad reality is that they had not.
It makes more sense now as to why my emails to some of the other candidates campaigns on this subject went unanswered. It makes you wonder just how wide spread a practice this is. ( BTW: For the record only the Doug Griffiths campaign responded to my questions and condemned the practice)
The reasons that this practice is wrong are numerous. First off the optics are terrible. Not only does it lead people to believe that the entire process is corrupt, it brings back visions of the 'old days' when some good ol' boys would load up buses with people they found on the street, handing them $5 to buy a membership to vote for their guy. More serious than the optics is the very real possibility of someone just buying the leadership (and the Premiers office!). In theory with 250k of donated money someone could buy 50,000 memberships and pass them out to people, and 50,000 votes would have been more than enough to win the PCAA leadership on the first ballot in 2006. Sure it would not be an easy task to do for the average candidate but what about if that candidate had the backing of a large union/s (for example) where finding 50,000 people might not be that difficult of a task. The PCAA, and the Premiers job could be bought for a relatively small amount of cash and NOBODY could stop them!
This type of crap is not allowed in the Conservative Party at the federal level for good reason and looking towards Alberta, the Wildrose Alliance Party's constitution is very clear on this:
3.1.2 indicate their intention to join the Party by personally authorizing an application for membership in the Party...
3.2.1 have paid the prescribed membership fee, personally or through an immediate family member; (PDF)
So why is it allowed in the PCAA?
You know this entire thing stinks; it is absolute nonsense on so many levels but it is something that I have come to expect as of late from the PCAA. Antiquated rules for an antiquated party.
What happens now?
I guess the candidates have a couple of options. Call out this unethical practice for what it is and promise to make changes to the rules so this embarrassment never happens again, or go grab the cheque book, pass out memberships, and rent the buses for Saturday.
Now that the elephant in the room has been revealed and everyone now knows that paying for memberships is not against the rules, your guess is as good as mine as to what will happen.
Both of those posts caused quite a stir and I must admit that it was entertaining watching Team Mar try to spin their way out of a 'problem', although having myself accused of fabricating the entire thing or being a partisan hack was not, but here is the rub; there are absolutely NO rules ( according to the PCAA who I called to clarify before Fridays blog post and now also verified by the Edmonton Sun) as to anyone, including the candidates, buying or paying for the memberships of others!
Yes it is true. Giving away 'free memberships' breaks absolutely no rules what so ever within the PCAA and if a donor paying for student memberships the PCAA has no problem what so ever with them doing so as long as they get their 5 bucks. Honestly I was shocked to hear this, as I am sure most of you are as well, and that is why I never wrote or made the accusation that Team Mar was breaking the rules as some have claimed, because the sad reality is that they had not.
It makes more sense now as to why my emails to some of the other candidates campaigns on this subject went unanswered. It makes you wonder just how wide spread a practice this is. ( BTW: For the record only the Doug Griffiths campaign responded to my questions and condemned the practice)
The reasons that this practice is wrong are numerous. First off the optics are terrible. Not only does it lead people to believe that the entire process is corrupt, it brings back visions of the 'old days' when some good ol' boys would load up buses with people they found on the street, handing them $5 to buy a membership to vote for their guy. More serious than the optics is the very real possibility of someone just buying the leadership (and the Premiers office!). In theory with 250k of donated money someone could buy 50,000 memberships and pass them out to people, and 50,000 votes would have been more than enough to win the PCAA leadership on the first ballot in 2006. Sure it would not be an easy task to do for the average candidate but what about if that candidate had the backing of a large union/s (for example) where finding 50,000 people might not be that difficult of a task. The PCAA, and the Premiers job could be bought for a relatively small amount of cash and NOBODY could stop them!
This type of crap is not allowed in the Conservative Party at the federal level for good reason and looking towards Alberta, the Wildrose Alliance Party's constitution is very clear on this:
3.1.2 indicate their intention to join the Party by personally authorizing an application for membership in the Party...
3.2.1 have paid the prescribed membership fee, personally or through an immediate family member; (PDF)
So why is it allowed in the PCAA?
You know this entire thing stinks; it is absolute nonsense on so many levels but it is something that I have come to expect as of late from the PCAA. Antiquated rules for an antiquated party.
What happens now?
I guess the candidates have a couple of options. Call out this unethical practice for what it is and promise to make changes to the rules so this embarrassment never happens again, or go grab the cheque book, pass out memberships, and rent the buses for Saturday.
Now that the elephant in the room has been revealed and everyone now knows that paying for memberships is not against the rules, your guess is as good as mine as to what will happen.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Team Mar volunteer: " ...a donor is paying for student memberships"
We get letters (and emails), lot and lots of letters... And look what showed up in one of them.
Spin that.
Audio clip taken from a video taken Sept 7, 2011 at that very same Gary Mar table at the U of A where this picture was taken. I decided to use audio only and not full video because the identity of this hard working volunteer is not important and I am not here to toss her under a bus. Team Mar seems to be doing a good enough job of that already.
Background: Last Friday I posted a picture of the Team Gary Mar table at the University of Alberta where it was quite obvious that they were giving away free memberships.
The response was quick from Mar spinners and supporters: "Complete fabrication guys." was the first, but seeing that the free membership sign was so prominently displayed in the photo, that line was going to go nowhere. Next up came what would become the main spin from Team Mar: "it was a mistake by a volunteer, nobody was instructed to do this. Problem was corrected right away." Which was to be repeated, almost word for word many more times throughout the day. They were in the 'nothing to see here' mode and were only too happy to blame one poor volunteer ( there were at least 3 volunteers there, all of which could see the sign on the table and NONE doing anything about it ) hoping it would all go away. Honestly I have lost more respect for Team Mar over how they tried to spin their way out than I did about some 'free memberships' that were given out.
So what do you think?
An improperly trained volunteer, who knew enough about the memberships to say that they normally cost $5, who on the spur of the moment just happened to come up with this 'donor paying for student memberships' idea on her own, or perhaps is there is more to the story than what Team Mar is telling us? Personally I think that there is more to the story*, but given what we have already seen from Team Mar, I don't expect that we will really ever find out the full story and all I expect to see is more spin and damage control.
As I said in my original post: I guess ethics left the PCAA a long time ago.
*There may indeed be much more to the story but in the end it really doesn't matter; which is the real elephant in the room that nobody is yet talking about.
More on that elephant tomorrow. (BTW and it isn't the 'donor'.)
UPDATE: More spin from Team Mar: 'campaign advisor Mark Kastner said the incident was a mistake.
“A new volunteer did put the sign down. It was corrected quickly and we don’t think any memberships were given away,” said Kastner in an email.' To put it simply, BS! Memberships WERE given away and in case there is doubt about this, there is a certain video...
" a donor is paying for student memberships"
Spin that.
Audio clip taken from a video taken Sept 7, 2011 at that very same Gary Mar table at the U of A where this picture was taken. I decided to use audio only and not full video because the identity of this hard working volunteer is not important and I am not here to toss her under a bus. Team Mar seems to be doing a good enough job of that already.
Background: Last Friday I posted a picture of the Team Gary Mar table at the University of Alberta where it was quite obvious that they were giving away free memberships.
The response was quick from Mar spinners and supporters: "Complete fabrication guys." was the first, but seeing that the free membership sign was so prominently displayed in the photo, that line was going to go nowhere. Next up came what would become the main spin from Team Mar: "it was a mistake by a volunteer, nobody was instructed to do this. Problem was corrected right away." Which was to be repeated, almost word for word many more times throughout the day. They were in the 'nothing to see here' mode and were only too happy to blame one poor volunteer ( there were at least 3 volunteers there, all of which could see the sign on the table and NONE doing anything about it ) hoping it would all go away. Honestly I have lost more respect for Team Mar over how they tried to spin their way out than I did about some 'free memberships' that were given out.
So what do you think?
An improperly trained volunteer, who knew enough about the memberships to say that they normally cost $5, who on the spur of the moment just happened to come up with this 'donor paying for student memberships' idea on her own, or perhaps is there is more to the story than what Team Mar is telling us? Personally I think that there is more to the story*, but given what we have already seen from Team Mar, I don't expect that we will really ever find out the full story and all I expect to see is more spin and damage control.
As I said in my original post: I guess ethics left the PCAA a long time ago.
*There may indeed be much more to the story but in the end it really doesn't matter; which is the real elephant in the room that nobody is yet talking about.
More on that elephant tomorrow. (BTW and it isn't the 'donor'.)
UPDATE: More spin from Team Mar: 'campaign advisor Mark Kastner said the incident was a mistake.
“A new volunteer did put the sign down. It was corrected quickly and we don’t think any memberships were given away,” said Kastner in an email.' To put it simply, BS! Memberships WERE given away and in case there is doubt about this, there is a certain video...
Friday, September 09, 2011
Team Gary Mar gets caught giving away party memberships.
Can it really get any more blatant than this? The following photo was taken September 7th on campus at the University of Alberta. In it you can clearly see members of Team Gary Mar openly offering anyone willing to fill out the paperwork a 'Free membership' in the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta; allowing them the opportunity to cast a vote for the next leader of the PCAA who will also be the next Premier of the Province of Alberta.
Now just get that demon dialer set up, give away* 20,000 memberships, and hope those free membership members all show up and vote.
*Not really a give away. Each membership does cost $5 and that must be paid to the PCAA, but all you need is just 1 big fat $100,000 donation tobuy it pay for it and you get a great shot at the Premiers Office and all that goes with the job of leading the Province of Alberta.
A bargain at twice the price!
I guess ethics left the PCAA a long time ago.
Update Sept 10: Major updatecoming soon! Monday morning.
And here is that update in a new post.
Now just get that demon dialer set up, give away* 20,000 memberships, and hope those free membership members all show up and vote.
*Not really a give away. Each membership does cost $5 and that must be paid to the PCAA, but all you need is just 1 big fat $100,000 donation to
A bargain at twice the price!
I guess ethics left the PCAA a long time ago.
Update Sept 10: Major update
And here is that update in a new post.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Incompetence at Edmonton City Hall.
It seems that the City Manager and the Transportation Department jumped the gun by not only ordering the new seasonal parking ban signs but by having city crews install them before City Council had made the decision to do so.
I wonder how many dollars that move will cost us?
Update: Councilor Bryan Anderson said it could be a waste of $600,000. If that number is accurate, transportation boss Bob Boutilier must be fired immediately and to use Boutilier's own words: "All I can say is, 'tough! I got no other way of saying it..." you cost the taxpayer $600,000, and you did so without the approval of the elected representatives of the citizens of Edmonton; you have to go. This is an embarrassment.
City Council has yet to make a final decision on the matter but according to news reports (and Councilor Don Iveson), as of right now the seasonal ban is on hold and all of those expensive installed signs are to be ignored.
I wonder how many dollars that move will cost us?
Update: Councilor Bryan Anderson said it could be a waste of $600,000. If that number is accurate, transportation boss Bob Boutilier must be fired immediately and to use Boutilier's own words: "All I can say is, 'tough! I got no other way of saying it..." you cost the taxpayer $600,000, and you did so without the approval of the elected representatives of the citizens of Edmonton; you have to go. This is an embarrassment.
City Council has yet to make a final decision on the matter but according to news reports (and Councilor Don Iveson), as of right now the seasonal ban is on hold and all of those expensive installed signs are to be ignored.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Like a runaway train. Team Libby can't be stopped.
Okay; it may be a solar powered train at dusk but there is no denying that the ranks of Team Libby are growing!
Come join us won't you. You will be glad that you did.*
*Jack would have wanted it that way.
Come join us won't you. You will be glad that you did.*
*Jack would have wanted it that way.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
City of Edmonton puts up seasonal parking ban signs but City Council has yet to approve the move.
I take it as a sign of an already done deal (just how do they know it is a done deal is a good question though) as City of Edmonton workers are all over the place putting up Seasonal Parking ban signs throughout Edmonton. But the matter does NOT come before City Council for discussion until theTransportation & Infrastructure Committee meeting September 6th at 9:30 am at City Hall where these reports will be debated.
Previous news stories here here and here ALL seem to suggest that the City was looking at this, and that NO decision was going to be made. Wrong.
So what happened?
According to someone I spoke to at City Hall they are claiming that the City Manager made the call under Bylaw 5590, which is the all encompassing traffic bylaw, but strangely enough 5590 makes NO mention at all of a seasonal parking ban.
So I ask: Who authorized these signs to be produced? Who gave the go ahead for them to be put up? Can Council reverse this or are they powerless against the moves of Transportation and the City Manager? And lastly: why bother having council discuss this stuff at all if the City Manager can just do as he pleases without any concern as to what the citizens of Edmonton have to say?
Not that Transportation boss Bob Boutilier cares about what you think as he is already on record saying: "All I can say is, 'tough!' i got no other way of saying it. The situation we run into is, we got to keep the system operating." when citizen concerns over the seasonal parking ban were brought up.
Previous news stories here here and here ALL seem to suggest that the City was looking at this, and that NO decision was going to be made. Wrong.
So what happened?
According to someone I spoke to at City Hall they are claiming that the City Manager made the call under Bylaw 5590, which is the all encompassing traffic bylaw, but strangely enough 5590 makes NO mention at all of a seasonal parking ban.
So I ask: Who authorized these signs to be produced? Who gave the go ahead for them to be put up? Can Council reverse this or are they powerless against the moves of Transportation and the City Manager? And lastly: why bother having council discuss this stuff at all if the City Manager can just do as he pleases without any concern as to what the citizens of Edmonton have to say?
Not that Transportation boss Bob Boutilier cares about what you think as he is already on record saying: "All I can say is, 'tough!' i got no other way of saying it. The situation we run into is, we got to keep the system operating." when citizen concerns over the seasonal parking ban were brought up.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
NDP exploiting Jack Layton for political gain.
It seems that the NDP have been flat out busted exploiting Jack Layton for their political gain, and do you know what? Jack Layton would not have it any other way.
Before the hate mail starts flowing and I get piled on for being too insensitive or it being too soon after Jacks passing: I would like to point out that up until this post that I have refrained for the most part from making comment on his untimely death and the subsequent sometimes over the top coverage (msm,twitter,blogs), but
back to the topic at hand.
Who did not see this coming? Raise your hand if you honestly did not think that the NDP would use Jacks passing for their own gain. Somehow I doubt that there are many, if any, hands raised right now; not because you would look stupid sitting at your computer with your hand in the air but because if you are in any way familiar with the NDP and Canadian politics the answer is obvious; they would and in fact are doing just that.
When Ed Broadbent said on Wednesday: “We have to build on Jack’s legacy. And quickly.” he wasn't just sputtering nonsense because of his grief, he was telling the truth.
When Pat Martin tweeted: The only criticism Jack would have over the release of his letter is that there was no fundraising appeal at the bottom...I can say that... he too was telling it like it is and reminding us all about the real Jack Layton in the process.
The letter that Mr. Martin is referring to above was Jack Layton's message to Canadians, which a few days ago could get one tarred and feathered if they pointed out the obvious that it in part was political in nature.
We can expect to see plenty more and of course the inevitable 'Jack would' or 'wouldn't want' that is already making its way out into the political world.
That is politics. It is what it is.
I did not know Layton personally but I do know that he was a masterful politician that knew the game inside and out and one who clearly relished in it. You can believe what you would like to believe but he was a very smart man and IMHO to deny that as the time of his passing neared that Jack never gave thought about how his own death could help out the party that he had recently led to its greatest electoral success, is an insult to the mans political skills and acumen.
Layton the politician would do what it takes and that is the Jack Layton that I choose to remember. The consummate politician, right up until the end and as it now appears, beyond.
Rest in peace Jack.
As I wrote earlier' that is politics' and as I also wrote earlier, 'Jack wouldn't have it any other way'.
Update: The CP has something with an eerily similar feel: Politicization of Layton's death was what he wanted.
Saturday update: "this mass outbreak of recreational grief..."
Before the hate mail starts flowing and I get piled on for being too insensitive or it being too soon after Jacks passing: I would like to point out that up until this post that I have refrained for the most part from making comment on his untimely death and the subsequent sometimes over the top coverage (msm,twitter,blogs), but
back to the topic at hand.
Who did not see this coming? Raise your hand if you honestly did not think that the NDP would use Jacks passing for their own gain. Somehow I doubt that there are many, if any, hands raised right now; not because you would look stupid sitting at your computer with your hand in the air but because if you are in any way familiar with the NDP and Canadian politics the answer is obvious; they would and in fact are doing just that.
When Ed Broadbent said on Wednesday: “We have to build on Jack’s legacy. And quickly.” he wasn't just sputtering nonsense because of his grief, he was telling the truth.
When Pat Martin tweeted: The only criticism Jack would have over the release of his letter is that there was no fundraising appeal at the bottom...I can say that... he too was telling it like it is and reminding us all about the real Jack Layton in the process.
The letter that Mr. Martin is referring to above was Jack Layton's message to Canadians, which a few days ago could get one tarred and feathered if they pointed out the obvious that it in part was political in nature.
We can expect to see plenty more and of course the inevitable 'Jack would' or 'wouldn't want' that is already making its way out into the political world.
That is politics. It is what it is.
I did not know Layton personally but I do know that he was a masterful politician that knew the game inside and out and one who clearly relished in it. You can believe what you would like to believe but he was a very smart man and IMHO to deny that as the time of his passing neared that Jack never gave thought about how his own death could help out the party that he had recently led to its greatest electoral success, is an insult to the mans political skills and acumen.
Layton the politician would do what it takes and that is the Jack Layton that I choose to remember. The consummate politician, right up until the end and as it now appears, beyond.
Rest in peace Jack.
As I wrote earlier' that is politics' and as I also wrote earlier, 'Jack wouldn't have it any other way'.
Update: The CP has something with an eerily similar feel: Politicization of Layton's death was what he wanted.
Saturday update: "this mass outbreak of recreational grief..."
Monday, August 22, 2011
Jack Layton 1950-2011
“We deeply regret to inform you that the Honourable Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, passed away at 4:45 a.m. today,” his family said in a statement. “He passed away peacefully at his home surrounded by family and loved ones. Details of Mr. Layton’s funeral arrangements will be forthcoming,"
Layton was 61.
Rest in Peace Jack.
CTV
CBC Video tribute
CP
PM Harper: I know one thing: Jack gave his fight against cancer everything he had. Indeed, Jack never backed down from any fight.
Layton was 61.
Rest in Peace Jack.
CTV
CBC Video tribute
CP
PM Harper: I know one thing: Jack gave his fight against cancer everything he had. Indeed, Jack never backed down from any fight.
Monday, August 15, 2011
I wonder if Heather Mallick's employers have apologies pre-printed when they hire her.
Because it seems that they do have to make a few of them.
The latest comes from Mallick's latest employer, The Toronto Star:
"A column by Heather Mallick on July 28 contained a number of inaccurate statements about the well-known British journalist and author Melanie Phillips.
Ms. Phillips has expressed her horror at the slaughter at Utoya, Norway in a clear and unambiguous way, writing “there can be no excuse, justification or rationale whatsoever for the atrocity perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik.”
The column made reference to Ms. Phillips’ writings in an entirely misleading and inappropriate manner.
The defamatory article has been removed from our website.
The Star and Ms. Mallick regret the errors and apologize to Ms. Phillips."
And here is a report from the CBC Ombudsman on a column Mallick wrote while she was an employee of the CBC. That too has been removed from the CBC website but is available to read here. Notice a trend?
HT to Blazing Cat Fur who has a screenshot of the text of the now deleted Star column which can be seen here.
The latest comes from Mallick's latest employer, The Toronto Star:
"A column by Heather Mallick on July 28 contained a number of inaccurate statements about the well-known British journalist and author Melanie Phillips.
Ms. Phillips has expressed her horror at the slaughter at Utoya, Norway in a clear and unambiguous way, writing “there can be no excuse, justification or rationale whatsoever for the atrocity perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik.”
The column made reference to Ms. Phillips’ writings in an entirely misleading and inappropriate manner.
The defamatory article has been removed from our website.
The Star and Ms. Mallick regret the errors and apologize to Ms. Phillips."
And here is a report from the CBC Ombudsman on a column Mallick wrote while she was an employee of the CBC. That too has been removed from the CBC website but is available to read here. Notice a trend?
HT to Blazing Cat Fur who has a screenshot of the text of the now deleted Star column which can be seen here.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
What is CBC Policy on publishing the names of suspects... That depends.
What exactly is CBC News Policy on the naming of suspects?
Here is what CBC stated was their policy in regards to publishing the names/pictures of suspects
"CBC News' practice is not to name suspects, and therefore is not publishing the names or photos of the suspects at this time." (Note: The original wording in that story read "“CBC News is not publishing the names or photos of the suspects at this time” and it was changed sometime after the original story hit their website.)
Since that story hit the web others have found examples of CBC doing the exact opposite and naming suspects, but today the CBC has really outdone themselves and have hit the trifecta today with this story. "Edmonton police are searching for a 17-year-old woman who is allegedly having unprotected sex without disclosing her HIV-positive status."
Not only did they publish the photo and name a 'suspect', something they claimed they do not do, but this particular suspect is a 17 yrs old minor who now has had what most would consider to be her private medical information posted by the CBC on the internet!
I think we need a clarity act for CBC Policy.
BTW: I hope that Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman, (whom I have great respect for) gets on this ASAP.
Here is what CBC stated was their policy in regards to publishing the names/pictures of suspects
"CBC News' practice is not to name suspects, and therefore is not publishing the names or photos of the suspects at this time." (Note: The original wording in that story read "“CBC News is not publishing the names or photos of the suspects at this time” and it was changed sometime after the original story hit their website.)
Since that story hit the web others have found examples of CBC doing the exact opposite and naming suspects, but today the CBC has really outdone themselves and have hit the trifecta today with this story. "Edmonton police are searching for a 17-year-old woman who is allegedly having unprotected sex without disclosing her HIV-positive status."
Not only did they publish the photo and name a 'suspect', something they claimed they do not do, but this particular suspect is a 17 yrs old minor who now has had what most would consider to be her private medical information posted by the CBC on the internet!
I think we need a clarity act for CBC Policy.
BTW: I hope that Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman, (whom I have great respect for) gets on this ASAP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
