2 dead, 2 missing, hundreds trapped and Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk is making jokes.

Remember that private email that surfaced awhile back that called Alberta's Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk an asshole?  Well, I think it may have been accurate.

From Thomas Lukaszuk's Facebook page: 

"Fairmont in Hot Springs has a good deal on rooms today. If a little bit of mud doesn't bother you, book now!!!"

Totally tactless but when one looks at the record of our deputy premier it should not be unexpected, but I am sure the 600 people that were trapped in Fairmont do appreciate the humour.

NOT!

Stay classy Deputy Premier; you are supposed to be representing all of us.

Related:
2 dead and 2 still missing in BC mudslide.


Update/mea culpa : It has been pointed out in the comments that my title may have been misleading, and I can see how that may be true; Lukaszuk was making a joke about Fairmont and not Johnsons Landing, not that it makes the joke anymore acceptable, and I should have been more clear.

Making fun of tragedy is NEVER funny.


Afternoon update

The Premiers office responds:  "The Facebook post in question has been removed," according to the premier's office. "There was no disrespect whatsoever intended and the deputy premier doesn't find the risk of human life or the tragedy that's going on there a joking matter."

Lukaszuk's Twitter apology: "Sorry for my FB post. I'm out of Canada and was not aware of the scope of the situation in BC. I removed the post. ‪#ableg‬ ‪#pcaa‬ ‪#abgov"

Good on him for the apology but I am having some trouble with his explanation (why is there always an explanation and not just a straight forward "I'm sorry"?) as his claim that he was not aware of the scope of the situation sort of rings untrue when you consider that the picture he used for his Facebook post was taken from a CBC news article on the mudslide.

Oh well, at least we got the apology out of him. It is a start.
 


 More related links:

http://www.openfile.ca/calgary/blog/2012/deputy-premier-cracks-mudslide-joke-facebook-then-removes-it

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Lukaszuk+apologizes+Facebook+post+about+landslides/6948486/story.html?cid=dlvr.it-twitter-ej_politics

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/300943/deputy-premier-thomas-lukaszuk-takes-heat-for-b-c-landslide-jokes-on-facebook/

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/deputy+premier+under+fire+for+controversial+facebook+post/6442680953/story.html

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/now+trending+lukaszuks+facebook+comment+sparks+criticism/6442680951/story.html

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2012/07/landslide-jokes-like-jokes-about.html   (you know it has been a crazy day when BCL links to a Blogging Tory!  BTW: Thanks BCL for the http://www.nationalnewswatch.com 
link.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/020777.html

A little of this and a little of that: My late take on the Wildrose loss.

It is a day late but here is my take on what the hell happened on Monday in Alberta vote.

The Wildrose lost. < true.

The 'pundits' lost. < 99% of them did anyway. 

The pollsters lost. < not really. The polls showed tightening and the trend lines were there. The number didn't lie, but pollsters like to go into interpreting those numbers, it is their job right?, rather than just producing the data, and in this they ALL got it wrong.

The MSM lost. < true. See above on the pollsters.
 
The Albertaardvark lost. < true. I got sucked into believing the numbers as much as the next guy.

Strategic voting worked. < partly.

The fear campaign worked. < yes it did, but it wasn't enough to cause the loss on its own.

The power of incumbency.  < Huge contributing factor. see below of lack of experience.

The PC's won. < that depends on what your definition of 'won' is.

Lack of experience of the Wildrose. < another huge factor that IMHO was the determining factor with the demographic known as the 'undecided' voter who made the decision most likely last weekend or at the ballot box.  I am sure many saw the fear mongering for what it was, a political ploy to drive wedges between Albertans, but it left that seed of doubt, and with the lack of experience/familiarity with the Wildrose, many went with the incumbent devil they know and have been voting for for 41 years.


Bumper stickers that read: "Don't blame me. I voted Wildrose" < might turn out to be a great investment.*

The loss will make Danielle Smith a stronger leader and a better premier. < true. FTR: Dean called the election outcome a month ago.

"I am having a muffin. Sorry, I thought I was on Twitter". < from a brilliant video commentary that nails the fear campaign as the ploy it was.

Alberta won. < Yet to be determined, but I have already seen signs to the contrary from the PC's showing that they haven't learned a thing. (That they won with their great campaign and the collapse of the Wildrose had nothing to do with the result. This arrogance does not bode well)




*If you are getting financial advice from a political blog written by someone who still has 3 boxes of  "Team Lou" t-shirts in PC orange and blue to unload, you might be better of using that money for some professional help.

After 41 years Alberta is poised for much needed change.

We don't change governments often in Alberta but when we do, we do it in a decisive dramatic fashion.

Election day is Monday and for the first time that I can remember, I would say my life but I was a born a Social Credit baby, Alberta is poised to make that change, and in my opinion it is long over due.

I could literally post 100's of reasons/links as to why the PC's, both before and under Redford, do not deserve to be rewarded with our votes and returned to government, but I think most everyone reading this already knows the truth about the PCAA record , be they PC supporters or not.

But it goes well beyond that.

Some time in the last 41 years the PC's have lost sight of the line between political party and government. They have treated our government as some type of fiefdom where their friends and allies get  rewarded with lucrative contracts, sometimes for doing little or nothing, and appointments to the many boards, agencies, bureaus, and offices throughout the system. Gary Mar, Kelley Charlebois, and even Ken Hughes names quickly come to mind but there have been 1000's of them made over the years with cronyism being the tool used by the PC's to stack our bureaucracy.

Making matters worse, the PC's have developed an arrogance and lack of accountability that rivals that of the federal Liberals under Chretien or Martin. Be it the callous nature that they treated the revelations of 50+ cases of the PC's receiving illegal donations and the law Redford passed as Justice Minister that forbids Albertans from EVER finding out the findings of Elections Alberta, to the way Redford handled the no-meet committee, the healthcare inquiry,HQCA recommendations, Mar etc, the PC's have shown that they really don't care what the people of Alberta think or want.

Alberta desperately needs to clean house and have start fresh. We have to elect a different party to takeover the reigns of power and do some serious house cleaning within the system and to the laws governing that system. It is our government and it is time that is was working for us and not the political party that ran it for 41 consecutive years. Power does corrupt and every once in a while this has to be done for not only the good of the government but also for the good of the party that has lost its way; and I am sorry to say this but the Alberta Progressive Conservatives have indeed lost their way and like with the federal Liberals they are in dire need of a good kick in the ass from the voters to knock them down a peg and shake things up if they want to salvage what is left of the once proud PC party.

To paraphrase the late Jack Layton: The Progressive Conservative Party is going into the repair shop for a while to work through its ethical, accountability, and arrogance issues, so it can figure out what it's about. They're going to be busy thinking about themselves, not you. Lend your vote to the party that will keep Alberta and our economy moving, one that will put Albertans first while the PC's take the much needed time to reflect on what the party stands for and who they are; vote Wildrose! The only conservative option.

The PC strategy: Avoid talking record/policy at all costs and smear the Wildrose.

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.

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

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 bias 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.

Dear Alberta PC's: You used to be cool and conservative. What happened?

Dear Alberta PC's:

You used to be cool and conservative. What happened?

A long time ago a young Peter Lougheed ran against the big government and the nanny like laws of the old tired Social Credit, you represented change and you meant it. You lowered the legal drinking age to 18 and trusted that Albertans could handle the responsibility. Today you have become a clone of that tired SC government you defeated by passing nanny state law such a Bill 26 which will allow the police to become judge and jury by seizing private property at the side of the road without due process and any effective right to appeal for doing something that is NOT even against the law. You told private business that they no longer had the right to determine the price at which to sell their own product by writing law setting a minimum price for that product rather than using numerous existing laws to deal with the perceived problem.


You defended Alberta against a federal Liberal government with their National Energy Program as an intrusion into our affairs and defended our resources. Today Premier Redford is encouraging her own version of the NEP and goes so far as to publicly defend those who are trying to shut down our oil sands and fund films with the same purpose with our tax dollars.


You used to believe in the most basic of conservative principles of not spending more money than we brought in, you even went so far as to pass a law to make sure that government could no longer do so, but turned around and rescinded that law before giving us 5 deficit budget in a row with another to follow ( The surplus stated for 2013-2014 is calculated to be approx 1/2 billion dollars and in spite of Bill 1, the results based budgeting act, un-budgeted promises from Redford totaling in the billions all but ensure deficit number 6 is on the way.) And while we are in a deficit position had no qualms at all about running a pre-election tour and a trip to Jasper for the PC caucus on our dime or breaching legislature privilege by running budget ads before it was even passed.


You used to actually listen to Albertans but now it is more lip service than anything else even though in every speech you are always saying 'Albertans are telling us' or  'Albertans want' but seem to be tone deaf when Albertans do speak out and tell you that something is wrong as with the MLA and committee pay structure set up by your gov't. Only acting after having your backs forced against the wall and not at the beginning when Albertans so clearly expressed their outrage. You didn't listen to us when we said we wanted you to look at the bullying and intimidation of our doctors and you didn't even listen to the doctors or to the HQCA (which you promised to implement the 21 recommendations of their report) and went ahead radically changing the way healthcare is done by promising 140 family care clinics just weeks after announcing the 3 pilot projects which have not even opened their doors and could not have been studied for their effectiveness, breaking the promises made.


You used to be confident in your message and record, so much so that you never even used to name your opponents in an election and always took the high road. Today in-spite of numerous promises to do take the high road you went on the attack even before the election using lies and have went so far as to play the race  and the fear card about another party to try to distract from your poor record and save your self from losing power. You have more in common with the 2006 Liberal party than you do to any conservative one. What happened? You used to be proud of being conservative, not just in name only, and proud of your roots, but now you purchase full page newspaper ads attacking the party base and you go out of your way to attack one of the most popular premiers in our history at a time when he is unable to defend himself.  Not cool.


You used to honest and accountable but now I am having a hard time believing anything you say. You promised change but yet one of the first things you did was gave Gary Mar and Kelley Charlebois jobs, continuing the ol' boy tradition.( BTW how did that Mar thing work out for you?) From intimidation of doctors, school boards, and municipalities, to promises on a fixed election date, a full health inquiry,  not raising taxes, to passing law that hurts property owners and helps billion dollar power companies and law  gagging Elections Alberta from disclosing ANY information about the numerous cases (well over 50) of illegal donations to the PC party, you have broken your word and lying is never cool. In fact during the debate Premier Redford was caught in a blatant lie on removing the cap on seniors housing and stood before the entire province and said she did not use the words, which she clearly did, and we can no longer trust anything you say.



Alberta PC's, you used to be cool and conservative by believing in small/less government, not spending more money than you had, and standing up for free enterprise and the freedoms of Albertans. Now you just stand in the way.

What happened?

Feel free to look over the blog for many more examples of the actual record of the PC's. It is a real eye opener and a great primer heading into the election on Monday as the PC's have clearly turned their backs on not only conservatism but also good government.  They do not deserve your vote, we can do better than this.

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.

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

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.
  

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:

(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 official Alberta Liberal Party press release on the subject:

"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. ;-)

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:

(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.

The PCAA: The biggest, baddest politcal machine in Alberta

In spite of what Redford and the PC's may want all of us to believe, it is wise for everyone to remember that the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are hardly the underdog or are somehow disadvantaged in this election. They are easily the largest, best funded, most organized and best connected political machine that this province has ever seen. Their resources dwarf any other party and probably all of them combined, and considering that they are also the current government, that advantage is multiplied even further as they are able to use the resources of the government for their own purposes, even though they should not be doing so.

We had the $100,000+ pre-election "cabinet tour" in back in January, the weekend retreat to Jasper in February where the PC caucus met up with the unelected PCAA candidates, commercials on the budget long before it was passed, and the ability to summon the media at will for a photo op or announcement of any kind and they took full advantage of all of it and all our our our dime.

And they are still at it!

I received this at a parent council meeting at our local school Apr 2, one week into the election campaign.

 
It is an outline of what the what the Alberta government (read PC's) are spending on education and includes the latest information from the 2012 budget, which bring up the obvious question: When was this printed?
The budget passed late on March 21st (BTW Redford was not in attendance and did not vote on her OWN budget) and the election call was on March 26th, with them being distributed and handed out only 1 week later!

Did the PCs again use government resources for free election advertising?  I think the answer is a definitive yes, the PC machine is more than willing to use not only their own ample resources to try to get themselves elected, but also tax payer dollars as well.


It is going to be an interesting few weeks as election day nears and PC election machine gets rolling and spends their money. The PCs have already gone negative ( pre-election attack ad, anonymous robo-calls pretending to be polls, election advertising claiming Danielle Smith is "not worth the risk") and if the last few days are any indication it is going to get nastier as the reality of the poll numbers start to sink in and have started to lash out like a cornered animal resorting to fear mongering and baseless smears as I called a few weeks back.


One more thing: Can we now ALL admit, given the ample evidence to the contrary, that Redford's oft repeated promises that the PCs will run a clean campaign are simply nothing but BS?  I think we are all getting tired of being lied to to our faces about this delusion.

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.

The Globe and Mail forced to change a headline... again.

Now you see it.

 Now you don't.

For the second time in less than a week, the Globe and Mail has had to change a headline on a story due to public outcry. The first was on March 29th when the headline read "Wildrose would nix funding for costly Oilers arena if elected, Smith says"

With "Wildrose wouldn't fund costly Oilers arena if elected, Smith says" as the first one was factually wrong as NO party has ever agreed to fund the arena and which makes it impossible to "nix" something that doesn't even exist; but both headlines claim that is what "Smith says".  Odd that and even stranger that they made both changes without even acknowledging they did so.

And it happened again last night when the Globe removed the loaded word "childless" from their headline on the Gary Mason column, which itself is a total mess that starts off factually wrong in the very first paragraph by calling Amanda Wilkie a "party worker" ( see BC Blue for all you need to know on that and how either Redford or Stephen Carter were not telling the truth) and then makes the audacious claim that the tweet would not have been a story if Daniel Smith had not issued the press release: "Huh? There was no story until she made it one." which also happens to be the premise of Mason column and also happens to be dead wrong.

It was a story; I saw the tweet as soon as it was posted and I also saw the immediate response; both being re-tweeted by many PC supporters and the backlash by the majority, and when it became clear that this was a staff member from Premier Redford's office it became more than just another smear on twitter, it became a story, it became NEWS. I even blogged about here.


While facts and reality are not much in abundance in Mason's column, irony certainly is.
-Like Twitter busting the Globe and Mail about the headline on a story written about a tweet.
-Or a story that goes into 'gender politics' and asks if Smith were a man would we be even talking about this, itself uses 'childless' in the headline.
-Or that the author of a story about a tweet doesn't understand twitter ( if he did he would know why this became a story).
-Or that a story which says that the issue was kept alive and driven by politics is now keeping the issue alive by the story and has become news itself!
-Or that a story about Alberta politics is listed under British Columbia. Okay, that last one wasn't irony. Incompetence yes, irony no.

And speaking of irony: I love it when people use the word 'huh?' to try and express some kind of mental superiority and end up looking not so superior when they turn out to be totally wrong.

That is our professional media for you. I think Ill stick with the blogs.



Related:

The Globe and Mail headline the day Redford became Premier: "Alberta steps into the present"

A copy of the now deleted twitter account of Amanda Wilkie. Please note that this was not the first tweet that was suspect as there are a few doozies in there including:

- Wildrose supporters are  

- “ignorant rednecks” 

- “Bipolar Tories”

- “ethics & integrity aren’t part of @ElectDanielle character”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wildrose TV ad debuts

"It's time to put Albertans first."





Or you can watch it here or here.

Under pressure, Premier Redford orchestrates her own "stunt" on committee pay.

The Wildrose gets results!

In a total reversal of her previous position it was announced earlier today that that Premier Record would be forcing the PC MLAs who sat on the infamous no-meet committee, that Redford herself sat on but didn't even know, to pay back the money they were paid for being on the committee that has not met since November 17, 2008. But only for the last 6 months, which happens to be the same amount of time that Redford has been the PC leader; I guess taking 'money for nothing and the cheques for free' wasn't a problem before October.

While not the first flip flop on this issue for Redford this one is going to be much harder to spin due to her previous attempts at damage control, which have apparently failed badly.

When asked on March 11 if she was going to make her MLAs refund the money she stated that she would not and that "It's a personal decision." if they wanted to refund the money.


And in the Alberta Legislature she had these, now empty, words:  "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."


Wow. A total flip flop from the Premier who has said on many occasions that she is honest and stands by her word. Those internal polls must not be going exactly the way that Stephen Carter said they would.


Related: I wonder what PC MLA Karen Kleiss has to say now?

Previously from Kleiss:













Don Braid on the refund fiasco here.