We all know about the Katz donation(s) and many of us are aware of numerous examples of illegal donations received by the PC party, with the most recent example being tax dollars that appear to be funneled to the PCAA through Lynn Redford, the premiers sister. But how many of you know about the loophole that allowed an end run around the rules by Mike Allen and Donald Scott during the last provincial election?
Section 17 (B) (ii) of the ELECTION FINANCES AND CONTRIBUTIONS DISCLOSURE ACT reads:
(Limits on contributions in any campaign period)
(ii) $2000 to any registered candidate, and $10 000 in the
aggregate to the registered candidates of each
registered party.
This $2000 limit includes candidates own funds which they use for their own campaign as stated in 17 (5):
(5) Any money paid during a campaign period by a candidate out
of the candidate’s own funds for the purposes of the candidate’s
campaign, including the payment of the candidate’s deposit under
section 61(1)(e) of the Election Act,
(a) is a contribution for the purposes of this Act, and
(b) shall be paid into a depository of the candidate on record
with the Chief Electoral Officer.
It sounds straight forward: The maximum allowable amount that candidates can donate to their own campaigns is limited to $2000. The spirit of the law is good as it levels the playing field and is in place to prevent wealthy individuals from the advantage of funding their campaigns out of their own pocket. But the problem is not with the spirit of the law, it is with the letter of the law.
The loophole.
During the election campaign both Mike Allen and Donald Scott contributed the $2000 maximum allowed to their own respective campaigns, as most candidates do, but they also did something that no other candidates did during the election campaign; they donated the maximum $2000 to each others campaign. Think about that for a moment; the quid pro quo of you donate the maximum to me and I donate the same amount back to you, results in nothing other than essentially allowing each party to use $4000 of their own money towards
their individual campaigns with the added benefit of a healthy tax
deduction in the process. If it wasn't required for the tax receipt or election paper work, even the formality of giving each other a $2000 cheque wouldn't really even be necessary, take $2k out of your own account and just call it even, because that is all it is.
Now take this loophole a step further and find 4 other candidates (5 in total) and do the same thing (remember max allowed is $10,000 total to individual candidates) and voila, you have just found a way to donate $10,000 of your own money (5X the stated limit) to your own campaign. Considering how many candidates did not even come close to spending $10K in total on their campaigns this becomes a definite advantage to wealthy candidates.
Does this sound transparent or even close to the spirit which the law intended?
Why have a limit at all if it can so easily be ignored?
Did Allen and Scott do anything wrong? No, these are the existing rules and they, the only 2 candidates in Alberta to do so, merely found a creative way around them, but if this loophole is not fixed I can guarantee you that come next election that there will be a lot more than 2 who will use this same loophole. And that applies to all parties, not just the PCAA.
The government has a chance to fix this, and some of the many other known issues, with their Election Accountability Act. The question though is: will they do so?
Based on the record of the Redford government so far, I highly doubt it.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Compare and Contrast: Merali vs Redford.
So the big news from the other day was the discovery that current AHS VP Lynn Redford, the Premiers sister, attended Progressive Conservative party events at public expense and helped organize an annual Tory barbeque while she was a senior executive at the Calgary Health Region.
Those familiar with the goings on in Alberta politics may find this story similar to the Allaudin Merali story from a few months back. There are plenty of similarities between the 2 stories but there are also plenty of differences; mostly with the reaction from the Premier.
Let's compare and contrast.
Allaudin Merali: formerly a senior executive with Alberta Health Services and former executive with Capital Health before it amalgamated into AHS.
Lynn Redford: currently a senior executive at Alberta Health Services and former executive with the Calgary Health Region before it amalgamated into AHS.
Allaudin Merali: caught up in an expense scandal (revealed much later) while he was with Capital Health
Lynn Redford: caught up in an expense scandal (revealed much later) while she was with Calgary Health Region.
Alludin Merali: expensed thousands to Capital Health for lavish items.
Lynn Redford: expensed thousands to Calgary Regional for partisan political events and activities.
Allaudin Merali's expenses: while optically bad for all involved, did not actually violate any health region guidelines at the time. He did nothing wrong.
Lynn Redford's expenses: optically bad as well and also may have not actually violated any health region guidelines at the time. But they do appear to violate Alberta Election law.
Premier Redford's comments on Alludin Merali (who did nothing illegal)
"I'm very disappointed in this conduct and I think it is totally unacceptable"
"We can't allow this sort of conduct to happen, "It's entirely inappropriate."
"I am pleased to see that the right decision was taken with respect to terminating the employee and that the board member (Sheila Weatherill) chose to leave." "My view is that if those two things hadn't happened, we as government would have stepped in and ensured that the same result was delivered." *
Premier Redford's comments on Lynn Redford (who it appears did do something illegal)
She called the criticism "excited allegations" adding "I have confidence in my sister."
FYI: The Premier has not commented on the subject since.
I wonder why the big difference in responses?
* Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Premier Redford openly threatened to fire an employee (Merali not board member Weatherill) of an supposedly arms length agency? Under what authority would this be possible?
Related blog entries on Merali.
Related blog entries on illegal donations. 1 2 3 4 5 < also health related.
Those familiar with the goings on in Alberta politics may find this story similar to the Allaudin Merali story from a few months back. There are plenty of similarities between the 2 stories but there are also plenty of differences; mostly with the reaction from the Premier.
Let's compare and contrast.
Allaudin Merali: formerly a senior executive with Alberta Health Services and former executive with Capital Health before it amalgamated into AHS.
Lynn Redford: currently a senior executive at Alberta Health Services and former executive with the Calgary Health Region before it amalgamated into AHS.
Allaudin Merali: caught up in an expense scandal (revealed much later) while he was with Capital Health
Lynn Redford: caught up in an expense scandal (revealed much later) while she was with Calgary Health Region.
Alludin Merali: expensed thousands to Capital Health for lavish items.
Lynn Redford: expensed thousands to Calgary Regional for partisan political events and activities.
Allaudin Merali's expenses: while optically bad for all involved, did not actually violate any health region guidelines at the time. He did nothing wrong.
Lynn Redford's expenses: optically bad as well and also may have not actually violated any health region guidelines at the time. But they do appear to violate Alberta Election law.
Premier Redford's comments on Alludin Merali (who did nothing illegal)
"I'm very disappointed in this conduct and I think it is totally unacceptable"
"We can't allow this sort of conduct to happen, "It's entirely inappropriate."
"I am pleased to see that the right decision was taken with respect to terminating the employee and that the board member (Sheila Weatherill) chose to leave." "My view is that if those two things hadn't happened, we as government would have stepped in and ensured that the same result was delivered." *
Premier Redford's comments on Lynn Redford (who it appears did do something illegal)
She called the criticism "excited allegations" adding "I have confidence in my sister."
FYI: The Premier has not commented on the subject since.
I wonder why the big difference in responses?
* Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Premier Redford openly threatened to fire an employee (Merali not board member Weatherill) of an supposedly arms length agency? Under what authority would this be possible?
Related blog entries on Merali.
Related blog entries on illegal donations. 1 2 3 4 5 < also health related.
Monday, November 19, 2012
If Alberta cannot balance the budget now, when in the future will we be able to?
As you already know Premier Redford plans an end to the Ralph Klein legacy and put Alberta back into debt by borrowing money to pay for various infrastructure programs. The PC spin machine is already revved up and is trying to make anyone opposed feel guilty for not wanting to build schools (won't someone please think of the children!) or hospitals (won't someone please think of the ill) the sick. I can't recall how many times I have already seen them cry out "Which hospital would you cut?" to those who dare question their plan for putting Alberta back into debt.
The argument of course is total malarkey.
It is not what Alberta is borrowing money for but rather why Alberta,with over $40 billion yr in revenue, the lowest unemployment rate in the country and whose economy is the envy of virtually every jurisdiction in North America, has to borrow money at all that is the issue.
If Alberta can't do it, who else possibly could do it?
Redford and the PC's would like us to believe that although Alberta, with record revenue, does not have enough money now to carry out their plans, that we will have enough at some unfixed point in the future to not only continue to pay the bills but also pay the interest on the debt we are about to incur. In essence; they claim to know the future and we should trust their plans. This from the same financial gurus who gave us a budget with what everyone knew at the time contained pie in the sky revenue estimates and who now claim a little over 200 days later that the 'fiscal reality has changed'. The PC's couldn't accurately predict* 200 days into the future and now they want us to trust them on their plans to put us into debt for years to come?
I don't think so.
So why are we in this situation that we 'need to borrow' in the first place? Well having a government that pays our civil service at rates higher than anywhere else in Canada may have something to do with it, as well as the fact that the PC's just can't ever seem to make a cut or say no to anything also contributes, but these have been the norm for the last few years and we managed to get by albeit by running deficits.
The real reasons why we are in this mess are twofold. First Redford has to pay for the billions in election promises she made, even though she claimed they all fit into her budget, and the second is that we have basically ran out of money.
Think back to around the middle of the last provincial election. Redford and the PC's were looking like they were in serious trouble. All the polls were against them and it appeared to everyone, pollsters, media and even the water cooler crowd that the 40 yr dynasty of PC rule may indeed be coming to an end. With little to lose Redford started making billions in promises on things like building numerous new schools and rejigging the health system by constructing (up to) 140 care clinics, with no idea where we would find or pay for the people to staff them, on top of a few other costly promises. Well as luck, and a media that seemed more interested in individual candidates beliefs rather than on actual records or platforms, would have it, the PCs won the election. And now they have to find a way to pay for those promises which they made in desperation.
The other reason, and one that seems to be getting little coverage in the media, is that Alberta is about to run out of money. 5 years ago the Sustainability Fund was worth close to $18 billion and is projected to be worth around $3.5 billion when the next budget is due. But with a deficit projected to be up to 3 billion+ for the current 2012-2013 budget, there is good chance that Alberta will have run out of money. The money that the PCs have used to cover for their fiscal incompetence with 5 consecutive deficit budgets in a row, the last few while taking in record revenues.
The jig is up and they won't be able to hide it anymore.
My future prediction: You can expect the PC's to do their damnedest to try and make anyone who disagrees with borrowing money feel guilty because they can't manage to balance the highest revenues in the country
but remember; this borrowing is not for frills but for what I hope everyone would consider to be core spending. It is what government is supposed to be spending money on and should be the first place where we spend money, not the last (hoping that there are some $ left).
The only ones who should be feeling guilty are Redford and the PCs for poor spending practices and trying to pull the wool over Albertan's eyes with shaky budget predictions, non budgeted election promises and draining the $18 billion sustainability fund to near zero.
* how bad were the PC projections: The Government's forecast for GDP growth was 23% higher than the average of private sector forecasts. Predicted growth in personal income taxes was a whopping 38% above the average independent private forecast. And incredibly, the Government's estimate that corporate profits would increase by 11.8% came in at a mind blowing 413% above the 2.3% growth estimated by the average private forecaster.
But hey, the 'reality changed'....
The argument of course is total malarkey.
It is not what Alberta is borrowing money for but rather why Alberta,with over $40 billion yr in revenue, the lowest unemployment rate in the country and whose economy is the envy of virtually every jurisdiction in North America, has to borrow money at all that is the issue.
If Alberta can't do it, who else possibly could do it?
Redford and the PC's would like us to believe that although Alberta, with record revenue, does not have enough money now to carry out their plans, that we will have enough at some unfixed point in the future to not only continue to pay the bills but also pay the interest on the debt we are about to incur. In essence; they claim to know the future and we should trust their plans. This from the same financial gurus who gave us a budget with what everyone knew at the time contained pie in the sky revenue estimates and who now claim a little over 200 days later that the 'fiscal reality has changed'. The PC's couldn't accurately predict* 200 days into the future and now they want us to trust them on their plans to put us into debt for years to come?
I don't think so.
So why are we in this situation that we 'need to borrow' in the first place? Well having a government that pays our civil service at rates higher than anywhere else in Canada may have something to do with it, as well as the fact that the PC's just can't ever seem to make a cut or say no to anything also contributes, but these have been the norm for the last few years and we managed to get by albeit by running deficits.
The real reasons why we are in this mess are twofold. First Redford has to pay for the billions in election promises she made, even though she claimed they all fit into her budget, and the second is that we have basically ran out of money.
Think back to around the middle of the last provincial election. Redford and the PC's were looking like they were in serious trouble. All the polls were against them and it appeared to everyone, pollsters, media and even the water cooler crowd that the 40 yr dynasty of PC rule may indeed be coming to an end. With little to lose Redford started making billions in promises on things like building numerous new schools and rejigging the health system by constructing (up to) 140 care clinics, with no idea where we would find or pay for the people to staff them, on top of a few other costly promises. Well as luck, and a media that seemed more interested in individual candidates beliefs rather than on actual records or platforms, would have it, the PCs won the election. And now they have to find a way to pay for those promises which they made in desperation.
The other reason, and one that seems to be getting little coverage in the media, is that Alberta is about to run out of money. 5 years ago the Sustainability Fund was worth close to $18 billion and is projected to be worth around $3.5 billion when the next budget is due. But with a deficit projected to be up to 3 billion+ for the current 2012-2013 budget, there is good chance that Alberta will have run out of money. The money that the PCs have used to cover for their fiscal incompetence with 5 consecutive deficit budgets in a row, the last few while taking in record revenues.
The jig is up and they won't be able to hide it anymore.
My future prediction: You can expect the PC's to do their damnedest to try and make anyone who disagrees with borrowing money feel guilty because they can't manage to balance the highest revenues in the country
but remember; this borrowing is not for frills but for what I hope everyone would consider to be core spending. It is what government is supposed to be spending money on and should be the first place where we spend money, not the last (hoping that there are some $ left).
The only ones who should be feeling guilty are Redford and the PCs for poor spending practices and trying to pull the wool over Albertan's eyes with shaky budget predictions, non budgeted election promises and draining the $18 billion sustainability fund to near zero.
* how bad were the PC projections: The Government's forecast for GDP growth was 23% higher than the average of private sector forecasts. Predicted growth in personal income taxes was a whopping 38% above the average independent private forecast. And incredibly, the Government's estimate that corporate profits would increase by 11.8% came in at a mind blowing 413% above the 2.3% growth estimated by the average private forecaster.
But hey, the 'reality changed'....
Sunday, November 11, 2012
8 years ago under a Ralph Klein government: Alberta was 100% debt free and paid in full...
After only 13 months of an Alison Redford government: Alberta is headed back into debt.
This is not what we were promised by Redford and her Progressive, but no longer Conservative, Party. The budget was promised to be balanced next year and Alberta was to be running surpluses the following years.
Neither of these are going to happen. It is another in a long line of broken promises from Redford.
The budget is already blown and taking on debt because the 40+ billion dollars that our government takes in as revenue per year is not freaking enough is asinine. If the PC's can't balance a budget now, with the best economy in the country, when will we EVER be able to?
We have gone from being "paid in full" under Klein, with $30 a barrel oil to being back into debt under Alison Redford with $85 a barrel oil. This after she promised surpluses to get elected.
Albertan's were duped.
Is this what you voted for?
Don Braid: It is very odd, and more than a little sad, that Ralph Klein’s fiscal legacy officially ended just three days before the ailing ex-Premier will receive his Order of Canada.
It came to a skidding stop at 9:05 p.m. Friday when Premier Alison Redford, after praising Klein in a speech to her PC Party convention, told reporters:
“If everything we do right now is funded fully with cash in the bank, then we are never going to build anything more in this province.”
This is not what we were promised by Redford and her Progressive, but no longer Conservative, Party. The budget was promised to be balanced next year and Alberta was to be running surpluses the following years.
Neither of these are going to happen. It is another in a long line of broken promises from Redford.
The budget is already blown and taking on debt because the 40+ billion dollars that our government takes in as revenue per year is not freaking enough is asinine. If the PC's can't balance a budget now, with the best economy in the country, when will we EVER be able to?
We have gone from being "paid in full" under Klein, with $30 a barrel oil to being back into debt under Alison Redford with $85 a barrel oil. This after she promised surpluses to get elected.
Albertan's were duped.
Is this what you voted for?
Don Braid: It is very odd, and more than a little sad, that Ralph Klein’s fiscal legacy officially ended just three days before the ailing ex-Premier will receive his Order of Canada.
It came to a skidding stop at 9:05 p.m. Friday when Premier Alison Redford, after praising Klein in a speech to her PC Party convention, told reporters:
“If everything we do right now is funded fully with cash in the bank, then we are never going to build anything more in this province.”
Monday, November 05, 2012
CONSERVATISM IS CALLING
This well done, though not professionally or party made, 7 1/2 minute long YouTube video may be US focused but is well worth the watch for conservatives everywhere.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Glen McGregor takes cheap shot at Ed Fast. Fails miserably.
Glen McGregor's tweet from this morning:
Isn't it still a bit early for poppies, Ed Fast? Not even Hallowe'en. Cue: "I make no apologies for...." pic.twitter.com/Yq2bB1Du
Here is what The Royal Canadian Legion has to say on the matter:
Here is a link to a few pictures from the Alberta Legislature taken this past Friday of people who obviously are not as smart as our pal Glen.
You get the point. The evidence is clear.
Too bad McGregor didn't.
Excerpts from some of McGregor's follow up tweets.
@Albertaardvark Your Google search shows poppies are on sale. So are Christmas ornaments. What's your point?
@mooseandskwerl @albertaardvark I would have raised the same q if it was an MP from any other party. Nice try.
@Albertaardvark @mooseandskwerl Fast is the first person I've seen wearing a poppy. If I'd see Mulcair or Trudeau first, I'd have Tw'd that.
UPDATE: Alberta Ardvark, along with the lovely and talented Natasha aka mooseandskwerl, get results!
McGregor apologizes: .@Albertaardvark Before Nov. seems too early to me, but, you're right. I shouldn't have suggested Fast was premature. Apologies, minister.
BC Blue and CAW Worker's Voice of Reason offer their thoughts
Isn't it still a bit early for poppies, Ed Fast? Not even Hallowe'en. Cue: "I make no apologies for...." pic.twitter.com/Yq2bB1Du
Here is what The Royal Canadian Legion has to say on the matter:
- When is a Poppy worn?
- There is no set period when the Poppy should be worn. In fact, a person may wear a Poppy at any time. Traditionally, however, the Poppy is worn during the Remembrance period, which is from the last Friday in October to the end of the day on 11 November. It is also suggested that Poppies be worn at other commemorative events throughout the year, such as the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of Britain, a memorial service at a Legion Convention and other similar occasions.The Poppy is also worn by Colour Parties when on parade and by members attending funeral services for veterans.
Here is a link to a few pictures from the Alberta Legislature taken this past Friday of people who obviously are not as smart as our pal Glen.
You get the point. The evidence is clear.
Too bad McGregor didn't.
Excerpts from some of McGregor's follow up tweets.
And for the win!>> @Albertaardvark @mooseandskwerl You are really a relentless troll, aren't you? Go for walk. Get some fresh air.
UPDATE: Alberta Ardvark, along with the lovely and talented Natasha aka mooseandskwerl, get results!
McGregor apologizes: .
BC Blue and CAW Worker's Voice of Reason offer their thoughts
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Redford and the gang that couldn't shoot straight in full damage control on transition allowances.
Premier Alison Redford is in full damage control after the news that the PC dominated Member Services Committee had voted in favour of increasing their taxpayer funded perks.
The PCs, 7 of them if you include the Speaker*, voted to end their own contributions to their own RRSPs and have taxpayers cover 100% of the cost. They also voted to create a new transition allowance giving them one month’s pay for every year up to a full year’s pay after numerous promises made during the election campaign by Premier Redford saying "on a go forward basis there would be no such thing as transition allowances"
For the record here are the names of the 6* PCs who introduced the motions and voted to soak the taxpayers: Quest, Jablonski, Dorward, Goudreau, Calhasen and Steve Young. ALL opposition MLAs on the committee voted no (Forsyth, Mason and Danielle Smith) or abstained in the case of Raj Sherman.
Today Redford came out and said that she remains against transition pay under any name and claimed not to know the details on the change of having taxpayers foot 100% of the bill for RRSPs.
Funny that, considering Steve Young, the party whip and the one responsible to make sure the PC's follow the party line, was one of the 7 who voted in favour of the changes and to make matters worse tweeted at the time of the Member Services Committee meeting/vote that he was doing so on behalf of the PC caucus!
Steve Young's tweets:
"PC Caucus takes Targeted Benefit Pension off the table at the Member Services Committee due to the small potential liablity (sic)." link
"PC Caucus propose no pension rather an RRSP" link
"With all the talk of pensions PC caucus rejects a pension at Members Services Committee and goes with an RRSP#ableg #pcaa" link
That's right. These changes to increase their MLA perks and soak the taxpayer were a "PC caucus" decision. At least according to what Young was tweeting. I have asked the Premier's office to clarify.
Alison, I think you may have a little problem here when your own whip votes for something you claim you do not support and while doing so claims to speak for the PC caucus. How you fix it I do not know but it is going to be fun watching PC whip Steve Young whip the vote against the very same transition allowance that he voted FOR when this does come up for a vote in the legislature.
Update: * It has been pointed out that the Speaker as Chair does not vote. This post has been edited to reflect the information.
Sun: Tories pushing to double the amount taxpayers contribute to MLAs RRSP plans to 100%
Herald: Alberta MLAs move to enrich retirement pay.
Related: How Redford has "managed" MLA pay/perks in the past:
The PCs, 7 of them if you include the Speaker*, voted to end their own contributions to their own RRSPs and have taxpayers cover 100% of the cost. They also voted to create a new transition allowance giving them one month’s pay for every year up to a full year’s pay after numerous promises made during the election campaign by Premier Redford saying "on a go forward basis there would be no such thing as transition allowances"
For the record here are the names of the 6* PCs who introduced the motions and voted to soak the taxpayers: Quest, Jablonski, Dorward, Goudreau, Calhasen and Steve Young. ALL opposition MLAs on the committee voted no (Forsyth, Mason and Danielle Smith) or abstained in the case of Raj Sherman.
Today Redford came out and said that she remains against transition pay under any name and claimed not to know the details on the change of having taxpayers foot 100% of the bill for RRSPs.
Funny that, considering Steve Young, the party whip and the one responsible to make sure the PC's follow the party line, was one of the 7 who voted in favour of the changes and to make matters worse tweeted at the time of the Member Services Committee meeting/vote that he was doing so on behalf of the PC caucus!
Steve Young's tweets:
"PC Caucus takes Targeted Benefit Pension off the table at the Member Services Committee due to the small potential liablity (sic)." link
"PC Caucus propose no pension rather an RRSP" link
"With all the talk of pensions PC caucus rejects a pension at Members Services Committee and goes with an RRSP
That's right. These changes to increase their MLA perks and soak the taxpayer were a "PC caucus" decision. At least according to what Young was tweeting. I have asked the Premier's office to clarify.
Alison, I think you may have a little problem here when your own whip votes for something you claim you do not support and while doing so claims to speak for the PC caucus. How you fix it I do not know but it is going to be fun watching PC whip Steve Young whip the vote against the very same transition allowance that he voted FOR when this does come up for a vote in the legislature.
Update: * It has been pointed out that the Speaker as Chair does not vote. This post has been edited to reflect the information.
Sun: Tories pushing to double the amount taxpayers contribute to MLAs RRSP plans to 100%
Herald: Alberta MLAs move to enrich retirement pay.
Related: How Redford has "managed" MLA pay/perks in the past:
Redford flip flops again. Desperation on committee pay issue boils over.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Former Liberal MP Joe Fontana caught being a Liberal?
From QMI
"LONDON, ON — A federal government cheque for $1,700 was used to pay the deposit for the 2005 wedding reception of one of London Mayor Joe Fontana’s sons when he was an MP and federal cabinet minister.
The former general manager of the Marconi Club has told QMI Agency that several months later, another cheque issued by Public Works Canada in the amount of $18,900 arrived to pay the balance owing on Fontana’s account."
Some things never change.
"LONDON, ON — A federal government cheque for $1,700 was used to pay the deposit for the 2005 wedding reception of one of London Mayor Joe Fontana’s sons when he was an MP and federal cabinet minister.
The former general manager of the Marconi Club has told QMI Agency that several months later, another cheque issued by Public Works Canada in the amount of $18,900 arrived to pay the balance owing on Fontana’s account."
Some things never change.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Omar Khadr has returned to Canada. Now what?
Omar Khadr has returned to Canada.
He arrived at CFB Trenton on a US Military aircraft and was turned over to Corrections Canada and taken to Millhaven prison.
Now what?
My personal opinion is that now he has claimed his right as a Canadian citizen to return to his country after serving his sentence, that he must now accept his obligations as a citizen of Canada and face Canadian law.
Specifically: Section 46-1 b,c of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
If Omar Khadr's crime(s) are not a text book example of treason, what would be?
He arrived at CFB Trenton on a US Military aircraft and was turned over to Corrections Canada and taken to Millhaven prison.
Now what?
My personal opinion is that now he has claimed his right as a Canadian citizen to return to his country after serving his sentence, that he must now accept his obligations as a citizen of Canada and face Canadian law.
Specifically: Section 46-1 b,c of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
- (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
- (c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
If Omar Khadr's crime(s) are not a text book example of treason, what would be?
Friday, September 21, 2012
Cover up at Alberta Health Services?
Alberta Health Services is not going ahead with the 3rd party audit announced by CEO Chris Eagle on August 21st into the expenses of executives of the old Capital Health regional board. This was in addition to the audit announced in early August into the expenses of Alluden Merali.
Calgary Herald: "The Alberta Health Services board has limited a third-party audit of expenses to the spending of its former finance boss Allaudin Merali — reversing a directive from the medical authority’s president last month widening the probe to other Edmonton health executive." And The Calgary Sun said as much last week.
Here is what Eagle said on August 21st on the expanded audit:
“We wanted to make sure that we were going to do a review that is reasonably complete,” Eagle said.
“There’s so much concern around the level of expenses, I think we really need to make sure that things were done in the proper way. . . . I think the public really expects we check and double check this.
So what changed? Is a smaller audit more "reasonably complete" than the expanded audit? No. Has the 'level of concern' gone down? No. Were things done in a 'proper way'? We have no way of knowing without the expanded audit. Has the public changed their expectations? A big NO!
So why than are AHS dropping the idea of an expanded audit? I don't know for sure but I may just have an explanation, and it is not pretty.
The spin from AHS and the Redford government is that they are focused on the future and not the past, particularly before the formation of AHS who claim to have put new procedures in place to curb these expense account 'issues'. Which does seem reasonable on a certain level as 'they' were not responsible for what went on before AHS was formed; except that that the top level of AHS is made up of many of those same people who DID allow improper expense spending to occur under their watch and were being reimbursed for their own expenses during this time. An audit is still needed.
And what about after AHS was formed? We already have seen an example of improper spending during this time when the expenses of the very same Chris Eagle were exposed under FOIP and it was revealed that he claimed airfare and ground transportation to attend an April 2011 premier's dinner in Calgary. A big no no under the NEW AHS guidelines and also provincial law, and if one improper claim made it through the new AHS rules, who is to say that others didn't as well? An audit is still needed.
Oh, and who was it that signed off on Eagle's expense claim for that premier's dinner? None other than Ken Hughes, chair of the AHS superboard at the time and current Minister of Energy in the Redford government.
Any audit of AHS spending would be sure to implicate him further and lets face it; family members don't go around auditing other family members. In case you were wondering about the 'family members' line came from it refers to comments made by Alberta Ethics Commissioner Neil Wilkinson about the hiring of defeated PC MLA Even Berger by the PC's into a government job in spite of conflict of interest rules.
Oh, and Neil Wilkinson was also the Chair of the old Capital Health Board and would have had HIS expenses audited under that announced and now cancelled expanded audit.
Weird coincidence isn't it?
If it walks like acover up duck...
Calgary Herald: "The Alberta Health Services board has limited a third-party audit of expenses to the spending of its former finance boss Allaudin Merali — reversing a directive from the medical authority’s president last month widening the probe to other Edmonton health executive." And The Calgary Sun said as much last week.
Here is what Eagle said on August 21st on the expanded audit:
“We wanted to make sure that we were going to do a review that is reasonably complete,” Eagle said.
“There’s so much concern around the level of expenses, I think we really need to make sure that things were done in the proper way. . . . I think the public really expects we check and double check this.
So what changed? Is a smaller audit more "reasonably complete" than the expanded audit? No. Has the 'level of concern' gone down? No. Were things done in a 'proper way'? We have no way of knowing without the expanded audit. Has the public changed their expectations? A big NO!
So why than are AHS dropping the idea of an expanded audit? I don't know for sure but I may just have an explanation, and it is not pretty.
The spin from AHS and the Redford government is that they are focused on the future and not the past, particularly before the formation of AHS who claim to have put new procedures in place to curb these expense account 'issues'. Which does seem reasonable on a certain level as 'they' were not responsible for what went on before AHS was formed; except that that the top level of AHS is made up of many of those same people who DID allow improper expense spending to occur under their watch and were being reimbursed for their own expenses during this time. An audit is still needed.
And what about after AHS was formed? We already have seen an example of improper spending during this time when the expenses of the very same Chris Eagle were exposed under FOIP and it was revealed that he claimed airfare and ground transportation to attend an April 2011 premier's dinner in Calgary. A big no no under the NEW AHS guidelines and also provincial law, and if one improper claim made it through the new AHS rules, who is to say that others didn't as well? An audit is still needed.
Oh, and who was it that signed off on Eagle's expense claim for that premier's dinner? None other than Ken Hughes, chair of the AHS superboard at the time and current Minister of Energy in the Redford government.
Any audit of AHS spending would be sure to implicate him further and lets face it; family members don't go around auditing other family members. In case you were wondering about the 'family members' line came from it refers to comments made by Alberta Ethics Commissioner Neil Wilkinson about the hiring of defeated PC MLA Even Berger by the PC's into a government job in spite of conflict of interest rules.
Oh, and Neil Wilkinson was also the Chair of the old Capital Health Board and would have had HIS expenses audited under that announced and now cancelled expanded audit.
Weird coincidence isn't it?
If it walks like a
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Thank you, Premier Lougheed.
Peter Lougheed, the 10th premier of Alberta serving from 1971-1985, has passed away at the age of 84.
Thank you, Premier Lougheed.
Thank you, Premier Lougheed.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Quebec shooter has 21 "registered" firearms. How did the Crown know this?
"Prosecuting lawyers said that police seized five weapons at the scene and 17 others at Bain's home. Every one of the weapons — 21 of 22 — were registered, the Crown said."
If the long gun registry has been shut down and the data no longer accessible, how did the Crown or the police find out that 21 of these guns were registered? ( The data still exists as there currently is a court case in Quebec challenging the governments right to destroy the data, BUT this data is no longer accessible.)
Possible scenarios:
All 21 were restricted and that data is still available. (This is possible but unlikely that all 21 would be restricted, including the AK 47 knockoff (not restricted) we have all seen in the photos)
When they raided his residence, they found all the registry paper work on the guns.(Also possible.)
Someone has saved the (old and outdated) data are continue to access it! < this is disturbing on a couple of levels not of which is the legality of keeping private data that was protected under privacy law amongst other legislation.
It is too early yet to know how it was known that the shooter was the registered owner of 21 firearms, but if it turns out that some local police or other government agency has indeed kept this data and created their own data base, I suspect this is going to to give those worried about the registry being restored at sometime in the future a great deal of evidence to justify those concerns. Not to mention the legal liability to those who are in possession of private data they are NOT entitled to posses.
If the long gun registry has been shut down and the data no longer accessible, how did the Crown or the police find out that 21 of these guns were registered? ( The data still exists as there currently is a court case in Quebec challenging the governments right to destroy the data, BUT this data is no longer accessible.)
Possible scenarios:
All 21 were restricted and that data is still available. (This is possible but unlikely that all 21 would be restricted, including the AK 47 knockoff (not restricted) we have all seen in the photos)
When they raided his residence, they found all the registry paper work on the guns.(Also possible.)
Someone has saved the (old and outdated) data are continue to access it! < this is disturbing on a couple of levels not of which is the legality of keeping private data that was protected under privacy law amongst other legislation.
It is too early yet to know how it was known that the shooter was the registered owner of 21 firearms, but if it turns out that some local police or other government agency has indeed kept this data and created their own data base, I suspect this is going to to give those worried about the registry being restored at sometime in the future a great deal of evidence to justify those concerns. Not to mention the legal liability to those who are in possession of private data they are NOT entitled to posses.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Dumbfounded! Allaudin Merali donates to both Fred Horne and Doug Horner campaigns.
Call me dumbfounded.
Not because of the possible 3 billion dollar deficit announcement today from Finance Minister Doug Horner, because anyone who was not a fanatical PC supporter knew it was coming, or even the news that Horner might have actually broken the law with his slim on the details financial update, or that Redford's team managed to lose money on the 16 billion dollar Heritage Trust Fund (PDF) No, it is not any of those things that have me dumbfounded it's the revelation that Allaudin Merali donated $500 to the campaigns of Health Minister Fred Horne and Finance Minister Doug Horner respectively.
I am dumbfounded because I just don't know how to write about it without it sounding like some work of fiction about a corrupt government in some third world country, even though it is all true and it is happening today in Redford's Alberta. So instead of writing a missive on the subject I will just list a few pertinent facts and ask a couple of questions.
According to Elections Alberta documents Allaudin Merali, known for the AHS expense account scandal where nearly $350,000 in expense claims were charged to Alberta taxpayers, including extravagant meals, alcohol, opera tickets, repairs to his Mercedes Benz and butler services, and the Ontario E-Health scandal where he was paid $57,000 for 21 days of work and charges expenses worth $76,000 a month, including $21,000 for 31 flights between Toronto and Edmonton, donated $500 to the campaigns of both Fred Horne and Doug Horner.
Fred Horne is Health Minister and responsible for AHS, who hired Merali to be their CFO in spite of the expense account issue that they claim they did not know about even though Sheila Weatherill, the one who personally signed off on those expenses, was sitting on the AHS superboard when the decision to hire him was made. Horne said at the time "With respect to hiring practices, I'm as much dumbfounded by this as anyone else,". It was also revealed that Merali had claimed a $220 lunch with Fred Horne before he was elected but Horne claims to have no recollection of that lunch, what it was about or who may have been there. Fred Horne also claimed that he was unaware of the E-Health dealings.
Doug Horner is Finance Minister and would have been Merali's boss had he accepted the job controller, being approved by Redford's cabinet which of course includes both Horner and Fred Horne, instead of taking the CFO job with AHS. Horner also defended the governmentt hiring of Merali as controller and said that Redford's cabinet were fully aware of the E-Health issues.
So why did Fred Horne say he did not know about the E-Health issues when Doug Horner said that cabinet, including Horne, was aware?
Fred Horne could not remember his $220 lunch with Merali, but does he remember the $500 donation made to his campaign.
It appears that Horne had some dealings with Merali in the past, as their lunch clearly shows, but what about Horner? Was/is there some kind of relationship we are not yet aware of, and if not why would Merali choose to make a donation to Horner's campaign?
Not because of the possible 3 billion dollar deficit announcement today from Finance Minister Doug Horner, because anyone who was not a fanatical PC supporter knew it was coming, or even the news that Horner might have actually broken the law with his slim on the details financial update, or that Redford's team managed to lose money on the 16 billion dollar Heritage Trust Fund (PDF) No, it is not any of those things that have me dumbfounded it's the revelation that Allaudin Merali donated $500 to the campaigns of Health Minister Fred Horne and Finance Minister Doug Horner respectively.
I am dumbfounded because I just don't know how to write about it without it sounding like some work of fiction about a corrupt government in some third world country, even though it is all true and it is happening today in Redford's Alberta. So instead of writing a missive on the subject I will just list a few pertinent facts and ask a couple of questions.
According to Elections Alberta documents Allaudin Merali, known for the AHS expense account scandal where nearly $350,000 in expense claims were charged to Alberta taxpayers, including extravagant meals, alcohol, opera tickets, repairs to his Mercedes Benz and butler services, and the Ontario E-Health scandal where he was paid $57,000 for 21 days of work and charges expenses worth $76,000 a month, including $21,000 for 31 flights between Toronto and Edmonton, donated $500 to the campaigns of both Fred Horne and Doug Horner.
Fred Horne is Health Minister and responsible for AHS, who hired Merali to be their CFO in spite of the expense account issue that they claim they did not know about even though Sheila Weatherill, the one who personally signed off on those expenses, was sitting on the AHS superboard when the decision to hire him was made. Horne said at the time "With respect to hiring practices, I'm as much dumbfounded by this as anyone else,". It was also revealed that Merali had claimed a $220 lunch with Fred Horne before he was elected but Horne claims to have no recollection of that lunch, what it was about or who may have been there. Fred Horne also claimed that he was unaware of the E-Health dealings.
Doug Horner is Finance Minister and would have been Merali's boss had he accepted the job controller, being approved by Redford's cabinet which of course includes both Horner and Fred Horne, instead of taking the CFO job with AHS. Horner also defended the governmentt hiring of Merali as controller and said that Redford's cabinet were fully aware of the E-Health issues.
So why did Fred Horne say he did not know about the E-Health issues when Doug Horner said that cabinet, including Horne, was aware?
Fred Horne could not remember his $220 lunch with Merali, but does he remember the $500 donation made to his campaign.
It appears that Horne had some dealings with Merali in the past, as their lunch clearly shows, but what about Horner? Was/is there some kind of relationship we are not yet aware of, and if not why would Merali choose to make a donation to Horner's campaign?
Friday, August 03, 2012
The Redford government and Merali: Incompetence in action.
Health Minister Fred Horne says that the Redford government did not know about Merali's Ontario e-health issues before hiring him to be in charge of all of Alberta's money as controller, Finance Minister Doug Horner says that they were aware, and Premier Redford seems unaware that her government even hired him!
Not exactly confidence inspiring is it. And just think, only 4 more years to go before the next election.
It should be noted that Alberta Health Services was aware of the Ontario e-health issues ( but it oddly enough not his previous AHS expense account shenanigans) when they hired him to be their CFO but did not care because they believed that this time it would be different. That sounds a lot like many people who voted PC in the last election and as with AHS, also wrong.
Not exactly confidence inspiring is it. And just think, only 4 more years to go before the next election.
It should be noted that Alberta Health Services was aware of the Ontario e-health issues ( but it oddly enough not his previous AHS expense account shenanigans) when they hired him to be their CFO but did not care because they believed that this time it would be different. That sounds a lot like many people who voted PC in the last election and as with AHS, also wrong.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
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
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.
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
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, April 20, 2012
On that Globe and Mail endorsement....
The Globe and Mail editorial board endorses Redford and The Albertaardvark editorial board calls bullshit.
Not on the endorsement itself because they can do what ever they like, on the BS that they use to justify it. It reads like someone in Toronto read a PC campaign pamphlet and wrote this up, with no idea of the reality on the ground in Alberta. As a blogger I would be embarrassed to post this kind if drivel and here is so much wrong that I don't know where to start; but instead of trying I might as well do little fisking since it's been awhile.
Globe and Mail italicized in blue
Ardvark editorial board comments in black
The answer is surprising. As a change agent, Wildrose is remarkably change-averse.
Yes, a party less than 5 years old with a fresh vibrant leader and new ideas is not change. Got it. Thanks G&M.
In health care, the Conservatives are also more constructive and imaginative. They promise 140 family care clinics, where not only doctors, but nurses can provide services, an innovation that will relieve the pressure on emergency wards. They also talk about “fast-track” emergency rooms, where obvious ailments will be diverted for quick treatment. In response, Wildrose promises wait-time guarantees, failing which the procedures will be done out of province or in private facilities – sort of a hangman’s approach to health care.
After reading this paragraph it was clear that the Globe and Mail had no clue as to what is going on out here if they are using the clinics and 'fast track' promises as a selling point for Redford. The clinic idea was announced by Redford last month BEFORE the election call and was only to be 3 clinics in a pilot project to see how the idea would work. Fast forward 1 month later and before any of the 3 opened their doors or could have possibly be evaluated, it has morphed into 140 and will radically alter health care in this province in spite of a direct promise from Redford to follow "all 21 recommendations" of the HQCA. BTW the main recommendation was: 'that the government undertake no further major re-structuring of the health-care system without a clear rationale, a transition plan and consultation'; which is just one reason why the Alberta Medical Association is against Redford's 140 clinics. You would think that the Globe and Mail might just mention that Alberta's doctors are against this but why ruin an agenda with silly facts like this or that Alberta has not only a doctor shortage but a nursing one as well, so who is going to staff these 140 clinics, or how much will they come up with the 700 million that these would cost? I am aware that the PC's claim that they will cost us nothing as they will reallocate existing health care money to the clinics but that leaves out the big question as to what they will cut in order to find that 700 million. As for the fast track idea, well that was written off almost as soon as it was announced because it is essentially what our hospitals are already doing. That days biggest joke was that Redford invented 'triage' but it really is no laughing matter as the head of emergency medicine said of Redford fast track plan "so out of touch it's startling"
In 2008 Albertans were foolish enough to believe the PC's and the change from within that they promised would occur with that fresh new leader Ed Stelmach. It is the same promise again from the PC's with Redford but this time Albertans are not buying it. BTW which Wildrose polices is the G&M referring to? If mentioned they were glossed over or dismissed outright yet the G&M "Clearly" claim that they could not possibly account for the raise in support. It is a cheap blogger trick and should be beneath the G&M but yet clearly wasn't.
Some of it may relate to its adoption of “Alberta first” or “firewall” rhetoric. Despite Alberta’s enormous, and growing, economic might in Canada, and its considerable political influence nationally – with a Conservative government led by a Calgary MP – Wildrose has still found fertile ground with the insular little Alberta narrative.
I guess endorsing Redford also means that the G&M also gets to use the PC fear mongering too; "firewall"? There is no firewall mentioned ANYWHERE in any Wildrose policy, that is the same stuff that the Liberals and Toronto media have been trotting out for years to scare people about PM Harper. Stay classy G&M. If looking at the feasibility of a provincial pension plan or police force is a firewall, which is where this smear came from, than I think the G&M had better look a lot closer to home because both Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police force, and Quebec it own pension plan. How 'insular" is that?
But Wildrose’s growth began, not coincidentally, when the province was hit hard by falling energy prices in 2008-9. Government spending had jumped, public sector pay greatly outpacing the rest of the country. Then, the Alberta government saw a projected $8.5-billion surplus evaporate, and instead posted a $1.4-billion deficit. The government responded to the recession by joining the worldwide consensus in favour of stimulative spending.
The timing may be correct for the start of the, 2008-09 but they fail to mention the numerous other issues that many people had at that time with the government Ed Stelmach, oil royalties, the 30% pay raise, land use laws, and a gov't that appeared to run out of ideas.
The Conservative record on fiscal policy, then, is the central issue in the current campaign.
Thanks Toronto for telling Alberta what the "central" issue of the campaign "is" and get it completely wrong. How did Alberta ever make it this far without you. Oh and I would say it is the incompetence, arrogance and abandonment of anything remotely conservative by the present government that is the issue; fiscal policy is part of that but hardly the 'central issue'.
Wildrose has been campaigning with a “debt clock” and has launched fierce rhetorical attacks over Conservative “mismanagement.” Its leader, Ms. Smith, is an effective communicator and a fresh face, but there’s little fresh in Wildrose’s response on fiscal policy; many of its ideas come from the halcyon era of King Ralph. In the 1990s, Progressive Conservative premier Ralph Klein was a leader among Canada’s first ministers in deficit reduction. His government introduced balanced budget legislation in 1995. By 2004, he was able to announce that Alberta was “debt-free” and, awash with energy royalties, his government awarded Albertans a $400 “prosperity bonus” (popularly known as “Ralph bucks”).
Imagine that, Albertans happy with a government that does not spend more money than it has. Pure insanity! (you have to remember the G&M is from Ontario and the concept is totally foreign to them out there. They did did endorse McGuinty after all) Also notice how they mention that Ralph passed balanced budget legislation but fail to mention how Stelmach, with Redford in his cabinet, rescinded that law?
For its part, Wildrose promises to restore the balanced budget legislation, and – yes – to pay Albertans energy dividends, now called “Dani dollars.” The party projects these payments as totalling $12,000 for an Alberta family of four over the next eight years. As for Alison Redford, she has been the Premier for only six months, but is answerable for one budget, which saw nearly every ministry receive increases; health-care spending went up by 7 per cent. More restraint should have been shown.
They get something correct, more restraint should have been shown but this gov't cannot seem to cut anything, ever.
It is clear that the Globe and Mail are not the biggest fans of the Wildrose, in fact they were forced to change 2 very misleading headlines ( which they did without ever acknowledging the changes or theirbias error), and I get that coming from a Toronto paper, but shouldn't Canada's so called "paper of record" at least make the effort to provide its readers with the facts rather than just crib from the PC Alberta website? I know as a blogger I would be embarrassed to publish this void of reality nonsense.
Not on the endorsement itself because they can do what ever they like, on the BS that they use to justify it. It reads like someone in Toronto read a PC campaign pamphlet and wrote this up, with no idea of the reality on the ground in Alberta. As a blogger I would be embarrassed to post this kind if drivel and here is so much wrong that I don't know where to start; but instead of trying I might as well do little fisking since it's been awhile.
Globe and Mail italicized in blue
Ardvark editorial board comments in black
After four decades in power, their traditional base fractured by defections on the right, Alberta’s governing Progressive Conservatives suddenly find themselves underdogs in Monday’s election, trailing the Wildrose Party. There is a mood for change in Alberta. The question is, which party best represents change: The upstart Wildrose under leader Danielle Smith, with its populist brand of conservatism? Or, odd as it may sound, the Conservatives under Premier Alison Redford?
Yes, there is mood for change in Alberta but is not just change for changes sake, which in itself is never a bad thing with any government in power for long periods of time, it is because the PC's have been a bad government and their record has been terrible, including the disastrous 6 months under Redford. Redford isn't change, or at least real change.They are just as inept and secretive as they have always been and one has to look no further than the Gary Mar situation or how she handled the no-meet committee situation.
The answer is surprising. As a change agent, Wildrose is remarkably change-averse.
Yes, a party less than 5 years old with a fresh vibrant leader and new ideas is not change. Got it. Thanks G&M.
The party shows no leadership with regard to Alberta’s critical oil-sands industry. Its main policy document barely mentions the oil sands (and then only to complain about public funding for two “anti-oil-sands documentaries”). Ms. Redford, by contrast, is more positive; her Canadian Energy Strategy would facilitate the shipment of oil-sands oil to Asia, the U.S. and Central Canada; she also promises to help fund oil-sands extraction technology.
For the record the Wildrose green policy book has 10 pages dealing with energy/resources while the PC's has 2, but that is a side issue; this is Alberta. Energy is tied into almost everything that we do here in one way or another, to claim the Wildrose has no ideas or has shown no leadership on this issue is asinine. As for Redford's NEP lite, getting our oil to other markets is not exactly a new idea and her promise to fund that technology comes at a cost of 3 billion dollars that was not in her 2012 budget.
In health care, the Conservatives are also more constructive and imaginative. They promise 140 family care clinics, where not only doctors, but nurses can provide services, an innovation that will relieve the pressure on emergency wards. They also talk about “fast-track” emergency rooms, where obvious ailments will be diverted for quick treatment. In response, Wildrose promises wait-time guarantees, failing which the procedures will be done out of province or in private facilities – sort of a hangman’s approach to health care.
After reading this paragraph it was clear that the Globe and Mail had no clue as to what is going on out here if they are using the clinics and 'fast track' promises as a selling point for Redford. The clinic idea was announced by Redford last month BEFORE the election call and was only to be 3 clinics in a pilot project to see how the idea would work. Fast forward 1 month later and before any of the 3 opened their doors or could have possibly be evaluated, it has morphed into 140 and will radically alter health care in this province in spite of a direct promise from Redford to follow "all 21 recommendations" of the HQCA. BTW the main recommendation was: 'that the government undertake no further major re-structuring of the health-care system without a clear rationale, a transition plan and consultation'; which is just one reason why the Alberta Medical Association is against Redford's 140 clinics. You would think that the Globe and Mail might just mention that Alberta's doctors are against this but why ruin an agenda with silly facts like this or that Alberta has not only a doctor shortage but a nursing one as well, so who is going to staff these 140 clinics, or how much will they come up with the 700 million that these would cost? I am aware that the PC's claim that they will cost us nothing as they will reallocate existing health care money to the clinics but that leaves out the big question as to what they will cut in order to find that 700 million. As for the fast track idea, well that was written off almost as soon as it was announced because it is essentially what our hospitals are already doing. That days biggest joke was that Redford invented 'triage' but it really is no laughing matter as the head of emergency medicine said of Redford fast track plan "so out of touch it's startling"
Clearly, these policies do not account for the surge in Wildrose support. This is a party that failed to elect a single MLA in the 2008 election. Now, polls suggest it will form the next government. So what, then, is behind its rise?
In 2008 Albertans were foolish enough to believe the PC's and the change from within that they promised would occur with that fresh new leader Ed Stelmach. It is the same promise again from the PC's with Redford but this time Albertans are not buying it. BTW which Wildrose polices is the G&M referring to? If mentioned they were glossed over or dismissed outright yet the G&M "Clearly" claim that they could not possibly account for the raise in support. It is a cheap blogger trick and should be beneath the G&M but yet clearly wasn't.
Some of it may relate to its adoption of “Alberta first” or “firewall” rhetoric. Despite Alberta’s enormous, and growing, economic might in Canada, and its considerable political influence nationally – with a Conservative government led by a Calgary MP – Wildrose has still found fertile ground with the insular little Alberta narrative.
I guess endorsing Redford also means that the G&M also gets to use the PC fear mongering too; "firewall"? There is no firewall mentioned ANYWHERE in any Wildrose policy, that is the same stuff that the Liberals and Toronto media have been trotting out for years to scare people about PM Harper. Stay classy G&M. If looking at the feasibility of a provincial pension plan or police force is a firewall, which is where this smear came from, than I think the G&M had better look a lot closer to home because both Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police force, and Quebec it own pension plan. How 'insular" is that?
But Wildrose’s growth began, not coincidentally, when the province was hit hard by falling energy prices in 2008-9. Government spending had jumped, public sector pay greatly outpacing the rest of the country. Then, the Alberta government saw a projected $8.5-billion surplus evaporate, and instead posted a $1.4-billion deficit. The government responded to the recession by joining the worldwide consensus in favour of stimulative spending.
The timing may be correct for the start of the, 2008-09 but they fail to mention the numerous other issues that many people had at that time with the government Ed Stelmach, oil royalties, the 30% pay raise, land use laws, and a gov't that appeared to run out of ideas.
The Conservative record on fiscal policy, then, is the central issue in the current campaign.
Thanks Toronto for telling Alberta what the "central" issue of the campaign "is" and get it completely wrong. How did Alberta ever make it this far without you. Oh and I would say it is the incompetence, arrogance and abandonment of anything remotely conservative by the present government that is the issue; fiscal policy is part of that but hardly the 'central issue'.
Wildrose has been campaigning with a “debt clock” and has launched fierce rhetorical attacks over Conservative “mismanagement.” Its leader, Ms. Smith, is an effective communicator and a fresh face, but there’s little fresh in Wildrose’s response on fiscal policy; many of its ideas come from the halcyon era of King Ralph. In the 1990s, Progressive Conservative premier Ralph Klein was a leader among Canada’s first ministers in deficit reduction. His government introduced balanced budget legislation in 1995. By 2004, he was able to announce that Alberta was “debt-free” and, awash with energy royalties, his government awarded Albertans a $400 “prosperity bonus” (popularly known as “Ralph bucks”).
Imagine that, Albertans happy with a government that does not spend more money than it has. Pure insanity! (you have to remember the G&M is from Ontario and the concept is totally foreign to them out there. They did did endorse McGuinty after all) Also notice how they mention that Ralph passed balanced budget legislation but fail to mention how Stelmach, with Redford in his cabinet, rescinded that law?
For its part, Wildrose promises to restore the balanced budget legislation, and – yes – to pay Albertans energy dividends, now called “Dani dollars.” The party projects these payments as totalling $12,000 for an Alberta family of four over the next eight years. As for Alison Redford, she has been the Premier for only six months, but is answerable for one budget, which saw nearly every ministry receive increases; health-care spending went up by 7 per cent. More restraint should have been shown.
They get something correct, more restraint should have been shown but this gov't cannot seem to cut anything, ever.
Even with such increases, defended as necessary in a province that leads the country in population growth, the Conservative budget still projects Alberta’s deficit will be eliminated in 2013-14, with a $5.2-billion surplus in 2014-15. This will be achieved without any new taxes, or even any user fee increases. Instead, Alberta will accomplish it from an expanding tax base through population increases and resource royalties expected to nearly double from 2011-15.
We lead in per capita spending, even with that population growth, but do not lead in results/value for money. We have heard the deficit promises before and the reality is that the PC's have not lived up to them. The Stelmach gov't promised that we would ALREADY be out of deficit and "back in the black before the Redford budget was even written, and the promise of a 400 million surplus by next year has been blown out of the water with Redford's 7 billion dollars in un-budgeted election spending promises. As for the numerous claims about no tax increases, that has also proven to be nothing but a lie as the education portion of our property taxes has already been increased.
The Conservatives have signalled their intent to save more, not just by replenishing the rainy day Sustainability Fund that was used to maintain Alberta’s debt-free status, but possibly also to build up the Heritage Fund. As a TD analysis of the budget put it, “having to make a choice between saving for tomorrow or spending today is a challenge that other provinces in Canada could only dream of.”
Wildrose’s message of change, then, is concerned less with what Alberta can be, than with what Alberta was. It is a political response to a fiscal dilemma that has all the trappings of a failure of confidence. Canada needs Alberta to step up, not step back. The Conservatives have ruled for a very long time, but they have a new leader and are the party that speaks for the best kind of change. It is time for a big Alberta on the national stage.
Yes Redford did more than signal an intent to put more money into those funds she made a promise. A forgotten one because if she was to put the promised 4-5 billion dollars/year into the Heritage and
Sustainability funds, how would a 5 billion dollar surplus be possible in 2014-15 as she has also promised? It can't be both, unless you are the G&M and then anything Redford says is gospel even if reality says otherwise. The next part of this paragraph again goes into the big bag of PC rhetoric and pulls out the loaded terms 'can be' vs 'was', 'step up' or 'step back' as if there really was a time machine that could take us back. The reality is there is ONLY the future and if that future is a choice between the fiscal responsibility of Klein vs the incompetence of a McGuinty (who the Globe and Mail also endorsed) than I think the majority of people would go with Klein way. BTW the WIldrose promises not only balanced budgets and also contributing to both the sustainability and Heritage Trust funds but also a surplus as well. More inconvenient truths left out of the Globe and Mail fluff piece endorsement of the tired PC government and Redford.
It is clear that the Globe and Mail are not the biggest fans of the Wildrose, in fact they were forced to change 2 very misleading headlines ( which they did without ever acknowledging the changes or their
Thursday, April 19, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
