Long time no blog. Truth be told I lost all my log in info but one day while tidying up I came across an old computer and voila.
Too bad blogging died years ago.
Al
Friday, February 06, 2026
Thursday, May 07, 2015
The demise of Jim Prentice & the end of the PC dynasty in Alberta. What happened?
The Alberta PC dynasty is over. The longest successful run by a political party in the history of Canada ended after 43years 7 months at approximately 8:40pm May 5th, 2015. There has been plenty already written about what happened & why, but most of those missed or greatly diminished some the key events that led Albertans to mark their X on their ballots for someone other than a PC candidate as so many had in the past. Here is my take.
A little history. When Alison Redford resigned as Premier in March 2014 the PCAA was in trouble. Plagued with scandal, trust issues and broken promises, the leaderless PCAA was polling at 19%, well less than the Wildrose at 46% and just barely ahead of the NDP at 15%. The PCAA needed help bad, they needed a 'white knight' to restore what Redford had destroyed and that help arrived in the form of Jim Prentice. Even before officially announcing his run for the party leadership most of the PC caucus had publicly come out to endorse him; front runner Ken Hughes ended his bid for leadership and expected challengers such as former Edmonton mayor Stephen Mandel said they would not enter the race against Prentice. A token leadership race was held where Prentice promised to fix his own party and correct the mistakes of the past and as expected he emerged as party leader with a whopping 76+% first ballot win on September 6th, 2014. The PCAA was going to bank on the former federal politician and CIBC executive to try and save their party; and it worked. In October of 2014 the PCAA was back on top of the polls and Albertans were ready to give him a chance to see what he could do in the 19 months remaining in the mandate and this support was clearly demonstrated in the 4 by-elections held October 27th where Prentice and 3 other PCAA candidates handily won their races. It was also the beginning of the end.
Without access to Jim Prentice's brain it is unclear when exactly he decided that he was going to call a general election in the spring of 2015. I suspect it was already in his mind at the time of by-elections but if it was not, the 4 by-election victories certainly helped him make that decision; what followed next would cement it.
On December 17th, 2014 nine opposition Wildrose MLAs including party leader Danielle Smith crossed the floor and joined the PCAA caucus after secret discussions which had been going on since before Prentice had even officially entered the leadership race. At the time Prentice was hailed as a genius by many in the press. Machiavellian they wrote as he had hobbled the strongest opposition that Alberta had seen in years and any immediate anger over the crossings would be directed towards Danielle Smith and not land at his feet, and an election, when called would surely be in the bag with a united 'right'. The reality was though that this move did not unite the right, and in fact did the opposite. For Wildrose supporters it was a realization that their movement was about more than 1 person (Smith) and once the feeling of the betrayal subsided they got back to work and resolved to rebuild the party to make it stronger than ever. For PC supporters there were many who could not accept what their leader had done by accepting those that crossed and this reaction was immediate when the PCAA executive announced that the floor crossers would have to face nominations contrary to what Prentice had promised creating a rift within his own party. As for the general public the saw the Wildrose as an effective opposition who had kept the huge PC majority in check for years and viewed this move by both Prentice and Smith as opportunistic and dirty. This was not a make or break move with the electorate as the PCAA remained high in the polls but it gave them a glimpse at the real Jim Prentice who was not below playing the same cynical political games of his predecessors even though he was supposed to be different.
The run up to the election saw more missteps. As stories of mismanagement from the past appeared, Prentice's go to excuse of 'that was the previous gov't and before my time' was wearing very thin with Albertans and even more so when he told Albertans to "look in the mirror" as to who was to blame for the crisis which was due to PC gov't failures. He ordered an 'independent legislative committee' to go back and reverse a decision to give more funding to the auditor general citing that there was 'no more money' while stories of buying 80" televisions and secret contracts giving millions of dollars to PC associates were making headlines. Stories of shenanigans within PC nominations including allegations of bribes, lawsuits and PC insiders fixing nominations flourished hurting the grass roots of the PCAA and solidifying the dirty nature of PC politics with the electorate. He laid the groundwork for what he called a once in a generation budget even going on television spelling doom and gloom to try and sell Albertans only to deliver a middle of the road budget that could have easily have been from Redford or Stelmach; a budget that nobody was really talking about a week into the election other than the reversal he made to reduce the deduction for charitable contributions. None of which were fatal on their own but all added to the already long list of reasons why voters were to about reject him and his party within months.
The fatal blow came on April 7th, 2015 when Prentice advised the Lieutenant Governor to call an election for May 5th, 2015. This was the straw that broke the camels back if you will among the Alberta electorate as it summed up everything that was wrong with the PCAA. It was unnecessary & unasked for as there was 1 yr left on the mandate. It was expensive at a time when Prentice said there was no more money and we had to cut back. It was potentially illegal as it violated the fixed date law and enforced the 'laws apply you but not for me' arrogance we have all seen for years from the PC's. It was unfair and seen as underhanded after what he had done to the opposition Wildrose who were forced into a rushed leadership contest and whose new leader had just lost his son only weeks before.
Albertans saw Prentice's election move for exactly what it was; an opportunistic vanity election aimed solely at retaining power for Prentice and the PCAA. Not many outside Alberta have an idea how just how unpopular his decision to call an election was. It was the issue that everyone talked about not only at the doors but in offices and homes and it did not go away as Prentice was still defending his decision the eve before the vote. The election itself became THE election issue. Albertans are fair minded people and they gave Jim Prentice a chance not only to fix his own party but also to run the province. The moment that Prentice walked to the Lt-Governors office to ask for an election he squandered all of the trust and faith that Albertans had given him. Albertans knew, for all of the reasons above and more, that Prentice and the PCAA did not deserve re-election. The only question left was who were they going to vote for.
The campaign itself and the piles of money which the PCAA spent on ads to sway the electorate had little or no effect. There would be no succumbing to fear and holding ones nose and voting PCAA at the last minute this time around as the election was really over before it started. ( Odd fact: The first time the NDP led the PCAA in any poll in years ( perhaps since 1971?) was a poll taken Apr 1-6th (the day before the election call) and the NDP have led ever since)
There is lots to discuss about why the electorate went towards the NDP, other than to say that reasons for both the fall of the PCAA and the rise of the NDP lay at the feet of Jim Prentice, I will leave that discussion up to others.
A little history. When Alison Redford resigned as Premier in March 2014 the PCAA was in trouble. Plagued with scandal, trust issues and broken promises, the leaderless PCAA was polling at 19%, well less than the Wildrose at 46% and just barely ahead of the NDP at 15%. The PCAA needed help bad, they needed a 'white knight' to restore what Redford had destroyed and that help arrived in the form of Jim Prentice. Even before officially announcing his run for the party leadership most of the PC caucus had publicly come out to endorse him; front runner Ken Hughes ended his bid for leadership and expected challengers such as former Edmonton mayor Stephen Mandel said they would not enter the race against Prentice. A token leadership race was held where Prentice promised to fix his own party and correct the mistakes of the past and as expected he emerged as party leader with a whopping 76+% first ballot win on September 6th, 2014. The PCAA was going to bank on the former federal politician and CIBC executive to try and save their party; and it worked. In October of 2014 the PCAA was back on top of the polls and Albertans were ready to give him a chance to see what he could do in the 19 months remaining in the mandate and this support was clearly demonstrated in the 4 by-elections held October 27th where Prentice and 3 other PCAA candidates handily won their races. It was also the beginning of the end.
Without access to Jim Prentice's brain it is unclear when exactly he decided that he was going to call a general election in the spring of 2015. I suspect it was already in his mind at the time of by-elections but if it was not, the 4 by-election victories certainly helped him make that decision; what followed next would cement it.
On December 17th, 2014 nine opposition Wildrose MLAs including party leader Danielle Smith crossed the floor and joined the PCAA caucus after secret discussions which had been going on since before Prentice had even officially entered the leadership race. At the time Prentice was hailed as a genius by many in the press. Machiavellian they wrote as he had hobbled the strongest opposition that Alberta had seen in years and any immediate anger over the crossings would be directed towards Danielle Smith and not land at his feet, and an election, when called would surely be in the bag with a united 'right'. The reality was though that this move did not unite the right, and in fact did the opposite. For Wildrose supporters it was a realization that their movement was about more than 1 person (Smith) and once the feeling of the betrayal subsided they got back to work and resolved to rebuild the party to make it stronger than ever. For PC supporters there were many who could not accept what their leader had done by accepting those that crossed and this reaction was immediate when the PCAA executive announced that the floor crossers would have to face nominations contrary to what Prentice had promised creating a rift within his own party. As for the general public the saw the Wildrose as an effective opposition who had kept the huge PC majority in check for years and viewed this move by both Prentice and Smith as opportunistic and dirty. This was not a make or break move with the electorate as the PCAA remained high in the polls but it gave them a glimpse at the real Jim Prentice who was not below playing the same cynical political games of his predecessors even though he was supposed to be different.
The run up to the election saw more missteps. As stories of mismanagement from the past appeared, Prentice's go to excuse of 'that was the previous gov't and before my time' was wearing very thin with Albertans and even more so when he told Albertans to "look in the mirror" as to who was to blame for the crisis which was due to PC gov't failures. He ordered an 'independent legislative committee' to go back and reverse a decision to give more funding to the auditor general citing that there was 'no more money' while stories of buying 80" televisions and secret contracts giving millions of dollars to PC associates were making headlines. Stories of shenanigans within PC nominations including allegations of bribes, lawsuits and PC insiders fixing nominations flourished hurting the grass roots of the PCAA and solidifying the dirty nature of PC politics with the electorate. He laid the groundwork for what he called a once in a generation budget even going on television spelling doom and gloom to try and sell Albertans only to deliver a middle of the road budget that could have easily have been from Redford or Stelmach; a budget that nobody was really talking about a week into the election other than the reversal he made to reduce the deduction for charitable contributions. None of which were fatal on their own but all added to the already long list of reasons why voters were to about reject him and his party within months.
The fatal blow came on April 7th, 2015 when Prentice advised the Lieutenant Governor to call an election for May 5th, 2015. This was the straw that broke the camels back if you will among the Alberta electorate as it summed up everything that was wrong with the PCAA. It was unnecessary & unasked for as there was 1 yr left on the mandate. It was expensive at a time when Prentice said there was no more money and we had to cut back. It was potentially illegal as it violated the fixed date law and enforced the 'laws apply you but not for me' arrogance we have all seen for years from the PC's. It was unfair and seen as underhanded after what he had done to the opposition Wildrose who were forced into a rushed leadership contest and whose new leader had just lost his son only weeks before.
Albertans saw Prentice's election move for exactly what it was; an opportunistic vanity election aimed solely at retaining power for Prentice and the PCAA. Not many outside Alberta have an idea how just how unpopular his decision to call an election was. It was the issue that everyone talked about not only at the doors but in offices and homes and it did not go away as Prentice was still defending his decision the eve before the vote. The election itself became THE election issue. Albertans are fair minded people and they gave Jim Prentice a chance not only to fix his own party but also to run the province. The moment that Prentice walked to the Lt-Governors office to ask for an election he squandered all of the trust and faith that Albertans had given him. Albertans knew, for all of the reasons above and more, that Prentice and the PCAA did not deserve re-election. The only question left was who were they going to vote for.
The campaign itself and the piles of money which the PCAA spent on ads to sway the electorate had little or no effect. There would be no succumbing to fear and holding ones nose and voting PCAA at the last minute this time around as the election was really over before it started. ( Odd fact: The first time the NDP led the PCAA in any poll in years ( perhaps since 1971?) was a poll taken Apr 1-6th (the day before the election call) and the NDP have led ever since)
There is lots to discuss about why the electorate went towards the NDP, other than to say that reasons for both the fall of the PCAA and the rise of the NDP lay at the feet of Jim Prentice, I will leave that discussion up to others.
Friday, February 13, 2015
High River gun grab report released. Surprise! Much of it was illegal.
Yesterday the long awaited report into the RCMP gun grab in High River Alberta was released and you can read it here: https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/chair-initiated-complaint-and-public-interest-investigation-rcmps-response-2013-flood-high-river
There is plenty there to digest but to sum it up: The RCMP had a legal right to enter (some but not all) homes under Alberta's Emergency Management Act without warrant during a certain time frame ( they abused this time frame) and were allowed by the Criminal Code to seize unsecured guns ( they were not allowed to seize properly stored guns but did so anyway) that were in 'plain sight'. But because the RCMP never lived up to its obligations under the criminal code to take the guns they had seized without warrant before a judge as required by the Criminal Code, it made virtually every single gun seizure by the RCMP done High River an illegal act. That is correct, every single gun seized was seized illegally.
Some of the findings:
Finding No. 11: It was reasonable for the RCMP members to secure buildings after completing their search. ( it is well known that the RCMP did not secure many residences after they were done searching)
Finding No. 23: In a number of cases, RCMP members' forcible entries to facilitate home inspections caused significant damage and were not reasonable in circumstances where buildings were unaffected by the flood.
Finding No. 24: The secondary entries for the specific purpose of seizing unsecured firearms were not authorized by the Emergency Management Act.
Finding No. 28: RCMP members were authorized to seize unsecured firearms pursuant to section 489 of the Criminal Code. ( see next finding)
Finding No. 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.
Finding No. 30: RCMP members were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms. (FYI: A gun in 'plain sight' may indeed be properly stored, where it is located is not the major criteria for defining safe storage)
Finding No. 32: RCMP supervisors failed to provide sufficient guidance to members involved in the seizure of firearms.
Finding No. 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the common law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.
Finding No. 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.
Finding No. 39: RCMP members failed to report to a justice to show that they had reasonable grounds to undertake warrant less seizures pursuant to paragraph 489.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. ( this is the big one showing that ALL seizures were illegal)
Finding No. 46: Overall, the RCMP's communications approach to the High River flooding crisis was ineffective and resulted in a negative impact on RCMP emergency operations and reputation.
Again I suggest you read it all for yourself. This was not a whitewash as some have suggested but rather a thorough investigation of what actually happened in High River.
A couple of other points: First, to blow my own horn, I sort of nailed a lot of this, mainly on the AEMA back in September 2013 with this post: http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-happened-in-high-river-is-going-to.html I took a lot of heat for that at the time from many who said I was completely wrong about AEMA not giving police any special powers to seize property (guns). Strangely all of those people are silent today.
The other thing is that as much as I like to dump on the PC gov't here in Alberta; this was NOT the fault of Solicitor General Jonathan Denis or the Alberta Government. In fact Denis when he first learned what happened wrote a letter to the RCMP asking for details and clarification on the seizures. He has taken plenty of grief over this and frankly does not deserve any of it. I alluded to this in my Sept 2013 post but wanted to state it again because once again he and the gov't are getting dumped on. Did the PC's try to play politics with this and smear the Wildrose Party as lawless gun nuts? Yes they did and should be called out over it, but in the end they were not responsible for the RCMP's actions.
There is plenty there to digest but to sum it up: The RCMP had a legal right to enter (some but not all) homes under Alberta's Emergency Management Act without warrant during a certain time frame ( they abused this time frame) and were allowed by the Criminal Code to seize unsecured guns ( they were not allowed to seize properly stored guns but did so anyway) that were in 'plain sight'. But because the RCMP never lived up to its obligations under the criminal code to take the guns they had seized without warrant before a judge as required by the Criminal Code, it made virtually every single gun seizure by the RCMP done High River an illegal act. That is correct, every single gun seized was seized illegally.
Some of the findings:
Finding No. 11: It was reasonable for the RCMP members to secure buildings after completing their search. ( it is well known that the RCMP did not secure many residences after they were done searching)
Finding No. 23: In a number of cases, RCMP members' forcible entries to facilitate home inspections caused significant damage and were not reasonable in circumstances where buildings were unaffected by the flood.
Finding No. 24: The secondary entries for the specific purpose of seizing unsecured firearms were not authorized by the Emergency Management Act.
Finding No. 28: RCMP members were authorized to seize unsecured firearms pursuant to section 489 of the Criminal Code. ( see next finding)
Finding No. 29: In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.
Finding No. 30: RCMP members were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms. (FYI: A gun in 'plain sight' may indeed be properly stored, where it is located is not the major criteria for defining safe storage)
Finding No. 32: RCMP supervisors failed to provide sufficient guidance to members involved in the seizure of firearms.
Finding No. 34: Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the common law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.
Finding No. 37: In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.
Finding No. 39: RCMP members failed to report to a justice to show that they had reasonable grounds to undertake warrant less seizures pursuant to paragraph 489.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. ( this is the big one showing that ALL seizures were illegal)
Finding No. 46: Overall, the RCMP's communications approach to the High River flooding crisis was ineffective and resulted in a negative impact on RCMP emergency operations and reputation.
Again I suggest you read it all for yourself. This was not a whitewash as some have suggested but rather a thorough investigation of what actually happened in High River.
A couple of other points: First, to blow my own horn, I sort of nailed a lot of this, mainly on the AEMA back in September 2013 with this post: http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-happened-in-high-river-is-going-to.html I took a lot of heat for that at the time from many who said I was completely wrong about AEMA not giving police any special powers to seize property (guns). Strangely all of those people are silent today.
The other thing is that as much as I like to dump on the PC gov't here in Alberta; this was NOT the fault of Solicitor General Jonathan Denis or the Alberta Government. In fact Denis when he first learned what happened wrote a letter to the RCMP asking for details and clarification on the seizures. He has taken plenty of grief over this and frankly does not deserve any of it. I alluded to this in my Sept 2013 post but wanted to state it again because once again he and the gov't are getting dumped on. Did the PC's try to play politics with this and smear the Wildrose Party as lawless gun nuts? Yes they did and should be called out over it, but in the end they were not responsible for the RCMP's actions.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Open Nominations. Edmonton Mill Woods Edition.
Varinder Bhuller, the candidate who already was green-lighted for the Liberal Party of Canada's nomination in Edmonton Mill Woods dropped a bombshell right in Justin Trudeau's lap with his latest Facebook post https://www.facebook.com/VoteBhullar/posts/857414177614337
(Highlighting mine) "I received my Green Light from the party in March 2014 and I was promised that there would be a nomination prior to Edmonton’s Sikh Parade in May 2014 so that I could campaign as a candidate there. In April 2014, however, I found out that Councillor Sohi came into the picture, and since then everything has stalled on the nomination front. Various party officials met with me in May, June and August 2014, pressuring me to withdraw my name in favour of Councillor Sohi so he wouldn’t need to contest a nomination. They tried to bribe me, threaten me and ultimately expired all my memberships by delaying the nomination beyond December 31, 2014 in the hope that our team would not renew their memberships. Once they noticed that a large number of members had started renewing their memberships, the party used their last weapon to revoke my Green Light by accusing me of membership infractions. This is only the second case in all of Canada where the Liberal Party has gone out and cancelled a candidate’s Green Light. Coincidentally, the other one was also in a riding where their preferred candidate (General Andrew Leslie) was at risk of losing in a nomination."
We all, and I mean everyone, already knows that Justin's pledge of open nominations is a joke and this just adds to the long list of other examples of the nominations being anything but open, but this one is a bit different in that it alleges that the LPC tried to "bribe me and threaten me"; both illegal acts. So far I have not seen any media on this but as they say, stay tuned because this one is going to cause some trouble.
(Highlighting mine) "I received my Green Light from the party in March 2014 and I was promised that there would be a nomination prior to Edmonton’s Sikh Parade in May 2014 so that I could campaign as a candidate there. In April 2014, however, I found out that Councillor Sohi came into the picture, and since then everything has stalled on the nomination front. Various party officials met with me in May, June and August 2014, pressuring me to withdraw my name in favour of Councillor Sohi so he wouldn’t need to contest a nomination. They tried to bribe me, threaten me and ultimately expired all my memberships by delaying the nomination beyond December 31, 2014 in the hope that our team would not renew their memberships. Once they noticed that a large number of members had started renewing their memberships, the party used their last weapon to revoke my Green Light by accusing me of membership infractions. This is only the second case in all of Canada where the Liberal Party has gone out and cancelled a candidate’s Green Light. Coincidentally, the other one was also in a riding where their preferred candidate (General Andrew Leslie) was at risk of losing in a nomination."
We all, and I mean everyone, already knows that Justin's pledge of open nominations is a joke and this just adds to the long list of other examples of the nominations being anything but open, but this one is a bit different in that it alleges that the LPC tried to "bribe me and threaten me"; both illegal acts. So far I have not seen any media on this but as they say, stay tuned because this one is going to cause some trouble.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Alberta's 'anti-bullying' Minister Sandra Jansen provides a side show on a very busy day, but we all missed something.
What a crazy day in Alberta politics Friday March 14, 2014 turned out to be. A day when news that former Alberta Health Services executive Allaudin Merali is suing AHS and Health Minister Fred Horne for $6 Million dollars, which would normally be a huge front page story, is lucky to make it to page 5 in any Alberta paper tomorrow.
What happened today:
Premier Redford continues to be under siege. (not new today but continues to be a hot story)
We had Doug Griffiths, Minister of Service Alberta, Tweeting out subtle tweets on Redford's leadership.
We had a PC riding association President openly call for Redford to resign.
We had another Minister, Thomas Lukaszuk, Tweeting out a defense of Len Webber, the PC MLA who will now sit as an independent and caused quite the fire storm by saying that Redford was "not a nice lady" among other things, and later Lukaszuk Tweeted out a defense of electricians in response to another Minister's comments on national TV. (more on that later)
We had a 'bar fight' among Alberta MLA's.
And to end the day we had news that the Executive Director of the PCAA, Kelley Charlbois, of $400,000 for verbal advice to Gary Mar fame, is no longer in his role with the PC party.
Keep in mind that most of this took place within a 6 hour window! The Alberta advantage exists even in political news I guess as the day seemed to get crazier as it went on with the comments I eluded to earlier by Minister Sandra Jansen topping the crazy with the fire storm they created, and the buried lede that most people missed.
Watch Jansen's comments for yourself here.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=307697&binId=1.1201914&playlistPageNum=1
Here is the comment that set off the fire storm. Jansen: "I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician."
The backlash was immediate. Twitter lit up with the negative response to what Jensen had said concentrating on what was a shot not only a Len Webber but perceived to be a shot at electricians in general in that somehow the job is in some way lesser than a politicians. It was ugly, but Jansen's electrician comment was not the worst part about what she said.
Yes the electrician comment was stupid, newsworthy, and deserved to be called out, but from the responses/reports that I have seen it seems that everyone was so focused on the electrician bit that we all missed the big story.
Let me explain and have some fun with this at the same time. Lets look at her comment again but this time
lets substitute other people, places etc into the 'blanks' and see if you think the same way about what she said.
Original quote (with underlined areas indicating 'blank' area to insert your choices): I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician.
Go ahead. Give it a try as I did in the following examples:
I would say right now, you know, if your kid had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, than maybe he should perhaps reconsider going to that school.
If brown people have such a problem with what they perceived as bullying, than maybe they should perhaps reconsider coming to this country and go back to where they came from.
I could go on but I think you get my point.
What an absolutely abhorrent thing for a so called Anti-bullying Minister to say to a victim of bullying. To tell anyone, it doesn't matter who, that if they do not like what they perceive as bullying (what does that mean anyway?) that it is THEY (the victim) who should alter their lives, remove themselves from doing what they want to do, and go do something else if they don't like being bullied. Bullied at work, quit your job. Bullied at school, move schools, etc.
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.Ever.
I am not in the habit of doing this, because I realize people do make mistakes and I have been known to say some pretty stupid things myself, but the fact that Jansen did say what she did shows that she is clueless and has no idea how to do her job and she needs to immediately apologize, step aside and resign as Minister.
What happened today:
Premier Redford continues to be under siege. (not new today but continues to be a hot story)
We had Doug Griffiths, Minister of Service Alberta, Tweeting out subtle tweets on Redford's leadership.
We had a PC riding association President openly call for Redford to resign.
We had another Minister, Thomas Lukaszuk, Tweeting out a defense of Len Webber, the PC MLA who will now sit as an independent and caused quite the fire storm by saying that Redford was "not a nice lady" among other things, and later Lukaszuk Tweeted out a defense of electricians in response to another Minister's comments on national TV. (more on that later)
We had a 'bar fight' among Alberta MLA's.
And to end the day we had news that the Executive Director of the PCAA, Kelley Charlbois, of $400,000 for verbal advice to Gary Mar fame, is no longer in his role with the PC party.
Keep in mind that most of this took place within a 6 hour window! The Alberta advantage exists even in political news I guess as the day seemed to get crazier as it went on with the comments I eluded to earlier by Minister Sandra Jansen topping the crazy with the fire storm they created, and the buried lede that most people missed.
Watch Jansen's comments for yourself here.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=307697&binId=1.1201914&playlistPageNum=1
Here is the comment that set off the fire storm. Jansen: "I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician."
The backlash was immediate. Twitter lit up with the negative response to what Jensen had said concentrating on what was a shot not only a Len Webber but perceived to be a shot at electricians in general in that somehow the job is in some way lesser than a politicians. It was ugly, but Jansen's electrician comment was not the worst part about what she said.
Yes the electrician comment was stupid, newsworthy, and deserved to be called out, but from the responses/reports that I have seen it seems that everyone was so focused on the electrician bit that we all missed the big story.
Let me explain and have some fun with this at the same time. Lets look at her comment again but this time
lets substitute other people, places etc into the 'blanks' and see if you think the same way about what she said.
Original quote (with underlined areas indicating 'blank' area to insert your choices): I would say right now, you know, if Len had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, he should perhaps reconsider his decision to step into federal politics. Maybe he should go back to being an electrician.
Go ahead. Give it a try as I did in the following examples:
I would say right now, you know, if your kid had such a problem with what he perceived as bullying, than maybe he should perhaps reconsider going to that school.
If brown people have such a problem with what they perceived as bullying, than maybe they should perhaps reconsider coming to this country and go back to where they came from.
I could go on but I think you get my point.
What an absolutely abhorrent thing for a so called Anti-bullying Minister to say to a victim of bullying. To tell anyone, it doesn't matter who, that if they do not like what they perceive as bullying (what does that mean anyway?) that it is THEY (the victim) who should alter their lives, remove themselves from doing what they want to do, and go do something else if they don't like being bullied. Bullied at work, quit your job. Bullied at school, move schools, etc.
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.Ever.
I am not in the habit of doing this, because I realize people do make mistakes and I have been known to say some pretty stupid things myself, but the fact that Jansen did say what she did shows that she is clueless and has no idea how to do her job and she needs to immediately apologize, step aside and resign as Minister.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
The ugly truth behind Premier Redford's decision to pay for her South Africa trip.
Yesterday Alison Redford did what she has said for over a month now that she would not do. She paid back nearly $45,000 for the costs associated with her trip to South Africa to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela.
For over a month the Premier has steadfastly claimed that the expenses were government business and that she would not be paying back the money. She even went so far as to tell us what we were thinking on the matter, that we (Albertans) were ready to forgive her and that we were ready to move on from this matter.
Was she ever wrong. Albertans were not ready to move on from this and in fact the outrage continued. Even the tried and true PC method of waiting it out or waiting for the next screw-up to take over headlines so Albertans forget about the previous one didn't work. Although it may have worked had the next 'screw-ups' not also involved the Premier's questionable use of the government air fleet; the issue continued to simmer and the outrage over the incident(s) continued among the electorate.
But what changed yesterday. What was it that made Premier Redford do a complete about face and pay back the money that for over a month she absolutely refused to do.
It wasn't the outrage level from thousands of Albertans who were angry about the waste of tax dollars by the Premier. That has been pretty much constant throughout so that did not change
No, the difference was not the thousands of Albertans upset over this but rather it was just 18 - 20 Albertans, who also happen to be PC MLAs within her caucus who voiced their outrage over the incident, that made the difference.
The fact of the matter is that Alison Redford could not have cared less about what thousands of Albertans thought about this. Their (our) opinions meant nothing to her because there is nothing that we can do about it for at least 2 years until the next election, but she does care about what 20 very specific Albertans think because they can do something about it today.
It is all about self preservation for Alison Redford and what those 20 people thinks matter to her more than the opinions of thousands of Albertans.
And that is the ugly truth.
For over a month the Premier has steadfastly claimed that the expenses were government business and that she would not be paying back the money. She even went so far as to tell us what we were thinking on the matter, that we (Albertans) were ready to forgive her and that we were ready to move on from this matter.
Was she ever wrong. Albertans were not ready to move on from this and in fact the outrage continued. Even the tried and true PC method of waiting it out or waiting for the next screw-up to take over headlines so Albertans forget about the previous one didn't work. Although it may have worked had the next 'screw-ups' not also involved the Premier's questionable use of the government air fleet; the issue continued to simmer and the outrage over the incident(s) continued among the electorate.
But what changed yesterday. What was it that made Premier Redford do a complete about face and pay back the money that for over a month she absolutely refused to do.
It wasn't the outrage level from thousands of Albertans who were angry about the waste of tax dollars by the Premier. That has been pretty much constant throughout so that did not change
No, the difference was not the thousands of Albertans upset over this but rather it was just 18 - 20 Albertans, who also happen to be PC MLAs within her caucus who voiced their outrage over the incident, that made the difference.
The fact of the matter is that Alison Redford could not have cared less about what thousands of Albertans thought about this. Their (our) opinions meant nothing to her because there is nothing that we can do about it for at least 2 years until the next election, but she does care about what 20 very specific Albertans think because they can do something about it today.
It is all about self preservation for Alison Redford and what those 20 people thinks matter to her more than the opinions of thousands of Albertans.
And that is the ugly truth.
Monday, March 03, 2014
Minister Tim Uppal to run for the CPC nomination in Edmonton Millwoods.
The Honourable Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Multiculturalism will soon be announcing that he is running for the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in the newly formed riding of Edmonton Millwoods.
You heard it here first.
MAP
The current MP for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, Mike Lake, announced that he will seek the CPC nomination in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin where he now lives thanks to where Elections Canada decided to draw a line across the current riding. With Tim running in Edm-Millwoods, this now leaves the newly redrawn riding of Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan up for grabs with no incumbent running.
Stay tuned.
You heard it here first.
MAP
The current MP for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, Mike Lake, announced that he will seek the CPC nomination in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin where he now lives thanks to where Elections Canada decided to draw a line across the current riding. With Tim running in Edm-Millwoods, this now leaves the newly redrawn riding of Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan up for grabs with no incumbent running.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, February 02, 2014
Warren Kinsella: ten reasons why Trudeau’s Senate move is a bad one.
If you have not read Warren Kinsella's latest.
You really should do so.
Now.
> > > http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/
You can thank me later.
You really should do so.
Now.
> > > http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/
You can thank me later.
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.fmSHEWeB.d
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.fmSHEWeB.d
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.dpuf
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.dpuf
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at:
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at:
How dumb is Justin Trudeau’s Senate stunt? Let us count the ways.
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.d
There are ten.
One: it won’t really fool anyone. To great fanfare, the Liberal leader announced Wednesday morning “there are no more Liberal Senators.” A couple hours later, 32 Senators emerged from a meeting to declare that (a) they are still Senators and (b) they are still Liberals.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2014/02/in-sundays-sun-ten-reasons-why-trudeaus-senate-move-is-a-bad-one/#sthash.v67e4gz0.d
Friday, January 31, 2014
Justin Trudeau abandons Alberta as he kicks out the only Alberta voices from the Liberal caucus.
On Wednesday Justin Trudeau, in what some have referred to as a 'bold' move, kicked out the only Alberta representatives, Senators Grant Mitchell and Claudette Tardiff, from the caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada. According to Trudeau: "I no longer want to have a relationship as a leader to these people, and they are no longer part of my party"
So with no elected Liberal MPs and now with no Liberal Senators, when the Liberal caucus gathers together to discuss issues or formulate policy etc, Albertans will no longer have anyone in the room to represent or speak for them. How can this be considered a good thing to do for either the people of Alberta or the Liberal Party?
It isn't, and having no one in the caucus room to speak on behalf of 3.7 million people from a province which is considered by some to be the 'economic engine of Canada' is not 'bold', it's a half baked, short sighted, political stunt.
While we are on the topic of Alberta and the senate; something else has been bothering me about Justin Trudeau's plan and future Alberta Senators
In Alberta we vote and choose who we want to represent Alberta in the senate. If there is to be some type of panel or committee choosing who will be appointed to the senate, will they respect the choice of Albertans and select those who have been chosen in fair democratic elections? This 'panel' of elites, choosing other elites to help govern us based on who knows what criteria, are supposed to be independent (which also means unaccountable) why would they be under any obligation to actually do so?
Could guidelines be written for the 'panel' saying that those who are elected in provincial senate elections must be the choice of this panel? Yes, but how likely would it be for a Liberal government to write
any type of law/guidelines etc for any such panel which would be supportive of the election of Senators considering that the Liberal Party has been against senate elections for years and which they could never win because Liberal Senators can no longer exist? It seems very unlikely that they would and if respecting the choice of Albertans wouldn't be included in such rules/guidlines, what would?
What a mess. Trudeau's plan seems to be creating more questions than it does to be giving us any real answers or solutions.
Who would choose this panel? Who would make up the panel? What powers would they have? What of the process? And as written above. What about Alberta's duly elected Senators in waiting?
Many questions. With more being asked everyday as people start see the reality of Trudeau's plan. Questions which Mr. Trudeau needs to answer. Questions which Mr. Trudeau needs to answer soon, long before the next election.
So be 'bold' Justin. Answer the questions. Canadians deserve the answers.
Related links:
Devastating rebuke, in the Toronto Star no less, of Trudeau's plan and his trampling of the Liberal Party constitution.
JT's senate plan: 'A breathtaking confusion of stupidities'
More from the the Toronto Star here and here
So with no elected Liberal MPs and now with no Liberal Senators, when the Liberal caucus gathers together to discuss issues or formulate policy etc, Albertans will no longer have anyone in the room to represent or speak for them. How can this be considered a good thing to do for either the people of Alberta or the Liberal Party?
It isn't, and having no one in the caucus room to speak on behalf of 3.7 million people from a province which is considered by some to be the 'economic engine of Canada' is not 'bold', it's a half baked, short sighted, political stunt.
While we are on the topic of Alberta and the senate; something else has been bothering me about Justin Trudeau's plan and future Alberta Senators
In Alberta we vote and choose who we want to represent Alberta in the senate. If there is to be some type of panel or committee choosing who will be appointed to the senate, will they respect the choice of Albertans and select those who have been chosen in fair democratic elections? This 'panel' of elites, choosing other elites to help govern us based on who knows what criteria, are supposed to be independent (which also means unaccountable) why would they be under any obligation to actually do so?
Could guidelines be written for the 'panel' saying that those who are elected in provincial senate elections must be the choice of this panel? Yes, but how likely would it be for a Liberal government to write
any type of law/guidelines etc for any such panel which would be supportive of the election of Senators considering that the Liberal Party has been against senate elections for years and which they could never win because Liberal Senators can no longer exist? It seems very unlikely that they would and if respecting the choice of Albertans wouldn't be included in such rules/guidlines, what would?
What a mess. Trudeau's plan seems to be creating more questions than it does to be giving us any real answers or solutions.
Who would choose this panel? Who would make up the panel? What powers would they have? What of the process? And as written above. What about Alberta's duly elected Senators in waiting?
Many questions. With more being asked everyday as people start see the reality of Trudeau's plan. Questions which Mr. Trudeau needs to answer. Questions which Mr. Trudeau needs to answer soon, long before the next election.
So be 'bold' Justin. Answer the questions. Canadians deserve the answers.
Related links:
Devastating rebuke, in the Toronto Star no less, of Trudeau's plan and his trampling of the Liberal Party constitution.
JT's senate plan: 'A breathtaking confusion of stupidities'
More from the the Toronto Star here and here
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Deceit in Alberta. Redford drops Steve Young from cabinet.
Edmonton Riverview MLA Steve Young was dropped from a cabinet spot by Alison
Redford last week because of an incident which had occurred years ago
while he was a constable with the Edmonton Police Service.
The parallels between the actions of Alison Redford and Steve Young are amazingly similar but one is much worse off than other is today. One is seeing the underside of the PC bus after they lost their job which was publicly promised to them just a week ago while the other is driving that bus with no consequences (yet); even though both parties have done pretty much the same thing.
Young was accused of deceit under the Police Act for lying to his supervisors about his role in an incident when he denied that he had used a taser on a suspect.
Redford as Minister of Justice makes the decision on which legal firm to retain for Alberta's planned tobacco lawsuit but denied that she had made the decision.
When confronted with evidence ( Young's own incident report) He initially obfuscates ( 'This is crazy, that's brutal, that's absolutely brutal. Like talk about full disclosure. This is, this is ... unbelievable in my mind. That is dirty hands, I just can't believe that.') but to his credit, acknowledges the evidence and accepts that he did use the taser.
When confronted with evidence (memo) Redford for the better part of a year continues to deny her direct involvement ( 'That doesn't change the fact that I did not personally make that decision.') but eventually reality takes hold and she not only acknowledges making the decision but has the arrogance to boast about doing so. ("It outlines that I did everything that a Minister would be expected to do in serving the public interest, and did so in a forthright, objective and unbiased manner.")
Young is subsequently cleared.
Redford is subsequently cleared.*
*Yes and no. Young was cleared of 'deceit', Redford was not.
While Redford was cleared of any violations of the conflict of interest act (which is the right the call as ex-spouses are not listed in the Act & it would be impossible to find anyone guilty of something which was not against the rules!) she has not been 'cleared' of other issues related to her actions on this file. In fact the Ethics Commissioners report makes a very good prima facie case that Alison Redford misled the Alberta Legislature, and the people of Alberta.
To put it simply; what the Premier said was not true. She did make the decision. This is now established fact.
Here is part of the Ethics Commissioners ruling on Redford's role: "I find it is entirely appropriate that a Minister, charged with the authority and responsibility for a final decision on a matter, exercise that authority to render a decision."
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
To be continued...
The parallels between the actions of Alison Redford and Steve Young are amazingly similar but one is much worse off than other is today. One is seeing the underside of the PC bus after they lost their job which was publicly promised to them just a week ago while the other is driving that bus with no consequences (yet); even though both parties have done pretty much the same thing.
Young was accused of deceit under the Police Act for lying to his supervisors about his role in an incident when he denied that he had used a taser on a suspect.
Redford as Minister of Justice makes the decision on which legal firm to retain for Alberta's planned tobacco lawsuit but denied that she had made the decision.
When confronted with evidence ( Young's own incident report) He initially obfuscates ( 'This is crazy, that's brutal, that's absolutely brutal. Like talk about full disclosure. This is, this is ... unbelievable in my mind. That is dirty hands, I just can't believe that.') but to his credit, acknowledges the evidence and accepts that he did use the taser.
When confronted with evidence (memo) Redford for the better part of a year continues to deny her direct involvement ( 'That doesn't change the fact that I did not personally make that decision.') but eventually reality takes hold and she not only acknowledges making the decision but has the arrogance to boast about doing so. ("It outlines that I did everything that a Minister would be expected to do in serving the public interest, and did so in a forthright, objective and unbiased manner.")
Young is subsequently cleared.
Redford is subsequently cleared.*
*Yes and no. Young was cleared of 'deceit', Redford was not.
While Redford was cleared of any violations of the conflict of interest act (which is the right the call as ex-spouses are not listed in the Act & it would be impossible to find anyone guilty of something which was not against the rules!) she has not been 'cleared' of other issues related to her actions on this file. In fact the Ethics Commissioners report makes a very good prima facie case that Alison Redford misled the Alberta Legislature, and the people of Alberta.
To put it simply; what the Premier said was not true. She did make the decision. This is now established fact.
Here is part of the Ethics Commissioners ruling on Redford's role: "I find it is entirely appropriate that a Minister, charged with the authority and responsibility for a final decision on a matter, exercise that authority to render a decision."
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
To be continued...
Monday, December 02, 2013
Alberta Government found in contempt of the Legislature, but did the speaker overstep his authority after making the ruling?
A short time ago the Speaker of the Alberta Legislature, Gene Zwodesky, found a prima facie case of breach of privilege against the Government of Alberta for a mail-out it sent to all Albertans which made the following statement:
"Public sector employees,including teachers,doctors and government managers - as well as MLAs - are leading by example with multi-year wage freezes because it's the responsible thing to do for our province."
The offending parts of the statement, the words "as well as MLAs" + "multi-year wage freezes" as the mail-out occurred before the legislature, and in particular the Member Services Committee, had made any such decision on the pay of MLAs, and it is disrespectful to any parliament/legislature to ever assume that any decision will be made before it actually has been made.
Without going into the details on whether this was or was not disrespectful (it was/is) what happened following his ruling has me wondering if the speaker overstepped his authority and may himself be disrespecting the Alberta Legislature.
( Will fill the following with actual quotes when Hansard is available) Following his ruling the Speaker offered a chance for the Government to speak on the matter. The Deputy Premier rose to speak and was quickly shut down by the Speaker saying that he and the legislature were expecting an apology and not excuses or questions. The Deputy Premier then made an apology, the Speaker accepted it and declared that the matter was "concluded".
By convention in parliaments all around the world, including our federal parliament in Ottawa, the speaker's role in matters such as this is to decide if there is a 'prima facie case' that privilege was indeed breached, as Zwozdesky did, but once this has been determined their role in the matter ends. Look no farther than Ottawa for recent findings of contempt and the process following the ruling of the Speaker.
The Speaker does not decide any penalties, punishments or try to predict what actions the legislature may or may not take on the breach and certainly it is not up to him/her to decide for themselves that a simple apology is enough to conclude the matter. .
To do so is just as disrespectful to the legislature, by making assumptions on what the legislature will decide/not decide, as the original mail-out did.
I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure so if you have anything to add, feel free to leave a comment.
Here are some comments from someone much more knowledgeable on the subject than myself:
Please read the Alberta Legislature Standing Orders: http://t.co/AsPjciC579 and the relevant rules used in Ottawa here.
A touch of irony. If the rules end up being followed and this matter does get before a legislative committee, that committee would be none other than the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing. More famously known as the "no-meet committee." A history of Premier Redford and the No-meet committee.
.
"Public sector employees,including teachers,doctors and government managers - as well as MLAs - are leading by example with multi-year wage freezes because it's the responsible thing to do for our province."
The offending parts of the statement, the words "as well as MLAs" + "multi-year wage freezes" as the mail-out occurred before the legislature, and in particular the Member Services Committee, had made any such decision on the pay of MLAs, and it is disrespectful to any parliament/legislature to ever assume that any decision will be made before it actually has been made.
Without going into the details on whether this was or was not disrespectful (it was/is) what happened following his ruling has me wondering if the speaker overstepped his authority and may himself be disrespecting the Alberta Legislature.
( Will fill the following with actual quotes when Hansard is available) Following his ruling the Speaker offered a chance for the Government to speak on the matter. The Deputy Premier rose to speak and was quickly shut down by the Speaker saying that he and the legislature were expecting an apology and not excuses or questions. The Deputy Premier then made an apology, the Speaker accepted it and declared that the matter was "concluded".
By convention in parliaments all around the world, including our federal parliament in Ottawa, the speaker's role in matters such as this is to decide if there is a 'prima facie case' that privilege was indeed breached, as Zwozdesky did, but once this has been determined their role in the matter ends. Look no farther than Ottawa for recent findings of contempt and the process following the ruling of the Speaker.
The Speaker does not decide any penalties, punishments or try to predict what actions the legislature may or may not take on the breach and certainly it is not up to him/her to decide for themselves that a simple apology is enough to conclude the matter. .
To do so is just as disrespectful to the legislature, by making assumptions on what the legislature will decide/not decide, as the original mail-out did.
I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure so if you have anything to add, feel free to leave a comment.
Here are some comments from someone much more knowledgeable on the subject than myself:
Please read the Alberta Legislature Standing Orders: http://t.co/AsPjciC579 and the relevant rules used in Ottawa here.
@Albertaardvark I don't think your speaker understands what 'prima facie breach of privilege' means.
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 2, 2013
@Albertaardvark I see nothing in your standing orders that would allow the speaker to handle the matter himself: http://t.co/CfuB2tfx4V
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 3, 2013
@Albertaardvark Also, Division 2 of the Legislative Assembly Act doesn't mess around: http://t.co/AsPjciC579 @syncrodox1
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 3, 2013
@Albertaardvark Yes, but someone has to remind them that there's a next step! And it doesn't involve the speaker letting them say sorry.
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 2, 2013
A touch of irony. If the rules end up being followed and this matter does get before a legislative committee, that committee would be none other than the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing. More famously known as the "no-meet committee." A history of Premier Redford and the No-meet committee.
.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Alberta PC's hold their convention this weekend and why Premier Redford should be worried.
"I really haven't given it any thought," Redford said Wednesday after
reporters asked her about the vote coming up at the Progressive
Conservative party's annual general meeting in Red Deer.
Aside from the ease which Redford seems to be able to say falsehoods like this with a straight face, which I will get into a bit later, her ridiculous statement ( it is impossible that she has not given it any thought) along with her faithful minions out in the media trying very hard to lower expectations in advance of the vote ( “So, frankly, in my mind anything in the 50s (per cent) is good, anything in the 60s is a success and anything in the 70s is absolutely a triumph.”) it is quite clear that Redford is indeed worried about the vote on her leadership and there are good reasons why she should be.
Her poll numbers with the public have been tanking ever since the election and if not for a slight uptick due in most part to the Alberta flood they would be near record low levels and the reasons why are obvious. Numerous broken promises and the fact there are few (groups or people) left in Alberta who her government has not pissed off in some way. Doctors, pharmacists, teachers, nurses, students, and public employees have all battled Redford and her government; closing the Mitchener Center and the Little Bow Continuing Care Centre in Carmangay, debt & deficits when promised surpluses and savings, obfuscating budget numbers, illegal donations to the PC party, large severances for bureaucrats and fighting FOIPs on the information after promising more transparency and the Privacy Commissioner had authorized the release, the Katz cheque, the petty partisan politics, and daily headlines about AHS being an absolute mess (in more ways than can be listed here) and what Redford's cutbacks have done in post secondary education has made her very few friends.
But that is the general public, not the PCAA members.
Her support amongst her own party has never been that stellar; yes they united to fight and win an election, but her relationship with much of the party has been rocky from the beginning. In 2011 when Redford won the PCAA leadership vote she had the support of only 2 caucus MLAs, one of which was herself. This changed after the first vote where Redford picked up an additional 4 from the PC caucus (today one of those 4 is now a proud card carrying member of the Wildrose), while Gary Mar had the support of 27 MLAs at the start of that race and picked up another 7 from caucus after the first ballot of a leadership race that had nearly 66,000 fewer PC members voting than during the 2006 leadership race which chose Ed Stelmach (78,176 vs 144,289). I can write with certainty that not even all of her own MLAs will be voting in favour of her leadership in Red Deer this weekend (don't ask because I am not telling) and while that doesn't say much about how the rank and file membership will vote, it does suggest that it is not as rosy in PCAA land as Redford's team would like everyone to believe. Which might explain Redford's recent charm offensive.
While charm offensive might not be the best word, hiding the facts offensive might be a better choice, Redford has been working hard to improve her numbers. The numerous signs painted in 'pc colours' and sporting Redford's name have been popping up all over the province recently being the most obvious example but delaying or hiding reports ( AHS Q1 wait time report is now over 80 days late and the Q2 report is due in less than 10 days), the ethics ruling on Redford and the tobacco lawsuit (remember what I said about falsehoods and a straight face) and even the PCAA backing off their plan to take a cut of donation made to individual riding association, also look to have all been done to help out the premier win her leadership vote. Timing is everything as they say.
Will it work? Who knows, but when when expectations have been set low (50% +1), I suspect that she will make the threshold; although I am not sure how having up to 49.9x % of your own party voting against you could be called a victory in any sense of the word.
Although... "The leadership campaigns would begin overnight in cabinet and caucus even with a vote in the mid-60s," says one party veteran, who will not be identified for fear of banishment.
Bonus: Alison Redford, the person who said that she has not given the PCAA leadership review "any thought", made a video for that review.
I love the line that Albertans can "trust what we told them." It takes a special kind of person to be able to say something like that when nearly everyone is aware of their well documented broken promises; and that person is Alison Redford who does so with out batting an eye.
Aside from the ease which Redford seems to be able to say falsehoods like this with a straight face, which I will get into a bit later, her ridiculous statement ( it is impossible that she has not given it any thought) along with her faithful minions out in the media trying very hard to lower expectations in advance of the vote ( “So, frankly, in my mind anything in the 50s (per cent) is good, anything in the 60s is a success and anything in the 70s is absolutely a triumph.”) it is quite clear that Redford is indeed worried about the vote on her leadership and there are good reasons why she should be.
Her poll numbers with the public have been tanking ever since the election and if not for a slight uptick due in most part to the Alberta flood they would be near record low levels and the reasons why are obvious. Numerous broken promises and the fact there are few (groups or people) left in Alberta who her government has not pissed off in some way. Doctors, pharmacists, teachers, nurses, students, and public employees have all battled Redford and her government; closing the Mitchener Center and the Little Bow Continuing Care Centre in Carmangay, debt & deficits when promised surpluses and savings, obfuscating budget numbers, illegal donations to the PC party, large severances for bureaucrats and fighting FOIPs on the information after promising more transparency and the Privacy Commissioner had authorized the release, the Katz cheque, the petty partisan politics, and daily headlines about AHS being an absolute mess (in more ways than can be listed here) and what Redford's cutbacks have done in post secondary education has made her very few friends.
But that is the general public, not the PCAA members.
Her support amongst her own party has never been that stellar; yes they united to fight and win an election, but her relationship with much of the party has been rocky from the beginning. In 2011 when Redford won the PCAA leadership vote she had the support of only 2 caucus MLAs, one of which was herself. This changed after the first vote where Redford picked up an additional 4 from the PC caucus (today one of those 4 is now a proud card carrying member of the Wildrose), while Gary Mar had the support of 27 MLAs at the start of that race and picked up another 7 from caucus after the first ballot of a leadership race that had nearly 66,000 fewer PC members voting than during the 2006 leadership race which chose Ed Stelmach (78,176 vs 144,289). I can write with certainty that not even all of her own MLAs will be voting in favour of her leadership in Red Deer this weekend (don't ask because I am not telling) and while that doesn't say much about how the rank and file membership will vote, it does suggest that it is not as rosy in PCAA land as Redford's team would like everyone to believe. Which might explain Redford's recent charm offensive.
While charm offensive might not be the best word, hiding the facts offensive might be a better choice, Redford has been working hard to improve her numbers. The numerous signs painted in 'pc colours' and sporting Redford's name have been popping up all over the province recently being the most obvious example but delaying or hiding reports ( AHS Q1 wait time report is now over 80 days late and the Q2 report is due in less than 10 days), the ethics ruling on Redford and the tobacco lawsuit (remember what I said about falsehoods and a straight face) and even the PCAA backing off their plan to take a cut of donation made to individual riding association, also look to have all been done to help out the premier win her leadership vote. Timing is everything as they say.
Will it work? Who knows, but when when expectations have been set low (50% +1), I suspect that she will make the threshold; although I am not sure how having up to 49.9x % of your own party voting against you could be called a victory in any sense of the word.
Although... "The leadership campaigns would begin overnight in cabinet and caucus even with a vote in the mid-60s," says one party veteran, who will not be identified for fear of banishment.
Bonus: Alison Redford, the person who said that she has not given the PCAA leadership review "any thought", made a video for that review.
I love the line that Albertans can "trust what we told them." It takes a special kind of person to be able to say something like that when nearly everyone is aware of their well documented broken promises; and that person is Alison Redford who does so with out batting an eye.
Monday, November 04, 2013
CPC Convention 2013: Was the Media locked out? Not really.
The CPC 2013 convention this weekend in Calgary was nothing short of a fantastic experience. For those that believe an individual can have no effect on politics/government, you obviously have never been in a room with a thousand other people of diverse backgrounds from across the country discussing policy and setting the future course of a political party before. It is grassroots at it's finest and if you ever get the chance, I would highly recommend it. I am not going to get into the policy stuff today, (you can see those for yourself on the CPC website when it gets posted or check out Kady O'Malley's coverage here if interested) but rather I am going to discuss a favorite subject of mine, the media, and their ever continuing narrative of being locked out by the CPC.
For those that are buying into the media complaints of being locked out or as some have put it, the CPC "holding its conventions in Stalag Luft 17" ask yourself a couple of questions:
Q: What happened at the convention that was not covered by the media and you did not find out about?
To my knowledge, aside from the workshops which should be kept media free IMHO, the convention was was well covered by the numerous press in attendance. The meat and potatoes of any convention is policy and the final plenary sessions were extremely well covered. Look no farther than Josh Wingrove's twitter feed from the weekend or as linked to above, Kady O'Malley. And we all know the amount of coverage the PM's speech received, including the stories written on it before he had even delivered it. The fact that you know what happened at the convention is proof in itself the the media were not really locked out.
Q: Can you provide me with the name of any member of the media who could not obtain a delegate quote?
I doubt you can because the truth of the matter is that the media could and often did talk with delegates. The media was everywhere in Calgary. They were at the the only entrance to the BMO, occasionally in the foyer, always available in the hallway towards the north east end of the building, inside the hospitality suits (drunken delegates do make good sources for dirt), in Hall D at plenary, and even in my hotel elevator ( I had more CPAC people in the elevator with me at one point on Saturday than they had in Ottawa) I myself was asked for comment by the media about 15 times over the course of the weekend, which may be higher than average due to my habit of wandering around more than most, but I don't know of any who were not approached or if they did want to offer their opinion to media, were ever unable to do so.
I wrote earlier that the workshops should be kept media free and I do believe that to be for the best. Having media in the room is not only a distraction, it makes some people very nervous knowing that what they may say on a particular policy etc may end up on the nightly news. This is really not very conducive to discussions where you want everyone to be able to voice their ideas and opinions openly and freely, which is what conventions are really all about. Delegates were NOT there for the media and really should not be bothered by them while they are trying to do their work.
While I do see the media's point that they would like more access; of course they would as it makes their job much easier and who wouldn't want that, and I am sure they would like to sit in the PMO for meetings too but that is not very realistic. Could you imagine the chaos if the close to 300 accredited media from 60 outlets had free rein in the BMO Centre during the entire run of the convention? It would be an absolute zoo, where you could in theory have had more media in a workshop than there were delegates in the room.
Could more have been done for access? I am sure there could have been but to compare the convention to a Nazi POW camp or say that it was the way they do it in unsavory countries is not only wrong, it is just plain silly and makes them look like whiners.
Just to show that I am not all about bashing the media, I will offer up a couple of shout outs and stories from CPC13. A shout out to Stephen Taylor ( is he media?) who I finally had the pleasure to meet in person and who gave a social media presentation at the Manning Centre. He is sort of responsible for unleashing this blog upon the world and I am grateful for the opportunity. To the reporters that I had long talks with at the convention and in the hospitality suites, thank you all. I know we are opposite sides on the blog and on Twitter at times, but it was a pleasure meeting and speaking with you in person. I would get into more details on the hospitality suite conversations but drunken conversations between blogger/delegate and media are kept strictly off the record, including which of us were drunk! ;-) And for that story I promised, although this may get me into trouble with the readership, I actually praised the CBC's Kady O'Malley while speaking with the Minister who was responsible for the CBC up until this past July, James Moore, much to the chagrin of bystanders. True story and she does deserve the praise for the job she does and how open she is, although somewhere in Calgary someone may be still missing a coat.
For those that are buying into the media complaints of being locked out or as some have put it, the CPC "holding its conventions in Stalag Luft 17" ask yourself a couple of questions:
Q: What happened at the convention that was not covered by the media and you did not find out about?
To my knowledge, aside from the workshops which should be kept media free IMHO, the convention was was well covered by the numerous press in attendance. The meat and potatoes of any convention is policy and the final plenary sessions were extremely well covered. Look no farther than Josh Wingrove's twitter feed from the weekend or as linked to above, Kady O'Malley. And we all know the amount of coverage the PM's speech received, including the stories written on it before he had even delivered it. The fact that you know what happened at the convention is proof in itself the the media were not really locked out.
Q: Can you provide me with the name of any member of the media who could not obtain a delegate quote?
I doubt you can because the truth of the matter is that the media could and often did talk with delegates. The media was everywhere in Calgary. They were at the the only entrance to the BMO, occasionally in the foyer, always available in the hallway towards the north east end of the building, inside the hospitality suits (drunken delegates do make good sources for dirt), in Hall D at plenary, and even in my hotel elevator ( I had more CPAC people in the elevator with me at one point on Saturday than they had in Ottawa) I myself was asked for comment by the media about 15 times over the course of the weekend, which may be higher than average due to my habit of wandering around more than most, but I don't know of any who were not approached or if they did want to offer their opinion to media, were ever unable to do so.
I wrote earlier that the workshops should be kept media free and I do believe that to be for the best. Having media in the room is not only a distraction, it makes some people very nervous knowing that what they may say on a particular policy etc may end up on the nightly news. This is really not very conducive to discussions where you want everyone to be able to voice their ideas and opinions openly and freely, which is what conventions are really all about. Delegates were NOT there for the media and really should not be bothered by them while they are trying to do their work.
While I do see the media's point that they would like more access; of course they would as it makes their job much easier and who wouldn't want that, and I am sure they would like to sit in the PMO for meetings too but that is not very realistic. Could you imagine the chaos if the close to 300 accredited media from 60 outlets had free rein in the BMO Centre during the entire run of the convention? It would be an absolute zoo, where you could in theory have had more media in a workshop than there were delegates in the room.
Could more have been done for access? I am sure there could have been but to compare the convention to a Nazi POW camp or say that it was the way they do it in unsavory countries is not only wrong, it is just plain silly and makes them look like whiners.
Just to show that I am not all about bashing the media, I will offer up a couple of shout outs and stories from CPC13. A shout out to Stephen Taylor ( is he media?) who I finally had the pleasure to meet in person and who gave a social media presentation at the Manning Centre. He is sort of responsible for unleashing this blog upon the world and I am grateful for the opportunity. To the reporters that I had long talks with at the convention and in the hospitality suites, thank you all. I know we are opposite sides on the blog and on Twitter at times, but it was a pleasure meeting and speaking with you in person. I would get into more details on the hospitality suite conversations but drunken conversations between blogger/delegate and media are kept strictly off the record, including which of us were drunk! ;-) And for that story I promised, although this may get me into trouble with the readership, I actually praised the CBC's Kady O'Malley while speaking with the Minister who was responsible for the CBC up until this past July, James Moore, much to the chagrin of bystanders. True story and she does deserve the praise for the job she does and how open she is, although somewhere in Calgary someone may be still missing a coat.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Calgary's Mayor Nenshi loves social media. He just isn't too good at it.
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi doesn't like it when people re-tweet something that is critical of him.
Nenshi takes a cheap shot at Alan Hallman:
He gets called out on it by "Conservative Hippy":
Sheila Gunn Reid (SGR) re-tweets it in it's entirety and without edit. Mayor Nenshi attacks SGR and not the actual author of the tweet. (BTW: Sheila was not the only one to re-tweet that tweet, but she was the only one Nenshi went after)
Nenshi acknowledges that it was not SGR who wrote the tweet and doubles down with another uncalled for shot on SGR.
Calgary's mayor looks petty and hilarity ensues:
As does the truth:
You mean that this isn't the way that all big city mayors act on the eve of an election?
Nenshi takes a cheap shot at Alan Hallman:
@abkia indeed. How'd your candidate do again? When was the last time you won anything? 1992? That was cool.
— Naheed Nenshi (@nenshi) October 21, 2013
He gets called out on it by "Conservative Hippy":
.@nenshi seriously as mayor how can you talk to people that way? What are you twelve? #classy @abkia
— Conservative Hippy (@Conser_Hippy) October 21, 2013
Sheila Gunn Reid (SGR) re-tweets it in it's entirety and without edit. Mayor Nenshi attacks SGR and not the actual author of the tweet. (BTW: Sheila was not the only one to re-tweet that tweet, but she was the only one Nenshi went after)
@SheilaGunnReid I'm glad for the lecture on staying classy. Perhaps Alan will take your advice too.
— Naheed Nenshi (@nenshi) October 21, 2013
Nenshi acknowledges that it was not SGR who wrote the tweet and doubles down with another uncalled for shot on SGR.
@SheilaGunnReid sorry, it was an RT from you. Resident of NE Alberta have nothing better to do than RT things about Calgary?
— Naheed Nenshi (@nenshi) October 21, 2013
Calgary's mayor looks petty and hilarity ensues:
I'm thinking Nenshi must have just got some ward polling results. Seems grumpy. #yycvote @SheilaGunnReid
— Jane Morgan (@Jaanikka) October 21, 2013
@SheilaGunnReid @JamesSwertz @nenshi maybe he DOES need a lecture on class then. You go girl! hahaha! #stayclassy
— Brenda in BC (@Brenda_inBC) October 21, 2013
@LeighPatrick @SheilaGunnReid Someone just started a parody account of the mayor of Calgary. Here's the link -----> @nenshi
— Mike Hansen (@MikeHansen613) October 21, 2013
As does the truth:
Calgary mayor @nenshi is by far the thinnest skinned politician in Canada https://t.co/8jym4SG1hS
— Dean Skoreyko (@bcbluecon) October 21, 2013
You mean that this isn't the way that all big city mayors act on the eve of an election?
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Who says local politics is boring? Porn and plagiarism, Edmonton votes 2013.
Updated (see bottom of page)
Yesterday a small bombshell was dropped into the Edmonton municipal election race when news broke that ward 11 candidate Harvey Panesar was involved in the adult entertainment business. This after running with a family friendly platform and using his daughters in a campaign video. Panesar has confirmed to local reporters that his signature was on the contract and that he was involved but it seems that his attempt to spin this issue has a few big holes in it and the story has changed from one day to the next.
Yesterday Panesar said that he backed out of the deal as he had second thoughts about profiting from porn.
Today it appears* that Panesar is claiming that he didn't find out what the movie was about until later and when he did, he backed out.
The first explanation given yesterday does seem reasonable. He could have had second thoughts on the deal and did walk away from the contract but new information has come to light that Panesar was allegedly involved in producing at least 2 XXX adult films in another deal which had nothing to do with the contract that sparked this controversy.
His second explanation is much more concerning for a couple of reasons. First is that the contract in question makes it very clear that XXX adult material was involved. From the actual contract: (some names redacted and highlighting mine)
...will jointly own the MMA television
network “Aggression TV” and the MMA/XXX television network “Juiced TV"
'All parties will be afforded Executive Producer credits on all Aggression TV and Juiced TV
original series with the exception of existing projects (ie; Boy Nexxt Door, Make Me a Porn Star,
Tight, etc.). Creator credits will be given to the party most responsible for the concept of any
given project. Of current Aggression TV projects, all mash-ups including “Extreme Aggression:
Down But Not Out”, “Extreme Aggression: Killer Knock-Outs” and “Extreme Aggression: Super
Submissions” will be credited as created by (redacted), (redacted) and Harvey Panesar.
“Make Me a Fighter” will be credited as created by (redacted) and Harvey Panesar.
“Aggression”, “The Cage” and “Fighting Words” will be credited as created by (redacted).
Of current Juiced TV projects, “Ultimate Porn Fighter” and “My Canadian Cousin” will be
credited as created by (redacted) (or applicable screen name).'
It seems clear to me what would be involved but in the off chance that Panesar did sign the contract without actually reading it; I would say that admitting to doing so may be worse than being involved in the making of porn. I mean is it really a good idea to elect someone to city council who signs things without reading them?
To be clear: The adult entertainment industry is legitimate business and whether you agree or not that it should be, it doesn't change the fact that it is. That being said if one is involved in the industry they should own it 100% and not try to hide it or claim afterwards that they were unaware of what they were getting into. Let the people know the truth and the public can make their own decisions whether or not to give you their vote. Keeping it hidden or trying to spin the story with flimsy excuses after the fact does not exactly build the trust of the electorate.Nor should it.
Another story from Edmonton votes 2013 that has to be mentioned deals with plagiarism. Local Ward 6 candidate Melinda Hollis was caught cutting and pasting an article to her blog which was written by the Fraser institute without proper attribution of the source. (she has since changed the original posting (pdf) at least 2 times with the first laughably adding a line at the end which read "some material taken from" and the second where she more properly attributes the source and provides a link.)
What makes this more than just a story of a self proclaimed academic plagiarizing the work of others (and this was as clear cut as one can get) was her response when she was exposed. Her tweet which read: “You have about as much value to me as a piece of S__T under my shoe. I owe you nothing.” in response to Kikki Planet (friend of the blog =) and the person who uncovered the plagiarism) shows why basic media training is essential for anyone planning to run for office.
You can read a good run down of the Hollis affair, including her trying to claim the "S__T" line from her tweet did not mean what we all know it means, here at Gigcity.ca.
What a self inflicted disaster this is and like with Panesar, it is always better to come clean and admit error when caught than to obfuscate and try to cover it up. A good lesson for anyone running for elected office.
Who said local politics was boring?
*Update: Brenton Driedger whose tweet I linked to above did not speak with Panesar himself and was paraphrasing a colleague who had spoken with him so it unclear if Panesar did say that 'he didn't find out what the movie was about until later and when he did, he backed out' or not.
Yesterday a small bombshell was dropped into the Edmonton municipal election race when news broke that ward 11 candidate Harvey Panesar was involved in the adult entertainment business. This after running with a family friendly platform and using his daughters in a campaign video. Panesar has confirmed to local reporters that his signature was on the contract and that he was involved but it seems that his attempt to spin this issue has a few big holes in it and the story has changed from one day to the next.
Yesterday Panesar said that he backed out of the deal as he had second thoughts about profiting from porn.
Today it appears* that Panesar is claiming that he didn't find out what the movie was about until later and when he did, he backed out.
The first explanation given yesterday does seem reasonable. He could have had second thoughts on the deal and did walk away from the contract but new information has come to light that Panesar was allegedly involved in producing at least 2 XXX adult films in another deal which had nothing to do with the contract that sparked this controversy.
His second explanation is much more concerning for a couple of reasons. First is that the contract in question makes it very clear that XXX adult material was involved. From the actual contract: (some names redacted and highlighting mine)
...will jointly own the MMA television
network “Aggression TV” and the MMA/XXX television network “Juiced TV"
'All parties will be afforded Executive Producer credits on all Aggression TV and Juiced TV
original series with the exception of existing projects (ie; Boy Nexxt Door, Make Me a Porn Star,
Tight, etc.). Creator credits will be given to the party most responsible for the concept of any
given project. Of current Aggression TV projects, all mash-ups including “Extreme Aggression:
Down But Not Out”, “Extreme Aggression: Killer Knock-Outs” and “Extreme Aggression: Super
Submissions” will be credited as created by (redacted), (redacted) and Harvey Panesar.
“Make Me a Fighter” will be credited as created by (redacted) and Harvey Panesar.
“Aggression”, “The Cage” and “Fighting Words” will be credited as created by (redacted).
Of current Juiced TV projects, “Ultimate Porn Fighter” and “My Canadian Cousin” will be
credited as created by (redacted) (or applicable screen name).'
It seems clear to me what would be involved but in the off chance that Panesar did sign the contract without actually reading it; I would say that admitting to doing so may be worse than being involved in the making of porn. I mean is it really a good idea to elect someone to city council who signs things without reading them?
To be clear: The adult entertainment industry is legitimate business and whether you agree or not that it should be, it doesn't change the fact that it is. That being said if one is involved in the industry they should own it 100% and not try to hide it or claim afterwards that they were unaware of what they were getting into. Let the people know the truth and the public can make their own decisions whether or not to give you their vote. Keeping it hidden or trying to spin the story with flimsy excuses after the fact does not exactly build the trust of the electorate.Nor should it.
Another story from Edmonton votes 2013 that has to be mentioned deals with plagiarism. Local Ward 6 candidate Melinda Hollis was caught cutting and pasting an article to her blog which was written by the Fraser institute without proper attribution of the source. (she has since changed the original posting (pdf) at least 2 times with the first laughably adding a line at the end which read "some material taken from" and the second where she more properly attributes the source and provides a link.)
What makes this more than just a story of a self proclaimed academic plagiarizing the work of others (and this was as clear cut as one can get) was her response when she was exposed. Her tweet which read: “You have about as much value to me as a piece of S__T under my shoe. I owe you nothing.” in response to Kikki Planet (friend of the blog =) and the person who uncovered the plagiarism) shows why basic media training is essential for anyone planning to run for office.
You can read a good run down of the Hollis affair, including her trying to claim the "S__T" line from her tweet did not mean what we all know it means, here at Gigcity.ca.
What a self inflicted disaster this is and like with Panesar, it is always better to come clean and admit error when caught than to obfuscate and try to cover it up. A good lesson for anyone running for elected office.
Who said local politics was boring?
*Update: Brenton Driedger whose tweet I linked to above did not speak with Panesar himself and was paraphrasing a colleague who had spoken with him so it unclear if Panesar did say that 'he didn't find out what the movie was about until later and when he did, he backed out' or not.
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Wendy Butler, President of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta, please call your office.
Because there may be a message for you from Team Justin and Liberal HQ.
What a piece of work.
But this is not the first time Wendy has shown her 'liberal tolerance'.
Remember this is the president of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta!
And there are more where that came from, actually her twitter feed is filled with hate and intolerance, but you get the idea.
Let's hope that her phone is indeed ringing and that Justin 'doing politics different' Trudeau does the correct thing and rids the Liberal Party of types like this because she is doing her party the opposite of proud.
@MikeLakeMP @AvidAutismAdvoc Are you doing anything for your constituents not suffering from the effects of autism?
— Wendy Butler (@WButler2011) September 7, 2013
What a piece of work.
But this is not the first time Wendy has shown her 'liberal tolerance'.
@DavidDorward How will you being an acting Mormon Bishop affect you representing all residents of Goldbar - conflict #yeg #ableg #abvote
— Wendy Butler (@WButler2011) March 1, 2012
@RyanHastman Praize the christian god snd his kingdom you want to create in Canada #yeg
— Wendy Butler (@WButler2011) November 26, 2010
@RyanHastman In your attempt to make Canada in God's model, how do you justify not telling #Strathcona what you really believe? #cpc #yeg
— Wendy Butler (@WButler2011) October 8, 2010
Did you know that the religious right have their own edition of Wikipedia called conipedia? #cdnpoli
— Wendy Butler (@WButler2011) May 17, 2012
Remember this is the president of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta!
And there are more where that came from, actually her twitter feed is filled with hate and intolerance, but you get the idea.
Let's hope that her phone is indeed ringing and that Justin 'doing politics different' Trudeau does the correct thing and rids the Liberal Party of types like this because she is doing her party the opposite of proud.
Friday, September 06, 2013
What happened in High River is going to end badly for someone within the RCMP.
In a letter to Alberta's official opposition Wildrose Party, an official with the RCMP says officers did what they felt was necessary but "did not take operational direction from any elected officials or public service employees to enter in private homes" (link)
Read that last part again: The RCMP "did not take operational direction from any elected officials or public service employees to enter in private homes"
That is quite the admission. The RCMP entered locked private homes without a warrant and seized personal property ( This is not about guns. The property seized, had it been computers or even vacuum cleaners, is irrelevant) on their own without direction from any elected official or public service employee.
Unfortunately for the RCMP the only law in Alberta that would allow them or anyone else to undertake such extraordinary actions is the Alberta Emergency Management Act (AEMA (read the entire act for yourself) and the act very clearly states that such actions must be authorized by someone who is an "elected official or public service employee."*
It reads 'the Minister may authorize' something, not 'the Minister automatically does authorize'. There are no extraordinary powers given directly to the police anywhere in the act and in fact the word "police" is nowhere to be found in the act, and any such powers available to the police require that the Minister authorize their use. Without that authorization, there are no special powers. Also note that it says 'any person'. The Minister may authorize, the fire dept, the postman or even his crazy Uncle to do any of those things listed in sec 19 as he (they) deem necessary, it does not have to be the police and in fact there are very good reasons why the word 'police' was omitted from the AEMA and why they were not given any specific powers.
Note also that in the AEMA is the requirement for a paper trail which it seems the RCMP do not have.
Proof of authorization
It is this simple. Warrantless entry and property seizures require written authorization and either that written authorization from someone who is allowed to do so exists or it does not exist. If it does, let's see it.
Somebody screwed up big here and while many want to blame the Redford government for this, it appears that the RCMP are responsible for the mess in High River and I suspect that it will not end well for somebody in the force. Heads will roll.
Not that the Redford government has much to be proud of on this file by having this happen under their watch and now by desperately trying to downplay the entire gun grab and divert attention away from themselves by claiming the opposition are playing politics and scare mongering. Redford's bizarre attempt in the face of facts to create an alternative reality and Minister Doug Griffiths use of the F-bomb yesterday show just how worried the PCs are about this issue and unfortunately also shows that they would rather continue play political games by downplaying the incident and dismiss the legitimate concerns of Albertans all to protect their own skins. There is little in their actions to date to be proud of and even though the RCMP look to be at fault here, the attempt by the PC's to make this political rather than worrying about possible breaches of law against the people of High River doesn't make them look any better than the RCMP here.
*The act reads "the Minister" but in the case of a local declaration of emergency as was the case in High River (the local state of emergency was declared in High River on June 19, 2013 at 7:04AM) the 'local authority' in this case the mayor and council have the same authority as the Minister with regards to authorizing the extraordinary powers listed in section 19.
Read that last part again: The RCMP "did not take operational direction from any elected officials or public service employees to enter in private homes"
That is quite the admission. The RCMP entered locked private homes without a warrant and seized personal property ( This is not about guns. The property seized, had it been computers or even vacuum cleaners, is irrelevant) on their own without direction from any elected official or public service employee.
Unfortunately for the RCMP the only law in Alberta that would allow them or anyone else to undertake such extraordinary actions is the Alberta Emergency Management Act (AEMA (read the entire act for yourself) and the act very clearly states that such actions must be authorized by someone who is an "elected official or public service employee."*
Powers of Minister in emergency:
19(1) On the making of the declaration and for the duration of the
state of emergency, the Minister may do all acts and take all
necessary proceedings including the following:
h) authorize the entry into any building or on any land,
without warrant, by any person in the course of
implementing an emergency plan or program;
c) acquire or utilize any real or personal property considered
c) acquire or utilize any real or personal property considered
necessary to prevent, combat or
alleviate the effects of an
emergency or disaster;
It reads 'the Minister may authorize' something, not 'the Minister automatically does authorize'. There are no extraordinary powers given directly to the police anywhere in the act and in fact the word "police" is nowhere to be found in the act, and any such powers available to the police require that the Minister authorize their use. Without that authorization, there are no special powers. Also note that it says 'any person'. The Minister may authorize, the fire dept, the postman or even his crazy Uncle to do any of those things listed in sec 19 as he (they) deem necessary, it does not have to be the police and in fact there are very good reasons why the word 'police' was omitted from the AEMA and why they were not given any specific powers.
Note also that in the AEMA is the requirement for a paper trail which it seems the RCMP do not have.
Proof of authorization
If the Minister authorizes a person to carry out a power or duty
of the Minister under this Act as the Minister responsible for this
Act or as a local authority and the authorization
(a) is made in writing,
(b) purports to be signed by the Minister responsible for the
Municipal Government Act
or the Minister responsible for
the Special Areas Act, and
(c) states that the person named in it is authorized under this
section to carry out the power or duty set out in the
written authorization,
that written authorization or a copy of it shall be admitted in
evidence as proof, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, of
that person’s authorization to carry out the power or duty without
proof of the signature or official character of the Minister.
RSA 2000 cD-13 s3;2007 c12 s4;2010 c5 s2
It is this simple. Warrantless entry and property seizures require written authorization and either that written authorization from someone who is allowed to do so exists or it does not exist. If it does, let's see it.
Somebody screwed up big here and while many want to blame the Redford government for this, it appears that the RCMP are responsible for the mess in High River and I suspect that it will not end well for somebody in the force. Heads will roll.
Not that the Redford government has much to be proud of on this file by having this happen under their watch and now by desperately trying to downplay the entire gun grab and divert attention away from themselves by claiming the opposition are playing politics and scare mongering. Redford's bizarre attempt in the face of facts to create an alternative reality and Minister Doug Griffiths use of the F-bomb yesterday show just how worried the PCs are about this issue and unfortunately also shows that they would rather continue play political games by downplaying the incident and dismiss the legitimate concerns of Albertans all to protect their own skins. There is little in their actions to date to be proud of and even though the RCMP look to be at fault here, the attempt by the PC's to make this political rather than worrying about possible breaches of law against the people of High River doesn't make them look any better than the RCMP here.
*The act reads "the Minister" but in the case of a local declaration of emergency as was the case in High River (the local state of emergency was declared in High River on June 19, 2013 at 7:04AM) the 'local authority' in this case the mayor and council have the same authority as the Minister with regards to authorizing the extraordinary powers listed in section 19.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Alison Redford's alternate reality on the High River gun grab should concern us all.
Undisputed Facts: The RCMP forced their way into locked homes in High River Alberta during the recent flood causing various amounts of property damage to those homes in the process. According to the RCMP themselves: "there were about 1,900 reports of damage caused by entry during the flood."
But in-spite of these well documented and undisputed facts, Premier Alison Redford has come out with an alternate reality from what did happen in High River, and is claiming that she was unaware of any property damage that was caused by the RCMP forcing entry into hundreds(?) of locked homes.
Alison Redford: “The leader of the Opposition has to stop sensationalizing these issues. Seizure of guns and destruction of property? So we now have the leader of the Opposition saying that the RCMP destroyed property during what was the worst natural disaster in Alberta’s history?
"I don't buy that. I think it’s about time the Opposition, including the leader of the Opposition, tried to come up with some forward-thinking solutions instead of preying on people’s fears and frustrations, because that’s not how we build Alberta.”
That statement from Alison Redford was nothing other that a pile of Baranski inspired political bullshit! 100% partisan political theater with the added bonus (lucky us) of treating the electorate as idiots by having Premier Redford lie to our faces.
A bit harsh?
Ask yourself these questions:
How is this even possible? How can it be that the Premier of Alberta is unaware that the RCMP destroyed property, intentional or not, while entering locked dwellings?
It isn't possible. Alison Redford is not incompetent and not an idiot, she is not living in an alternate reality and she has not lost her mind nor was it taken over aliens. She knows.
Is there a single person aside from Premier Redford who believes that no property damage occurred as a direct result of the RCMPs actions in High River? Anyone?
There are none. Property damage happened and has been well covered and documented. The Premier knows this as well.
So with all of this do you really think the Premier believes this?
She doesn't.
It was a calculated lie wrapped up in a partisan attack on the Wildrose with Redford playing politics with the floods by trying to scare Albertans away from 'team angry' (Wildrose) by saying they are playing politics with the flood and expecting YOU to 'buy it' just because she said it.
This isn't fiction. This isn't an alternate reality. This is how the Premier and the PC party play politics in Alberta. I would say that is is a new low but after you use kids for partisan props and lie to them, there is absolutely nothing that you will not lie about or anyone you won't lie to for partisan gain.
This does concern me and I hope it does you, and to borrow a phrase: this is not how we should be 'building Alberta'.
We deserve better that this.
But in-spite of these well documented and undisputed facts, Premier Alison Redford has come out with an alternate reality from what did happen in High River, and is claiming that she was unaware of any property damage that was caused by the RCMP forcing entry into hundreds(?) of locked homes.
Alison Redford: “The leader of the Opposition has to stop sensationalizing these issues. Seizure of guns and destruction of property? So we now have the leader of the Opposition saying that the RCMP destroyed property during what was the worst natural disaster in Alberta’s history?
"I don't buy that. I think it’s about time the Opposition, including the leader of the Opposition, tried to come up with some forward-thinking solutions instead of preying on people’s fears and frustrations, because that’s not how we build Alberta.”
----------------
Wow, there is so much here that I don't know where to begin so let me get to the point.That statement from Alison Redford was nothing other that a pile of Baranski inspired political bullshit! 100% partisan political theater with the added bonus (lucky us) of treating the electorate as idiots by having Premier Redford lie to our faces.
A bit harsh?
Ask yourself these questions:
How is this even possible? How can it be that the Premier of Alberta is unaware that the RCMP destroyed property, intentional or not, while entering locked dwellings?
It isn't possible. Alison Redford is not incompetent and not an idiot, she is not living in an alternate reality and she has not lost her mind nor was it taken over aliens. She knows.
Is there a single person aside from Premier Redford who believes that no property damage occurred as a direct result of the RCMPs actions in High River? Anyone?
There are none. Property damage happened and has been well covered and documented. The Premier knows this as well.
So with all of this do you really think the Premier believes this?
She doesn't.
It was a calculated lie wrapped up in a partisan attack on the Wildrose with Redford playing politics with the floods by trying to scare Albertans away from 'team angry' (Wildrose) by saying they are playing politics with the flood and expecting YOU to 'buy it' just because she said it.
This isn't fiction. This isn't an alternate reality. This is how the Premier and the PC party play politics in Alberta. I would say that is is a new low but after you use kids for partisan props and lie to them, there is absolutely nothing that you will not lie about or anyone you won't lie to for partisan gain.
This does concern me and I hope it does you, and to borrow a phrase: this is not how we should be 'building Alberta'.
We deserve better that this.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Confessions of a negligent blogger.
If you had not noticed, which I am sure most of you who are taking the time to read this have, this blog has not been very active lately; in fact it has been basically dark for over a year. While I could take the easy way out and simply blame someone something else (twitter) for the for the lack of content here; the blame rests squarely upon myself.
I do apologize for this and will try to put up more content on a more regular basis when the legislative sessions start up again in the fall and may try something a bit different a few times over the summer ( a period which this blog normally goes dark) with some link dumps w/ some brief commentary.
Now some more confessions and some back story.
I had been reading other blogs (a lot) during the run up to that campaign and discovered them to be the best source for information and commentary on the stories I found most interesting but more importantly they were timely. Yes the 'information/news' was available on the websites of the MSM, but the blogs filtered out the important from the fluff, found the hidden nuggets missed and offered up commentary on the information at what seemed like blazing speed at the time that the MSM in print or even television could not match.(Even the content of the political shows was discussed on the blogs, sometimes in real time)
I have always had an obsession with politics and government in general but for myself that interest has not necessarily been with the policy aspects of it. For me that obsession has been with campaigns, political messaging and most importantly the spin used by politicians and governments at every level.
I own 2 cats. (Hey, it takes a real man to admit that and I never said all the confessions would be political in nature = )
I hate being lied to and I hate it more when it comes from politicians and governments who are supposed to be working for us; but what really sets me off is politicians/governments thinking so little of my (or that of the general public) intelligence that they think they can get away with it all by trying to bullshit us with spin. This is probably the biggest reason why I first started this blog in January 2006 during the federal election campaign.
I do blog anonymously but in reality it is more pseudonymous now than anonymous as there are many people on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the media who know my not so secret identity. There are a couple of reasons why this came to be with the first being that it was almost the norm when this blog started in 2006 (there are many examples) and the other being the type of work I am in. I do not work for a political party or directly for government but I certainly deal with them as well as unions and others who may not agree with my non job related 'conservative' views and frankly it wasn't worth the potential grief then and still isn't. I believe that it is the words and thoughts that matter not who wrote them, as the media who have used my stuff (both credited and not) do not seem to have issue with it and besides, if I told you my name was Bob Smith would it really make a difference? (unless they were out for some type of revenge)
I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. ( Okay I didn't do this but those are some of my favorite Johnny Cash lyrics)
I currently tweet much more than I blog. It is less time consuming and the real time aspect of twitter makes it nothing short of amazing and it allows comment, be it only 140 characters, directly to those involved. For a political news junkie, nothing is better.
I believe in small government and them being fiscally responsible with our money.
I do not hold a party membership card for any provincial party but I do hold one for a federal party.
I do like cheese and I am a die hard Oiler fan.
So with that it is now time to end this little confession session and go mow my lawn; I hope to see you around more often in the future.
I do apologize for this and will try to put up more content on a more regular basis when the legislative sessions start up again in the fall and may try something a bit different a few times over the summer ( a period which this blog normally goes dark) with some link dumps w/ some brief commentary.
Now some more confessions and some back story.
I had been reading other blogs (a lot) during the run up to that campaign and discovered them to be the best source for information and commentary on the stories I found most interesting but more importantly they were timely. Yes the 'information/news' was available on the websites of the MSM, but the blogs filtered out the important from the fluff, found the hidden nuggets missed and offered up commentary on the information at what seemed like blazing speed at the time that the MSM in print or even television could not match.(Even the content of the political shows was discussed on the blogs, sometimes in real time)
I have always had an obsession with politics and government in general but for myself that interest has not necessarily been with the policy aspects of it. For me that obsession has been with campaigns, political messaging and most importantly the spin used by politicians and governments at every level.
I own 2 cats. (Hey, it takes a real man to admit that and I never said all the confessions would be political in nature = )
I hate being lied to and I hate it more when it comes from politicians and governments who are supposed to be working for us; but what really sets me off is politicians/governments thinking so little of my (or that of the general public) intelligence that they think they can get away with it all by trying to bullshit us with spin. This is probably the biggest reason why I first started this blog in January 2006 during the federal election campaign.
I do blog anonymously but in reality it is more pseudonymous now than anonymous as there are many people on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the media who know my not so secret identity. There are a couple of reasons why this came to be with the first being that it was almost the norm when this blog started in 2006 (there are many examples) and the other being the type of work I am in. I do not work for a political party or directly for government but I certainly deal with them as well as unions and others who may not agree with my non job related 'conservative' views and frankly it wasn't worth the potential grief then and still isn't. I believe that it is the words and thoughts that matter not who wrote them, as the media who have used my stuff (both credited and not) do not seem to have issue with it and besides, if I told you my name was Bob Smith would it really make a difference? (unless they were out for some type of revenge)
I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. ( Okay I didn't do this but those are some of my favorite Johnny Cash lyrics)
I currently tweet much more than I blog. It is less time consuming and the real time aspect of twitter makes it nothing short of amazing and it allows comment, be it only 140 characters, directly to those involved. For a political news junkie, nothing is better.
I believe in small government and them being fiscally responsible with our money.
I do not hold a party membership card for any provincial party but I do hold one for a federal party.
I do like cheese and I am a die hard Oiler fan.
So with that it is now time to end this little confession session and go mow my lawn; I hope to see you around more often in the future.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Did the RCMP seize guns under authority of Alberta's Emergency Management Act before it was in force?
*updated. See bottom of page.
June 28, 2013 Alberta Government news release: (note the first line. highlighting mine)
" In response to a request from the mayor, the Alberta government has declared a provincial state of emergency in the Town of High River and will assume responsibility for emergency operations, programs and services.
"The disaster in High River has been overwhelming. That’s why we are taking this unique and unprecedented step," said Doug Griffiths, Minister of Municipal Affairs. “Mayor Blokland and his administration have done outstanding work dealing with this situation, but it has become clear to both the mayor and me that the tasks ahead require significant resources and expertise. The province is ready to step in and provide that and build on that as necessary."
"Given the scope and scale of this disaster, I have decided the best course of action for getting the people of High River back into their homes as soon as possible is for the province to take charge of the coordination and implementation of emergency operations," said Emile Blokland, Mayor of High River.
Effective immediately, Rick Fraser, Associate Minister of Regional Recovery and Reconstruction for High River, will assume responsibility and control of emergency operations in High River. He will be supported by an official from the Alberta Emergency Management Agency and other provincial and town employees. They will assist Fraser with all necessary plans and programs and link into the provincial operations centre.
“We understand residents’ frustration, however it is critical we focus on the recovery and rebuilding process, therefore all emergency orders must be followed for health and safety reasons,” added Griffiths.
Our government was elected to keep building Alberta, to live within its means and to fight to open new markets for Alberta’s resources. We will continue to deliver the responsible change Albertans voted for."
*It couldn't have been the mayor or other local authority either because according to Sec 18-1 of the Alberta Emergency Management Act a State of Emergency can only be declared by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and has to be published or announced publicly.
And other than the release at the top of the page I have not found anything else that says it occurred before June 28th 2013.
So if no State of Emergency, which gives the police the extraordinary powers listed under Section 19, was declared before today, under which law or authority did the RCMP enter private residences and seize personal property?
If you have an answer be sure to let me know because right now I am not seeing it.
*Update: Got to eat some crow on this one as the AEMA does give section 19 powers to municipalities when they declare a local state of emergency, which in this case was done on June 19, 2013 at 7:04AM.
This does bring up other questions as to how and when this can occur ( can they do so on a whim or is their some provincial oversight?) and should local authorities be given such sweeping Charter of Rights limiting powers, but those can wait until this entire subject is brought up in the Alberta Legislature. And you know it will be.
H/T @Resedico
June 28, 2013 Alberta Government news release: (note the first line. highlighting mine)
" In response to a request from the mayor, the Alberta government has declared a provincial state of emergency in the Town of High River and will assume responsibility for emergency operations, programs and services.
"The disaster in High River has been overwhelming. That’s why we are taking this unique and unprecedented step," said Doug Griffiths, Minister of Municipal Affairs. “Mayor Blokland and his administration have done outstanding work dealing with this situation, but it has become clear to both the mayor and me that the tasks ahead require significant resources and expertise. The province is ready to step in and provide that and build on that as necessary."
"Given the scope and scale of this disaster, I have decided the best course of action for getting the people of High River back into their homes as soon as possible is for the province to take charge of the coordination and implementation of emergency operations," said Emile Blokland, Mayor of High River.
Effective immediately, Rick Fraser, Associate Minister of Regional Recovery and Reconstruction for High River, will assume responsibility and control of emergency operations in High River. He will be supported by an official from the Alberta Emergency Management Agency and other provincial and town employees. They will assist Fraser with all necessary plans and programs and link into the provincial operations centre.
“We understand residents’ frustration, however it is critical we focus on the recovery and rebuilding process, therefore all emergency orders must be followed for health and safety reasons,” added Griffiths.
Our government was elected to keep building Alberta, to live within its means and to fight to open new markets for Alberta’s resources. We will continue to deliver the responsible change Albertans voted for."
*It couldn't have been the mayor or other local authority either because according to Sec 18-1 of the Alberta Emergency Management Act a State of Emergency can only be declared by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and has to be published or announced publicly.
Part 2
State of Emergency
Declaration of state of emergency
18 (1)
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, at any time when
the Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that an emergency
exists or may exist, make an order for a declaration of a state of
emergency relating to all or any part of Alberta.And other than the release at the top of the page I have not found anything else that says it occurred before June 28th 2013.
So if no State of Emergency, which gives the police the extraordinary powers listed under Section 19, was declared before today, under which law or authority did the RCMP enter private residences and seize personal property?
*Update: Got to eat some crow on this one as the AEMA does give section 19 powers to municipalities when they declare a local state of emergency, which in this case was done on June 19, 2013 at 7:04AM.
This does bring up other questions as to how and when this can occur ( can they do so on a whim or is their some provincial oversight?) and should local authorities be given such sweeping Charter of Rights limiting powers, but those can wait until this entire subject is brought up in the Alberta Legislature. And you know it will be.
H/T @Resedico
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
