Actually the 5-10 minutes leading up to that is pretty entertaining too.
(Gawd, I'm a geek)
I've been listening to the assembly and the insults and snide remarks flying from both sides makes wonder if a Kindergarden class was in session. I laughed when a WRP response to an insult form the PC party was "I know you are but what am I!?"
Typical Liberal hogwash. Don't have a valid answer to the allegations so just deflect the question and try and smear the other party by making something up.
The difference here is that Ford's dollar amount was irrelevant and he violated a conflict of interest act. Redford hasn't. Her opponents just want it to seem that way.
Actually it was the media that dug this up. I wish the party could take credit.
Though, my husband did bring it up in June in this blog post.
The Following User Says Thank You to First Lady For This Useful Post:
The difference here is that Ford's dollar amount was irrelevant and he violated a conflict of interest act. Redford hasn't. Her opponents just want it to seem that way.
The difference is Redford is smart enough to put enough ambiguity into her actions not to get caught. If you can't see her actions as a conflict of interest, you are seriously kidding yourself.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
Most right wing? That implies that there are multiple right wing parties in Alberta. There aren't. The PC party has now taken over the Liberal Party position... center left. Not sure where the Libs went though... perhaps even further left?
Probably further to the right, but it doesn't matter because they will remain irrelevant as long as they're called 'Liberals.'
The difference is Redford is smart enough to put enough ambiguity into her actions not to get caught. If you can't see her actions as a conflict of interest, you are seriously kidding yourself.
Caught for what? Doing something that doesn't actually violate the conflict of interest laws for the province? Very ambiguous indeed. Even if her ex-husband was handling the case directly it is still only a PERCEIVED conflict of interest rather than a legal one. Ford was a conflict of interest in the legal sense regardless of the dollar amount.
Caught for what? Doing something that doesn't actually violate the conflict of interest laws for the province? Very ambiguous indeed. Even if her ex-husband was handling the case directly it is still only a PERCEIVED conflict of interest rather than a legal one. Ford was a conflict of interest in the legal sense regardless of the dollar amount.
And if the Wildrose party was the governing party they'd be doing stuff like this and much worse, all the time. They would also be making abortion illegal in the province of Alberta, they'd force everyone to attend church on Sundays, they'd privatize all health care, and they'd close the door to future immigrants unless they were white.
Fyp because I know this was what you really wanted to say.
The best thing about this story is that it's being blamed on "liberals".
The leader of the Conservative government that has been in power for 40 years has been accused of a conflict of interest, and it's because she's a liberal. Excellent.
I blame the sponsorship scandal on Brian Mulroney.
Anyway, I'd never vote for this woman and have no reason to defend her, but this seems like a pretty flimsy "conflict of interest". Her husband is a partner in an Alberta law firm that has expertise (apparently) in suing tobacco companies, and the government hired them to sue tobacco companies.
Reading this though, you'd think Redford alone hired her husband the gas jockey to handle the whole case personally.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Did Redford intervene on behalf of the government to ensure her ex-husband's law firm was granted a multimillion dollar lawsuit case?
Yes or no please.
I don't see anybody claiming she didn't. (I'm sorry, "YES". I'd hate to be accused of dodging the question). Afterall, she was the Justice Minister, who else was more qualified in the government to be in on such a decision?
The issue is about a conflict of interest when the conflict in question isn't covered by the Conflict of Interest Act. When the federal grits gave money for the sponsorship scandal, it was a scandal because laws were broken, not because it was perceived to be wrong.
The best thing about this story is that it's being blamed on "liberals".
The leader of the Conservative government that has been in power for 40 years has been accused of a conflict of interest, and it's because she's a liberal. Excellent.
I blame the sponsorship scandal on Brian Mulroney.
Anyway, I'd never vote for this woman and have no reason to defend her, but this seems like a pretty flimsy "conflict of interest". Her husband is a partner in an Alberta law firm that has expertise (apparently) in suing tobacco companies, and the government hired them to sue tobacco companies.
Reading this though, you'd think Redford alone hired her husband the gas jockey to handle the whole case personally.
The PC party today is nowhere near the party that Lougheed and Klein led. Red Tories have taken over. Blue Tories have moved over to the Wildrose party.
I don't see anybody claiming she didn't. (I'm sorry, "YES". I'd hate to be accused of dodging the question). Afterall, she was the Justice Minister, who else was more qualified in the government to be in on such a decision?
Then how can you believe that this wasn't a conflict of interest? She should have excused herself from the decision making process and the vote... I assume there was a vote? Or was it a unilateral decision by Redford?
The PC party today is nowhere near the party that Lougheed and Klein led. Red Tories have taken over. Blue Tories have moved over to the Wildrose party.
Uh, Lougheed was a Red Tory...
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I was talking about the party, not individuals and I didn't say Lougheed was a blue tory. He may have been red but the party that he led was definitely predominantly blue.
Fyp because I know this was what you really wanted to say.
You seem a very angry man who is confused on my political leanings because I don't have them plastered all over my signature.
If it clears it up:
Federally, I'm a CPC supporter but don't like the way they're running things (in part because it isn't sustainable). While wanting them to win I tend to vote against them (Greens got my vote in '11 and '12). If the Libs go with Garneau I might do something I've never done before: vote Liberal in a general election.
Provincially, I'm split. I don't like the Wild Rose for no other reason than their base. It's why they lost big. People were buying in and they had a leader who couldn't keep the party in check when it mattered most. It seems like they're trying to sort that out but until they do, they're still the party on the edge. The only reason I liked the results of the last provincial election was because seeing Ezra Levant on the verge of tears turned out to be one of the most pleasurable moments of the year. I was hoping for some form of a minority at the time.
Municipally, I like our mayor and dislike my Alderman (Pincott, though not nearly as much as I dislike Druh).
The Wildrose used all nine sets of questions allotted to them to ask about Redford’s role in the hiring decision, leading to countless shouts across the aisle and duelling points of order, forcing Speaker Gene Zwozdesky to interject several times to ask for decorum.
The government has said Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP was chosen through a competitive bid process in December 2010, when Redford was still justice minister. A review committee was used to consider three bidders.
However, an internal government memo obtained by CBC and the Wildrose party indicates Redford may have been involved in making the call.
The Dec. 14 memo, from Redford to deputy justice minister Ray Bodnarek, says: “I note that the review committee considers all three firms interviewed to be capable of adequately conducting the litigation and believes that while no consortium stood above the others, all three have unique strengths and weaknesses.
“Considering the perceived conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest, the structure of the contingency arrangements and the importance of a ‘made in Alberta’ litigation plan, the best choice for Alberta will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.”
Justice Minister Jonathan Denis was asked about the memo Wednesday morning and whether it indicated Redford played a role in the hiring decision.
“Not to my knowledge,” he said, adding that he had not seen the memo.
He later revised his statement, saying Redford was the one who decided which of the three firms the government should negotiate with.
The government then hired an outside firm to negotiate with Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP, a process that took six months. When the contract was finally signed in June 2011, the justice minister at the time was Verlyn Olson as Redford had stepped down to run for the PC party leadership.
“The final decision as to which firm to go with was made by (Olson) in June 2011,” Denis said.
“We chose this firm because we felt it was in the best interest of the province,” he added. “They are a local firm and they won’t face the national conflicts of interest the other firms would potentially face. Other jurisdictions have tried to hire this consortium in the past.”
One of the other bidders was national firm Bennett Jones, which is leading the litigation against big tobacco for up to six other Canadian provinces. But Denis said Alberta decided to go with separate representation in part to avoid a potential conflict of interest.
I get a kick out of the pictures they choose to run with stories....
The Following User Says Thank You to First Lady For This Useful Post:
You seem a very angry man who is confused on my political leanings because I don't have them plastered all over my signature.
If it clears it up:
Federally, I'm a CPC supporter but don't like the way they're running things (in part because it isn't sustainable). While wanting them to win I tend to vote against them (Greens got my vote in '11 and '12). If the Libs go with Garneau I might do something I've never done before: vote Liberal in a general election.
Provincially, I'm split. I don't like the Wild Rose for no other reason than their base. It's why they lost big. People were buying in and they had a leader who couldn't keep the party in check when it mattered most. It seems like they're trying to sort that out but until they do, they're still the party on the edge. The only reason I liked the results of the last provincial election was because seeing Ezra Levant on the verge of tears turned out to be one of the most pleasurable moments of the year. I was hoping for some form of a minority at the time.
Municipally, I like our mayor and dislike my Alderman (Pincott, though not nearly as much as I dislike Druh).
So the gist is:
Federally I used to support the CPC but I don't anymore because I don't like them now, so I vote Green at election time.
Provincially I'm split... although the Wildrose party is definitely not one of parties that I'm split about. You'll have to guess which party I vote for.
Municipal elections... I vote for the best man/woman available and party policies don't come into play, but that doesn't mean there aren't people on city council that I dislike.
Then how can you believe that this wasn't a conflict of interest?
I never said there wasn't, my objections are about comparing this to Ford's situation. Is this political ammunition? Absolutely. Is there a legal issue to be had? No.
Quote:
She should have excused herself from the decision making process and the vote... I assume there was a vote? Or was it a unilateral decision by Redford?
Bit of both. The legislature voted for the lawsuit. A review committee brought three law firms/consortium that bid for the suit to the Justice Minister who then picked what firm will be negotiated with for the contract.
EDIT: And according to the EJ article, the rubber stamp was from the replacement Justice Minister (a purely symbolic motion as there wasn't a way they were going to overturn any decision made by their predecessor that far into the process).
