A Tyee investigation has found that Smith’s admiration for Peterson went well beyond her affinity for him as a fellow conservative culture warrior.
Documents obtained through freedom of information request show that Smith, and her chief of staff, Rob Anderson, directly intervened with Alberta’s Advanced Education Ministry in an attempt to help Peterson’s higher-education business venture.
On Aug. 1, 2024, Smith met with Peterson “to discuss how his organization can work with the province to have their online training platform accredited.”
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
Regardless of the outcome of the injunction, the constitutional challenge will go ahead, based on five main points—namely, that Bill 2
violates the charter right to freedom of association (section 2(d)) by ending bargaining and the right to strike;
violates the charter right to freedom of expression (section 2(b)) by prohibiting strike-related communication;
uses section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) in an overly broad and improper way;
violates section 28, which protects gender equality, given that more than 75 per cent of Alberta teachers are women; and
attempts to remove the courts’ core constitutional role under section 96 of the Constitution Act.
We’ve been told that an injunction will be a long shot, but at this point, any long shots (including every recall effort) to stick it to this government is worthwhile IMO. Injunction hearing begins in March 2026.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751
The Oilers won't finish 14th in the West forever.
Eventually a couple of expansion teams will be added which will nestle the Oilers into 16th.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Point Blank For This Useful Post:
I think this could rise to the level of criminal fraud. If Neudorf’s office is involved in any way he should resign immediately.
This is a very interesting story. There's no possibility of any fraud charges, but this was a smart play by Neudorf. There's nothing in the legislation that prohibits a bad faith, no-effort recall campaign. In fact, there's nothing stopping the spouse of an MLA from paying the $500 free and filing for a recall on the one year anniversary date of previous election just to protect the MLA from a legitimate recall effort for the remainder of their term.
This is a very interesting story. There's no possibility of any fraud charges, but this was a smart play by Neudorf. There's nothing in the legislation that prohibits a bad faith, no-effort recall campaign. In fact, there's nothing stopping the spouse of an MLA from paying the $500 free and filing for a recall on the one year anniversary date of previous election just to protect the MLA from a legitimate recall effort for the remainder of their term.
Smart?
I am sure when the UPC introduced the recall legislation saying things like:
It would "strengthen democracy", it would ensure "ordinary Albertans are the boss", it would ensure that politicians "work for you every day, not just during election campaigns", they also meant, "besides, your spouse or cronies could start one and not follow through to protect you from accountability."
It was also to be used for, “serious breaches of trust or gross misconduct.” The irony is that the undermining of the recall process is likely both a serious breach of trust and gross misconduct.
Maybe not illegal but morally and professional objectionable and corrupt. I wouldn't expect anything less from the UCP.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Captain Otto For This Useful Post:
Maybe when they very recently said they had revisions for the recall legislation they meant that they would close this apparent loophole of having your buddy start a fake recall?
That must be it...
This is a very interesting story. There's no possibility of any fraud charges, but this was a smart play by Neudorf. There's nothing in the legislation that prohibits a bad faith, no-effort recall campaign. In fact, there's nothing stopping the spouse of an MLA from paying the $500 free and filing for a recall on the one year anniversary date of previous election just to protect the MLA from a legitimate recall effort for the remainder of their term.
The most interesting thing about it is that the UCP is crying about all of the recalls that citizens are starting as bad-faith but then Neudorf goes out and actually starts a bad-faith recall in order to protect himself.
Doubling down on every UCP accusation being a confession.
Also doubling down on how much they hate democracy and accountability. They want to build tools to attack their political opponents but do not want anyone to use said tools against them. Hypocrisy at every level.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Also doubling down on how much they hate democracy and accountability. They want to build tools to attack their political opponents but do not want anyone to use said tools against them. Hypocrisy at every level.
It's not even against "political opponents", it's just against citizens in general.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Fraud is defined under Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It involves deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means to defraud individuals or the public of property, money, or services.
It can be argued that the public was deprived of a service - ie. the legitimate signing of a recall petition.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Fraud is defined under Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It involves deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means to defraud individuals or the public of property, money, or services.
It can be argued that the public was deprived of a service - ie. the legitimate signing of a recall petition.
As a lawyer, you well know that the bar for conviction in a case like this is far too high for any prosecutor to lay a charge.
What would happen if the person who initiates the recall falls ill immediately thereafter, and is not fit to organize a campaign to gather signatures? Does the public have a right to see their medical records to confirm that it is a bona fide illness? Of course not.
There is nothing that requires a good faith effort to gather signatures under the current legislation, as it is written.
As a lawyer, you well know that the bar for conviction in a case like this is far too high for any prosecutor to lay a charge.
What would happen if the person who initiates the recall falls ill immediately thereafter, and is not fit to organize a campaign to gather signatures? Does the public have a right to see their medical records to confirm that it is a bona fide illness? Of course not.
There is nothing that requires a good faith effort to gather signatures under the current legislation, as it is written.
An investigation would reveal this fact and inform the Chief Electoral Officer. The sensible resolution would be the CEO asking if the applicant if they wanted to rescind their application for personal reasons. But I don't think the CEO is allowed to use the bathroom anymore without permission from the Injustice minister, so who knows what will happen now.
It's silly to speculate on the probability of charges without any facts here. The much bigger problem is that a prosecutor may be unlikely to lay charges because we've seen this vindictive government repeatedly interfere in these sorts of things in obviously inappropriate ways. We're living in a banana republic now...its weird and pathetic that anybody wants to defend this ####.
__________________
The UCP are trampling on our rights and freedoms. Donate $200 to Alberta NDP and get $150 back on your taxes
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
