Redford Accused of Conflict of Interest

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I realize you used green text, but figured I will answer anyway.

I think the potential (doubtful) conflict of interest will disappear.

The Contempt of Parliament however won't be ruled on by the Speaker until next week. He is is an incredible difficult position. This will be a true test of his non-partisanship.

Not to be cynical or anything, but I wouldn't hold my breath in regards to anything coming from the Contempt of Parliament/Legislature coming next week. Given what's happened on the federal level over the past few years, putting weight in the formalities of the Parliamentary system probably isn't a good use of one's time.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Not to be cynical or anything, but I wouldn't hold my breath in regards to anything coming from the Contempt of Parliament/Legislature coming next week. Given what's happened on the federal level over the past few years, putting weight in the formalities of the Parliamentary system probably isn't a good use of one's time.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

Speaker Zwozdesky heard both sides of the Contempt of Parliament on Thursday in the Legislature. He reserved his decision until next week (wise move IMO) to review everything. So there will be a outcome next week.

Now if you mean outcome will likely be she won't be found in contempt; I agree that is probable. He may cite that there is too much ambiguity surrounding the issue for him to make a definitive decision.

Admittedly I'm not well versed on the procedure. For example does the speaker have the ability to refer this to an outside body for review? I'm not clear on what all his options might be.

[Kjesse]

^^^ I'm not sure what powers the speaker has, but I'd fall off my chair if the Speaker finds the Premier in contempt.

I think Redford has a sufficient technical argument -- which is, the contract wasn't entered into until after the terms were negotiated, and thus the government wasn't bound to her selection.

That being said, that a contract would be entered into was a foregone conclusion once the selection was made, as the other firms were apparently sent a letter advising they would not be retained.

It reminds me of the line from the Devil's Advocate:

• 00:26:09 When do we talk about money?
• 00:26:11 Money? That's the easy part.

When the pie is that big, everyone gets a piece they're satisfied with.

[GP_Matt]

Does anyone have any idea how money this is about? The lawsuit was for 3 billion, does the lawyer charge 10 percent?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Does anyone have any idea how money this is about? The lawsuit was for 3 billion, does the lawyer charge 10 percent?

Contingency agreements can be for whatever percentage the parties agree upon. Industry standard is about 33-40% in contingency cases but that is when the claims are most often in the lower tens of thousands in terms of value.

When the claim is in the billions, you would expect the contingency percentage to drop, unless extraordinary resources are required. In this case, certainly extraordinary resources are required, but compared to the pay off at the end, there really isn't much of a gamble here. This is pretty much a guaranteed windfall against defendants with deep pockets.

You'd have to consider the costs of carrying the litigation (paying your lawyers knowing you won't be paid for many years), and the costs of hiring experts. In that vein, the agreement could provide that the Province pays for expenses such as experts and the firm only fronts the labour... who knows.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Does anyone have any idea how money this is about? The lawsuit was for 3 billion, does the lawyer charge 10 percent?

That was one of the questions raised on Thursday by Saskiw.

This is a $10 billion lawsuit. At even a 20 per cent contingency fee, that would be $2 billion to a 20-something-person law firm in possible legal fees. A very simple question: will the Premier be open and transparent and show Albertans the agreement she made?

[Kjesse]

Saskiw is merely stating a hypothetical.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Saskiw is merely stating a hypothetical.

Yes, except for the 10 Billion, which is the amount they are seeking.

[Kjesse]

deleted

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

Speaker Zwozdesky heard both sides of the Contempt of Parliament on Thursday in the Legislature. He reserved his decision until next week (wise move IMO) to review everything. So there will be a outcome next week.

Now if you mean outcome will likely be she won't be found in contempt; I agree that is probable. He may cite that there is too much ambiguity surrounding the issue for him to make a definitive decision.

Admittedly I'm not well versed on the procedure. For example does the speaker have the ability to refer this to an outside body for review? I'm not clear on what all his options might be.

Sorry, I was being pretty cryptic and cynical with my last post.

But pretty much what's happening today in the Legislature is what I felt would happen. My comment was less about the procedures within the speakers role, as I'm not as well versed on what they are, but more along the lines of an Opposition party hoping to nail a sitting government within the parameters of Parliament/Legislature.

[Jacks]

Just heard on the radio that the speaker has shut down discussion on the topic.

Reading throught the paper trail it's pretty clear that Redford was lying. The decision was made, the losers were informed and the winner was notified while Redford was still the minister. She should have just admitted it since it doesn't fall under conflict of interest.

[Dion]

Gene Zwozdesky (zwahz-DESS'-kee) told politicians that given he is mulling a motion to censure the premier, parliamentary rules don't allow any questions on the subject until he decides.

Zwozdesky has said he may rule later today or Tuesday.

His ruling led to angry protests from the opposition Wildrose, NDP, and Liberals.

Despite the ruling, all three continued to ask questions on the affair, forcing Zwozdesky to repeatedly silence them

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sp...206/story.html

[Jacks]

Zwozdesky finds Redford innocent, believes her side of the story, I'm shocked

Guess all the evidence available would have taken too long to read.

[Slava]

I'm about 90% sure that most people really don't care about this "issue". First of all, there was clearly no conflict of interest. Second, this potential contempt/not-contempt issue is just a non-starter. After today's antics (on both sides) I think it just increases apathy. I consider myself a political junkie and I know I'm just plain tired of it.

Seriously, is there nothing more important to debate than when a contract is considered awarded...from a couple of years ago? Its just so ridiculous.

All of that said there sure is an interesting parallel between the actions of the Wild rose today and a certain CBE trustee about a decade ago. That board was eventually turfed because of the childish infighting and basically nothing could get completed. Lo and behold that trustee now leads the official opposition.

[Jacks]

So you have no problem with Redford lying in the house?

Not surprising I suppose since you defend her at every turn. The PC's are after all basically a Liberal party now.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So you have no problem with Redford lying in the house?

Not surprising I suppose since you defend her at every turn. The PC's are after all basically a Liberal party now.

I just cant help wondering what the reaction would be from the left if this had occurred in the HoC with PM Harper...pure and utter disdain is my guess.

Instead though...its no problem and once again, turned somehow into what the WR are doing instead. Its so transparent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm about 90% sure that most people really don't care about this "issue". First of all, there was clearly no conflict of interest. Second, this potential contempt/not-contempt issue is just a non-starter. After today's antics (on both sides) I think it just increases apathy. I consider myself a political junkie and I know I'm just plain tired of it.

Seriously, is there nothing more important to debate than when a contract is considered awarded...from a couple of years ago? Its just so ridiculous.

All of that said there sure is an interesting parallel between the actions of the Wild rose today and a certain CBE trustee about a decade ago. That board was eventually turfed because of the childish infighting and basically nothing could get completed. Lo and behold that trustee now leads the official opposition.

I find it sad that at every level of government we accept a lack of integrity with apathy and acceptance.

Redford neatly slipped a rope here but is showing that she's a very dishonest individual, or that she's just plain stupid and arrogant.

I was one of those idiots that didn't change my vote from PC in the last election because of the controversy at the end of the last election. But I dou't there's anyway in hell that I'll vote for the PC's as long as Redford or any of these clowns are still running in the next election.

I used to like my MLA but he's become a arrogant tw#t since the last election win.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Zwozdesky finds Redford innocent, believes her side of the story, I'm shocked

Guess all the evidence available would have taken too long to read.

It really doesn't look good to me that a member of the Conservative party that if getting hammered on integrity issues is allowed to rule on this.

It doesn't make the party look anymore trustworthy.

[VladtheImpaler]

I find that the Redford PC's have become classic big L federal Liberals... actually classic Quebec Liberals. A little bit (perhaps more than a little bit) corrupt, absolutely without principle, no vision whatsoever, no ideas, and no purpose but to stay in power and live off the fat of the land...

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It really doesn't look good to me that a member of the Conservative party that if getting hammered on integrity issues is allowed to rule on this.

It doesn't make the party look anymore trustworthy.

Yes, how ridiculous that the Speaker of the Legislature makes a ruling on such a matter. I guess Zwozdesky should have resigned so the PCs could elect a Speaker from the Opposition instead.