Redford Accused of Conflict of Interest

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I think the Wildrose illustrated that there is no point doing business with the Wildrose. They tried to make a mountain out of a molehill and when it didn't go as planned, they literally stomped out of the room.

Their job as opposition is to hold the government to account and present a coherent alternative governing strategy. How does theatrically walking out of the legislature fulfill either of these jobs?

I'd be pretty disappointed with my kids if they pulled a Wildrose-like stunt. When things don't go your way, you don't throw a tantrum and pick up your ball and go home. You persist and rise above.

So you believe they should hold the government accountable, but not when it comes to other parties lying to the Legislature???


Zwozdesky's final ruling came down to semantics. He said the Premier made "a" decision, but not "the" decision.

He could have stated his ruling at the beginnning of QP, clearly he had it prepared; yet he used the time to squash Wildrose questions, but not NDP or Liberal ones.

Lastly, the Premier has been absent 80% of the time this session - Are you equally disappointed in that? In my mind stepping out of the Legislature for 15 minutes to make a point is far more acceptable than not showing up at all.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think Slava's point is the most important here: Outside politicos and Wildrose supporters, almost nobody even cares about this in the slightest. No one I know cares about this. Most of the posters in this thread fall into one of the two categories...its nice for us to have something to talk/rant/debate about, but the average Joe/Jane couldn't give a #### about this.

Should they care? Maybe, but then how is this different than any other portion of the political process most people don't care about? I'm more worried about the embarassing turnout in the byelection than this. But regardless of who gets in power, trying to bring them down with negativity and scandal will always be easier and more effective than trying to contrast ideas. Thats the sad reality of the political process. If the Wildrose ever gets to power, they can expect this same type of thing, just the people here in a rage likely will turn the other cheek. And the cycle continues.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by First Lady

So you believe they should hold the government accountable, but not when it comes to other parties lying to the Legislature???

Strawman. Where did I say that?

Question period is not the only venue for holding the gov't to account. Obviously Wildrose agrees, because they theatrically walked out of QP to hold a press conference.

If they didn't think they were getting a fair hearing in the Leg, take it to the people via the media just like they did. I'd just prefer that they did it without the theatrics. The level of public discourse cannot be elevated with PR stunts like this.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Zwozdesky's final ruling came down to semantics. He said the Premier made "a" decision, but not "the" decision.

He could have stated his ruling at the beginnning of QP, clearly he had it prepared; yet he used the time to squash Wildrose questions, but not NDP or Liberal ones.

I don't think the distinction between "a" decision and "the" decision is trivial. You may call it semantics, but IMO it can be an important distinction. And it surely isn't at the level of Clintonian parsing "it depends on what your definition of "is" is"

I'm not sure what the procedures are... does he have to state his ruling in advance? Did he tell them, but they asked anyway? Were the nature of Wildrose questions different than NDP/Liberal questions?

I don't have enough information to have an opinion on the Speaker's actions. He is a rookie Speaker, so there's a reasonable chance he screwed up. He's also been in the Leg for a couple of decades, so there's a reasonable chance he acted in accordance of the rules. And if he did contravene any rules, was it an honest mistake or was it political favoritism? I just don't know.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Lastly, the Premier has been absent 80% of the time this session - Are you equally disappointed in that? In my mind stepping out of the Legislature for 15 minutes to make a point is far more acceptable than not showing up at all.

Red herring. I thought we were talking about the conflict of interest/Wildrose theatrics not attendance.

But, sure, I'm disappointed. I'd like to see real debate in the Leg. But in reality, very little of the real work of democracy/governing take place on the floor of the legislature.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think Slava's point is the most important here: Outside politicos and Wildrose supporters, almost nobody even cares about this in the slightest.

If you and Slava keep repeating each other's lies often enough, do you think that makes it the truth?

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

... The questions not dealing with the PC tobacco coverup were asked as per usual.

Pretty sure the wildrose 'stunt' has brought plenty of attention to the deplorable government behavior. Mission accomplished?

With "PC tobacco coverup" and "deplorable government behavior" it looks like you've come to your conclusion. That's fine and it is your right, but I don't think the publicly available information supports a conclusion of coverup or deplorable government behavior.

I think there's something there, but it is a molehill. IMO Wildrose saw that molehill and thought they could spin it into a mountain. For a new party committed to changing Alberta politics, is that the change they want to make? Theatrics and making mountains out of molehills?

That's might be a change, but not a good change IMO.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

If you and Slava keep repeating each other's lies often enough, do you think that makes it the truth?

If you'd like to present some evidence that the average person cares about this, feel free. Most people care about Christmas shopping lists 50 times more than this. Sorry.

[1stLand]

I think Slava and Plett are turning this into a partisan issue. It's clear they are PC supporters and are backing their leader regardless of the fact the Premier lied and abused her position of power.

It doesnt matter what party a member in a position of power is from, the issue at hand is that someone used their influence and power to reward someone close to them and the party. Not only is this blatant 'cronyism', this is a blatant breach of public trust.

I will admit that I am a Wildrose supporter (its no secret). But I am not naive enough to think that this couldnt happen to the Wildrose party if they were in power long enough.

There are always going to be corrupt elements in every political party.

What is important is holding members responsible for their actions, and I think the Albertan Electorate should rally against the Premier, regardless of political allegiance.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Plett25

With "PC tobacco coverup" and "deplorable government behavior" it looks like you've come to your conclusion. That's fine and it is your right, but I don't think the publicly available information supports a conclusion of coverup or deplorable government behavior.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-untruths.html

Documents obtained by CBC News, combined with documents also obtained by Wildrose, show that Redford made the decision and that her senior department officials and the winning law firm all confirmed she made the decision, as indicated by her Dec. 14, 2010, memo. A series of internal Justice Department emails on Dec. 21, 2010 — two months before Redford stepped down from her cabinet post — refer specifically and repeatedly to the "winners" and the "losers." In one, assistant deputy minister Grant Sprague writes:
"Hi Barb, can you confirm with Jeff and modify as needed — get the letters to the losers confirmed and ready to go. You can sign for me. Speak to Lorne about the winners and the timing with the letters."
The "Jeff" referred to by Sprague was Jeff Henwood, Redford's executive assistant.
An email the next day from Sprague to Henwood and other department officials states: "Call made to Carsten Jensen at the successful consortium." Jensen is the lead lawyer for ITRL and a partner in the Calgary law firm of Redford's ex-husband.
Another Dec. 22, 2010, departmental email states: "Attached are the scanned signed memos that have just been emailed to the unsuccessful candidates."
Those memos contained a letter signed by Sprague titled, "Letter to unsuccessful party," which states: "I regret to advise that your proposal was not successful."
In a Jan. 6, 2011, email, Carsten Jensen of the winning consortium thanks senior justice official Lorne Merryweather.
"Grant [Sprague] and I spoke before Christmas, and we were very happy to learn that we will be working with you on the health recovering claim. The first step obviously will be for us to finalize the terms of retainer," Jensen writes.
In a Jan. 13, 2011, briefing note, assistant deputy minister Sprague states: "Shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers (the Jensen consortium)."
A Justice Department spokesman even confirmed to CBC News that Redford made the decision. A July 5, 2012, email from Justice spokesman Dan Laville to CBC states:
"On December 14, 2010, then justice minister Alison Redford determined that TRL consortium [sic] provided the best 'made in Alberta' litigation plan. The decision was communicated to the consortiums and law firm shortly thereafter."

Redford openly lied to the house, that is the issue.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If you'd like to present some evidence that the average person cares about this, feel free. Most people care about Christmas shopping lists 50 times more than this. Sorry.

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that people care 50x more about their shopping.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Plett25

Strawman. Where did I say that?

Well you said making a mountain out of molehill. I don't consider lying to the Legislature a molehill.

I don't think the distinction between "a" decision and "the" decision is trivial. You may call it semantics, but IMO it can be an important distinction. And it surely isn't at the level of Clintonian parsing "it depends on what your definition of "is" is"

The lie in question was whether or not she made the decision on who to use. He pointed to who "signed" the contract as the one who made the decision. Which are two different things.

I'm not sure what the procedures are... does he have to state his ruling in advance?

He has the liberty of presenting at the beginning or end of QP.

Did he tell them, but they asked anyway?

They all knew when his ruling was coming - at end of QP

Were the nature of Wildrose questions different than NDP/Liberal questions?

No.

Red herring. I thought we were talking about the conflict of interest/Wildrose theatrics not attendance.

No, I've been referring to the lying to the Legislature (Contempt of Parliament), not the perceived conflict of interest.

If the premier's attendance is a red herring, then so is the Wildrose "theatrics".

But, sure, I'm disappointed. I'd like to see real debate in the Leg. But in reality, very little of the real work of democracy/governing take place on the floor of the legislature.

You mean things like Kerry Towle pressuring for seniors to have more than one bath a week?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH87l...&feature=share

Or the 21 amendments the Wildrose put forth for the Whistleblowers Legislation?

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/news-...owers-at-risk/

Or the call to end corporate and union election donations? All proposed amendments got shutdown because the PC's invoked closure on Bill 7.

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/time-...ions-wildrose/

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-untruths.html

Redford openly lied to the house, that is the issue.


Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that people care 50x more about their shopping.

Chinook Centre parking lot around noon this Saturday should be a pretty good example. If you can find a spot. But outside the outrage of this thread and the Sun, I haven't seen much to suggest the average citizen cares about this. But as I said before, the average citizen couldn't care less about the political process to begin with. If there was an actual scandal here (and I mean that in terms of legitimate charges, not accusations) people would care more. But there isn't.

[Jacks]

The Chinook Mall parking lot is always full, I guess that proves that nobody ever cares about anything government does. You go around asking for proof but you never provide anything of substance yourself. There is proof that has already been provided in this thread that Redford was lying, if you choose to ignore that then that is your choice.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The Chinook Mall parking lot is always full, I guess that proves that nobody ever cares about anything government does. You go around asking for proof but you never provide anything of substance yourself. There is proof that has already been provided in this thread that Redford was lying, if you choose to ignore that then that is your choice.

Strangely, I didn't even mention this anywhere in my posts. My point was the general public, outside politicos and Wildrose supporters, don't care about this, just like they on average don't care about any political issues. If you've ever read any of my posts, you know I think all politicians are trash who act in their own best interest, and achieve their goals however they need to (lying, cheating, stealing, whatever). I'm not defending this liar from the rest of the liars. I'm just saying no one cares. Unless its an actual scandal (And this isn't. No one is losing their job over this), or it involves sex (Paetreus), the general public would rather watch paint dry than discuss politics.

[Jacks]

You realize this is a thread about politics right?

People who care about politics tend to read threads about politics.

Maybe you should avoid these threads.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You realize this is a thread about politics right?

People who care about politics tend to read threads about politics.

Maybe you should avoid these threads.

Ugh.....right! And I said...

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think Slava's point is the most important here: Outside politicos and Wildrose supporters, almost nobody even cares about this in the slightest.

Are you disputing that? If no, then we're arguing what exactly?

[Jacks]

There is a reason I usually don't respond to your posts, I'm going back to that practice.

[Senator Clay Davis]

See now I know (as if anyone couldn't know anyways) you're a Wildrose supporter: Things not going your way? Take my ball and go home time!

[Stay Golden]

Since this is a firm hired ( gift wrapped ) by the Provincial Govt shouldn't the details of the cost for the retainer be revealed?
I am disappointed in Redford over this political fiasco she is the rightfully finds herself the center of and how she reacted like a little brat having a temper tantrum. I can't imagine a colleague at my office having a fit like that.
I expected much more from her as and to be more honest and not be involved in a mess like this and i would not have thought she would react this way when questioned about it either. Which to me makes it worse JMO.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Chinook Centre parking lot around noon this Saturday should be a pretty good example. If you can find a spot. But outside the outrage of this thread and the Sun, I haven't seen much to suggest the average citizen cares about this. But as I said before, the average citizen couldn't care less about the political process to begin with. If there was an actual scandal here (and I mean that in terms of legitimate charges, not accusations) people would care more. But there isn't.

Most inane comment ever. And you've uttered some doozies. According to you, somehow "people" (whoever they are) would inherently know if it was an "actual" scandal and then start caring. So the proof that there is no scandal is that those psychic "people" out doing their Xmas shopping don't care. And you would somehow have to "see" evidence of outrage somewhere outside of the newspapers to back it up. Like where?

Awesome contribution to the topic. Top notch political astuteness.

The comments that I most agree with center around Redford's poor judgment in not stepping away from a process that was ethically-charged due to her former relationship both personally and politically. However, seeing her in action, I'm inclined to think her massive ego prevented her from not being THE decision-maker, be damned the optics of it all.

[kirant]

See now I know (as if anyone couldn't know anyways) you're a Wildrose supporter: Things not going your way? Take my ball and go home time!

That's more of an internet thing: I don't like what you're saying, I can stop talking and ignore you if I'm tired. Anytime. Regardless of whether or not I'm actually right (I'm not stating either side is right, but that both people who are right and wrong do it).

Originally Posted by First Lady

The lie in question was whether or not she made the decision on who to use. He pointed to who "signed" the contract as the one who made the decision. Which are two different things.

I'm not extremely familiar with the details of this. But this definitional thing, from what I understand, can have pretty big implications in legal terminology (which seems to be the basis of Zwozdesky's ruling - that, while she encouraged the use of a certain firm, did not ultimately have the right to decide who to use). Neither seem exactly what you want out of a group (in this case, playing favourites), but only one is using conflict of interest as only one has the right to decide who to use.

One other thing I'd like to ask is if Zwozdesky's inexperience is playing a role. Many sources seem to imply that he has been extremely patient with opposition, something that's uncommon with speakers of majority governments. Another note that I've seen is that the debate has been quite a bit of mudslinging and was threatening to overwhelm the actual process and questioning. I think it's entirely possible that he's not grasping fully how to deal with loud opposition who don't like what he's saying if he decided to shut down the debate. whether or not it was actually being useful at that point. In that case, his outburst and shouting matches are more to do with frustration on his behalf than shutting down opposition.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Most inane comment ever. And you've uttered some doozies. According to you, somehow "people" (whoever they are) would inherently know if it was an "actual" scandal and then start caring. So the proof that there is no scandal is that those psychic "people" out doing their Xmas shopping don't care. And you would somehow have to "see" evidence of outrage somewhere outside of the newspapers to back it up. Like where?

Awesome contribution to the topic. Top notch political astuteness.

The comments that I most agree with center around Redford's poor judgment in not stepping away from a process that was ethically-charged due to her former relationship both personally and politically. However, seeing her in action, I'm inclined to think her massive ego prevented her from not being THE decision-maker, be damned the optics of it all.

There is no scandal here. That a politician is dishonest? We need news coverage for that? If we did, where would we find time for anything else to cover? Politicians being dishonest and lying...colour me shocked!

My suggestion that the general public doesn't care is accurate. Go to downtown Calgary and ask 50 random people: What do you care more about? Christmas shopping, the NHL lockout, or this, I'm guessing you won't find many people losing their minds over this. And no one really cares three and half years out from an election. This story will be totally irrelevant well before that time. Just because you'd like the general public to care doesn't mean they do. But a general public that rarely, if ever, passes 50% voter turnout shows me how apathetic most people are towards politics. They simply don't care.