Well since the Speaker by definition is a MLA, the Speaker either has to be from the governing party or from the opposition.
How would having a Speaker from the opposition fix things? The Speaker would then have to rule on matters concerning the leader of the opposition.
I am well aware of how the speaker is chosen, and that is why I noted this is a ridiculous aspect of our system.
However, your reply is a false dichotomy. I wouldn't trust any MLA to rule on the conflict of interest of any other MLA. It is too wide open to abuse by someone hoping to either protect a fellow party member, or hamstring a member of their opposing party. A Wildrose or NDP MLA ruling on Redford's conduct would be equally ridiculous.
Conflict of interest charges should be ruled on by an outside, independent party.
Last edited by Resolute 14; 12-04-2012 at 02:01 PM.
I think I've read through the whole thread, and I would go back to something said much earlier that I think has been overlooked in the partisanship. I am not a Redford "supporter" although I had hoped that with her background she would be a better Premier than Stelmach, and a strike a better balance than Klein who I think let Alberta's infrastructure fall apart to a degree that fixing it is more expensive than it would be had we taken a few more years to pay off the debt and invest a little more in infrastructure spending.
Anyway, my thought on the matter is that everybody seems to be ignoring that the 'decision' made by Redford, (and I'm willing to say she did make the decision) was done in such a way as to eliminate the real conflict of interest anyway. What I'm getting at is that there was an independent panel that was tasked to recommend a firm/consortium. That panel, after reviewing all of the evidence, said there was literally nothing to choose between the three firms put in front of Redford on the criteria they had considered.
Redford then comes back with further considerations that do distinguish between the three remaining firms, and which considerations do not appear to be tied to any of her personal potential conflicts of interest and are arguably quite appropriate, being avoiding other conflicts and preferring an Alberta based consortium. Apparently based on those further considerations, she makes a recommendation (or decision if you prefer) which is then implemented. So, we have an independent committee that determines the suitability of the various consortiums that says there is no reason not choose any one of them. That right there eliminates the concern that a conflict of interest has left Alberta with a poor choice firm. Instead the only concern is whether Redford stands to gain personally or selected one of the three based on personal factors. To that argument, I think Redford elaborating on her reasons for recommending the one that she did provides an objective measure. If we can go back and objectively apply the considerations that Redford says she applied, and the inescapable conclusion is that the firm she picked is the one that best satisifes those considerations, then the appearance of any personal conflict can be safely ignored.
Sure, it's possible that at some future date when she retires from politics, the firm she chosses might offer her a partnership or other 'reward' but that's true whether she picked her husband's firm or either of the other two. In her position and with her history, there is every likelihood that she has previous or current personal and/or professional relationships with lawyers at most or all of the firms that were up fo consideration. The bias itself is simply not an issue as I see it.
She has been a poor communicator about it and has not won the public to her side as Ralph would have, and as some guy on the news said, she needs to recognize that she's not making a legal argument to a judge or jury, but a political argument to the public and she's failing on that.
Anyway, I don't think she has much, if any, political capital left and she's pretty much going to be a lame duck with a majority. The PC's are going to have a tough time next election.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
The Following User Says Thank You to onetwo_threefour For This Useful Post:
Anyway, my thought on the matter is that everybody seems to be ignoring that the 'decision' made by Redford, (and I'm willing to say she did make the decision) was done in such a way as to eliminate the real conflict of interest anyway.
The conflict of interest is certainly an issue but it isn't the key problem. The main problem is that Redford still insists that she didn't make the decision even though the paper trail shows that she did. If she would have just admitted it in the first place then the opposition wouldn't have much to go on since it doesn't technically meet the requirements under conflict of interest legislation. She used poor judgement anyway in that she should have simply removed herself from the decision in the first place. It's quite likely that the firm chosen was the best suited, if that is the case then she didn't need to be involved. It's the lie after the fact to attempt to cover up the truth that is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
She has been a poor communicator about it and has not won the public to her side as Ralph would have, and as some guy on the news said, she needs to recognize that she's not making a legal argument to a judge or jury, but a political argument to the public and she's failing on that.
Ralph made mistakes and he was crude at times but at least he was honest, hard to believe anything that comes out of Redford's mouth.
I just hope that the people up and arms about this situation aren't the same people that shrugged off the federal Conservatives being in contempt of parliament and I hope that the folks support Redford and saying this isn't a big deal aren't the same people that chastised the federal Conservatives for the same thing.
I think people should be upset about both personally. Regardless of political allegiance, I don't think lying to the legislature and the public is something that should be condoned.
__________________
Quote:
Somewhere Leon Trotsky is an Oilers fan, because who better demonstrates his philosophy of the permanent revolution?
I think people should be upset about both personally. Regardless of political allegiance, I don't think lying to the legislature and the public is something that should be condoned.
This. One of the things I hate hearing most from Canadians when a politician lies/does something questionable, is "****, we're actually talking this? It happens all the time, can we talk about something different?"
You hear it all the time on CP, even from members who are involved in politics. It's something that citizens of a country like Canada should care about every time, and make an issue out of every time.
Don't let dishonesty, lying and questionable behaviour become acceptable because "well, it happens so much from all parties and politians that what's the point in worrying about it and holding them accountable?" "Lots of people don't care about this, so why should you?"
edit: I do realize that speaking specifically of threads on CP, a lot of those comments are more due to posters who are partisan downplaying incidents/issues, but political apathy is still a huge issue in this country.
The conflict of interest is certainly an issue but it isn't the key problem. The main problem is that Redford still insists that she didn't make the decision even though the paper trail shows that she did. If she would have just admitted it in the first place then the opposition wouldn't have much to go on since it doesn't technically meet the requirements under conflict of interest legislation. She used poor judgement anyway in that she should have simply removed herself from the decision in the first place. It's quite likely that the firm chosen was the best suited, if that is the case then she didn't need to be involved. It's the lie after the fact to attempt to cover up the truth that is the problem.
Ralph made mistakes and he was crude at times but at least he was honest, hard to believe anything that comes out of Redford's mouth.
But that's my point, she was eliminated from the important part of the decision, by the time the decision between the three remaining contenders going to to her desk, all the independent analysis had been done and it was determined there was no difference in competency among the three. Sometimes we have to take a step back and think about why the conflict-of-interest is wrong. It's wrong because of the risk that the person with a conflict will put their own interests ahead of those of the people they are responsible for and will make a decision that hurts the people they are deciding for to feather their own nests. You can't expect someone to recuse themselves from any decision in which they have any interest or politicians couldn't vote on anything from tax hikes to speed limits. The degree of a conflict is absolutely relevant. Once the important conflict is removed, which is whether the firm/consortium is competent, the remaining conflict is of a very insignificant issue about whether Redford might possibly somehow profit from this decision in the future which applies to many decisions she has to make. The reason I say it's insignificant is because it's her ex-husband and she has no current direct financial interest. That's why the conflict of interest rules don't deal with exes.
With respect to the bigger point you are making that she is lying or if not lying outright then being dishonest, I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In my view she believes, through the lens of politics, that she is right and telling the truth that she didn't actually decide but made a recommendation based on what she said she did. Practically speaking, nobody was likely to overrule her recommendation so she should have just sent the decision back to the committee to analyze whether an Alberta based consortium that had not already acted for any other province of would he the best choice and then let the chips fall.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
The Following User Says Thank You to onetwo_threefour For This Useful Post:
The most interesting part of the seniors bath issue for me is that a WR candidate, wayde lever, blogged about the issue last december. It took a while but it is good to see the issue is finally being discussed in the Leg. Wayde Lever was the candidate in my riding. This issue is such a no brainer.
Do you really think that the minister has any decision making ability at the level of individual nursing care plans? I have worked in long term care facilities and I can tell you for a fact that there isn't the staff nor is there the facilities that exist to have every single person have a shower every day and while once a week seems minimal, it is a time intensive process to do a full bath on a person, particularly someone who has had a stroke.
I just consider it strange how the Wildrose has made mention of the bloated public service and yet at the same time makes grandiose assertions of what should be done in long term care facilities.
Also people are cleaned after they soil themselves - people can't always have a full shower because they would be having 5+ showers a day often times. Quick question - how many days has Kerry Towle worked in a long term care facility, not looking after her brother but looking after 10+ people each of whom take 30-45 minutes for a full bath which needs to be done in a very organized and scrupulous manner with a great deal of planning - the person has to be organized and transported to the tub (challenging in cases of limited mobility, decreased cognition and confusion), the bath first needs to be filled, checked using two thermometers to ensure that the temperature won't burn the resident, after that the person often has to be loaded into a special lift designed to get residents into and out of the tub, they then need to have the water stay at a constant temperature while they are bathed, they are then removed from the water, dried off, dressed, transported back to their room/common area, where the bedding is changed and often times put back into bed because it is strenuous for everyone... oh and then the tub needs to be sanitized as well as the lift and any other products used to prevent infection ... they are there because they can't bath themselves or perform other activities of daily living.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
With respect to the bigger point you are making that she is lying or if not lying outright then being dishonest, I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In my view she believes, through the lens of politics, that she is right and telling the truth that she didn't actually decide but made a recommendation based on what she said she did. Practically speaking, nobody was likely to overrule her recommendation so she should have just sent the decision back to the committee to analyze whether an Alberta based consortium that had not already acted for any other province of would he the best choice and then let the chips fall.
Read the paper trail, she clearly made the decision.
So she made a perfectly legit decision and lied about it. She should step down and have a new leader be chosen.
Is that what the complainants in this thread (and the WRP in general) want? Is that the end goal?
Or is the plan to just repeatedly trash the government for every thing, like a rabid wolf trying to tear apart a carcass, ignoring things like actually trying to improve the province, until the next election when they can scream about how corrupt the current government is until enough people listen to it that they can get elected?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Do you really think that the minister has any decision making ability at the level of individual nursing care plans? I have worked in long term care facilities and I can tell you for a fact that there isn't the staff nor is there the facilities that exist to have every single person have a shower every day and while once a week seems minimal, it is a time intensive process to do a full bath on a person, particularly someone who has had a stroke.
I just consider it strange how the Wildrose has made mention of the bloated public service and yet at the same time makes grandiose assertions of what should be done in long term care facilities.
Also people are cleaned after they soil themselves - people can't always have a full shower because they would be having 5+ showers a day often times. Quick question - how many days has Kerry Towle worked in a long term care facility, not looking after her brother but looking after 10+ people each of whom take 30-45 minutes for a full bath which needs to be done in a very organized and scrupulous manner with a great deal of planning - the person has to be organized and transported to the tub (challenging in cases of limited mobility, decreased cognition and confusion), the bath first needs to be filled, checked using two thermometers to ensure that the temperature won't burn the resident, after that the person often has to be loaded into a special lift designed to get residents into and out of the tub, they then need to have the water stay at a constant temperature while they are bathed, they are then removed from the water, dried off, dressed, transported back to their room/common area, where the bedding is changed and often times put back into bed because it is strenuous for everyone... oh and then the tub needs to be sanitized as well as the lift and any other products used to prevent infection ... they are there because they can't bath themselves or perform other activities of daily living.
My purpose of posting the links was to illustrate that other things were being debated in the Legislature; not to debate those items.
I do expect Ministers to have knowledge of what goes on in the facilities under their umbrella.
Do I expect them to have all the answers? No.
Do I expect the opposition to have all the answers? No.
Do I explect all elected MLA's to work together to find solutions? Yes.
So she made a perfectly legit decision and lied about it.
I agree with that assessment.
Quote:
She should step down and have a new leader be chosen.
Is that what the complainants in this thread (and the WRP in general) want? Is that the end goal?
I don't think she should step down. It's an unfortunate (even ugly) situation for our Premier to be in. I find it disappointing, but not resignation worthy.
Quote:
Or is the plan to just repeatedly trash the government for every thing, like a rabid wolf trying to tear apart a carcass, ignoring things like actually trying to improve the province, until the next election when they can scream about how corrupt the current government is until enough people listen to it that they can get elected?
I don't see that happening at all. Let's remember it was the media who brought this to light in first place, then opposition (all WRP, Lib & NDP) started to question on it.
Many bills have been discussed and passed in this very short session. Albeit most are being forced through just because the PC's can do that with their majority.
Read the paper trail, she clearly made the decision.
Read my posts, I said she made the decision, you're missing the point.
She made the decision whether she thinks she did or not, but the decision she made didn't involve any significant conflict of interest because the part of the decision (which consortium was most competent to handle the file) was already made by the committee. What would be significant is if she or the committee said that a consortium should be chosen that hadn't acted for any other province and it should be one that was preferably based in Alberta, and then she chooses one of the ones that didn't meet these criteria, such as the consortium that involved Peter Lougheed's firm. Now that would be a potentital conflict of interest worth investigating...
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
So she made a perfectly legit decision and lied about it. She should step down and have a new leader be chosen.
Is that what the complainants in this thread (and the WRP in general) want? Is that the end goal?
She could admit that she lied and apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
Read my posts, I said she made the decision, you're missing the point.
We aren't talking about the same thing. You are focusing on the conflict of interest, even though I think she should have excluded herself from the process technically she wasn't breaching conflict rules. My issue is with the lies and denials when the evidence clearly shows that she made the decision.
EDMONTON - Alberta's Ethics Commissioner, Neil Wilkinson, has confirmed he will investigate Premier Alison Redford over a possible breach of the Conflict of Interest Act in relation to her role in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit contract being awarded to her ex-husband's law firm.
After receiving a request for an investigation from Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman, Wilkinson launched an investigation into the Premier after it was revealed that, as Minister of Justice, she awarded a tobacco litigation contract to a consortium of law firms which includes that of her ex-husband. The lucrative contract stems from the government's $10 billion lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers.
Elections Alberta has hired a retired judge and independent investigators to probe whether Edmonton billionaire Daryl Katz and his associates made “improper contributions” to the Progressive Conservative Party during last spring’s provincial election.
I'm not expecting this to really go anywhere. There are enough holes in the legislation surounding this for the PCs to slip through. All this will do is prolong this story in the media for another few months.
The "independent" process through which Alberta chose a legal consortium for a $10-billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry was manipulated, allowing former premier Alison Redford the opportunity to select a consortium with close personal and political ties, a CBC News investigation has found.
Internal Alberta Justice documents obtained exclusively by CBC News show that a week before the legal consortium was personally selected by Redford as the "best choice" to represent Alberta, it had been ranked last of three by an independent review committee and effectively eliminated from consideration.
The documents show the review committee had eliminated International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers (ITRL) due to its "lack of depth." The committee instead recommended Redford choose between two other consortiums: Bennett Jones, and the paired firms of Field Law and McLennan Ross.
But internal briefing notes reveal the review committee's decision was effectively overruled, shortly after it was sent to a Redford staffer. ITRL was inexplicably inserted back into the competition, its last place ranking was removed, and within a week Redford chose ITRL, which is led by JSS Barristers, a small Calgary boutique law firm with close ties to Redford.
