The government-commissioned third-party report into procurement and contracting practices at Alberta Health Services (AHS) has missed another deadline, remains incomplete, and was not published Wednesday as promised, according to the province.
The interim report by retired Manitoba judge Raymond Wyant was to have been due on Wednesday after already having been#delayed by nearly four months.
Wyant was announced in March to lead the investigation with his interim report initially to be due in May and later pushed back until Sept. 24. His final report was to have been published by June 30 but is now scheduled to be completed by Oct. 15, a delay of three months and 16 days.
So this little tidbit wasnt in this report from the Journal, it has only been in few of the stories Ive searched up
Former Manitoba provincial court chief judge Raymond Wyant had until Wednesday to submit it, but he still has interviews to finish, said a government spokesperson.
Enyinnah Okere, a deputy minister of communications, also said in an email the interim report won't be made public, citing no requirement to do so in the terms of the investigation set by the government.
Can you post some sources where a union with no strike fund has built one based on entirely reallocated dues? I’d be interested in reading that.
Can you post your source that proves every member can better allocate the money themselves?
The mere fact that you’re even asking for a source that proves money can be allocated to different things suggests that you’re probably not as good at managing you’re money as you think/claim you are.
It’s like asking for proof that people whose income doesn’t change can’t possibly change their budget in the event mortgage rates go up.
Quote:
And this entire scenario depends on the mandate of the membership, should a union cater to the lowest common denominator? That’s the memberships choice. Would you vote for a MoS with the coworker who is an alcoholic gambling addict in mind? Or would you vote for what is best for the future members? Or would you vote with your best interests since you are reflective of a part of the membership?
Strike funds increase your bargaining leverage which leads to better contracts and wages. Which satisfies every one of the scenarios/individuals you’ve listed above.
Cater to the lowest common denominator? It gives everyone the benefit of more bargaining leverage.
Voting with an alcoholic gambling addict in mind? It reduces the risk of them hurting your chances at getting the best contract possible.
Voting for what is best for future members? Better leverage leads to better contracts which is best for future members.
Voting in your best interests? Maximizing your bargaining leverage is always in your best interest.
Quote:
I’m of the belief that voting for a MoS is a personal choice to accurately represent the mandate of the membership, but a strike vote should be done with the long term interest of the union in mind.
I don’t even think you could explain what point you’re trying to make here but it’s kind of irrelevant since you also said you believe that you’re good with managing money and followed that up with statements which suggest otherwise. So your beliefs seem questionable at best.
Can you post your source that proves every member can better allocate the money themselves?
The mere fact that you’re even asking for a source that proves money can be allocated to different things suggests that you’re probably not as good at managing you’re money as you think/claim you are.
It’s like asking for proof that people whose income doesn’t change can’t possibly change their budget in the event mortgage rates go up.
Strike funds increase your bargaining leverage which leads to better contracts and wages. Which satisfies every one of the scenarios/individuals you’ve listed above.
Cater to the lowest common denominator? It gives everyone the benefit of more bargaining leverage.
Voting with an alcoholic gambling addict in mind? It reduces the risk of them hurting your chances at getting the best contract possible.
Voting for what is best for future members? Better leverage leads to better contracts which is best for future members.
Voting in your best interests? Maximizing your bargaining leverage is always in your best interest.
I don’t even think you could explain what point you’re trying to make here but it’s kind of irrelevant since you also said you believe that you’re good with managing money and followed that up with statements which suggest otherwise. So your beliefs seem questionable at best.
Care to discuss what you actually know?
I’ve found in my time that those with poor finances tend to spend too much time worrying about other people’s money. I must have really struck a nerve by asking you to post a source lol. In any case, your last post was pretty ignorant so I’ll leave you to continue worrying about how I’m doing financially.
New NDP live stream (you have to skip ahead a few minutes to get to the talking).
TLDR - Smith is being outed for a plot to jack up prescription prices in Alberta. Instead of using the government's buying power to drive down pharmacare pricing, they want to push the cost down to the individuals (40% per drug).
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Thing is, we all know governments spend money. Lots of money. And the people who say they are the best at not spending money are also the people who are morally corrupt and cannot help but put their hand into the cookie jar. They just look at those piles of money and think "it wouldn't hurt if just a bit of that went into my pocket".
I would rather have responsible adults, like Nenshi, spending the money because then I know I will get some value back. In some cases you can get a really great group in charge and get a lot of value back.
But man... that first year after the UCP will be really hard to burn out all of the grifting and corruption and try to get the government back on track.
Will the hiring of teachers and supports follow the same route the building schools did? As in it won’t happen in any useful time frame?
Like the schools that were promised to be built, which was years ago now, there is nothing tying the province to anything on the hiring front. The ridiculous part of it is that bargaining with the hiring of teachers is shameful and should just be part of a normal, healthy hiring cycle unless they are pledging to hire at an above and beyond rate to make up shortcomings. This is not that. Even at face value, 3k teachers over 3 years barely keeps up with attrition across the province over that time, and puts at best 1-2 teachers in schools that need upwards of 10 to start to reduce class sizes to realistic levels again.
The province also only graduates ~1200 teachers a year, with many leaving to teach in provinces with classroom caps, better wages and a more respectful professional climate. Ask yourself how exactly it is even possible to retain 85% of these teachers annually to meet these targets with so many greener pastures across the country?
Dig in people. If you care about your kids education at all, or even the mere state of wages (minimum wage being last place is abysmal), having a well educated populous, you should all be ready and willing to deal with some short term pain, working from home, finding alternate care etc. on this front. This UCP government needs to be told that enough is enough. If Alberta can't afford proper, or at minimum average education funding, why is it so many have not provinces can?
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 09-26-2025 at 11:51 AM.
That is what the Feds said to the flight attendants.... and the union said no.
I really hope the ATA has the same backbone.
Tabling this carbon copy offer from May once again (and announcing it as a tentative agreement), has taken things nuclear within the ATA already. Attempting to legislate teachers back to work, something no provincial government has done in nearly 15 years, would be the final nail in the coffin.
Firstly, the bulk of teacher's simply wouldn't comply, and secondly, even if some did, you'd be looking at years of work to rule as a fallout resulting in irreparable damage to the education system. Rightly so too - if that's the reality and perceived value of educators, I would have no issue with teachers refusing to coach sports, run after hour programs, engage in student field trips, parent conferences and so on until this government is voted out.
I do partly hope this turns even uglier on some levels from the standpoint that it might be a huge precursor to shift any remaining support Smith and the UCP have away from the party for the next election.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 09-26-2025 at 11:50 AM.
