Tag Archives: Alison Redford

Abuse of electoral laws doesn’t bother you? How about tax evasion?

Posted on by
1

Understandably most people don’t really pay close attention to or study provincial electoral laws. They are dry and the way our Redford government has repeatedly stretched and abused them, surely many are wondering if we have electoral financing laws at all.

Personally, I would not be wholely against the lifting of all limits, ending the grossly generous tax-credit system for political contributions and simply focussing on ensuring full transparency of all fundraising. In the meantime however, we do have some laws regarding electoral financing and they should be abided by and equally applied to all parties. If the Redford government has not outright taken part in breaking our electoral financing laws, they certainly have been complicit in a gross and massive abuse of the spirit of the laws.

There was a similar situation a few years ago when the Wildrose Party was in it’s incarnation as the Alberta Alliance (yes they are technically the same party)., The Thorsteinson family had made unusually large contributions which rang the alarm bells of Elections Alberta. An investigation ensued which even involved the RCMP appearing in the party office demanding documents. Is the RCMP demanding documents from Katz, his family and the long list of associates that apparently all donated to the Redford government? With heavy pressure from opposition parties, Elections Alberta has almost grudgingly launched an investigation into the Katz scandal. Nothing less than such a police search of the PC offices would ensure equal application of the laws in this case.

If indeed it is true that one cheque for $430,000 was presented to the Progressive Conservative Party by Katz (the Globe has not been sued yet so I suspect that is true), then it will have to be proven that all of the people listed had shared access to accounts in such a way that they could all have come from one source such as this apparent cheque. That is the sort of thing that covers a married couple for example should they both donate through one cheque.

My wife Jane has done some incredible work in digging out who was supposedly at the source of all those donations and has documented it here.

Now is it really within the realm of credibility that all of those people had a shared account? Do you really believe that coincidentally so many tight associates and family members of Katz suddenly decided to donate the maximum legal amount individually to the Progressive Conservatives? Do you really believe Redford when she says she didn’t know anything about over 25% of her campaign funding from a single source? It would take a great deal of substance abuse to believe any of that.

There are couple of big “Ifs” in there though. If there was indeed over a dozen cheques writted from all of these individuals and it can be proven that it was their own money and not laundered by Katz through them then there is no problem. If there was a giant chain of joint accounts that led to the one account that wrote a single cheque for $430,000 (if it was indeed one cheque), then there is not a problem. Seems pretty unlikely though.

Now if this was indeed all from Katz and he gets away with it, we may as well dump our electoral financing laws altogether. Think of it this way, lets say I won the lottery and decided that I wanted to donate a million dollars to the Wildrose Party. All I would have to do is go to my local bar and shout out “Who wants a free guaranteed $1000 tax credit for their return this year?”. I could then just gather names and addresses from people and donate on their behalf. If I say only donated $5,000 per person using one million dollars, I could get 200 people tax credits equalling $200,000 taken from provincial tax revenue fraudulently. Possibly even more if I drop the donation to $2,500 each.

While PC apologists keep trying to dismiss this issue, the gravity of it simply can’t be understated. Leaving aside the clear appearance of influence peddling to a man who has a great deal to gain or lose through government actions, we have what could be a case of mass tax fraud.

The speaker of the legislature keeps trying to halt discussion of this as it being a partisan issue. Well Mr. Speaker, may opposition members speak about potential tax evasion? How many more excuses can the Speaker generate to quell debate on this issue?

This investigation is too important to get swept under the rug. We have to keep the noise up to keep this from going away before all of the facts are exposed.

Promises promises.

Posted on by
Reply

 

 I am recycling a picture from one of my past blog posts. Who says I can’t be green? The picture does say it well though.

My past post was based on why politicians can be prone to lying in campaigns and how we as an electorate encourage and feed that habit.

 Now as expected the parties are battling to outpromise each other in buying our love with our own money. No party is innocent of this tactic. The only difference between the parties is the degree of the unreasonable promises.

 I was inspired to touch on this by Alison Redford’s pledge to end poverty. While nice and fluffy, to put it bluntly it is a shallow and stupid promise of something that is impossible to deliver on. As long as there is a top in society, there will indeed always be a bottom that will be considered impoverished. A person may as well pledge to end cancer. It is a worthy goal but it simply won’t be happening through a campaign promise.

 My ears pretty much close as soon as I see somebody spit out the vapid promise to end poverty. Had they simply said mitigate poverty, alleviate poverty or even reduce poverty my interest would be piqued as perhaps something innovative and viable has been proposed. When it is the shallow talking point of elimination of something that has existed since the beginning of human kind, I simply dismiss it as the baseless unsustainable crap that we have unfortunately come to expect from our governments.

 The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has categorized the spending promises of all of the parties in this election. They are predictible and telling.

 The Redford Progressives are in full desperation mode and it shows in the billions in extra spending they are proposing beyond the budget they just force-fed to Albertans a few weeks ago. They lead the pack in mass unsustainable spending promises.

 The NDP is next. They are a socialist party who has no hope of forming government so their spending promises are to be expected. Even if their plans are unviable, they are at least honest about them.

 Sherman’s Liberals are next. Like the NDP, this is a party that really has nothing to lose in this election so has no fear of promising the unrealistic.

 At the back of the spending pack is the Wildrose Party with $308 million (so far) in proposed spending increases. This does indeed make the Wildrose the best of the worst, but it is still way too much spending coming from a party based on fiscal conservatism. If deficit elimination is indeed the goal, then some of these promises will have to be broken if they are being realistic with them. I understand the temptation to jump on the spending bandwagon but it really is a shallow way to try to gain support.

The Wildrose Party has been surging as Albertans have been recognizing the party to be a viable replacement to the tired Progressive Party that has governed Alberta since 1971. Albertans have embraced the fresh approach and honesty from Danielle Smith and the party and I hope that trend continues. The Wildrose is proposing spending increases at a rate 1/10th the cost of the Progressive Party promises and that alone makes the Wildrose an infinitely better choice on election day. Like any party though, they do have to be kept in check by all of us lest they drift too far away from their base.

 I hope the powers that be are watching the polls closely. A recent and comprehensive forum poll has shown that the Wildrose is maintaining the lead in Alberta. The same poll also indicates that a majority of people reject the wisdom of the vote-buy effort with the “dani-bucks”. People clearly don’t want to see foolish, blind spending. They like the responsible approach and it shows.

 Clearly people are ready to embrace the Wildrose the way they are. There is no need to promise the moon and the stars in this final couple weeks. If the Wildrose sticks to the honesty and realistic goals that they built themselves on, they will form our next government.

 Shallow and unviable promises only harm future governance and build even more electoral cynicism. Lets hope the race to the bottom with promises in this election is finished now.

Peeling the bandaid off ever so slowly.

Posted on by
Reply

In reviewing the events and behaviour in Alberta politics in the last few weeks, it becomes clear that the need for fixed election dates is more acute than ever.

For those who watch twitter, the traditional hashtag #ableg has become almost completely dysfunctional as partisan supporters of all stripes from literally cabinet ministers to anonymous accounts engage in an ever-heightening  vitriolic battle to win the hearts of the one or two undecided people who may follow that hashtag.

 In the news, editorials are becoming more harsh and investigative journos have been engaged in an ongoing game of “gotcha” as increased general political scrutiny exposes slips and scandals of varying degrees of severity and importance.

 Alison Redford broke her promise for fixed election dates and instead substituted this “fixed election period” which has led us to this politically toxic mess. For weeks now we have been in an election that is not officially an election. Frustrated opposition members watch as a Progressive Conservative campaign bus tours the province, tax funded radio ads for the government of Alberta fill the airwaves and taxpayers fund fancy election planning retreats in Jasper for PC candidates while non-PC parties can’t even place a lawn sign yet.

 Doors are being knocked as they have been for months but the early contacts are becoming stale as an easily distracted populace forgets a past candidates visit.

 Candidates are being worn down and frustrated as their literature goes out of date and signs gather dust in garages or expensive campaign offices that can’t be fully opened yet. Expensive phone lines sit idle while volunteers tire and lose interest. The human cost can’t be understated here. While many don’t participate in politics it has to be kept in mind that the vast majority of people who do are volunteers whether candidates or campaign managers. These people are taking time off work and time out in their lives in order to pursue political change and having no real schedule makes this nearly impossible and terribly taxing physically and emotionally.

 Elections Alberta tries to maintain the temporary staff that they have trained and they pay for booked office spaces while they wait for the formal election call that Redford appears afraid to make.

 Worst of all an already cynical and increasingly apathetic electorate is becoming disgusted with politics as we live in this circus of a hybrid almost-campaign period. A fixed election date would not solve everything but it at least would put a light at the end of the tunnel and a deadline to the show.

 Simply picking a day and sticking to it would have been Redford’s easiest promise to keep yet she broke it. The reason for this is clear. This election date tinkering provides a huge advantage to the party in power while it demoralizes and tires out opposition campaigns. It also however abuses and tires the electorate. Unfortunately Redford has demonstrated like so many other PC leaders that she cares about the retention of personal power far more than the interests of Albertans.

 Just call the election and get it over with already Redford. Show a little glimmer of principle for the first time in your short leadership.

Why do politicians lie to us? Because we ask them to.

Posted on by
5

 

 I was out at some doors yesterday for a local candidate. People were very receptive and I do think that an atmosphere for change is finally building in Alberta. Still, at a few doors I hit some of those cynical types who boldly stated the old dodges “They are all the same” and “They are all liars”. Personally I think that most of these people use this as a simplistic excuse to avoid the personal responsibility of actually paying attention to politics and casting a ballot every few years. Politicians are not all the same nor are all of them liars. Still though, there is a grain of truth to those statements which allows people to hide behind them.

 The problem is twofold; politicians are prone to breaking promises because we ask them to make unreasonable promises and we reward them by re-electing them after they have broken promises.

People are prone to voting for whoever blows the most sunshine up their collective arses

I learned the above lesson in the first candidates forum I ever participated in. It was the 2001 election and in Canmore there were a few hundred people gathered at the Howard Johnson so see what we all had to say.

 Now as I said, it was my first forum so I was a little nervous and most unwisely chose to calm my nerves through having a few beers in the lounge before the forum. Consuming a diuretic like beer before having to sit for a few hours in front of a crowd is never a good idea but the foolishness of that idea escaped me that night.

 Getting towards the later part of the forum, I am getting increasingly uncomfortable due to excess bladder pressure and the hours of fluffy and predictable non-answers to questions from other candidates were getting on my nerves. My version of political Tourette’s syndrome was building and I was ready to go off. I was running in a fringe position in that election and was under no illusion that I was in a position to win the seat. That does bestow a certain kind of freedom that the other candidates did not have.

 The question to all candidates that set me off was “How much would you raise minimum wage in order to fight poverty in Alberta?” Such a shallow and loaded question in itself ticked me off and the predictable answers from the other candidates drove me right over the edge.

 The NDP promised a massive increase to minimum wage which would end all poverty in Alberta. The Liberal promised a moderate increase to minimum wage to end all poverty in Alberta. The PC promised to strike a committee to see how much we would need to raise minimum wage to end all poverty in Alberta.

 Finally it was my turn to answer. I began my statement by bluntly pointing out that raising minimum wage to fight poverty was about as stupid as printing money to pay off the debt. Well the intake of breath before utter silence in the room was evident. I then continued to rant and point out that simplistic, band-aid solutions will do nothing to ease a complex problem such as poverty. I said something along the lines of people perpetuating poverty through supporting placebo fixes such as minimum wage increases while ignoring the tougher realities that need to be faced if poverty is to be addressed.

 Well, needless to say I didn’t exactly win the room. What was most striking after the forum though was when I spoke to people one on one in the room (after a much needed washroom break). Many people fully agreed with me but said in hushed tones “you just can’t say that if you are running in an election.” Why the hell not? Through stating what I considered to be a hard reality I had committed an apparent form of blasphemy at the forum. I had burst the shallow trend of platitudes and rainbows with a cold wash of reality.

 I didn’t try to be all things to all people as the rest of the candidates did and many were appalled. People said things such as “I appreciate your honesty, but could never vote for you”. In that case folks, you don’t really appreciate honesty at all. I understand that there were many reasons why I was not elected that year aside from my lack of restraint when speaking. Still, I was shocked and annoyed how people saw sugarcoated answers to be the only acceptable ones out there.

 This attitude of dodging unpleasant answers and issues though is what leads more and more politicians to promise the world during campaigns whether they can deliver it or not.

 Sadly, a platform based on massive spending  increases along with debt reduction, along with tax reduction, along with an elimination of poverty, along with 100% highly paid employment, along with better tasting drinking water in rural areas is simply not feasible. Despite the complete fantasy nature of the above statement, that really is how many campaigns sound and it is what people are often drawn to voting for.

 When you elect politicians based on unreasonable mandates, don’t express shock when the promises are broken. When the electorate is prepared to vote for politicians with realistic mandates, we will see a reduction in broken promises.

 The other factor that encourages politicians to lie is our willingness to keep re-electing proven liars. Incumbents are practicing learned behavior here folks. They lie their faces off in order to win their seats, they break their promises after winning and then we as an electorate reward the behavior by forgiving them and falling for their lies yet again in the next election.

 Alison Redford blatantly and repeatedly lied in order to win the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives and on some pretty darned big promises. It is clear that Redford is willing to say anything to get elected and it is clear that she will not hesitate to go back on her word once elected. Despite this, Redford still leads the polls in Alberta. So many people claim that they are tired of politicians lying yet they refuse to stop supporting the liars.

 If we want to reduce the broken promises and lies of politicians, the first step is to toss out the incumbent liars. Some will say “the next ones will just lie too”. Perhaps that is true. In that case, toss them out in their butts after 4 years. If the next politician lies, toss that one out too. It may take 8 years, but if the electorate makes it clear that lying politicians tend to only retain their seats for four years we will see a big change in the attitude and behavior of politicians of all stripes.

 Is that just a dream though? The electorate needs to stop blaming the politicians and needs to look at itself. In the end, we who vote still hold the ultimate power should we choose to use it. I think that if and when times become hard enough that people will finally engage. I still hold hope that we do not have to crash to get there first.

 The PCs have been in power for 40 years. The lies told and promises broken over four decades are countless. Despite that we keep putting them back in power. Who is at fault here then?

Let’s hope that we see this trend end in a few months. I am a sour grouchy man at times, but I still have an element of optimism in me.

It’s for the children!!!

Posted on by
4

Well, Redford has only been in power for a scant few months but it is very clear that she intends to continue and even increase the intrusive nature of our provincial government. Not satisfied with Stelmach’s intrusions on private business through minimum product pricing and strict regulation of sales, Redford went further through utilizing loopholes in our laws so that legal drivers may be punished for having a drink or two despite being well under the legal limit. That pesky legal process and defense thing was neatly sidestepped as Alison’s temperance bill was rammed through the legislature.

Next Allison began the process of increasing taxation on products that she considers to be sinful. It is of course for our own good. We cannot be trusted to make decisions for ourselves so Alison has kindly taken it upon herself to guide our actions and punish us should we stray from the moral course that she has determined for us.

Now Redford has moved into considering intrusive legislation telling us how we may behave around our children while on what we consider to be our own property. I say consider as we really don’t have legislated property rights and the Progressive Conservatives have never failed to take advantage of that Charter shortcoming. Mom Redford want’s to ban smoking in vehicles with children. Once that law is in place it only makes sense to ban smoking in households with children in them. Perhaps monitors will be placed in our homes or a special force will perform snap inspections upon us. As long as that rallying cry of it being for our own good and it being “for the children!!!” is used it is beyond question no?

Now it is indeed beyond question that smoking in enclosed spaces with kids can’t be good for them. The question though is how far should government go in directing our actions? How intrusive will government get? How many more decisions will be taken from parents as Redford determines that it may be bad for kids?

Second hand smoke is far from the leading cause of health issues for children. If government is really serious about coming into our households and raising our kids, they had better look at some of the real issues.

Overweight children leading sedentary lives have a great assortment of health challenges. Type II diabetes is getting diagnosed at earlier and earlier ages due to childhood obesity. Further issues of heart problems and injuries often come with very overweight kids.

Now having proven that obesity causes harm to children, Alison may feel fully justified in interfering with our lives and decisions for the sake of the children. Where shall she begin? The Progressive Conservatives love finding new ways to tax people and business. A “fat tax” has been proposed many times before by nanny statists. I am sure Redford would love to tax us all for daring to eat what she considers to be unhealthy foods.

Perhaps a minimum age can be applied for fast food establishments. Maybe we can ban pizza delivery from households with children in them. Perhaps Alison’s personal cigarette inspection force can check refrigerators while they storm our houses in case we have fattening food hidden within them. We can fine people who dare keep a wayward chocolate bar or can of ravioli instead of broccoli and carrots.

Of course, healthy eating is only half of the equation. Kids need excersise as well. Now here we hit a conundrum. You see, play and sports are leading causes of injury among kids. Redford can’t simply allow kids to run amok skinning knees and breaking bones. While helmet wearing is enforced, bikes still cause thousands of injuries to children every year. Bike riding must simply be banned until adulthood when Nenshi can take over and force these healthy new adults to bike to work in winter in his new green utopia.

Baseball, football, hockey, skiing, horseback riding, tennis, track and field, basketball, soccer, ringette, lacrosse, roller blading, tobogganing, tag, duck duck duck goose and countless other childhood activities cause inevitable injury. These activities must be halted.

Nerf balls will be issued to all households as the sole sporting good.

 

Physical education in schools will consist of closely monitored yoga. Schools will provide great opportunity for further monitoring of children though lunchbag inspections and weight monitoring. Alison’s recent purchase of the Alberta Teachers union will greatly facilitate these changes.

 

Household accidents are a leading cause of childhood death/injuries. Houses with children will need to be inspected to ensure all electrical outlets are blocked. All cars will be equipped with backup alarms and cameras (at owner expense of course). Dangerous cleaning items can’t simply be regulated, they must be banned!! People can clean with water and sand. We can’t risk bleach! Remember, it’s for the children!!!

Safety tips will be mandated and worn on shirts by parents (at owner expense of course).  Those darned kids won’t be running with scissors again any time soon if Mom Redford has her way!

 

Why stop at childhood though? Injuries among adults are costing health dollars too. Mandated padded safety suits shall be worn at all times!

 

While all of the above sounds unrealistic, it is a reflection of the trend that the Redford government is following. Personal rights are being violated in the name of the patronizing attitude of government regulating our behavior “for our own good”. These trends do not stop nor do they become more rational as time passes. Regulations continue to grow (as well as punishments) as nanny statists find more and more ways to try and control all of our actions. Anybody who has worked on an oil project where the safety guys have run amok can understand this. The controllers can cripple all activity with no regard for outcomes.

I am not saying that it is good to smoke around kids nor is it good to let them lay around eating cheeseburgers until they bloat. What I am saying though is that it is not the governments job to determine these things for us nor is it government’s role to regulate and guide of our personal choices through means of punishment and force. It is clear that Redford does not trust us to make our own choices in life and she is more than willing to take on the role of nanny for us all.

If we allow the simplistic justification of child protection with every new intrusion in our lives and choices by government, then all of the above examples I set are not beyond reality whatsoever. Government control is an incremental thing and the frog in water analogy works very well when it comes to the controlling actions of nanny statists.

Alberta has long been a province known for compassionate individualism and laissez faire practices. We have allowed government to erode those principles and Redford is proving herself to be the greatest threat to our personal freedoms of them all.

Soon (we don’t know for sure when due to Redford lying about electoral reform) we will have a provincial election. This will be an important one as if we give Redford a strong mandate we will be assuring ourselves of rampant and intrusive government growth for at least four years. We need to work hard to ensure she does not get that chance.