Alberta PCs: SOME PARTY THAT I USED TO KNOW

The following video is the result of a creative endeavor by Amanda Achtman and friends.

While I was only a member of the PC party for three weeks; I have many friends who are still hanging in there hoping for "change from within".  For those who have left, I think Amanda has captured how they now feel.

Enjoy.

Herding Katz; The $130,000.00 Question

This week Elections Alberta publicized election financials for all parties from this year's election. Since then the top story has been the amount of money donated by the Katz Group, the family and associates.

Specifically:

Katz Group $ 30,000.00

Family members

Daryl Katz $ 30,000.00

Renee Katz $ 30,000.00

Ida Katz $ 30,000.00

Barry Katz $ 30,000.00

Katz Associates Individually or as a Professional Corp

J Robert Black Professional Corp. $ 25,000.00

James Low and Associates Inc. $ 25,000.00

Karvellas (Q.C.), John $ 25,000.00

Karvellas Consulting Inc. $ 25,000.00

Marcaccio, Paul T. $ 25,000.00

Paul T. Marcaccio Professional Corp. $ 25,000.00

Total: $ 300,000.00

Those names come from this Globe and Mail article and the figures from the Elections Alberta report.

The Globe article states:

But a source close to the campaign told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Katz provided a cheque for $430,000 to the PCs, a donation that was broken up into smaller pieces.

If such a cheque existed, what happened to the remaining $130,000.00? Was it returned to Katz Group? Was it "allocated" to other donors?

Apparently this donation came in the latter part of the election; which would explain why the Katz name didn't show up on the list the PC's released.

I compared that list to the one filed with their final financials, looking for other large donors that didn't show up on the first list.  Those include:

$ 25,000.00 Brad Gilewich Professional Corp

$ 25,000.00 Gilewich, Brad

$ 20,000.00 Durstling Family Trust

$ 20,000.00 Scott Family Trust

$ 30,000.00 Candor Investments

$ 25,000.00 SPC Investments Ltd

Now they add up to more than $ 130,000.00 but it gave me a starting point to see if I could find any connection to the Katz Group.

Brad Gilewich Professional Corp and Brad Gilewich:  According to LinkedIn Brad is a Partner with Price Waterhouse Coopers. Given PWC are the auditors for Katz Group I highly doubt there would be anything untoward going on here. Right?

Durstling Family Trust: Simple Google search reveals Darren Durstling as one of the trustees. 

Bradley S.R. Clough, along with Darren Durstling and Laurel Durstling, as trustees of the Durstling Family Trust, paid cash ($1,856,630) for a 6,180-square-foot home with pool on the north side of Mummy Mountain Park in Paradise Valley. Darren Durstling is vice president of development and one of three principals of WAM Development Group of Edmonton, Aberta.

WAM Development Group, why does that sound familiar?  Oh, they too were a large contributor to the PC's this election in the amount of $ 25,000.00.   Ironically enough they were also in the news earlier this year.  

The Katz Group will work with Edmonton-based WAM Development Group to develop the lands adjacent to the proposed site of the downtown arena, the Oilers owner announced Friday.

Scott Family Trust: Can't seem to find anything on this. Anything that even comes close isn't located in Alberta.

Candor Investments: Apparently are located in Calgary, but they don't have a website. Nor could I find any information on the principals.

SPC Investments Ltd: I could only find one document or reference to this exact name and it’s on a list of businesses whose corporate registrations had been cancelled in 2003. 

People and companies writing individual cheques, within election limits isn’t an issue. Unfortunately a company or an individual can also give money to family, friends, co-workers, etc. and they in turn can give it as a donation in their own name. Again nothing wrong with this, so long as they have reported the income as required by CRA given their individual situation.

However, what the Globe report was that it was “one” cheque. Which begs the question; were all the funds truly from those who ultimately received the tax receipts?  If not – that’s fraud.

Again from the Globe article (referencing the Election Finance Act):

Section 34 states that parties cannot “solicit or knowingly accept any contribution” that doesn’t actually come from the contributor’s pocket.

If it turns out to be one cheque I already know what Premier Redford’s response is going to be. 

“We have previously accepted cheques from spouses and allocated donations to both of them. We handled this situation the same way; attributing the donations to those they has said gave them money. The exchange of funds between those people or organizations is out of our hands. We can’t be held responsible for things we don’t know about.” 

That’s the gist of it, they will feign ignorance and hope that we will all say “Oh, okay you are so innocent and got hoodwinked by the big businessmen.”

When a party, constituency association or a candidate gets a cheque that exceeds the limits it is their responsibility to return the cheque, explain the limitations and advise them they cannot give money on “behalf” of someone else. 

Let’s look at this from the perspective of a donor not familiar with the laws.

Joe Blow says to his friends: “I’ve had a successful year and I want to share that with you. I’m going to make a large donation to my favorite political party and some will be on your behalf."

Friend: “Oh, that’s great Joe. Thank you.”

Joe sends off the big cheque only to have it returned with an explanation of limitations and rules.  Now ordinary, honest Joe citizen will accept that and write a new cheque contributing only what he is legally allowed.  

But we also have Joe citizens who are not so honest or ones that have been “coached” by not so honest political parties.  

Those Joe’s go back to their friends and say “You know in order to make this work you have to write the cheque.”

Friend: “But I don’t have that kind of money!!”

Not so honest Joe: “No problem, I will give it to you.”

His honest friends will realize at that point there will be a need to explain where the money came from and there will be tax ramifications; they will tell him to take a hike.  Others may not think that far ahead or not care and partake in the scheme.

As far as the multiple Katz donations from family and work associates, no one knows what happened except for those inside the PC Party. Premier Redford points to the financial report and says it’s all open and transparent. Well, no it isn’t. Until we see the paper trail that only the PC’s have access to we will not know exactly what transpired. 

Saturday, Oct. 27 @ 1:30 PM

Discovered another donor who has done business directly with Mr. Katz. 

EDMONTON, June 19, 2012 /CNW/ - Two new chapters in the Alberta aviation story will be turned June 20, with the official introduction of a Canadian aircraft-ownership innovation and a newly constructed $26 million, four-bay hangar and office complex at the Edmonton International Airport.

Aurora Jet Partners is the innovation. It has been created by Morningstar Partners of Edmonton and Opus Aviation ofVancouver, companies founded and operated by Don Wheaton, Kim Ward, Daryl Katz and The Ledcor Group.

Don Wheaton Ltd. contributed $ 25,000.00 to the PC party.

It should be noted that some of these contributors also donated to other political parties in smaller amounts.

Additionally, their ties to the Katz Group don't necessarily mean that they have anything to do with what is surely going to turn into an investigation by Elections Alberta. 

Elections Alberta spokesman Drew Westwater said his office will “probably” launch an investigation into the April election campaign donations made to the PC party by Katz, his family and associates.

Update Thursday, Nov 1

The Globe and Mail today has confirmed many of the links to Katz that I've mentioned in this blog entry.

All of $430,000 donation to Alberta PC's now linked to Katz associates.

John Barlow and the PC's, More Questions than Answers on Child Support

Last week I attended the all candidates’ forum in Okotoks for the constituency of Highwood. There were the typical questions one might expect about healthcare, education and some very specific to the local issues, like water and land use.

One of the questions though, I thought was a bit odd. I don’t have the exact wording for it as I haven’t been able to find any video or transcript coverage of the forum.  The gist of it was, ‘there are issues with “Maintenance Enforcement” what would you (candidates) do to address this’.

Now my understanding of Maintenance Enforcement is that it has made great strides in terms of collecting support payments, though probably not perfect. So I was very interested in hearing what the candidates had to say.

John Barlow, the Progressive Conservative (PC) candidate started by saying he has been hearing about this a LOT at the doors. I found this a bit odd. I’ve run three times in recent years and not once has this issue come up. I’ve also door knocked Highwood extensively in another provincial campaign and it never came up then either. All the same, I will take his word on it that this has somehow become a major issue in Highwood.

John Barlow went onto explain how child support payments can be very burdensome on those paying. He explained how if the paying parent makes more money, their payments are adjusted upwards as well. He said this can be a disincentive for people to excel or succeed in their careers. If I recall correctly he also stated there should be “caps” on the maximum that would be required to be paid by the supporting parent.

As someone who has both received and paid child support; I found his comments absolutely absurd. The intent of child support is to provide the children with financial position they would have normally benefitted from if the marriage had remained intact. We can look to the Act for the exact wording:

Objectives1. The objectives of these Guidelines are
·         (a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;
·         (b) to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective;
·         (c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and
·         (d) to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.

I don’t know of any parent who would deny their children any support they are able to provide. The guidelines are regularly reviewed to ensure they are in keeping with economic realities and that the children are receiving proper support. Indeed, that is exactly why it’s a sliding scale based on income. Also I’ve yet to meet anyone who has refused better paying employment or a career opportunity because it would mean paying more child support.

On April 11 asked John Barlow to expand on his comments. I reminded him on April 13. I know the candidates are busy; all the same I tried to illicit a response from him again today.  He has yet to respond.


Where does Mr. Barlow think the cap should be set? Should a parent who makes 120 K per year be paying child support at the same rate as someone making 60 K? 


I also wonder how he sees the Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program,  which is Provincially administered, being involved in setting the rates, which as I understand it are Federal jurisdiction.  

Lastly, what does Premier Alison Redford think of his stance on this issue? Will this be pursued by the Progressive Conservatives? 


I will keep you posted if I ever receive a response from Mr. Barlow. 

Deja Vu Cabinet Tour

I feel like I'm in a time warp.  I wrote a piece in April 2010 and upon re-reading it, it seems nearly as applicable today.

Read the piece and substitute Redford for Stelmach and see if you don't agree as well.

Link to article:  Stelmach: Alberta’s Seinfeld, but we’re not laughing.


.

Predictions on PC Leadership Race

I said it (Twitter ‘ed it actually) a couple of months ago and a few weeks ago; that I thought Alison Redford might pull off the win.  I had no basis for my prediction, it was a just a gut feeling.  Now that they are going into the second round I’m getting a clearer picture of how this might come about.

Despite umpteen current MLA’s lining up behind Gary Mar and his high percentage in the first go round, there seems to a lot of hatred out there working against him.  I think in order for Gary to win he has to achieve his 50% at the first count on October 1^st.  If it goes to the second count it will go to Alison.

Here’s why (in my opinion)

Gary Mar’s supporters likely won’t put a second choice on the ballot.  They will want to avoid a “Stelmach” or “Dion” third placer coming up the middle. Redford and Horner supporters are far less likely to be worried about this; their main beef is with Gary and keeping him out of office.  They will mark a second choice. Redford supporters for Horner and vice versa.

I think Horner will be in third. This is partly based on the showing after the first round and I believe Redford has a more organized campaign. (Granted, I could just be thinking this way because I know some of the people involved and I live in Calgary where she has a greater presence.) Either way, I think his supporters will be quite comfortable in putting a ‘2’ beside Alison’s name.  She is from their current cabinet, but still new enough and she is saying the right things to offer that glimmer of hope the PC’s so desperately need.

Conversely Mar, is so many things they are trying to distance themselves from. Bussing in “supporters”; rumors of leaking a members list to media; rumors of offering plum positions to those who back him; generally old-school distasteful politics.  

Should Redford pull it off… well she will have monumental, if not impossible task ahead of her.  As I understand it Alison has the backing of a handful of MLA’s: Doug Elniski, Kyle Fawcett, Art Johnston, David Xiao and Dave Rodney.  With the exception of Rodney they are all first term MLA’s and Johnston won’t even be running in the next general election, having lost his local nomination.  She will have to regroup the other MLA’s; mostly made up of long term members who now clearly stand behind Mar, and there are a LOT of them.

If I’m wrong though and Mar wins, there are two things I’m looking forward to.

      1)      The caucus funding to the PC’s to be cut since they no longer will have a Leader in an elected position. 

      2)      Their caucus putting out press releases, but not being able to name their “yet to be elected as an MLA, Leader”.

If you aren’t familiar with the background, one might say, “That’s absurd. Why would those things happen?’ You can read it for yourself, here and here. It’s exactly what the PC’s did to the Wildrose.

PS: I don't choose the ads that display on my blog and in no way support nor endorse any candidate who might happen to show up. :)