PC Fundraising Above Scrutiny?

I missed listening to the Alberta Question Period on Monday, but have since read the Hansard.

After this exchange:

Political Party Financial Contributions

Ms Smith: Turning to the business of the day, Mr. Speaker,
Alberta's reputation has been damaged. Our election financingprocess looks like it's been broken by abuse. We have asked theChief Electoral Officer to investigate the enormous and potentiallyillegal contribution from a single source to the government party.But even if the contribution is technically legal through a loopholein the existing law, it means the law is deeply flawed. When willthe government fix it?

The Speaker: Did you wish to direct that question to anyone in
particular?The hon. President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the Chief
Electoral Officer is an officer of this Legislative Assembly, andwe respect that on this side of the House a great deal. We believethat he is discharging his duties under the legislation that he has infront of him, and he's doing a good job doing that. Of course, theparty opposite doesn't really want to talk about its own history inthis regard in terms of that sort of thing. Perhaps in the 2004election campaign, when one individual bankrolled 75 per cent oftheir entire political contributions for that campaign, one mustwonder . . .

Mr. Anderson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: A point of order has been noted from the Member
for Airdrie.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition for her first supplemental.

Ms Smith: I look forward to the hon. Member for Airdrie
correcting the record.Continuing on, Mr. Speaker, given that the government's vagueanswers and insistence that everything is okay have done nothingto restore the public's confidence, surely the Premier must agreethat the shell game that is damaging our public's trust has no placein our democracy.

278 Alberta Hansard October 29, 2012

Mr. Horner: Again, Mr. Speaker, one talks about shell games
across the way. This party has followed all of the rules that are inplace. We will co-operate with the Chief Electoral Officer on thismatter to a T. But, again, somewhat hypocritical of the partyacross the way when in the 2007 by-election the same individualwho bankrolled 75 per cent of their 2004 election campaign bankrolled 99.7 per cent of that party's contributions. Incredible.

It prompted a number of Wildrose supporters to tweet things like "the #wrp (Wildrose) didn't exist in 2004" or "Doug Horner needs to bone up on his Alberta political history #wrp not a party until Jan 2008"

And from Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson:

"#wrp is diff legal entity than Alliance" and "Katz can donate to whomever he wants but not if it is illegal. Nobody has donated 400G to the Wildrose Party-that is incorrect."

Unfortunately in this case I'm going to have to say the unthinkable - the PC's are correct.  The Wildrose and their predecessor the Alberta Alliance are indeed one and the same. Why that is so, is explained in full in Chapter 6, if I recall correctly. And yes there were very large donations from the Thorsteinson family.  (Mind you they were over several years)

The multiple donations of $30,000.00 from the Thorsteinson's (2004-2008) and the ones from Katz Group, family and business associates can be seen as very similar situations.

There is some key differences that everyone seems to overlooking:

One case the investigation was started based on a written request; the other, written requests seemed to either have been ignored or no action is being taken.

One case were several cheques from many individuals and businesses; the other is reportedly one cheque for up as many as 10 different individuals and business entities.

One case Elections Alberta requested (and got) RCMP involvement (via the Solicitor General) so they could compel donors (those who got the receipts) to provide PROOF it was in fact their money  they contributed.  (Section 34(1) of Election Finance Act.) ; the other appears will never even get that far.

It is absolutely appalling that the PC's of today won't open their books to the scrutiny that they expected, they asked for and they received from the Alberta Alliance. 

Update: Oct. 30, 10:30 PM

Chief electoral officer to probe Katz donations to PCs

Alberta's chief electoral officer is launching an investigation into donations made to the Progressive Conservative party by the owner of the Edmonton Oilers, Daryl Katz.
"The allegations are that the thresholds of $30,000 have been exceeded by one individual and the election filings that we've received in our office from the political parties indicate that those contributions were receipted for individuals associated with this one person," said Elections Alberta spokesman Drew Westwater.
"We've determined that there's enough issues and concerns around the source of the donations that have been made to the party that we will launch an investigation and look into the facts of the matter to see if the allegations are true or not."

Click on link to read entire article. 

Wildrose; I'm Calling Your Bluff

Those who know my husband Cory from his online presence of his Ranting and Raving blog, Twitter and the occasional appearance on Sun News Network; often are surprised or remark to me,  "You're married to that guy?"

Our real life friends of course get to see our relationship up close and witness how much we can disagree on things from politics to poker. Without a doubt, it can be challenging at times when we are on different sides of an issue. However it's never boring and that is one thing he promised me; life with him would never be boring.

So a few weeks ago, when he decided he was going to speak out and take the Wildrose Party to task on a few things; I had one of those "oh crap" moments.  Both of us have been closely tied to the Party, even before it became the Wildrose. In fact this past summer was the first summer since 2005 that neither of us were sitting on the Provincial Executive Board.

We have both dedicated countless hours; held our tongues (and noses) through a lot of goings-on within the party. The Party and its' success mean a LOT to us and we truly believe it's founding principles can guide Alberta to a better future. So why would either of us be critical or call into question our own party - - simple, you need to speak up for what you believe in. You need to call people out when they have gone too far and are going the wrong direction.

In July Cory started to shed light on some of the concerns. Concerns that likely others shared, but were either unwilling or had no way of vocalizing. Concerns like; the Party building trust,  or confronting the confusion over the date for the Party AGM, and digging up the fact that the current Executive barely met since being elected in June 2011 and during an election year. Others started to question his motives and he addressed that.

By the end of August he called them out once again on the date of the AGM, cobbling together information garnered from random Twitter messages, because nothing had been released officially on the Party website. Low and behold the next day (and after 5 weeks of prodding) the Party sent out an email and dialed all the members regarding the upcoming AGM. When we returned from an extra long, long-weekend Cory broke the bad news part of the AGM details.  Here is an excerpt, to save you some reading and save me typing.

On the party website is a link to an application form for executive positions.  This is a very deep and intensive application form and it demands right in the beginning that it be filled out completely. Sorry folks, the party is in no place to make such demands. As per the constitution the applicant only needs to demonstrate that they are a member in good standing of the party.

Now at the bottom of the form it demands that applicants sign off their party rights to the nominating committee (whoever they are) who may refuse the application for any reason that they may see fit. Sorry folks but that is simply horseshit on many levels.

“1. Acknowledge and agree that the AGM Nominating Committee has the authority to disallow my candidacy on any grounds it sees fit, and whose decision shall be final and binding and not further appealed or challenged.”

So candidates are expected to sign off authority to an un-named and appointed committee who may reject their application for any reason that fits their fancy. Think about that.

If this application is to be believed, authority within the party rests with an appointed committee as opposed to the membership as the constitution states.

Around this same time I decided to get involved. Something neither of us normally do, we tend to let each other go off and do their own thing.

I prefer going to the source for information and thoroughly enjoy research and fitting pieces of a puzzle together. This is one area where Cory and I differ; he can be seen as browbeating at times, I like a more methodical approach.

First I emailed Jeff Trynchy at Party head office (he is always very helpful) and asked him who was on the Nominating Committee. Keep in mind that in 2011 this committee had their names published on the party website well before the deadline to apply to be a candidate.

The timing of appointing this committee is crucial. It must be done at least 90 days prior to the AGM (as per our constitution). This means they had to have been appointed by August 23rd. However earlier is by far more preferable given they are tasked with ensuring there are candidates to run for all 16 positions. At 65 days prior to the AGM they must report to the Executive Committee all the names of nominees. As you can see if they leave appointing of the committee until 90 days, that only gives the committee 25 days to find people, to communicate to the constituencies and the members at large.

More than a week past I hadn't received a reply from Jeff (this is unusual). I then forwarded the same email to Paul Collins (President) and Jonathon Wescott (our new Executive Director) and re-asked who was on the committee and added a question about the crazy clause. I pointed out that our Leader, Danielle Smith had publicly stated that this concern should be addressed by the Executive.

When I didn't get a reply from either of them, I then sent an email to the entire board. I also sent it to a group email address for all of the Constituency Association Presidents. To my surprise I got this automated reply: "Your email is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval."  I understand it's meant to deter spam and frivolous emails, but it didn't deter my inner-bulldog (lol), as I set about sending it to every public CA address.

THANKFULLY, a board member did reply early Sunday and gave me the names of individuals that they believed to be on the committee. Specifically; Rob Ladoucer (VP of Policy), Doug Main and David Chatters. Since then I've received three more confirmations of these names, though one was an anonymous email.

I asked Rob on Twitter to confirm, so far I haven't heard from him. He would have also received my email.

I've previously corresponded with Doug Main, so I emailed him. The exchange went as follows:

On 9/9/2012 8:52 AM, Jane Morgan wrote:

Hi Doug,

I understand that you may be on the Wildrose Nominating Committee for the upcoming AGM.

Can you verify this? If so, I have a couple of questions for you.

Thanks,

JaneMorgan

From: Doug Main [personal email address removed]

Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 10:05 AM

Yes.

On 9/9/2012 10:26 AM, Jane Morgan wrote:

Thank you for the quick response Doug. Last year the party had released the names on the committee well before the AGM, this year it seems a bit challenging to find this information.

I will preface my questions with the fact that I’m not personally seeking a position.

Who else is on the committee and when were you appointed?

I noticed (and others have as well) that there are some stipulations added to the application form. Specifically:

   1.) Acknowledge and agree that the AGM Nominating Committee has the authority to disallow my candidacy on any grounds it sees fit, and whose decision shall be final and binding and not further appealed or challenged.

Did the committee or the Provincial Board come up with this clause? Isn’t this counter to our grassroots?

What was the intent in having applicants agree to this?

And lastly, are there other ways to get your name on the ballot without going through the application process?

Thanks,

Jane

From: Doug Main [personal email address removed]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 10:45 AM

Hi Jane...

I'm sorry I can't answer any of your questions since I was only recently asked if my name could be put forward for this committee and we haven't had any meetings or discussions yet. Perhaps see Jeff Trynchy for your answers.

D

On 9/9/2012 12:32 PM, Jane Morgan wrote:

Actually I asked Jeff already a couple of weeks ago, he didn’t have any answers.

That was Aug 29^th, so maybe you hadn’t been approached yet.

So you don’t know who else is on the committee or who might call a meeting?

Thanks,

Jane

From: Doug Main [mailto:doug.main@wildrose.ca]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:40 PM

Sorry. I was approached around the same time, but have no other info

I didn't have David Chatters email, but I was able to find his phone number and I called him Sunday evening.

I confirmed he is on the committee. I asked him if he could verify the clause  "...committee has the authority to disallow my candidacy on any grounds it sees fit".

Me: Can you tell me why the committee put that stipulation in there?

Mr Chatters:  No. I don’t, actually….. because I was asked to sit on the committee and I said I would. And the committee hasn't even met to go over the rules or anything. So I really don’t know who drafted that. Or why they would.

Me: It's very disconcerting to me because it does go on to say the decision would be final and binding. And that you wouldn't be able to appeal or challenge it. As I understand it the committee is made up of three people, is that correct? 

Mr. Chatters: Yeah, that's what I understand as well. I don't ... I assume that the current board and the Executive Director put in place those rules. I don't know, it sounds kind of high-handed me. I don't know why they would have to put something like that in. It doesn't make any sense to me and everything should be appeal-able. 

Me: Right. And our constitution when it speaks to running for an Executive position it says you need to be a member in good standing. And it doesn't really say much more than that. But this makes is sound like this committee, these three people have the ability to prevent someone from potentially running. And really, in my eyes, I mean it should be up to the members to decide.

Mr. Chatters: Yeah, I would think so......I, I don't know ..... I know that Collins the former, or the current President ........ he's not running again so he is sitting on it and I'm sitting on it. And I think the other one is Rob Ladouceur; who is policy director and is not running again. I think if you have questions like that you should perhaps talk to the Executive Director. At least until the committee has a meeting and has a chance to discuss these things. 

Mr. Chatters went on to say that he was appointed about a month and a half ago and only communication he has had  since is an email he got about three weeks ago. In it he was advised he would be receiving applications by mail to review. So far he hasn't gotten anything. He said at this point even if he did get them, he's not sure how he would review them without knowing the rules. 

Mr. Chatters: So I'm pretty much in the dark, like you.

Me:  I have sent an email to the Executive Director, but I haven't gotten a reply as yet. 

Mr. Chatters: I'm expecting to get something and I'm expecting the committee will have at least a conference call meeting to go over the rules and what the criteria are and why would we object to someone running. You know all of those things we should go over it as a committee. 

Me: That's right.

Mr. Chatters:  I don't know where these rules came from. They sound a little dictatorial to me for a grassroots, democratic, party.

At this point I do want to be very clear; Doug Main and David Chatters are both very well respected in political circles and beyond. They have both served on committees with the Wildrose Party previously and Doug in other capacities as well.  I have never had any concerns with respect to either of them.

Clearly neither of them had anything to do with writing the clauses on the application form. I also doubt they were provided with much information as to what is entailed on this committee. Things such as the timelines. By my calculations 65 days prior to the AGM lands on September 18 or 19 depending if you count the Friday of the AGM; not September 21 as stated on the Wildrose application form. That gives them a mere ten days. Then the countdown starts to get notice to members of who is running, which needs to be post-marked by September 24  (60 day mark).

However there are bigger questions than logistics surrounding this issue.

Who wrote that clause? Was it the Executive Director, the board, a staff member?

If it was staff or the ED, did the board agree to it?

If they didn't approve it, how did it get as far as it has?

It's in writing and posted on the website, so clearly appears to be a party sanctioned document that is in direct violation of our constitution. 

Another aspect of this that doesn't sit well with me is current board members being on the nomination committee. We are a party of 25 K + members and we can't find three members completely removed from the executive??!!!

Some will say it's not that big of a deal if neither Rob Ladouceur or Paul Collins are running again. Do we know that for sure?  Rob very recently started a brand new blog with a subtitle "Wildrose VP Policy's Blog"  Why would someone do that 15 months after they were elected to the role and they know they only have less than 90 days left?

I had heard Paul Collins actually did step down in the summer and they had even found a replacement, but someone in caucus didn't like the replacement and convinced Paul to stay on.  I believe this rumor is supported by the fact that when David Chatters was contacted a month and a half ago he was told Paul had stepped down. Thus him thinking the three committee members are Collins, Ladouceur and himself. Whereas we have Doug Main who, in his words, "was only recently asked" to be on the committee.

I think the committee was in place sometime in July with Collins, Ladouceur and Chatters. Then Collins is convinced to stay on has a change of heart (when, we don't know), his spot is then filled (recently) by Doug Main.

Normally I wouldn't purposely draw negative attention to the Wildrose. However the Party we joined, the Party we helped build, the Party we believe in; wouldn't normally so publicly and blatantly, violate our member endorsed constitution.

Wildrose; I'm calling your bluff. Pull that application in its' entirety. It's a disgrace to what we stand for, what we built and what we dream of for our province.

Update Monday, Sept 10, 1:15 PM

I have now heard back from both Paul Collins and Jonathon Wescott. Unfortunately their answers were incomplete and generated further questions on my part. Both promised to get back to me later today with additional information.

I've also had an email exchange with Rob Ladouceur, confirming he is on the committee. He also confirmed the EC passed a motion regarding the nominating committee and related clauses. 

Quote from Rob: 

"This year's application uses strong language partly because the motion from the EC is also stronger in language."

He goes on to say; 

"The motion was specific in saying that disqualification can only happen if someone could damage the party's reputation."

"if someone "could" damage the party's reputation".   Could.   May.    Might.   Perhaps.

Really? How does one determine that? Is it someone with a criminal record? Is it a member who is openly critical of the party? Is it someone who wears different colored socks?

Is this committee expected to be able to predict the future? To predict the future, specific actions of a person from a review of a written application?

We already have mechanisms in place to deal with individuals when they "actually" damage the party's reputation. 

If you ask me the party's reputation has already been damaged by a board that is violating our constitution.

No committee "could" have seen that coming 15 months ago !!!

Update Monday, Sept 10, 5:15 PM

As mentioned previously, both Jonathon and Paul agreed to get back to me later today. I have received an email from Jonathon and given the contents, I suspect I won't hear any further from Paul today.

Quote Jonathon Wescott: 

Ms. Morgan,

By way of short update, I have a meeting scheduled to receive instructions and discuss your email, but it is later this evening, therefore, if I am not back to you this evening, it will be tomorrow am.

Yours truly,

I am of course very hopeful that common sense (IE: follow our constitution) will prevail at this meeting. And that the offensive clause on the application will be removed.  Or better yet, the entire document; all they need to know is if the person is a member in good standing. 

Update Tuesday, Sept 11, 12:15 PM

It's now just past noon and no word from Jonathon Wescott; however it has been brought to my attention that the clause on the application form has been changed. Also there is a memo from the Nomination Committee as a result of their first meeting of last evening.

It's excellent that there has finally been action on this. I am particularly pleased that they have outlined the second way to nominated and provided a form for convenience. 

It would appear there is still some confusion over the cutoff date. As I previously mentioned, 65 days prior to AGM falls on September 19, not the 21st. as indicated on the Wildrose website. 

I am looking forward to getting a response from Paul Collins, current President of the Wildrose Party; to clarify his comment left on this blog earlier today. (See below).

.

Could things go too far?

At 5.35 PM, April 16 this post had a number of names redacted at the request of those named. While their names are removed, I think you will still get the gist of gravity of the situation.


~~~~~

The Alberta election has been getting very heated as the Wildrose continues to be a strong opponent to the governing Progressive Conservatives.  On Twitter the #abvote hashtag stream has become a minefield of a constant barrage of attacks. The attacks on Wildrose and its' supporters are getting more and more vicious.

I've been called "homophobic"; ironic since I have a bisexual daughter. I even stated that - yet the attacks continued.  I've been called "racist"; also ironic since I'm married to a man who is part native.

In fact he too recently had an interaction with Pat Walsh. Pat was very briefly employed by the Wildrose. He has since gone back to the PC's. He was Rick Orman's co-campaign manager, is a strong supporter and very active in the current campaign.  After trying to debate issues, Pat was clearly losing ground, so he shot this out at Cory "Shouldn't you be in a tanning booth?".

Cory and I have been around long enough that we let a lot of this crap slide. When we meet with people and discuss issues, things like sexual orientation and skin color have zero impact on our perspective or how we receive their view of issues.


There comes a point though when things can be carried too far. That point is when people may be fearful for their well being. Some might say "that's crazy, something like that will never happen in Alberta".

Well, I certainly hope it won't, but posts like the following from NAME REDACTED on Facebook do put up some red flags for me. This is what a Registered nurse in Alberta has to say about Danielle Smith:

.....someone pushes her onto the LRT tracks, or she gets caught in gangland crossfire (these are my dreams, don't take them away from me)

Picture deleted.

Some have commented on Twitter I shouldn't post a pic from Facebook, that it should be private. I'm not Facebook "friends" with those mentioned here, so that leads me to believe it is public and/or they have their settings set to public. All the same, I've agreed to removed the screen snaps.

You can still however see it here and here.

She posted that on NAME (TWIT # 1)  REDACTED  page yesterday and I waited until today, to see if  NAME (TWIT # 1)  REDACTED  would do the right thing and remove the comment. She hasn't.

If your curious as to who the two people who "liked" Michelle's comment, here they are.

Picture deleted.  

It's sad, ironic and hypocritical that many of those who "claim" the Wildrose and/or its' supporters to be full of hate seem to be doing a far better job at "actually" demonstrating they are not only hateful, but also appear to be okay with physical demise of individuals.

A reader has sent me note that both Michelle and   NAME (TWIT # 1) REDACTED   can be found on Twitter as well.

NAME REDACTED:  (TWIT # 1) 
NAME (TWIT # 2) REDACTED  TWITTER REDACTED  (one hosting the horrible comments)

People who "like" and perhaps share Michelle's dream of seeing Danielle Smith hit by train or bullet.


NAME (TWIT # 3) REDACTED
NAME (TWIT # 4) REDACTED 

h/t to 'tuned in' readers for the tips on Twitter accounts.


Interesting reaction:

And an apology.

Thank you Pat.

And an email demand:

I am demanding that you take my name off your site. There is absolutely no context to my "like"

I think the vast majority of people would agree that a "like" on Facebook, equates to agreeing with and supporting the post you have "liked". All the same in the interest of internet peace: Demand granted.


As of this afternoon   TWIT #2 REDACTED    has changed her Facebook settings so it is no longer public. All information contained in this blog were obtained late last night and first thing the morning of April 16 when it was still publicly available.

Ed Stelmach's Resignation Speech - Translation

Sometimes you hear a speech and you laugh, because you know what they really meant. Here is my translation of Ed Stelmach's non-resignation speech.


And before all the PC'ers start jumping down my throat.... it's satire; not US style politicking. 


• Ed's original words are preceded by the bullet points. 
Translation is in bold.


~~~~~


• Since the New Year I have been spending the last few weeks asking my Caucus to indicate to me their intentions for the next provincial election.


Over the last few weeks my Caucus has been telling me they have no intention to run if I’m the leader.


• I am impressed by the passion of my caucus colleagues and their desire to serve Albertans.


I am impressed with how adamant they are to see me gone.


• They firmly believe in the mandate that Albertans gave us in the last election- the largest majority for a new Premier in Alberta's history.


They firmly believe that the mandate that Albertans gave us was an opportunity to show Albertans we could take care of the province, yet we failed.


• Our members are also equally committed to continuing in their role as members of the PC Caucus and fight in the next election.


Our members are also equally committed to continuing in their role as members of any party (other than the PC) and fight against us in the next election.


• I have been asking these good men and women to make a minimum commitment of five years. It is a commitment to serve Albertans and those in public office know that this service comes with a personal sacrifice.


I have been asking these good men and women to make a minimum commitment of five years. It is a commitment to serve as PC MLA and it is an unrealistic expectation.


• As I have been having these discussions I have also been reflecting on my own commitment to serve beyond the next election.


As I have been having these discussions everyone is telling me, it is I who should be reflecting on my own commitment to serve beyond the next election.


• Upon much reflection and consultation with family and close friends, I have determined that after 25 years of public service I am not be prepared to serve another full term as Premier.


After many arguments with Ted Morton and bitter consultation with caucus, they have convinced me that I am not competent enough to serve another full term as Premier.


• Therefore I have decided to announce today I will not be running as a candidate in the next general election.


Therefore with Ted’s ultimatum I have decided I will not be running as a candidate in the next general election.

 • There is no doubt that my decision today will come as a shock to many and a disappointment to my friends and Albertans.


There is no doubt that my decision today will come as a shock since I didn’t even run it past my communications manager. It may be a disappointment to my three friends, but Marie is very happy.


• I am grateful to all those who supported me – who gave me the opportunity to raise integrity and honesty into government for the benefit of all Albertans.


I am grateful to all those who supported me as their second choice – who gave me the opportunity to raise royalties and bring dictatorship into government for the benefit of all PC members.


• At a further date, I will provide written notice to the President of the PC Party, my intention to resign as leader.


At a further date, I will provide written notice to the President of the PC Party, because I want to hang onto my title as long as possible.


• In due course, a full, fair and transparent leadership race will be held to select my successor.


In due course, a full, fair and transparent leadership race will be held to select my successor; I can say this as I have absolutely no control over it and it would indeed be a first for the PC Party.


• Until I provide the formal notice of intent to resign, I will continue to govern to fulfill commitments I made in the last general election.


Until I provide the formal notice of intent to resign, I will continue to govern and fall short on all the commitments I made in the last general election.


• And to advance the interests of Alberta to the best of my ability and will put my full effort into this work – as I always have.


And to advance the interests of PC members to the best of my ability and will put my full effort into this work – as I always have.


• And to this end, we will present a budget that shows the way to being balanced on a fully consolidated basis in 2013 – a year later than we had hoped.


And to this end, we will present a budget that Ted Morton refuses to put his signature on because we will not be balanced until 2013 – a year later than we had promised.


• It will be a budget that will be received by most as tough yet responsible.


It will be a budget that will be received by every progressive as tough yet responsible.


• But it will not be a budget that guts funding to municipalities, mothballs health projects underway or halts school, and road construction at a time when people need work and the prices for construction are good.


But it will not be a budget that can pass the rigorous demands of fiscal conservatives and Morton in particular.


• The budget my government brings in will use the cash we saved during the boom to help us through the bust and position us to leap ahead of the nation and the continent.


The budget my government brings in will suck the rest of the cash out of the Sustainability Fund.


• My successor will be under no obligation to go to the polls in March of 2012.


My successor will be under no obligation to go to the polls in March of 2012; he or she will have the same lack of respect for democracy and fixed election dates.


• That was my timetable and mine alone.


That was my timetable and mine alone. Even though my advisors have been saying we have to go early to catch the other guys off guard.


• My successor has the parliamentary authority to call an election anytime up to the constitutional deadline of March of 2013.


My successor will enjoy the same dictatorial powers that I hold dear; to call an election anytime.


• No one needs to be stampeded into a decision. Let’s all take the time to get this right.


No one needs to be stampeded into a decision. Let’s all take some time, so I can enjoy more days as a lame duck premier.


• I have always put my family, my constituents, my province and my party ahead of myself.
• So I say to you this as directly as I can.


I have held my tongue since the Calgary-Glenmore by-election. So I say to you this as directly as I can.

• There is a profound danger that the next election campaign will focus on personality and US style negative, attack politics that is directed at me personally.


There is a profound danger that the next election campaign will be just like Glenmore; that all of our shortcomings will be under a microscope.


• The danger is that it could allow for an extreme right party to disguise itself as a moderate party by focusing on personality – on me personally.


The danger is that it could allow for Wildrose Alliance; a moderate, fiscally conservative party to make serious gains at our expense.


• This type of US style wedge politics is coming into Canada, and it comes at our peril.


This type of real life campaigning in politics in Canada scares the heck out of me.


• Albertans deserve to have better level of public debate on our policy options.


Albertans deserve to have better level of public debate on our policy options. And I there is no way I can debate Danielle in a public forum.


• Alberta must move forward to address the challenges of the future. 


Alberta must move forward to address the challenges of the future. Albertans realize Danielle is the one best suited to this.


• Alberta must be a participant in the global community.


Alberta must be a participant in the global community and the fact that it is bigger than Lamont scares the pants off me.


• Alberta must lead the way in responsible resource development.


Alberta must lead the way in responsible resource development and after 25 years I still don’t know what that means.


• Alberta must not look backward when all the world is looking for modern leadership.


Alberta must not look at me; for modern leadership when Danielle Smith is available.


• As a grandson of immigrants who came to this country to harness a better future for their children out of a piece of prairie they could claim as their own, I believe in the good and truth of private enterprise and democracy.


As a grandson of immigrants who came to this country to harness a better future for their children out of a piece of prairie they could claim as their own, I believe the government should have the right to extinguish those land rights at any given time.


• I believe deeply in democratic institutions and the parliamentary system of government that has served Canada so well.


I believe deeply in democratic institutions and the parliamentary system of government so long as it serves the PC Party.


• And I believe that the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta is the best institution we have to unite Albertans around a positive, progressive future.


And I believe that the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta was the best institution we had to unite Albertans around a positive, progressive future.


• The PC Party has been a fundamental success story in Alberta politics because it is firmly rooted in our culture – a culture that is conservative, yet looks always to achieving a bold future.

The PC Party has been a success story in Alberta politics but we must now take our place in the history books and look forward to the future with the Wildrose Alliance.

How to dissect a Liberal blogger.

One of the keys to successful blogging is to use FACTS to support your position. Facts are what give you credibility. Have I been caught with my pants down (or is it skirt up)? Sure I have. Everyone makes mistakes.

The thing is, if you are going to open your mouth, (or take to the keyboard) you better be sure what comes out is based in truth. As the saying goes: “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.”

This brings us to Vincent St. Pierre’s blog entry today. I am reposting it here in its entirety (in red) with my responses (facts) interspersed.

The Wildrose isn’t tough enough.



Their media outreach has been lousy this spring. So has their outreach.


And their claim to be “ready to govern”? Doubtful.


In the Legislature they have been almost silent, in the streets almost invisible, and on the airways simply not there. Movements solely around a specific leader, with no basic organization or organizational strength, tend to collapse quite quickly as soon as they arise.

Here is a video collection from Rob Anderson, one of the Wildrose MlAs, so one third of the “silence” in the Legislature.

This is the Wildrose 2010 calendar of events. Does it look empty? Are they invisible on the street and lacking organization? Last I heard they had gone from 15 organized CAs to over 70 in the past six months.

A look at the Liberal calendar reveals 5 events from January to May 2010; conversely the Wildrose Alliance has 47.

Airways? I have heard Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson and Paul Hinman several times on the Rutherford show. And I understand they have also been on CBC, but I haven’t heard those personally. I will let readers root these out on their own.

Unless of course by airways he meant flying. Then no, they rarely fly.

The Wildrose Alliance, at least their elected MLAs, haven’t even been showing up to press conferences and meetings. Shirking their duties and giving up on free and easy opportunities to get attention.

This one that makes me go, huh? The Wildrose has had at least six pressers since the beginning of the year and put out more than 20 press releases.



In fact they took a bit of heat (comical heat) over the last one.


 This compared to the five listed on the Alberta Liberal website over the same time period.

And the Wildrose’s fundraising? Less than the Alberta Liberal Party in 2009. The Wildrose also has less than the Alberta Liberal Party’s membership tallies, too.

If you look at purely the “annual” fundraising of the Liberals, yes they raised slightly more than the Wildrose. However, there is much more to this picture. It should be noted that the Liberals were actually down from 2008 and the Wildrose was up from the previous year.



In 2009 the Wildrose had a leadership race; many supporters were shifting their contributions to those efforts or waiting to see the outcome. Most of the fundraising on the Wildrose side came in the final quarter, after the leadership race, as opposed the Liberals who had all year to seek donations.


Plus there was also a by-election where Paul Hinman’s fundraising was nearly double the Liberal candidates. On the party side, the Wildrose exceed the Liberals by $15,000.00.


All of this is looking purely at the “revenue” side of things. If we look at the year-end bottom line, the Wildrose ended up on the positive side with $196,000.00 and the Liberals in the hole by $89,500.00.

Full information available at Elections Alberta.


Now to those membership numbers. According to the Liberals annual financial statement membership fees amounted to $8505.00. With membership fees at $5.00 each that equals 1701 members for the entire year. The Wildrose put out a press release early in October 2009 with a membership total over 11,670. That works out to the Wildrose outnumbering the Liberal support base by nearly 7 to 1. I suspect it is actually over 8 to 1 now.

The Wildrose also hasn’t had any luck whittling off support from the federal Conservative party. Partisans federally are still wary of the Wildrose and are still holding their bets, and my instinct says that the Wildrose will never be able to tap into those resources there, both human and in expertise.

Not sure where to start with this one. Why would we want to “whittle” support from the Feds? It’s not like we are going to get floor crossers from them. For the most part their supports are “conservative” and are likely to vote that way provincially. The Wildrose finally gives them a conservative choice on the ballot.



As to tapping into those like minded people, it is not much of a stretch to guess this is going on. If Mr. St. Pierre was paying attention he might have already seen evidence of this on some of the constituency boards….or he could have just looked at our Executive Director, Vitor Marciano.

The crossing of the floor of two PC MLAs is not a measure of anything, now. Anderson was a firm Morton leadership supporter and Forsythe has ambitions. With Morton as finance in the PC government all the Mortonites will not flip over to the Wildrose–the leaking of MLAs to the Wildrose stopped with that decision by Ed Stelmach. It’s moot.

This is purely an opinion and I am quite happy to let the Liberals continue to believe this.

The Wildrose’s battle with the Progressive Conservatives on oil royalties is also moot in that Albertans who care about the economic environment of Alberta will notice that before an election is called the economy will improve. By 2012 the royalties fiasco will be long over, long solved, and, with that, the anger against the Progressive Conservatives will just be as long gone.

Wow, Vincent you don’t even read newspapers do you?  They have all but been reversed due to pressure from the WAP.

There’s something to be said about relying on anger and public vitriol to base a party on, too. Members and the public tire of anger. Albertans even more so–we can be pissed for a while but, eventually, we come around to the “then what?” The Wildrose hasn’t provided a “then what” answer yet and the time has passed for it. Their attempt to channel anger to change has, for the most part, been negligible and the public will realize this soon enough. A hefty round of applause should be given to the media who, through their efforts, channeled the outcry against the Tories.

Anger is merely what gets people involved, gets them to take that next step of being active and aid in the growth and development of a party. Something the Liberals haven’t been able to do for decades.

But back to the Wildrose–their numbers are soft. Their support is soft. The anger will run out, their answers will never arise, and their electoral chances will never be more than a seat or two. I actually have a bet with one of my friends (a Wildroser, in fact) that the Wildrose will not receive more than four seats come 2012. We’ve bet beer on it. And, from my assessment of the facts, I think I’m going to win.

A beer! One whole beer? What is that worth? About 5 loonies at a pub perhaps. That’s a pretty strong commitment there Vincent. I will see your beer and raise you. How about we go for a two-four? No wait, I don’t drink beer and since I am going to win, let’s make it a magnum of Baileys.

Side note: You may have noticed that I disabled the comments on this post. The reason is because I know some Wildrosers follow my blog and like to comment on it. (The only time I get comments is when I comment on the Wildrose, too.)

I actually highly doubt Wildrosers follow your blog. It is far more likely people are finding it through Google or Twitter, like I did. Otherwise true followers would be commenting on everything you spew.


This should also give you a clue that the people commenting are finding the Wildrose more interesting to discuss as opposed to the fractured Liberals.

I want those special, active individuals to start blogging and create that institutional toughness vis-a-vis their soap boxes within the blogosphere to assist the Wildrose. Trackbacks are enabled.

I have never posted on your blog, as mentioned I only just discovered it. I have had my soap box (and some would say Wildrose soap box) going since February 2008 when I ran as a Wildrose Alliance candidate.


Do I have “institutional toughness”? Frick, I’m not even sure I want to have that!


A very successful blogger once told me; “If you end up in a debate with another blogger; the goal is not to sway the other bloggers position; it is to influence your readers’ opinion.” I would add, at a minimum it should engage the reader enough to “think”.