UPC introduces Bill to stop election corruption investigation

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical
UPC introduces Bill to stop election corruption investigation

And Rachel Notley gets kicked out of Legislature for saying "misleading" 

https://www.facebook.com/rachelnotley/

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is a cbc article for those who do not have Facebook.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5365223

"She was posing a question about Bill 22, introduced Monday, which would fire Election Commissioner Lorne Gibson in the middle of his investigation into the UCP leadership race, won by Premier Jason Kenney. 

Notley objected when UCP House Leader Jason Nixon said "no one is firing anyone" when answering her questions in the house about Gibson's pending termination. Bill 22 says the person holding the position of election commissioner is terminated when the bill becomes law, though the chief electoral officer could hire them back...

Gibson expressed concern his dismissal will compromise "the independence of election administration and the real and perceived integrity of the election process.""

Global News Video

I don't know if this is wise for Jason Kenny to do. He might get away with it now, but people remember scandals like this, and it might hurt him in the future.

Unionist

It's a simple rule, whether you like it or not. You don't accuse a member of lying while in the House. If you do, you apologize. What pressing need did Notley have for ignoring that rule? Someone more familiar with Alberta politics could perhaps enlighten us. But this looks like the non-scandal of the century.

quizzical

Misfit, it's affecting him now. am surprised how many Albertans are pissed about this.  really surprised.

don't know if it's her reminding them she's Albertan and he's not or accumulated affect of the last 2 weeks bad moves.

Unionist she never call anyone a liar. she said misleading. 

betcha people are going to be coming out of the woodwork with other politicians using the word 'misleading' in the House.

it was bs move on the Speaker's part.  but interestingly it seems to have backfired spectacularly on the UPC. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unionist is right about this. You don't have to use the word liar. Calling someone misleading ir deliberately misleading is the same thing as calling someone dishonest or a liar. I do believe that she will have to apologize in order to get back into the Legislature tomorrow.

She could be using this as a stunt to draw more attention to the issue. If so, then good for her.

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

The scandal is the Bill itself, and the impression that the UPC is trying to kill the investigation into electoral wrongdoing.

I recommend that you change the title of the thread to reflect the meat of the issue which is the Bill itself.

quizzical

Misfit wrote:

Unionist is right about this. You don't have to use the word liar. Calling someone misleading ir deliberately misleading is the same thing as calling someone dishonest or a liar. I do believe that she will have to apologize in order to get back into the Legislature tomorrow.

She could be using this as a stunt to draw more attention to the issue. If so, then good for her.

i disagree re misleading. it's not calling someone a liar. pretty sure I have heard it used before. but am sure it was theatrics to gain attention to the corruption. it did.

changed the title.

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Unionist is right about this. You don't have to use the word liar. Calling someone misleading ir deliberately misleading is the same thing as calling someone dishonest or a liar. I do believe that she will have to apologize in order to get back into the Legislature tomorrow.

She could be using this as a stunt to draw more attention to the issue. If so, then good for her.

i disagree re misleading. it's not calling someone a liar. pretty sure I have heard it used before. but am sure it was theatrics to gain attention to the corruption. it did.

 

FWIW, she used it in its adjective form, ie. "misleading statements by the minister" rather than in its continuous-verb form, eg. "The minister is misleading the House".

I'm not sure if the adjective in front of a noun contains the same implication of lying as the verb does, but apparently the speaker thinks that it did. My understanding is that these rulings tend to go by precedent, and I would imagine that there have already been rulings on "misleading", since it's a pretty common word in debate.

Anyway, yeah, rather harmless publicity stunt at worst, and helps to ensure this story gets coverage. so probably a clever move on Notley's part.

quizzical

still kicked out and Albertans are quickly getting more concerned about Kenney. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

They should have been concerned when they knew about it during the election. But they voted for him anyway.

JKR

And they voted for him over Notley by a huge margin of 55% to 33%!

quizzical

Misfit wrote:

They should have been concerned when they knew about it during the election. But they voted for him anyway.

 

they didnt know about lots he's doing. funny enough his being out of province and country during this is pissing them off even more.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I wasn't there, but I was under the impression that Kamikazigate was one of the main focuses of Rachael Notley's election campaign.

voice of the damned

Notley has urged the lieutenant-governor to withhold assent for Bill 22.

https://tinyurl.com/v8jmkqo

Frankly, I can't see this being much more credible than Elizabeth May asking the Queen herself to declare that Harper was up to no good, since, morality aside, there doesn't seem to be any constitutional reason why Bill 22 can't go ahead.

And of course history buffs will point out that assent HAS been withheld in Alberta before, in 1937 when the Socreds passed a legally dubious set of laws. But at least two of those laws were blatant attempts to grab powers strictly reserved for the federal government, and would likely have provoked a constitutional crisis if passed.

But one doubts the average voter is an expert on royal vs. parliamentary powers, and if people could tolerate an unelected Senate blocking the GST(because who wants to pay a goddam 7% next time you pick up a six-pack, right?), those with already settled opinions on Bill 22 can probably tolerate this ultimately symbolic request for a regal intervention.  

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

In Alberta, the UPC is there to stay. I wouldn't be surprised if their reign as long as the PC's did. That would be 1971 until 2015.

Jason Kenney wants to be Dear Leader for as long as he can. People in Alberta complaining about Kenney? Maybe they should have done their homework before the election. You're stuck with him for a long time. My advice would be move to another province.

Misfit Misfit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Notley has urged the lieutenant-governor to withhold assent for Bill 22.

https://tinyurl.com/v8jmkqo

Frankly, I can't see this being much more credible than Elizabeth May asking the Queen herself to declare that Harper was up to no good, since, morality aside, there doesn't seem to be any constitutional reason why Bill 22 can't go ahead.

And of course history buffs will point out that assent HAS been withheld in Alberta before, in 1937 when the Socreds passed a legally dubious set of laws. But at least two of those laws were blatant attempts to grab powers strictly reserved for the federal government, and would likely have provoked a constitutional crisis if passed.

But one doubts the average voter is an expert on royal vs. parliamentary powers, and if people could tolerate an unelected Senate blocking the GST(because who wants to pay a goddam 7% next time you pick up a six-pack, right?), those with already settled opinions on Bill 22 can probably tolerate this ultimately symbolic request for a regal intervention.  

This may not be on constitutional grounds. It is argued that Bill 22 is designed to sabotage a criminal investigation into Jason Kenney's alleged misconduct.

You would think that governments in Canada cannot enact legislation which interferes with criminal investigations against them. Does Canada have any effective safeguards against this?

voice of the damned

It is argued that Bill 22 is designed to sabotage a criminal investigation into Jason Kennedy's alleged misconduct.

Was Gibson conducting criminal investigations? I know he had the power to fine people, but I haven't heard of anyone being arrested and such. At least not based on his say-so.

Misfit Misfit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

It is argued that Bill 22 is designed to sabotage a criminal investigation into Jason Kennedy's alleged misconduct.

Was Gibson conducting criminal investigations? I know he had the power to fine people, but I haven't heard of anyone being arrested and such. At least not based on his say-so.

National Observer

NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government created the Office of the Election Commissioner, told the National Observer that today’s announcement sets a dangerous precedent.

“I am very shocked. I think today we saw Jason Kenney engage in an historic abuse of power in Alberta, one that is corrupt,” she said, in an interview. “He has interfered with what should be an independent investigation, what has been an unprecedented investigation into UCP operatives who broke the law.

 

Notley added that she believes Kenney’s government fired Gibson as punishment for the work he has done investigating the UCP.

I am particularly troubled about the police and prosecutors who are involved in investigations into criminal behaviour of UCP operatives,” she said. “I think there’s a lot to hide and people should ask what [Premier Kenney is] trying to hide."

Ken Burch

Misfit wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Notley has urged the lieutenant-governor to withhold assent for Bill 22.

https://tinyurl.com/v8jmkqo

Frankly, I can't see this being much more credible than Elizabeth May asking the Queen herself to declare that Harper was up to no good, since, morality aside, there doesn't seem to be any constitutional reason why Bill 22 can't go ahead.

And of course history buffs will point out that assent HAS been withheld in Alberta before, in 1937 when the Socreds passed a legally dubious set of laws. But at least two of those laws were blatant attempts to grab powers strictly reserved for the federal government, and would likely have provoked a constitutional crisis if passed.

But one doubts the average voter is an expert on royal vs. parliamentary powers, and if people could tolerate an unelected Senate blocking the GST(because who wants to pay a goddam 7% next time you pick up a six-pack, right?), those with already settled opinions on Bill 22 can probably tolerate this ultimately symbolic request for a regal intervention.  

This may not be on constitutional grounds. It is argued that Bill 22 is designed to sabotage a criminal investigation into Jason Kenney's alleged misconduct.

You would think that governments in Canada cannot enact legislation which interferes with criminal investigations against them. Does Canada have any effective safeguards against this?

You would think there would be some way to challenge this in the courts, since it is clearly an attempt to hinder a criminal investigation through the passage of legislation.

cco

I wish Notley were still premier, and I fervently oppose Kenney's corrupt attempt to scuttle the investigation against him, but introducing a royal veto of legislation passed by an elected legislature is a horrifying idea, even if she knows it'll never happen.

voice of the damned

My understanding is that the Election Commissioner and the RCMP were each conducting their own separate investigations, but I don't know what connection there would be between them. Specifically, was the commish handing info to the mounties, and if so, does quashing that position count as hindering a mountie investigation? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

voice of the damned

cco wrote:
I wish Notley were still premier, and I fervently oppose Kenney's corrupt attempt to scuttle the investigation against him, but introducing a royal veto of legislation passed by an elected legislature is a horrifying idea, even if she knows it'll never happen.

Would you(or anyone else) happen to know if there have been any other times in Canada, besides Alberta 1937, when duly-passed legislation was refused royal assent? I'm thinking the law of political averages would dictate that it would have happened somewhere, but I really don't know.

Misfit Misfit's picture

From the Canadian Encyclopedia

"Royal assent has never been refused to a Dominion bill, but lieutenant-governors have refused assent 28 times, the last time in 1945."

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is a Saskatchewan case: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lindsay_Bastedo

"Bastedo employed the little-used power to reserve a bill (that is, withhold assent and send the bill to the Governor General of Canada who would grant assent only if the federal Cabinet agrees) proposed by Saskatchewan's Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government of Woodrow Lloyd in 1961.[4] This was the first time a lieutenant-governor had refused royal assent in Canada since 1937 when Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta John C. Bowen reserved three bills proposed by the Social Credit government of William Aberhart as unconstitutional.[3]

The measure in question, Bill 56, was entitled An Act to Provide for the Alteration of Certain Mineral Contracts. Bastedo issued a statement that "this is a very important bill affecting hundreds of mineral contracts. It raises implications which throw grave doubts of the legislation being in the public interest. There is grave doubt as to its validity."[5]Bastedo's constitutional advisors, however, did not share his assessment and advised him to grant royal assent.[5]

Bastedo had not consulted with the federal government before taking action. The Diefenbaker government passed an order-in-council approving Bill 56.

The Bastedo incident is the last in Canada where a vice-regal representative refused royal assent.[3p]"

Edit to ad...

The previous post mentions that the last time was in 1945. This Saskatchewan case was in 1961.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Royal assent disallowance or reservation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation

There is a section on Canada. Very interesting.

Rachael Notley's letter to the Lieutenant Governor has already been updated to this wiki link. Her request was denied.

kropotkin1951

cco wrote:
I wish Notley were still premier, and I fervently oppose Kenney's corrupt attempt to scuttle the investigation against him, but introducing a royal veto of legislation passed by an elected legislature is a horrifying idea, even if she knows it'll never happen.

However it would not end there because it would go to the elected federal government in Ottawa to decide the matter. The Liberals ruling on it would have a certain kind of irony, in its inherent bias. However it is apparent that all the case law is pre-Charter so I don't think I can calculate the number of billable hours already being racked up in legal opinions that by definition are conjecture since there are no precedents.

The RCMP could be investigating for numerous breaches of Elections Act rules, many of which carry criminal sanctions but that investigation should not be dependent on anything currently happening in Alberta's Legislature.

cco

The disallowance and reservation powers would allow Ottawa to decide, but according to the single line in that article, it sounds like Notley's asking the LG to just veto it, like an American governor (and pre-20th-century British monarchs) could.

voice of the damned

"This town needs an enema!"

https://tinyurl.com/vtg83al

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..disaster capitalism. 

Albertans' retirement funds don't belong to Kenney gov't

For the past few days, Albertans have been justifiably preoccupied with the implications that Bill 22 has for democracy in our province.

Most people agree that no one, including the most powerful politicians, should be above the law. That’s why so many people are outraged and alarmed by the UCP’s decision to fire the legislature’s independent elections commissioner.

Even Donald Trump was not able to fire the special prosecutor who was investigating him. But that is effectively what Jason Kenney and the UCP are trying to do with Bill 22.

But, as bad as all of this is, Bill 22 is not just an attack on democracy in our province; it’s also an attack on the pension security of hundreds of thousands of Albertans.

Every day, millions of working Albertans make contributions to funds designed to provide them with some measure of security in their retirement years.

For example, all workers pay 5.1 per cent of their wages into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). These contributions are matched by their employers. Most public-sector workers pay an additional 10 per cent of their salaries into their workplace pension plans.

It is these huge pools of personal savings that Premier Kenney and his government have targeted with Bill 22. In the case of the CPP, the UCP wants to redirect the billions of dollars that Albertans contribute to the plan every year into a new Alberta-only plan.

Experts agree that it would cost millions to withdraw from CPP and set up and run a separate plan. They also agree that an Alberta-only plan would be less portable and more vulnerable to economic downturns. And there is no guarantee that the UCP plan would actually provide similar benefits to pensioners.

In the case of the Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund (ATRF), the UCP wants to essentially expropriate the money that teachers have been managing for themselves and put those funds into the hands of AIMCo, the money manager owned by the provincial government.

In other words, the supposedly “free-market” UCP wants to create a government monopoly.

The thing that all of these changes have in common is power. The UCP wants to control the billions of dollars that millions of individual Albertans have been saving diligently for their own retirements.

In response to this blatant grab for money and control, we, the representatives of more than 300,000 working Albertans, have a three-part message for the premier and his government.

First, this isn’t your money. It belongs to the Albertans who saved it month after month. How can a party that styles itself as a champion of individual rights and property rights think it’s appropriate for government to essentially seize control of other people’s savings?

Second, you don’t have permission. You never mentioned sweeping changes to Alberta’s retirement system in the recent election so, you do not have a mandate for any of this.

Third, you don’t have the confidence of the people who this money really belongs to.

Working Albertans did not ask the UCP to interfere in the administration of their pensions, nor do they have confidence that they will run those plans in a fair or responsible way.

In fact, we’re worried that what you’re attempting to do is use other people’s money to create a huge slush fund to finance an agenda that has not yet been articulated to the public and which most people would not feel comfortable using their life savings to support.

For these reasons, on behalf all working Albertans, we demand that you keep your hands off our retirement savings.....