daveberta.ca – Alberta politics
"…Dave Cournoyer isn't some obscure fat frat boy with a sticky-up haircut." – Neil Waugh (Edmonton Sun)
thorny candidates could be the wildrose party’s biggest liability.
Danielle Smith (photo from Wildrose Facebook page)
As the face of the campaign, Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith is her party’s biggest asset. She is media savvy, personable and, despite her limited governance experience (one year as a trustee on the dysfunctional Calgary Board of Education), she talks about becoming Premier with more confidence than any opposition leader in a long time.
But looking beyond the high-profile face of the Wildrose Party, which polls from the first week of the campaign suggest could be poised to form government, Albertans should be asking important questions about who would serve as cabinet ministers in a Wildrose Party government? The Premier is only one person at the table. Which Wildrose candidate would serve as Minister of Justice, Minister of Education, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Health?
Ask most Albertans to name a Wildrose candidate outside their own riding, and they will probably respond with a puzzled face. The lack of “star-candidates” is likely a product of timing. The Wildrose Party began to hold its candidate nominations in 2010 during a time when the party was seen to have peaked and was sitting in the mid-teens in the polls. What the party ended up with were plenty of well meaning candidates, but not many who would be defined as “star candidates.”
The recent success of the federal NDP in Quebec provides a textbook example of why any party should take seriously the candidates it nominates to run under its banner, even if it does not look like they might form government at the time.
If the Wildrose Party are to form the next government in Alberta, an important question needs to be asked about whether their candidates are the kind of politicians that Albertans want running the show. Here is a look at some of the Wildrose candidates who could end up serving as a cabinet minister under Premier Danielle Smith:
Link Byfield
- Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock candidate Link Byfield is the former publisher of the right-wing Alberta Report magazine. As has been noted elsewhere, Mr. Byfield was the president of the Society to Explore and Record Christian History and the founder of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, which stands, among other things, “against expanding influence of the Charter of Rights.”
John Carpay
- Calgary-Lougheed candidate John Carpay penned an opinion-editorial in the National Post in 1994 which criticized Premier Ralph Klein for not invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to block the Supreme Court decision forcing Alberta to include protection of homosexuals from discrimination.
More recently, Mr. Carpay defended the University of Calgary Campus Pro-Life Club and was part of the legal team which defended anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott against charges in Saskatchewan. (Mr. Whatcott was recently detained by the police for distributing anti-gay hate literature to homes in northwest Calgary).
Ron Leech
- Calgary-Greenway Wildrose candidate and evangelical pastor Ron Leech penned an article in the Calgary Herald in 2004 which argued “to affirm homosexuality is to distort the image of God, to insult the nature and being of God.” Perhaps this fits with Ms. Smith’s ideas on conscience rights (which has angered at least one now former Wildrose supporter).
- Edmonton-South West candidate Allan Hunsperger is the self-described pioneer in the establishment of Alberta’s private schools in the late seventies and founder of Heritage Christian Schools.
Don Koziak
- Edmonton-Glenora candidate Don Koziak‘s short-lived mayoral bid in 2010 was kicked off by a promise to halt LRT expansion, calling the public transit “enormously environmentally unfriendly.” When asked what he would do differently, Mr. Koziak trumpeted the construction of more “interchanges and wider roads.” Toronto Mayor Rob Ford would be proud.
- Edmonton-Castle Downs candidate John Oplanich, kicked off his campaign by offering to raffle a free big screen televisionto voters who would support him.
Andrew Constantinidis
- A number of Wildrose candidates running in Edmonton constituencies have indicated over the past year that they would re-open the acrimonious City Centre Airport debate, even though elected City Councillors have already made the decision to phase out operations of the tiny downtown airport.
- As I have already written, a few Wildrose candidates from Calgary have strong connections with controversial Conservative MP Rob Anders. This includes Calgary-West candidate Andrew Constantinidis, who served as Mr. Anders’ local constituency president and media coordinator during the 2011 federal election.
These are the highest profile stories around these candidates, the truth is that outside of Ms. Smith and the four established Wildrose MLA’s running for re-election, surprisingly little is known about the party’s candidates. And the Wildrose Party has done a superb job of focusing the media’s and voters attention on what they want, namely Ms. Smith and ensuring that she, rather than their candidates are the ones making headlines.
157 Responses on thorny candidates could be the wildrose party’s biggest liability.
[...] daveberta.ca – Today, 11:14 PM [...]
All hail our new Republican overlords.
I see a new poll has the Wildrose up 13 points over the PCs (apparently despite the loss of one supporter over Danielle Smith’s recognition of the existence of s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
It’s a big tent, as you know, Dave. People should be free to practise their faith, and you shouldn’t really be scared of that. Are there any evangelicals in Alberta? Who do you think represents them the best? I really believe not giving them a home, to at least express themselves, short changes true representation. Militant homosexuals shouldn’t be worried. I believe that it’s not up to the government to tell you who you sleep with. Enough sensible people I know agree, even Wildrose members.
BTW, many people I’ve spoken to, who were around before the much trumpeted Charter, agree with George Jonas that Canadians saw their freedoms diminished by defining them.
See here’s the thing Ryan – you can’t advocate people being free to practice their faith and cheerlead for John Carpay at the same time. His advocacy for our provincial government to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage would have prevented affirming congregations from carrying out same-sex marriages in accordance with their faith. Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t have one. Pretty simple.
I guess we have Alison Redford to thank for this impending gong show. Had she just dropped the writ last fall, after winning the leadership and restoring Education funding, we wouldn’t be faced with this specter.
Heck, even if she had done the Ralph/Ed thing and introduced a budget and then gone to the polls, things probably would have been different.
But she will go down as the most politically tone deaf PC leader yet. The one who insisted on wielding her power before she had truly earned it in an election. And timing is everything. The all-pay no-work committee scandal really turned things against her. And now she and her hapless campaign manager Carter can’t seem to get any momentum whatsoever.
Ah well, this new bunch isn’t really that much different than the ones they are replacing. At least a change in the ruling party means all the associated cronies at the top will get shuffled out. The public service will be much better off with a fresh crop of Deputy Ministers than the dusty old PC friends it has now.
“Militant homosexuals shouldn’t be worried.”
Just for the record, homosexuals in this province aren’t packing guns and hand grenades, acting all militant and stuff.
Dave, thank you for this piece. It’s not only brilliantly written, but day after day we see the facade of Libertarianism removed from the face of the crumbling house that is the Wildrose Party.
Albertas need to know who they are voting for. Albertans need to know the unspoken agenda of any and all political parties in this election. Albertans need to vet their candidates very carefully, examine policies and platforms just as carefully, ask pointed and direct questions and accept only pointed and direct answers. More voices like yours are needed in this election. Thank you for providing good information on a consistent basis.
Respectfully,
Kikki
So if I were a doctor would I be able to refuse to treat right-wing wackos under the Wildrose’s freedom of conscience proposals?
Way to cherry pick Dave.
You have left out a Dr., successful business people & entrepreneurs who have signed many a paycheck and built successful companies.
It’s very easy to skew data when you cherry pick….even easier when you cherry pick candidates.
More rigour please in your analysis: this one was very weak.
Someone should really go through Don Martin’s Twitter feed and pull some quotes.
Thanks for posting this, Dave
Christians and other religious conservatives should be banned from participating in the democratic process, including voting. In fact, we should round them up, send them to camps in Baffin Island. That way, we can show them how tolerant and open-minded we truly are.
Hyperbole doesn’t suit your blog posts either.
PS Rather than creating a bogey man list, debate us on ideas. We actually have good reasons to defend free speech, protect the rights of Catholic doctors and establish private schools. To merely list these positions and label them as scary, shows how the left has become merely an echo chamber for its ideology.
Someone should ask Joel French whether he is referring to the actual Don Martin twitter account or the fake one that pops up numerous times, says outrageous things against minorities and then gets retweeted by him and his girlfriend even days after a Journal article outs it as a fake account meant to libel people. Then they should ask the question about why the NDP like to drive traffic towards it.
I am scared!!!!!
dear editor
thanks for this report & your informative weblog. i really appreciate having your analysis & links – today & in the weeks to come. and lord almighty, but doesn’t this mob make social credit look good!
yours sincerely
alfred venison
(an edmontonian canuck in queen elizabeth’s australia)
Respectfully, Kikki, conscience rights are constitutionally entrenched as a fundamental freedom whether you personally respect them or not. You seem to conclude that Danielle Smith is somehow intolerant because she respects s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You get that legislators are bound by the Charter, right?
I am surprised that one would go after the “belief”system of candidates. Thank goodness they believe in something! Will it affect their political decision- we are a product of our beliefs, but these are people who understand that there is a separation. There is a great group running for WR.
Remember when Lougheed swept too wear, there were a bunch of unknowns also. That worked out pretty good for Alberta!
And Human Rights Commission entering the political realm – that unelected, liberal, untrained lot looking for a boogie man under every bed deserves to be done away with. Albertans are a tolerant lot – we do not need the tolerance police!
Respectfully, Herbert, the conscience rights clause in section 2 allows one to have one’s own moral point of view but it does not enshrine a right to discriminate based on one’s conscience and it does not enshrine the right for a civil servant to discriminate whom she/he will offer services to based on their conscience, which is what the WRP conscience rights platform does do.
As well invoking the Section 2 Clause in defense of the WRP platform then begs the question as to why you need that platform if it is already enshrined in the Charter of Rights and the response to that is because it does not enshrine the discrimination based on conscience being proposed by the WRP.
Nor would the discrimination be limited to “militant homosexuals” but could also be used to refuse service to Jews, Muslims, atheists, and so on as long as the person can claim it is their conscience. I imagine that could even be extended to racial and ethnic minorities if the civil servant could demonstrate that their conscience would justify that.
On the bright side such a law would eventually be struck down as a violation of the Charter of Rights but on the sad side the damage would be inflicted until it was struck down and their would be scars as well as tarnishing Alberta’s reputation in the rest of the country.
As well I would be quite curious to see numbers about how many doctors are being forced to perform gender reassignment surgeries or perform terminations of pregnancies against their will since I know that number is none: both of those are medical specialties that the doctor chooses to perform.
This list says as much about DaveBerta and his biases, as it does about the Wild Rose Candidates. There are many, many, highly qualified Wild Rose candidates out there.
There is nothing to stop Canadian Prime Ministers or Premiers from appointing unelected people to Cabinet. And sometimes they should, otherwise we get day-care managers as hospitals’ minister (Mr. Liepert, for example, whose only claim to experstise is being elected).
What is a star candidate Dave? Ken Hughes who trashed Health Care? Sandra Jansen because she has been on TV? Is Farouk in Shaw a star? One who had to be appointed after losing in Hawkwood? Who are the star Liberals? NDP? How about the AB Party. Who are their superstars?
What a drive by smear. I thought we had all grown past the scary hidden agenda crap.
Out of 87 candidates you put forward 7, one whose only “crime” is to like private schools and be religious? Why do people think it is ok to attack religious people for being religious? What happened to equal rights for all? No group should have more rights than another period. In my world that is a two way street, apparently it is not for you.
The wildrose is only interested in the rights and freedoms of those who agree with them and hold thier own biases. Which doesn’t make them that much different from any other political party that I see. But I’m interested in what the wildrose would do with left-wing nutjobs like me? Perhaps some sort of camp where we could learn to concentrate?
You didn’t mention Richard Jones, who’s an ultra social conservative from the mormon church. Nothing wrong with his religion, just keep it out of our politics please.
The trouble I have with this election is that no party offers a viable solution to the crap-shoot PCs. 40 years IS enough. They ARE presumptive and disconnected with Albertans. And now under Nanny Redford, a bunch of over-protective, all knowing, in your home telling what to do sissies. But, who is any better? Headcase Sherman with his double personality Liberals? The Alberta Party has zero steam, how sad that the only party leader I have any respect for with regards to following his ideology to a tee rather than alter it to change votes- being NDP Mason, but sorry, no room for socialism here. So then the WRP? Really? Fiscally conservative oui, but socially? Is there not a single party to represent conservative Albertans anymore? WithOUT being extremists looking to go back into time and spread hate to anyone outside of white, heterosexual and christian?
The way I see it is whether you believe in the separation of religion and state. Either you do or you do not. If you do, some of the affiliations of the candidates listed are definite red flags. To all the rabid supporters of the Wildrose, I ask this. Why are there candidates in your party who are very religious to their faith standing for election who never mention any of this divide and conquer dogma? I surmise it is because they are truly tolerant, despite their own beliefs. They do not use the position they seek to commit social engineering. All the misdirection over the HRC and “conscience rights” is merely a smokescreen to draw attention from issues that are of far greater importance to the everyday life of Albertans in general. Smith has made many promises of milk and honey without telling voters how this will occur. Looks like the etch-a-sketch campaign has come north. Along with various other methods included in the Wildrose campaign. Buyer’s remorse will be almost immediate if Wildrose achieve a majority, and many Albertans will decide they no longer desire to reside here. Which will only encourage the fringe element.
A vague promise of $300 sometime in the future, maybe, is hardly the stuff of a party with a real vision for what ails our province.
The Wildrose Party began to hold its candidate nominations in 2010 during a time when the party was seen to have peaked and was sitting in the mid-teens in the polls.
Wrong. Out of 32 polls conducted since Danielle Smith became leader, there have only been three that had Wildrose in the “mid-teens” (all of which were outliers), and they happened in July 2011, October 2011, and January 2012.
That aside, Dave, I’d like to compliment you on a post that makes a very good case for why left-wingers won’t vote Wildrose, while moderates and conservatives should.
Thank goodness the militant homosexuals have nothing to worry about.
Also Kikki, what disingenuous definition are you using where “libertarian” means “the government should force people to do things”?
Civil servants Charter rights aren’t protected…’conscience rights’ in some contexts (marriage counsellors) would violate s 15 right. This is not necessarily so for doctors, simply because the wildrose intend to privitize health care, and the Charter does not apply to private persons. That being said – I do agree with the cherry-picking comments, but it would be naive to suggest that if these candidates get elected their “moral conservatism” would not affect their policies on governance.
One version of Whatcott’s trashy flyer making the rounds in Edmonton has Danielle Smith and Ted Morton’s contact info, and asks the reader to contact them to support Whatcott’s views.
I contacted the Edmonton and Calgary WRP office to ask if Smith has publicly distanced her party from Whatcott’s shock tactics, or if she has not.
I haven’t heard back yet.
Link Byfield in cabinet is not a pleasant thought. His articles from the Alberta Report are actually in an English 102 textbook. They are used as examples to teach students how to identify logical fallacies, biases, and covert racism.
Rural gal: seriously? What if they believe in stomping kittens and eating babies? It matters what they believe, especially if it is radically different from how they present themselves or how most of the electorate thinks.
Funny you should mention Peter Lougheed, a red tory if ever one was. His latest incarnation, the leader of the PCs, is hated to a shocking degree by vocal Roseists fpor that very reason. That should give you some cause for concern.
@Trevor “His advocacy for our provincial government to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage would have prevented affirming congregations from carrying out same-sex marriages in accordance with their faith.”
No it wouldn’t. Churches that supported it were performing same-sex marriages for YEARS before Canadian governments first started recognizing them in 2003.
I always find it curious that, despite the perennial accusation that “social conservatives” are chomping at the bit to impose their sinister agenda on the rest of us, it is invariably the progressives who first raise those issues and try to push them to the forefront in elections.
The fact you had to go back 20 years to find dirt on some of these “dubious” folk would normally be a sign as to how relevant they consider the particular issue to be in the present election campaign. Thanks to your post, I now understand that Alan Hunsperger’s efforts to establish (shudder) private Christian schools 30 years ago is a far more critical issue in this election than those tired old canards like health care, resource royalties, infrastructure funding, etc.
At any rate, I tend to agree with the posters who suggest you’ve actually done the WR a favour by pointing out at least a few have, at one point in time, held positions that might gravely offend the likes of Kikki and Joel French, but which resonate with a far greater number of Albertans.
So keep digging, Daveberta – I’m sure there’s lots of stuff highly offensive to progressive rights zealots in Carpay’s high school essays and once revealed, the Liberals/New Democrats/Alberta Party will be carried to a resounding victory on the backs of all 12 of them.
Physician ethics isn’t controlled by the province, only by the licensing agency (Canadian Medical Association), and covers all physicians, whether in private or public practice. The code prevents physicians from discriminating based on race, sexual orientation, religion and a whole bevy of other reasons. That said, physicians are also allowed to cease treating patients (in non-critical situations), when the treatments conflict with their personal beliefs. The Wildrose policy mistakenly assumes this is a provincial issue. It’s not. Otherwise, it’s all kind of a moot point.
I hope we have better objections to the Wildrose policy ideas than “hidden agenda”. There are wing-nuts in every party.
“That aside, Dave, I’d like to compliment you on a post that makes a very good case for why left-wingers won’t vote Wildrose, while moderates and conservatives should.”
Some moderates.
Anyone arguing for conscience rights might want to look at how well that worked for marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan. While it only went to their court of appeal, it gives you an indication how it might go over in the courts here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/01/10/sk-marriage-commissioners-1101.html
You can really see the Wildrose agenda when you combine their candidates, and their platform containing conscience rights, and the dismantling of the human rights board. They want to legislate the ability to discriminate against certain groups of people in Alberta. I wonder how many of their candidates have had issues with “expensive and time-consuming” complaints from the Human Rights Commission. These issues likely wouldn’t be raised at party policy conventions if they weren’t problems for it’s members.
Teri – I have been to the AGM’s where this stuff is “debated”. wildrose does not wish to legislate the ability to discriminate. They wish to remove legislation and mechanisms that protect against discrimination. The “expensive and time-consuming” is smoke for the many times over more expensive and time-consuming method of plodding through the courts they wish to establish. This way, those with ample resources at their disposal will impose their will on those with limited resources. When a group of immigrant workers get shafted, they will have to navigate the expensive courts or shut up and take it. That is the Wildrose aim.
Most of this information makes me want to vote Wildrose. Thanks!
Thanks for the post David. Good to know. Never thought I would be rooting for the Progressive Conservatives. Hard to believe we could be headed further to the right.
“Why do people think it is ok to attack religious people for being religious?”
I have no problem with religious people as such. I DO have a problem with religious people who seem to beleive that their religion gives them greater moral authority than those who don’t share their particular set of beliefs.
It doesn’t. The moral values inherent in ANY religion are NOT exclusive to those who adhere to that religion, as evidenced by the fact that there’s a great deal of commonality of values BETWEEN religions. Furthermore, MOST of those values are also held by agnostics and atheists.
Then there’s the aspect of religious exclusivity and self-righteousness, wherein “true believers” reject non-believers as “lost” or “fallen”, or otherwise somehow deficient or even inferior.
Look, I have no problem with you holding to a particular set of beliefs, and in fact, BECAUSE the moral values involved in that set of beliefs are actually UNIVERSAL, I can be assured of some sort of “minimum standard” of moral values.
Where I draw the line is when “religious people” use their belief system to justify casting out those who don’t share their beliefs. Democratic politics is supposed to be inclusive, and government is supposed to govern ALL, not just those who share religious beliefs.
So go ahead, believe what you want. Just don’t try to shove it down MY throat, and don’t invoke some mythical entity in the sky as a justification for implementing public policy for EVERYONE.
Glen,
You are so right. The fact Wildrose has the abolition of Alberta’a Human Rights Commission in its platform should be a wake-up call. But I doubt it. The joint-at-the-hip to Harper’s bullies should also say something. But I doubt that too.
The more digging I do, the more that Wild Rose turns me completely off. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that these “libertarians” only care about liberty when it pertains to the freedom to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. When a party so openly courts closet racists and gay-bashers to be among its ranks, it should sound alarm bells in the heads of any reasonable person.
Dave, the fact that your excellent expose on some of the lunatics that might be running this province has elicited idiotic responses like “WELL AT LEAST THEY BELIEVE IN SOMETHING” or “PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS” astounds and saddens me. I can’t believe that so many people in Alberta think that the dissemination of vicious hate speech is something that constitutes religious expression, let alone something that exemplifies a qualified public official. Is inciting hate and division what Christ is all about these days? It increasingly seems to be what a plurality of Albertans are all about…..
Further, regarding Danielle’s hairbrained interpretation of s. 2(a) of the Charter – does she not realize that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that government employees are NOT allowed to practice discrimination in the providing of services based on religious beliefs, and that doing so is a legitimate reason for dismissal? Well, maybe she *does* know – perhaps it’s a way to court all the so-con rockheads without having to do anything meaningful about it once elected.
Honestly, Smith is practicing exactly the same type of politics that the Republicans have repeatedly employed with success in the US – she dangles a carrot or two in front of the brainless so-cons to keep them in her corrall, but she could give a rat’s a** if any of their wants come to fruition. She’s in it to enact her short-sighted all-oil-all-the-time policies, and to position herself for a lucrative post-premiership career in the oil industry. The starry-eyed social conservatives who will get her there are little more than useful idiots.
Great article Dave. But you left out two WRP candidates tied to the “Prism Real Estate Investment Scam”. WRP candidate ‘Happy Mann’ and another That I won’t name until I’ve confirmed, were involved with misleading and scamming people out of investment money. CBC was the ONLY media that covered it so far. They highlighted the fact that he is being sued by 2 separate parties. They stopped short of calling it a scam. Here is the CBC link
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/04/03/albertavotes2012-wildrose-happy-mann-lawsuit.html
But ‘Happy Mann’ (not his real name) paid a $35,000 fine to the Alberta Securities Commission to avoid going to an actual hearing. Here is a direct link to the BBB record
http://www.bbb.org/calgary/business-reviews/real-estate-investments/prism-investments-ltd-in-calgary-ab-55064
Can you imagine if HE ended up as our finance minister? No $300 cheques for Albertans if there’s no money left for surpluses. According to my math, 20% of nothing = nothing. And if he’s telling the truth about the WRP knowing about it, then why would they welcome him as a candidate unless they condone these types of activities. Finally – on the party’s website it states that he raised over $40,000 for their party. Where did that money come from? If I was an investor that lost all my money, I would want to know that.
Paragraph 2(a) of the Charter means the government cannot compel you to violate your conscience. That means you cannot be compelled to become a marriage commissioner or abortion provider. The government has every right, indeed the responsibility, to set out what duties its agents are required to perform. In electing to become a marriage commissioner, one swears to grant any marriage that is legal within the province. No one is compelled to be a marriage commissioner. You are distorting the charter to serve your own privilege.
Yikes – seems that this blog opened a can of worms. When we have to get to a level of discussing “stomping kittens”, then the value of debate is gone.
Thanks for the reasoning of some – there were some good comments. The rest well….
I do think that WR does stand for fiscal and socially responsible. Read their platform.
ruralgal – I’ve read the WR platform. Nothing particularly outstanding. Just another slick, PR-firm assembled collection of platitudes and unreasonable promises that’ll go into the dustbin after the election is over. Red Book, anyone?
What *won’t* go into the dustbin after the election, however, are the MPs with these unseemly backgrounds and twisted views who get elected. Believe me, I’d be open to voting Wild Rose if they hadn’t nominated a slew of candidates with such farcical worldviews and nasty backgrounds. But alas, it is what it is. If Wild Rose is still a-ok with you, that’s your prerogative. But the public should take a good, hard look at who’s running under their banner, and who will actually be governing once the “kick the bums out” mentality has faded….and if they did, I have a feeling that some of these candidates’ views wouldn’t sit as well with the public at large as they do with some of the posters here.
“There are many, many, highly qualified Wild Rose candidates out there.”
Then let’s hear about them. Tom Flanagan has lowered the cone of silence to prevent Albertans from looking closely at anyone but the photogenic Danielle Smith. The WR is largely an unknown quantity (their simplistic policy platform is as thin as Flanagan’s hair). We need more information about them and the MSM is failing us in this regard.
It is truly amazing how the opposition to a progressive form of government is voiced. I have read all kinds of innuendo and personal attacks from some of the above contributors but fail to see their reliable sources of information provided. Get smart people….quit taking information out of context…I believe that “Daves’” one sided expose’ is skewed big time. HMMMM let me count the ways…anyone with half a brain would know that media with its proclivity to attack anyone individual that may have a different set of standards than the extreme liberals has always found its way to the front page, and those of us with an equal voice are usually banished to the Obituaries. Danno and Martin (above commentators) are very verbal but lack serious content. They are reactive as opposed to being proactive. Do you want more of the same or something different? Get out there and make positive changes by getting involved. Then you can pontificate by experience rather than heralding some twerp named “Dave” contribution. You can speak from your own area of expertise and leave the slanted reporting to others such as Dave C. and the C.B.C. gargoyles.
Great work Dave.
Are you going to do the same for the other parties?
It’s understandable if you don’t, since only the Wildrose is likely to win, but if you’re having a slow blog day it might be entertaining.
And you should probably explain why what you said about Allan Hunsperger makes him unqualified.
And I’ve heard of John Carpay and you’ve left out some amazing accomplishments – wasn’t he head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation once? That might be more relevant than something he penned 20 years ago as a student.
Thanks for posting Dave, this is very informative. These comments confirm to me that the WRP is not the way forward for Alberta.
As for S. 2(a) of the Charter the prior comments are bang on. The Charter basically says the gov’t can’t compel someone to violate their personal consience, therefore, nobody can be compelled to become a marriage commissioner, or a doctor, etc, where they would be forced to violate their conscience. S. 2(a) does not make it OK for a doctor or a marriage commissioner to withhold a government funded or provided service based on a personal moral conviction.
Interestingly, the SCC has also stated that 2(a)’s conscience rights clause, applies to “personal morality which is not founded in religion” and “conscientious beliefs which are not religiously motivated.” from R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.
Dave, thanks a bunch for opening this can of worms. It’s a conversation that is so needed.
If people need more info on Link Byfield and when his gay bashing articles in the Alberta Report held sway, check out a Tyee book review done a few years back. His stance has not changed one bit. It’s located at:
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/04/11/GayAlberta/#gay bashing articles in the Alberta Rep
I find it interesting the amount of people who have swooped in to defend the WRP as being “mostly sensible” or whatever. As they say, the exception proves the rule; the WRP is Alberta’s new home for increasingly neo-liberal economics, hardline social conservatism and hollow libertarian rhetoric.
Increasingly obsolete neo-liberal economics, beg pardon.
Let’s see of Alberta’s politics really needs to catch up to Albertans as Redford likes to say. If WRP seems poised to win I fear Redfort race to catch up is in vain. It means we really have a huge urban-rural divide in this province, and the urbanites are the ones who are about to get screwed.
David, you left out the fact that Danielle herself is a thorn. She scabbed on behalf of convicted felon Conrad Black during the Calgary Herald strike.
“the extreme liberals”
Ha ha ha, Brenda, do you even KNOW what the meaning of “liberal” is? It’s nearly impossible to be an “extreme” liberal. Go ahead, google or wiki “classical liberalism”; you’ll find that those views are extremely similar to those of current conservatives…with the distinction of NOT trying to impose social controls based explicitly on religious precepts.
The commonly voiced notion that “religious people” are somehow persecuted is SUCH a crock, and for people to repeat it over and over doesn’t make it true.
As for wanting “progressive” change, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to get it from either the WRP OR the PC’s.
[...] Redford is counting on colourful local candidates becoming a liability for the Wildrose. While everyone knows there are several Wildrose candidates that are socially conservative, I am [...]
[...] (who runs Daveberta, a blog focused on politics in this province) published a piece called Thorny candidates could be the Wildrose Party’s biggest liability, a closer examination of some of the Wild Rose Party’s more high-profile candidates. In this [...]
I bet there are more than these 7 in the church of their choice on Easter Sunday.
I know that there is some nasty talking points out there…
But much of this emotional rhetoric. I just heard Danielle indicate that she wants a real human rights court – you know with real judges – not the appointed human rights commission which generally have no training in the law. How is this bad? If this is not a more appropriate court for the determination of violation of rights, then are you ok with appointed lay people running other legal hearings. ( could do away with lawyers)
Thanks for all the comments. I’m glad that many of you are finding this post useful.
I made a slight correction to today’s post: Ted Byfield, the father of Link, was the president of the Society to Explore and Record Christian History.
Link Byfield told me via email today the he has never been employed by the Society to Explore and Record Christian History or its for-profit predecessor other than as an infrequent freelance contributor.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
Cheers,
Dave
I’ve always wondered if that guy on the Harley with straight-pipes that drops a gear at 2 in the morning is a libertarian. I sense he thinks the sound of an unmufflered Harley qualifies as free speech. And that his right to free speech trumps my right to quiet enjoyment of my domicile. And I’ll wager he votes Wild Rose.
Sounds like you guys have got your very own Tea Party, and you’re welcome to it.
With these views.. It’s not equality for all but for some .. Depending on if your going to bed with the same gender or not.. I know who I’m not voting for!!
By the same token, if you took a survey of Alberta voters and asked them who holds the current offices of Minister of Education or Minister of Infrastructure, you’d get the same blank stare as when you asked for names of Wild Rose candidates.
Rural Gal says “I just heard Danielle indicate that she wants a real human rights court – you know with real judges – not the appointed human rights commission which generally have no training in the law.”
Please! You just echoed the chamber’s lies. Most of these mediators, not “judges”, are lawyers and have a great deal of legal expertise on human rights issues, unlike Ezra Levant, who takes fabrications and slivers of truth and turns them into money in his pocket. You know? Ezra? He’s that guy over at Fox News North who pretends to be a journalist.
Know your facts before speaking. Next you’ll be rooting for Dani to get rid of mediators for family court, or maybe employment standards would be a good target, or how about landlord and tenants? That could possibly go too. And who will pay for clogging the courts with the thousands of claims that are mostly from disabled people and women who have a few problems with their employers. Oh yes, I forgot, they wouldn’t clog the courts because they would be unable to afford it. And don’t count on the public purse to fund these types legal disputes through something called legal aide because that would be cut too. Besides they would have to pay that back, which they can’t afford.
And did not Ezra prevail? And he paid his bill, the other party did not have costs because that is how the Human Rights commissions operate.
So you can fund these type of courts without hurting those unable to afford it- just like the legal system does today-
And please do not go overboard on the rhetoric – I have no problem with mediation and with the legal system: tenant act, etc,etc,etc
I just have a problem with the Commission – and no they are not all lawyers, and they do not necessarily follow the laws of evidence. I have been to a Commission – have you
I don’t see anybody mentioning all the great and wonderful things the PC’s have done to healthcare, education and the economy of Alberta. Things like screwing with natural resources and driving a lot of oil companies to Saskatchewan. The best one is the Health Care Super Board, it is such a wonderful money saving efficient operation. How about taking the most prosperous province in the country and putting it into deficit position with great ideas like pumping a harmless inert gas into the ground. We can have a look at the PC paying off the teachers unfunded pension plan a few years back to get their vote. Yep the PC’s have done a wonderful job and could get back into power again because the sheep of Alberta are afraid of change. Sad really sad.
I actually agree somewhat with with ruralgal about the human rights commissions. A commission, not being a judicial body, is not bound by legal precedent, only by a standard of “reasonableness.” Which is to say, it can sometimes make apparently arbitrary decisions from case to case, and may make decisions that entirely contradict those made by other human rights commissions in Canada.
Of course, if a judicial review of an HRC decision is requested, a judge can find a human rights commission decision to have been wrong, but the law dictates that the courts should generally not disturb such decisions, unless the HRC decision being reviewed was obviously unreasonable or clearly based on mistaken facts or principles.
This system more-or-less works, but more-or-less isn’t the standard to which I want justice to be held. Appointing lawyers with various flavours human rights backgrounds to these commissions, while somewhat more costly, would make for a far more just system of dealing with human rights complaints (and, perhaps, preventing the commission from being used in a hostile fashion by persons without legal training, as it was used against Ezra Levant).
Or, the short version: a restructuring of the human rights hearing process may be one of the few silver linings of a Smith premiership that I can think of (even if support for such a change is largely coming from some of the less savoury corners of her party…)
Hey Dave – Is this post a job application for political reporter for the Edmonton Journal? I’ll be looking closely to see whether they plaigarize your work in the weekend edition.
I am surprised, Dave. Can you please do the same kind of analysis on all the candidates so we can get a more balanced view?
Sorry, I’m just kind of ticked right now reading that the PC’s handpicked judge Mayor is actually admitting that he has no intention of listening to Albertans when it comes to inflated MLA pay. The PCs have been in power way too long. I don’t like the Wildrose alternative but for some reason Albertans (well, rural Alberta, anyway) seem to mistrust anyone progressive, like NDs and Liberals.
[...] her refusal to get rid of the policy demonstrates what we are already learning about some of her senior party supporters and candidates; this is a party that has some serious social conservative ro…, with people and policies that fit better in 1960 than 2012. Under pressure today, her response was [...]
What on earth is wrong with being the founder of a Christian School or a Mormon School or a Hindu school or an Atheist school or a Special Needs School.??? I can’t see how that would make someone a THORNY candidate. But I can see how that would make someone a person that believes in something and is willing to act on his believes, work towards a goal and attain a goal. A person who sees a need for “something” and fills a need. Unless of course someone out there has “issues” with the fact that it was a “Christian” school. Then we start running into “Christian discrimination” which, correct me if I’m wrong, is…… Discrimination. No better or worse then anyone else out there who discriminates.
Rob: if by “screwing with natural resources” you mean “briefly considering a modest change to the royalty scheme to be less of a laughable giveaway of public resources” then wow…yes that would explain the total collapse of the Alberta energy sector.
And as for “teachers unfunded pensions…” as they are public employees, why are their pensions unfunded? Because your government finds it convenient to leave it that way so they can renege on the deal and steal the deferred salaries of the teachers at some later time.
Anything to avoid, you know, actually paying for public services, from royalties or taxes.
Alberta, fancies itself a golden kingdom of self-made entrepeneurs, but in reality a filthy pothouse, a den of thieves.
danielle smith’s time spent on the school board gave us a hint of the kind of leader she would make, when she was physically prevented from leaving a meeting until she voted.
rather than standing up and voting along her principles she tried to leave, and someone actually had to stand in front of the door to make sure she voted first.
i think that, were people to stop and actually consider the things she has said publicly, her attacks on redford’s perspectives on albertans, the way she had to milk the tweet on her inability to bear children, among other rants, they would see her in a different light, in particular if they knew how she performs/performed as an elected official.
its clear she knows how dangerous her views are to albertans-why else does she dance around the conscience contract, not admitting or committing to it herself?
all the other candidates are cartoon characters and buffoons-she is the thorn behind the wild rose.
Wildrose Candidate, Allan Hunsperger, was fighting “Satanism in Southern Alberta” and “Teenage Suicide Pacts With The Devil” back in nineties.
When he was the president of a group of Christian schools, he redirected $80,000 in provincial education dollars to fulfil his dream of setting up Calgary’s first gospel radio station.
Sounds like a good future cabinet minister.
Thanks for this outing of the WRA “team,” Dave, who sound like the Social Credit retreads of the Klein regime.
For those who want to block both the corrupt Tories and the mean-spirited WRA from getting a majority, check out changealberta.ca to find out which progressive candidate has the best chance of defeating “mean and meaner” in constituencies that the centre-left has not all but abandoned to the meanies.
I don’t know if Dave’s ever had as many replies on a post before.
I’m a little surprised there’s been no further comment on my pointing out that the WRP (as far as I can tell) has not distanced themselves from Bill Whatcott’s flyer campaign. Has any one else got this flyer?
Last night my candidate (Richard Jones) knocked on my door with three very young volunteers. This candidate is the hardest core social conservative I’ve ever met – I would have voted Wildrose but not with him in my constituency.
Collapse or landslide – two words professional political campaigners will never use because they can be self fulfilling, with a “bandwagon” effect. When there’s chanage in Canadian politics, it’s often big. Chat tonight, 8:00, at http://sindlinger.ca/Chat.html
This morning I spoke to the WRP office in Calgary. I suggested that it would be wise to publicly distance themselves from Mr. Whatcott’s flyers. They said that they have no plans to do so.
You can draw your own conclusions, but my guess is they don’t want to rile the hardline social conservative base…..
You folks have some great info that is not very widely known. I agree with all who want to avoid WRP or help any alternative and for sure it’s important to hammer on the troopers that have a bit of name recognition a la top of fold and those that have poster worthy history so carry on and good luck! I fantasize that if I had a dart board with Tom Flanagan, Rob Anders, or Ezra Levant on it I could retire on the money I’d make in English pubs.
I wonder what Larry Heather is doing these days. If you don’t know who that is be glad ya don’t.
[...] Redford is counting on colourful local candidates becoming a liability for the Wildrose. While everyone knows there are several Wildrose candidates that are socially conservative, I am [...]
Rural Gal,
“And did not Ezra prevail?” No he did not. The case was dropped through a mediated agreement. Levant then said he would sue, but he has not. Gee, I wonder why!
“And he paid his bill, the other party did not have costs because that is how the Human Rights commissions operate.”
Don’t bet the other party did not have costs. Besides, the issue of costs can always be improved and that has been proposed for a long while, but the old PC guard that are now part of Wildrose stalled the issue. My point is you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“And please do not go overboard on the rhetoric – I have no problem with mediation and with the legal system: tenant act, etc,etc,etc
I just have a problem with the Commission – and no they are not all lawyers, and they do not necessarily follow the laws of evidence. I have been to a Commission – have you”
Acutally, I have and I can also give you a ton of information on the good they have done for the mostly disabled people in all provincies. The Chumir Foundation put out a reprot on that a while back, but that’s just one example. You will find that “hate speech” represents only 2 per cent of all cases filed with HRCs in all of Canada. Or perhaps you might want to wander over to the law blogs to see what they have to say on the issues.
And it is a slippery slope, not rhetoric as you suggest. HRCs were set up to mediate — as in a dispute mechanism, not as “courts” and are a “gateway” to the justice system, if and only if a case cannot be resolved. Nice try though!
I’m looking forward to when I have a skiing accident, and it costs me $800 to get my arm put in a cast by my private doctor. That’s what private healthcare looks like. That’s the main reason (aside from the Wildrose party’s thin talent pool) that I’ll be voting PC.
It would seem that this article has a negative focus. So here’s a positive: Mr. Carpay supports the right that a human being has to simply be born, to live. I’m sure glad my mother didn’t choose to kill me. Thanks Mr. Carpay
[...] bloggers like Daveberta are doing this important work. In a recent post, he noted that Calgary-Montrose Wildrose candidate Ron Leech wrote a 2004 column in which he said [...]
Kate Watson, your mother had no such “choice” to make if you were born before 1988. It’s not a choice when the options are to carry a foetus to term or else face a high likelihood of death in a back-alley abortion. If your options are to carry a foetus to term or undergo a safe, ten-minute medical procedure, then it’s a choice. Are you afraid of the option mommy would have taken if she really had a choice? Haha, you weak ugly people. Take your hands off women’s bodies.
Hey Jeremy, Media scrutinee of the Wildrose Party? D. Smith is literally married to an executive of Sun Media. Chances of the Sun saying or printing a critical word about her? Zero. She worked for the Calgary Herald and Global Television. Chances of them breaking negative stories about the W.R.? Zero. The CBC is being cut off at the knees. The Calgary Herald is little more than the P.R. arm of Encana and Enbridge.
The Wild Rose is Danielle Smith. And Danielle Smith is Steven Harper, in a sweater, petting a kitten, singing with a little help from friends, accompanying herself on piano. She is awesome! There’s no one to say otherwise.
[...] physicians would be free to discriminate against gays, lesbians, interracial couples, and women. Dave Cournoyer took a closer look at some of the candidates carrying the Wildrose flag, showing that a Wildrose government could very [...]
Well, that “conscience crisis” was quite the hysteria (& vodka?) fueled political brushfire, and now that the smoke has cleared, Stephen Taylor’s blog notes the WRP are up by 17 points. Quick, progressive chicken littles, ignore Alvin Finkel and scramble aboard the Tory Titanic — you still have time to turn this into ’93 all over again when the “massive cuts” and “brutal cuts” parties wiped out all other opposition. Remember how fun Alberta was ’93 – ’97?
Paula Simons blogs today, “As a small-l libertarian myself, I actually have some sympathy with the Wildrose logic. I am myself pro-choice and a strong proponent of gay rights. Yet I do think that medical professionals who have deep religious convictions about issues such as birth control or DNR orders, or marriage commissioners who have religious objections to same-sex marriage should be granted some latitude or reasonable accommodation to exercise their personal conscience – so long as people who need medical care, or marriage ceremonies, can still get them without undue inconvenience.” To her credit, this reasonable and conscientious columnist appreciates both sides of this issue. Time to move on.
[...] Next came the left wing bloggers trying to drum up fear using Wildrose candidates views social issues. Now we have this “issue” of conscience rights, which in my opinion has been an attempt [...]
Idea for Tory candidates – Tell voters you’ll join Wildrose if they win more seats then list how much more qualified you’d be than the Wildrose candidate you’re running against…
Time to talk about the issues.
This was a sided blog – but let us not start with the religious beliefs of the Pc candidates. It is no more valid than the stuff pointed out here
Time to move on
“Love your neighbor as yourself” ,a reminder to all party candidates, physicians and religions. And anyone that continues to vote for the thieving, lying, self serving PC’s has rocks in their head.
The beginning of Alberta’s great future begins to crumble when all the ungrateful elect a unknown party to govern this great province.
I am very surprise at all those old Tories that were called the old boys now busy collecting their fat pensions and crapping on the party they formed and ran for years. I worked for the party and it’s candidates for close to 20 years and am totally disappointed at how ungrateful these old fat babies are turning out. Stand up for what you created……….yes you did start this problem by not standing up for what’s right and staying involved in a great party.
Not electing the PC’s back with a larger opposition would be a HUGE mistake to this province.
Arnie the Saskatchewan people took a chance on a new group of conservatives. Now they are beating us every which way. Time to move on from this moribund group.
Does anyone know if joe Anglin is a transmission engineer like his bio on the Wildrose website says? Ask him to prove or substantiate it and all you’ll get is a bunch of nonsensical gibberish. You won’t see the engineering document that would go with the title. Why?
Arnie, I must take exception to your characterization of the Alberta electorate as “ungrateful”. What exactly are Albertans supposed to be “grateful” for?
Lessee…gross mismanagement of resource revenues, to the point that our Heritage Trust Fund has actually NOT grown in 15 years or so, and may be shrinking due to inflation. Contrast that to how Alaska and Norway have managed their resource windfalls.
Let’s not pretend that the PC’s actually PUT the oil in the ground; the reality is that pretty much any party could have managed the HTF more prudently.
An education system that, while reasonably well funded, lacks direction and purpose. Sure, we rank high on various comparative scales, but we’re NOT anywhere near as innovative as we could be. And for some reason, we don’t graduate the skills and people that we NEED here, resulting in having to attract workers (in many fields) from elsewhere.
An expensive health care system that is hide-bound in convention and allows vested interests WITHIN the system to stymie any sort of change in service delivery. Somebody tell me what is really fundamentaly wrong with having RN’s and LPN’s handle initial consults, freeing up doctors to deal with things that actually need their expertise? My doctor shouldn’t have to see me to deal with hang-nails, or giving me flu shots.
And lets not forget all the under-utilized hospitals built in the rural areas, built by Don Getty when he couldn’t think of anything else to do with the money.
Oh, and while we’re talking about infrastructure, our roads and bridges are often in disrepair due to lack of maintenance, brought about by short-sighted cuts to budgets. Now it costs more to fix and upgrade these things…that’s the “infrastructure deficit”.
The big problem with massive “bottom line” cuts in the 80′s and 90′s is that there was NO planning attached to it. Any idiot can (and did) chop a bottom line, but there are consequences to those decisions, and of course those that made the cuts are not willing to take responsibility for those consequences. Now we’re playing a very expensive game of “catch-up”. Leaders of vision extending beyond their own terms of office would have been more prudent.
So, no, I’m not “grateful”. I’ve lived in Alberta now for 35 years, and always thought that our “leadership” was short-sighted and wasting the incredible potential of Alberta. And I have to say, with the general calibre of candidates offered by the WRP, and that party’s apparent intention to roll back any kind of progressive policies to reflect “the good ol’ days”, I have very little confidance that the WRP will do any better.
I do not have any problem in knowing who I am voting for; if for you to guess for. Ultra Conservatives (Wild Rose),and Conservatives (PC) were created to have business in mind and were created to attack anyone that is gear to Democratic changes for the masses. What are my options? mmmm Liberals, a group in the middle that either can move to the right and/or to the left depending where the wind is going to make them more popular. Do they really stand for anything? mmm hard to believe and hard to see … Ah! lack of leadership at the Provincial and Federal Levels …mmmm… too bad that Trudeau wasn’t cloned… my last choice, and not the popular one in Alberta, NDP, they still stuck to the guns….Education and Health Care should not be privatized and compromised. Equal rights for everyone, Equity in distribution of wealth and opportunities…mmm…noble causes that are part of my values … mmm … now you can guess who am I voting for? …knowing that I will lose…. Why don’t I vote for someone that I know is going to win? and to sell myself for less …. I don’t think so … ah! by voting here is my quote: “Vote first and then complain…always remember the right to vote give you the right to complain and not the other way around.”
Most people are neither conservative nor liberal, nor right wing or left wing. These are just labels used by people with an agenda to slur people who don’t agree with them. People believe in or agree with ideas from accross all spectrums. you can’t label us one thing or another.
What we really need is fewer people trying to comtrol our lives ie freedoms, or telling us what we should think. If I am not like you or don’t agree with you, it does not mean I am any less of a person than you, just different. Get over yourself.
Personally I like non-mainstream candidates who stand up for their ideals. Remember how the national media used to tell us how scarry PM Harper was?
Cue the “hidden agenda “rhetoric “.. sigh
Why is the WRP always referred to as “right wing” ( usually with the standard extreme thrown in of course but leftwingers are now referred to as “progressive” …some consistency would be great
The health care privatization issue, alone, should shift Albertans to voting for centre-left parties that would protect our public health care system from attack. But it’s doubtful they’ll listen.
Best solution at this late date is to vote for the centre-left candidate in your constituency who’s in a position of strength, leading, and thus best able to fend off a PC/Wildrose challenge. Keep in mind, that person ‘might’ not be your first, partisan choice. (So what? These are desperate times. Just hold your nose and vote.)
Here’s a good blog on health care:
http://changealberta.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/mean-and-meander-set-out-to-ruin-canadas-health-care-by-alvin-finkel/
[...] Dave Cournoyer’s blog helpfully outlines a number of Wildrose candidates who are so far right, they probably think [...]
To the point that Dave highlighted only 7 Wild Rose candidates: rural Albertans might be interested to visit protectthepatch.ca and learn about the 13 Wild Rose candidates whose stated purpose for running is solely to protect the rights of oil companies. How will they side when it comes to property rights? Prepared to be trampled if Wild Rose has their way, landowners. Rural Alberta, Wild Rose is not your friend.
My biggest fear here is that we have college aged young people with fairly liberal values feeling that Smith and the Wildrose Party speaks for them. But do they? Based on almost everything I’ve read thus far (my political apathy appears to be fading), the answer is NO.
The more I read, the more Wildrose is exactly mimicking the US Republican Party. Running the election in a very party/leader-centric, strict talking points fashion. Trying to seem relateable and “everyday Albertan” while deflecting from serious social questions, such as provincially funded abortions, gay rights.
This party is selling something to young people that it absolutely cannot and will not back. Freedom and open-mindedness.
Do not know why the old gay rights come marching in! They have rights by law – get over it and quit obsessing about it. No one is going to take them away – duh – they are in the charter.
I do not know whether you cannot read or do not know the chater rights of Canadians, or you are just trying to stir the pot. This story was told long ago – its over – no body cares if you are straight or gay – I am having dinner tomorrow with a group that includes a gay couple. We just do not discuss what goes on in the bedroom – we have much more interesting topics to discuss – such as the way forward to elect WR candidates.
And abortion – its in the federal law
Now let us move on to accountability – the important issue – reaching $5 billion in non budgeted promises – yeah Premier – where is it coming from? Oil – did you read the business section this morning?
Just went to protectthepatch.ca. Everyone says there are just ” wet behind the ears, dumb rural hats, religious nuts etc, etc” running for the WR. Well thanks for highlighting these fellows – very successful oil patch guys. And some of them are also ranchers, some have been in municipal politics – pretty good resumes for me. Gee they actually earn a pay cheque, some of them meet a payroll, etc. pretty solid citizens
We have to remember that the province of Alberta is wealthy because of oil, we have stuff because of oil, we support other provinces because of oil, and yes the govt can pay big salaries and throw a lot of money at problems because of oil.
Stop kicking your golden
Dave – check out Nora Abercrombie’s work in SEE Magazine from 1997 regarding Byfield’s Alberta Report. If I remember correctly, it reported that the magazine had defaulted on a $186,000 loan from the province. The magazine was facing lawsuits of various kinds related to things like violating copyright. Mr. Byfield was also a key person at a hate rally (sorry – it was billed as a Town Hall Meeting) sponsored by federal PC Peter Goldring when the federal government was trying to figure out what to do with marriage – all the speakers were anti-same sex marriage, and all but one of them told proveable whoppers during the rally, seriously misrepresenting the reality of marriage around the world (Goldring kept his mouth shut on most of the contentious points – but the others, including Byfield, claimed that marriage had always been 1 man + 1 women throughout history etc – but at the time of the rally, more than 300 MILLION people lived in countries where polygamy was officially practiced and legally permitted). Then Byfield ran in a bogus Senate “election”, showing no respect for Canadian law or process. From past actions, it seems Byfield does not believe the law should apply to him – and do we really want another person like that in government?
I have heard this scary thing before by the federal liberals against manning and then Harper. It was bs then and I doubt Alberta’s are as prone to scare tactics as Canadians are. We will see though.
Yeah, and at one time Alberta did not allow women to vote! Times change, attitude change. So how far do we want to go back? Yesterday, turn of the century.?
I bet I could find even your attitude or perspective have changed!
Let us talk about today and the issues today. Like accountability, like good governance, is it ok to have a pay cheque for work not done, like the ability
Ity to steal my land, like following a federal law of .08 instead of a boogie man of .05, let us talk about throwing over $5 billion dollars of unbudgeted promises and then slam your opponent for wanting to put $200 million dollars into a provincial saving account cause they won’ t find the money unless they cut teachers, nurses, etc, etc. if you cannot find $200 million, how can you find $5 billion.
So let us move the conversation to today
Yes, times change – but they change as people change, and these are the same people. You don’t hear any of them saying they have changed their minds, do you?
I want change, but it has to be change for the better. If you look at the Wildrose platform – let us take the Family Pack tax credits, for example. $2500 in tax credits (split into a $2000/child deduction and a $500/child sport/arts credit) and a ban on school fees.
You only benefit from the tax credit if you already make enough to pay that much in taxes – which means it does nothing for the poorest families. It allows middle-income and high-income people to benefit, but not the working poor. So why not? If the idea is that Alberta is rich and should be sharing the wealth with the citizens, or if the idea is that families deserve a break, then why are some families deserving and not others? And the school fees: so how are schools going to be able to afford all the materials they need? Is Wildrose going to increase school funding after all the hoopla they made abut funding being restored by Redford? Is there a plan? Seems not. So what will schools do? Fundraise? Use out-of-date textbooks? What is the plan?
Now let’s look at the oil and gas rebate. The government has no mechanism in place for this, and the amount will float. It is also completely at the whims of the international markets and the ways in which the companies do their accounts. But let’s look at what it does on a larger scale. Alberta needs to diversify. The reasons are obvious, and have been often stated by successive governments. Putting all your eggs into one basket – especially one where the prices are set by foreign cartels – is not good business or politics. We are already seeing results of environmental degradation and increases in health issues in the communities around the major sites (the government’s own studies are showing this, but it seems to be kept fairly quiet – the Athabasca trout report etc). Part of what keeps things in check at the moment is a strong lobby that advocates fr slow and reasonable, aka “sustainable”, development. If you make every Albertan dependent on a royalty cheque, the push becomes for more development to serve that interest. It is short-sighted and self-serving. A government is supposed to provide leadership – and in areas here the public is NOT expert, it i important to be guided by knowledge rather than by an electorate that puts self-interest above common good.
If you truly feel those resources belong to all Albertans and all Albertans should benefit directly, then support the push to have all oil and gas development in the province be province-owned. Imaagine how well that would go over with the Wildrose oil company donors.
Theo-Conservative.
That is what Harper called himself years ago and that is exactly what the Reform-I mean Alberta Alliance-I mean Wildrose Party is.
Corrie Adolph running for Wildrose in Calgary-Currie, longtime lobbyist for increased military spending was a volunteer for Rob Anders election campaigns. One wonders about her opinions on F-35s and MPs who literally sleep on the job.
Oil and gas owned by the province!! You, of course, talk tongue in cheek. It already is owned by the province – oil companies buy leases, they build infrastructure to extract and get to market, and they pay royalties from their profit. And please do not tell me about oil profits – how do you think they can afford the billions that it costs to develop (and yes meet enviromental stds). You know why the Chinese are buying into some of the oil companies – cause without that money we could not afford to do some of the extraction we are doing! We are an oil economy – the schools, hospitals, social programs and the rest (and yes we have the highest per capita spending in Canada) are because we do have oil and gas revenue.
Thank goodness, the govt is not running oil companies. The govt record of running businesses did not work out so well in the past (Swan Hills, Mag-Can).
And do look at the donors for 2011 for both parties – I would say oil money is about equal – you just have to recognize the names!
[...] the much needed transit funding, something that supporters of Danielle Smith has disputed (having an anti-LRT former mayoral candidate on her slate of candidates surely does not help reassure their critics). The Wildrose Party would cancel the existing Green [...]
I am surprised that so few people are raising issues with Danielle Smith’s very “thin resume” which shows no serious experience in managing anything other than a microphone.
Yes, she is media savvy but how will that help her to address issues that require management and budgeting skills. Just talking about stuff doesn’t mean you know how to be strategic, to implement priorities and deal with conflict.
A lot of people ar choosing to be charmed by her media/communication skills and avoiding looking at the substance of what she has accomplished.
Have a look for yourself! What would you hire this person to do…certainly not to be premier
http://www.daniellesmith.ca/meet-danielle
Alberta is PC-Wildrose combo deal. Both have the same healthcare privatization policies. Why should a family of 4 pay $1100/mo for healthcare? And even then only 50% covered and family pays $10,000 more of the deductible. NDP is not even rated. Only, Liberals under Dr. Sherman have credibility. Dr. Sherman is an emergency ER doctor and will fix the healthcare.
Healthcare privatization or 2-Tier will not work. WHY WILL ANY DOCTOR WORK FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTHCARE WHEN HE CAN DIRECT BILL THE PATIENT MORE MONEY. We are looking at eventual full privatization. USA type tent cities and bankruptcies – here they come.
Dr. Sherman has an excellent election platform. He gives an incentive to the university kids, extra funding for home care for the elderly, eliminate school fees, fix the broken healthcare, favours the oil pipelines and assists the farmers. Liberal party under Dr. Sherman will make significant gains.
well how many did u list in your article?? Daveberta is guilty of this quite often. If he seriously looked at the very qualified list of candidates that the WRP has vetted and put forth to represent them, he couldnt help but be impressed!! Just as any party there are those that have a business background, some are christians ( oh no! ) some have oilfield experience, some are teachers/ professors, some are more outspoken than others, and some are more reserved than others, etc. etc.
Lets talk about one PC Candidate who bears watching. Alison Redford is the most out of touch Premier- elect we have had for years! She is scared to death at the fact she will be the head of the party that is going down to defeat in 14 days. History will show her smug attitude and mismanagement of so many items will undoubtedly be the final nail. The PC Party has lost its conservative base slowly but surely over the last 10 – 15 years and have waited for an alternative “real” conservative option. Now we have one with a dynamic, witty, and very intelligent leader and the tories are running for cover. They are like the author of this article are doing there best to install fear into wildrose followers and trying to steet clear away from the PC’s horrific track record!!! Sorry Pc’ers in 14 days its all over. If you are lucky you may have 20 -25 seats left when its all over. The time has come for this great province to be governed by a true conservative leader -WRP Leader Danielle Smith!!!!
[...] The most controversial topic of week two came from a blog post on The Wildrose’s stance on Conscience Rights, which blew up like a minefield and brought a new direction to the online discussion which continues today. The second most discussed point came through another citizen in the form of a question asked towards all party’s in regards to their stances on Abortion. The response from a Wildrose Chief Administrative Officer kick started another round of fiery discussion which is still being discussed online today. We also saw a scuffled between Progressive Conservative candidate Thomas Lukaszuk and a resident on the campaign trail, turn into a fullfledged “he said – he said” controversy. False rumours of a Progressive Conservative turmoil within the war room dominated the conversation on Saturday morning. And last, but not least, we saw the discussion around the background of WildRose candidates explode on Twitter with a post from Political blogger Dave Cournoyer. [...]
Just did a little survey of the major Parties makeup,
Wildrose is 96% White Men, 4% Non-White
Compare to Conservatives at 23% Women, 14% Non White,
Liberals 21% Women and 13% Non White.
There is clearly a long way to go in representing actual make-up of this Province but Wildrose would be certainly be a step backward!
I am a Canadian Citizen, by adoption. When it comes to politics it may me laugh how poor are my Canadians friends in understanding the history of each party and the platform that they stand for. Tories and WildRose, even with minor differences, were created to contra-arrest the Democrat or Liberal party that was created by the people and to represent the people interest. So who the first ones represent? the answer then become clear: “BUSINESS” and because I am a regular Joe I am not in that elite, so one group that I don’t have to worry. Next…Liberals…over time they have learnt to play on the jumping rope, one day on the right, the next one on the left, and today we’ll witness that the lack of Leadership is very apparent, because they lost the touch of why they became a party in first place, so this party, for me, is going down the tube. What is my option?…well, I believe firmly that neither Education and/or Healtcare should ever be compromised and be part of the “Business”. It should be an equal right for all citizens regardless their own conditions. Then, I have to add that wealth should be distributed equitable among the citizens of the country that in one way or another they make possible to creat that wealth in first place..so who represent those values?…the answer again is right NDP. Should I know that in Alberta they won’t ever win? Yes, I know that, but I will never compromise my own values and believes with a group or groups that do not represent and look after my own interest, so until one day Albertans wake up, learn and educate themsselves about the political spectrum, I will continue to lose my vote, but still I will be allow to complain about the party in power, and you know why? because I exercise my write to vote and that give me the right also to complain…
And the rumors of turmoil in the PC war room seemed to reach fruition this morning – seems they had to call in Dawson and Watt from Ontario to get this campaign on track. Rutherford show this morning.
So panic mode now
Rural gal:
Some of the WR candidates might, indeed, be decent, “solid” citizens “earning a paycheck” (then, who among the candidates doesn’t?) but that doesn’t mean they’re thinking intelligently when it comes to making HUGE and important decisions about Alberta’s future. A successful society is not only about making the almighty dollar, whether you understand that, or not. It’s about quality of life, culture, and justice for all.
Here are just 3 issues that highly concern me, and I don’t like the Wildrose (or PC for that matter) stance on any of them, one bit:
1. Creating a 2 tiered health care system where Alberta will have elite care for the wealthy and cruddy care for everyone else (And yes, I speak from experience; I lived in the States for nearly a decade, and it isn’t a good system for the middle class and poor, at all).
2. The potential sale of Alberta’s water. This is sheer craziness, as Southern Alberta is a semi-desert and our northern water in great jeopardy, thanks to the tar sand extraction and pollution. Water is more precious than oil.
3. Our low royalties make us the dummy, laughing stock of the Western World. What fools we gullible, ignorant Albertans make ourselves out to be on this issue. I can’t speak for right wing voters, but I don’t sell my land or belongings out for a song – and I wouldn’t if I were an MLA representative of the COMMON GOOD for average people, either. (What we have now, is a system riddled with MLAs who are either morally corrupt or who fell off a turnip truck yesterday.)
Sorry, WR looks all nice and pretty and shiny, but underneath, it’s policies are absolutely the same old right wing nonsense that will further devolve Alberta into a republican style, free-for-all state where only money speaks, and nothing else (and the PCs keep pace with them in that regard).
No thanks.
Health care: no one advocating private health care- publicly funded health care in private facility is not private health care in your definition ( which I think is user pay) . Great model in Europe- lower costs, greater access, and equal or better outcomes. Do not always be cranking your head to the US. The world renowned Gimbel Eye Center is a good example.
Sale of water? Where did this one come from? If I was in Calgary I would be far more more worried about the regiulatory taking of the Calgary water licenses and reallocating ( see bill 36 on the ” regulatory taking” for the public good)
Well how did changing the royalty system turn out for Ed? Oil companies went to Sask and created a boom. So let us do it again – we sure have way too many jobs in Alberta!
Rural Gal (and Rob), please name all the oil companies that moved to Saskatchewan from Alberta as a direct result of the supposed royalty regime changes. I’ll give you $100 for each one. The Royalty regime was NOT changed in Alberta. Stelmach revoked it in 2008 before it was implemented as a result of the economic crisis. In fact, revenue from royalty rates are even lower now than they’ve been in years.
I guess I’m one of these “evil Americans” you folks refer to, but I do have to say that I am in complete disbelief that such a seemingly large majority of Albertans view conscience rights for a minority of their fellow citizens as “frightening” or a “threat.” At the very least, it seems to me at least a valid issue to raise and discuss rather then something to be dismissed as “extremism” in hysterical and even hateful terms.
In the US we have well established rights to REASONABLE religious accomodation in the workplace that work very well; check out some of the EEOC guidelines available on the web. A fair and reasonable balancing between the rights and freedoms of differing individuals is just common sense, and, in the view of many reasonable people in much of the world, a human right.
As for the charges that ensuring individual rights of conscience in limited and reasonable areas consitutes some sort of pernicious “discrimination,” I say that’s completely ridiculous. Asking an otherwise competent and qualified employee to violate reasonable personal beliefs on the occasional matter they consider to be one of serious gravity, perhaps even a matter of life or death, simply to keep their job seems to constitute the real discrimination. Perhaps on the gay issue, it might be a matter of discrimination, but on the medical questions its a far different matter.
I hope that voters realize that this is another example of demonization of an unpopular group (in this case social conservatives) by corrupt politicians seeking to win an election by any means, and that the long term effect is a real trampling of freedom and individual rights.
This is a lovely site., to actually find the wildrose did not check out the candidates… I can name a few that have very very thorny sides…. I guess PC here I come
by the way Tuxedo guy,,,, all the layoffs in 2009,,, do you not remember… houses for sale, people bancrupt…. maybe you were asleep,,,,
Shabibi1, what does that have to do with anything I said? I don’t follow.
Tuxedo guy
You get to keep your money. Companies do not move, drilling rigs do – to sask and bc where the economics were attractive.
Rural gal, you’re still incorrect. There were only a few rigs which moved to Saskatchewan, and that was only because of the development of new finds in that province, both of conventional oil (the Bakken) and bitumen. It had nothing to do with royalties in Alberta.
I suppose the fact that Danielle Smith scabbed – and that is the proper term for it – during the Calgary Herald Strike uniquely qualifies her for the premiership.
[...] Premier Redford may be more moderate than some candidate in the Wildrose camp, by almost every objective standard she remains a conservative. PC Party of [...]
The future is bright for Alberta with the right leader, focussed on utilizing our unique strengths to our advantage. Ms. Smith has no political experience (except on the most dysfunctional school board in recent memory) and her candidates are largely “seat fillers.” Wild Rose wants to drag us backward into battles already lost in the sad old Reform days. Wild Rose is the proverbial “pig with lipstick”…
Gay right’s.
Women’s rights.
If wildrose gets elected, im shure those will be almost nonexistant.
I for one do not welcome our new radical christian overlords.
You forgot the part where Allan Hunsperger thinks you (yes, you homosexuals) can pray away the gay. Don’t believe me? http://www.thehousetoday.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=40:born-this-way&Itemid=94
[...] out before, the party has a number of candidates of, shall we say, questionable quality (see Daveberta’s [...]
Not bad Dave from a hand full of candidates you are capable of discerning the entire Wildrose membership …… Dam you and your readers are amazing social scientist’s. Don’t they say that painting a group as a whole based upon a few members Narrow thinking? All Albertan’s are members of the Wildrose that is is what makes us different. The candidate is chosen at the CA level and the party has very little say out side of enforcing violations of selection rules. If a CA as a whole votes some one in and they get elected by the voters then do they not represent the views and ideals of the riding as a whole? How else would they be elected to the ledge? In our party it would take 51% of the membership to push our policies over the edge and I can say I know more than that and “star candidates” are few and far between. Most are educated successful working stiffs who have strong back grounds in a number of your aforementioned skill sets. Are they Politicians? I dare say not and for now that’s a good thing.
Oh BTW I have been involved with the Wildrose from organizing and forming a CA three years ago right up until today with a candidate of good standing and a strong Social/Ethical background ………. And she will unseat the PC incumbent and represent her constituent’s first and her party second as will most others I know. And Dave just like I agree with most of what you say I also agree with most members of the Wildrose and some I don’t. That’s the real world Dave ….not the perfect world
I think I like the lack of experience
No experience intimidating others such as docs or school boards
Voting their own raises
Money for nothing
Inability to pass a budget and stick to it
Call the party,not of my fathers, and then call in “father Lougheed
So bye bye Ms Redford
It is amazing that the Cons have shifted to the left and offended the right wing radicals that in the past during elections have made comments that have taken Alberta’s international image back to the stone age.
It is predicted that ther will be a massive bleed of PC votes going to the Alberta Liberals and thus Sherman may form a minority government.
[...] are well-meaning candidates running under the Wildrose Party banner in this election, but the controversial views of some of Ms. Smith’s potential cabinet ministers should be of concern to [...]
[...] Smith is a pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage libertarian leading a party with several prominent social conservatives. She has pledged not to legislate on contentious social issues, yet [...]
[...] http://daveberta.ca/2012/04/danielle-smith-wildrose-candidates/ [...]
[...] Not only because her redneck party is full of some of the worst cranks and crazies this country has ever seen. [...]
Dennis Prager, principal at a high school in Toronto, on the first day of classes in 2011.
To: The students and faculty of our high school.
I am your new principal, and honoured to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.
I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in Canada have worked against you, against your teachers, against your parents, and against our country. Therefore:
First, this school will no longer honour race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow, or white. I could not care less if your origins areAfrican, Latin American, Asian, or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower, leaky SE Asian refugee ships, or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is Canadian. This is a Canadian public school, and Canadian public schools were created to make better Canadians.
If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial, religious identity through your school, you will have to go to another one. We will end all ethnicity – race – and non-Canadian-nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of Canada.Everyone is equal, coast to coast.
And this school will be guided by Canadian values. That includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes gender, race, language, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness. Your clubs will be based on interests and passions — not blood, ethnic, tribal, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So, we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, sport, debating, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, math, carpentry, and many many more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in, are those based on ethnic or racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you, and that means you don’t belong in this school.
Second, I am not interested in whether or not English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united Canadian citizens for more than 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country.And if you leave this school without excellent English-language skills, your teachers and I will have been remiss in our duty to ensure that you are prepared to compete successfully in the Canadian employment market. You will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Canadians only speak English. But if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not the school for you.
Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavour, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for a meal at a nice restaurant than they do for church or school. Those people have their priorities backwards. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.
Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the “F-word,” you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission plus epithets such as the “N-word,” even when used by one black student to address another, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few of your age to distinguish instinctively between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene, the educated and the non-educated.
Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programmes. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attain it will be by earning it from their fellow students and teachers. One immediate consequence of this is that there will be only one class valedictorian, not eight.
Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school programme toward academics, scholarship, and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom-wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only, or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual, or not Christian. We will have failed, if any one of you graduates from this school does not consider himself or herself inordinately lucky — lucky to be alive, lucky to be well educated, and lucky to be a Canadian.
Now, please stand and join me in singing, O’ CANADA to the only flag in Canada.
Perhaps some of WildRose candidates should read this article, as I see it we are in Canada and all are supposed to be equal and PASTORS of all people should not sit in JUDGEMENT
Fed up with BIGETS
J Lane
[...] http://daveberta.ca/2012/04/danielle-smith-wildrose-candidates/ [...]
[...] Alberta. While the Tories ran a completely lacklustre campaign, Albertans’ unease with the thorny social conservative views of Wildrose candidates Allan Hunsperger and Ron Leech undoubtedly drew moderates to cast their ballots for the PCs [...]
[...] days later, Dave Cournoyer (@davecournoyer) posted an even more popular blog post. His entry titled thorny candidates could be the wildrose party’s biggest liability attracted more than 4700 likes on Facebook, more than 600 tweets, and 150 comments. Though we [...]
[...] this blog, the post that attracted the highest readership and most comments in 2012 was Thorny candidates could be the Wildrose Party’s Biggest Liability. The April 4, 2012 post was shared 603 times on Twitter and Liked by 4,724 Facebook users (Thank [...]
[...] in such a leader-focused campaign, it was blogger Dave Cournoyer, not a mainstream reporter, who notably wrote about a group of “thorny” Wildrose candidates [...]
Leave a comment on thorny candidates could be the wildrose party’s biggest liability.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI