PC Government in Alberta: Is 40 Years Enough?

40 years.

For-ty Years of Progressive Conservative government in Alberta.

Is that long enough?  The Wild Rose Alliance  thinks so - and I tend to agree:

NDP and Liberal Merger: Game Changer?

Well.

Reports suggest that Pat Martin wants to move the NDP to a merger with the Liberal Party.

Other reports advise that prominent Liberal MP, Denis Coderre also says the idea is "worth considering."

Wonderful idea.

As lame as their "victory" in the last election was, the NDP did manage to topple the Liberals in the last federal election as the official opposition - which, most would suggest is as good as it's going to get for the orange crew.

So, then, why would they want to get on board with a party who has clearly lost it's way, drifting aimlessly without a leader, without direction?

Apparently stooges like Pat Martin and Denis Coderre didn't get the message.

Socialism doesn't work.  It's day is done.  The world is grappling with the reality that a bloated civil service and massive give-away social spending, in the long run, will bring a country to it's knees.

Like the Greeks.

So, then, why would the Liberals have any interest in moving farther left?  With all respect, it's a recipe for disaster.

The Conservatives will pound them for wanting to bring in massive increases in social spending, and their tent will rip at the seams as an already fractioned NDP party seeking to accommodate a plethora of special interests, will now need to accommodate fiscally conservative social moderates currently in the Liberal party.

But then again, another four years of majority Conservative government wouldn't break my heart.

So.

Maybe this merger talk is good news after all.

Maybe this IS the game changer.

For the Conservative Party of Canada.

I wonder if Coderre and Martin own any Cookaroos?

Standing for Something

A friend gave me a book a few years ago.

It's called, "Standing for Something", by Gordon B. Hinckley.

Now.  I must admit, when I first received it, I was skeptical of the content.  My friend is Mormon and Gordon B. Hinckley is a former President of the Mormon Church - so being the non-denominational Christian that I am, and skeptical of most organized religion, I sensed my friend might be embarking on a mission of conversion.

However - as I quickly skimmed over the book, I noted the forward was written by Mike Wallace - no Mormon missionary he, and I became curious and decided to read further.  And at the end of the day, the book struck a chord - and still does today, some 8 years after I read it.

Because far from advocating on behalf of the Mormon Church, or any Church, it posits that for our lives to have value, to improve our society as a whole, change must perhaps begin within ourselves.

Stop blaming others, and look inside and ask, "What do I stand for?"  Do I ask as much of myself as I ask of those around me? Do principals like honesty, civility, forgiveness and gratitude have a place in my life?  While I expect it of those around me - do I uphold those principals in my own life?

And then, later, I came across yet another fascinating book - oddly enough from an avowed liberal and clear opponent of the George W. Bush administration.  The book is "Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists", by Susan Neiman.

Again- coming from a liberal, the book at first blush seemed to be something I would more likely dismiss or attack - however, as I read deeper, again, it struck a great chord in me that persists today.

The message in the Neiman book is essentially that in our democratic system we hunger for "moral" clarity from our leaders.  She does attack the right, particularly George W. Bush, for what she suggests is a faux-morality - but also speaks to the failure of the liberal and progressive movement for abandoning discussions of "morality", and in the bargain, failing to "stand for something."

Why discuss these two books right now.

Because of the bizarre reaction to the death of Jack Layton.

Certainly the zealots in the NDP party have sought to capitalize upon their leader's death - almost like vultures picking a carcass, we see them almost gleefully taking advantage of Mr. Layton's death to make political points.

But.

Beyond that, we do see many Canadians looking to Jack Layton not for what he was, but for what they wished that he was.

Because in Jack Layton, they saw the closest thing to a politician in this time seeking to "stand for something".  Now - to be sure - in many respects, the place he stood was flawed and, perhaps, even dangerous for the welfare of our nation.  And in other respects, his principals were malleable and shifty - however, there was clearly an example of a man who argued a point that, unless he was completely delusional - he know would NEVER get him elected.

That is what, I think, left a mark in our psyche.

We are starved for leaders who "stand for something".

Who show "moral clarity".

As much as the death of Jack Layton has become a political side-show, with scores of political charlatans exhorting us to "step right up and lay our money down" on the NDP party - there is a more subtle response that doesn't come from vultures like Stephen Lewis, that comes from inside of all of us, who wish for something more from our leaders.   It is the normal response of respect for someone passing away, who, in his way, sought to stand for something.

The fact that the vast majority of us disagreed with what he stood for doesn't matter.

Jack Layton: Canada's Own Don Quixote

Our own Don Quixote: Deserving not scorn, but pity.

I have, over this past week, sought to focus on Jack Layton's effort, as opposed to his message.  And a few conservatives have taken me to task for this - however, to deny Jack's humanity is to deny our own.

Jack has now been laid to rest - and, perhaps it is now fair to begin to discuss his legacy in an honest way - uncolored by our sadness in his passing or our sympathy for those close to him.

How do I see Jack Layton?

I suppose I would look to Don Quixote to explain Mr. Layton's contribution to Canada's mosaic.

If you haven't read Don Quixote, I would urge it upon you.

For in this early Spanish novel written by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra we see a perfect metaphor for our recently passed leader of the NDP Party, Jack Layton.

Don Quixote is a man who believes in ideals - in his case, the cause of chivalry.  So much so that he actually dons a makeshift suit of armour and mounts his horse to take arms to help the poor and attack evil.  Unfortunately, as the story progresses, we see that Don Quixote is a delusional man who's focus is often misguided, riding upon a horse who is also old and feeble.    Over and over again, Quixote embarks upon delusional efforts, attacking foes and seeking to assist innocents who exist mostly only in his own mind, quests which are doomed to failure, again, and again and again.  So - after his initial failure, he seeks a supporter - Sancho Panza, and offers to make Sancho a governor of his own island for his assistance.  Sancho is a gullible peasant who agrees to act as Quixote's squire and sets off with him on his quest.

More often than not, Quixote is more villain than savior, taking from people who have done nothing wrong - other than in Quixote's delusional imagination, and Sancho often does his best trying to protect his master from his own stupidity, while suffering himself for sticking to Quixote's side.

In one iconic scene we see Quixote setting off to attack windmills, which, in Quixote's fevered imagination, he sees as evil giants which he is required to vanquish.

At the end, we see Quixote on his death-bed.  He finally obtains clarity, and realizes the folly of his "adventures", and shortly before his death, acknowledges the folly of his vision of chivalry.

Think about that for just a moment.

And then think about the sad and deluded life of Jack Layton.

Perhaps taking up the suit of armour left, rusted and battered by the mythical Tommy Douglas, Jack Layton toiled most of his adult life in a quest for a delusional form of chivalry - socialism.

Jack Layton mounted his tired old steed, the NDP Party.

To assist him in his quest, he rallied his supporters - the Sancho Panza's of Canada, and promised them utopia for their efforts.

Sadly, what Jack couldn't see, is that the same dragons and demons that he sought to slay were, in fact, the people who fed and clothed his supporters.  In one scene we see Sancho Panza, in the form of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, seek to slay GMC and Chrysler - only to discover later than in almost slaying the beast, Sancho was left hungry and without work.

As a result, many of his supporters abandoned him - and so, astride his tired old horse, he travelled into the land of Quebec - a place where many of its citizens shared Jack's twisted vision of utopia - a place where every person wanted for nothing, and yet did not have to work or sacrifice to obtain this paradise.

Sadly, however, unlike Quixote - Jack never saw the folly in his "mission".  At least as far as we know. Maybe, at the very end, like Don Quixote, he found clarity.

However - if so, it's unlikely that Olivia Chow would share Jack's last words with us if they were, "It was all a crock, what was I thinking?"|

No.

She was too busy helping to write Jack's "last letter".

Too busy seeking to help the latest crop of Sancho Panza's engage on yet more missions of folly.

A mission that, as in Don Quixote, is doomed to failure because it's based not in truth, but in the belief of myth and fable. 

And as such, at the end of the day, as amusing as the story of Don Quixote is, when it comes to a close, it is truly a tragedy. 

Of a man who thought he was going good - but who, in the end, was just a sad man tilting at windmills.

Of Men and Mice: Political Gamesmanship As We Mourn Jack Layton

Well.

There is class.  And there is classless.

Today we read on BC Blue that a monumental display of ignorance and insensitivity has been exhibited by Tim Naumetz in an article in the Hill Times.

As I commented on BC Blue:

Jack Layton made a significant effort during his life to impact upon the political structure of our country, and for that he should be commended, as should the many who have passed before him. Politics is not an easy field, less so for people like Mr. Layton who toil to advance a view that has never been accepted by the dominant population of our country. For that effort he should also be commended and remembered well.

However.

For supporters of his party to invite criticism of the late NDP leader's politics while his body lies in state in Parliament, by seeking to raise political debate at this sad moment in Canadian history is, itself, sad and unfortunate. The letter written by Mr. Layton was touching - and in time, a discussion will be welcomed about its content and its import.

Now is not that time.

Now is time to share the collective loss of a country to consider not his politics, or his views, but the effort and tenacity of the man.

Mr. Layton, like many other Canadian politicians before him, Liberal, Conservative and NDP alike - showed himself to be a lion of a man as he strove to seek support for his view of the ideal society.

The article by Tim Naumetz does little more than sully the good-will that comes with these moments of collective appreciation by our country for the effort of one of our own. Naumetz, does, however, exemplify quite well the contrast between men who are lions, and those who are mice.

Alison Redford: Kissing Babies..otherwise, business as usual.

Well.

I see Alison Redford made some headlines today.

She's seeking to tackle the important problem of reviewing MLA compensation, and possibly cutting or removing some MLA entitlements.

According to the Calgary Herald:

"This is all about transparency," Redford said Tuesday on the campaign trail. "I want to show Albertans they can trust the party and they can trust the government."

Oooh. What a rebel she is.

And, of course, other MLA's jump in line to "kiss babies" along with her.  You know - make symbolic efforts that do absolutely nothing to help the citizens, but make for good public relations.

Which is all this is.

Meanwhile.

When Judges are appointed in Alberta, once surviving the judicial selection process to narrow down candidates, Ms. Redford has shown that she is no different than any other PC Minister of Justice - she hands out plumb judicial appointments based primarily on service and connection to the party.

Tell us about your plans to reform that Ms. Redford.

Meanwhile, when asked about why she hasn't raised the issue of Gar Mar's plumb allocation of untendered contracts to his former executive assistant to the tune of $484,000.00, a cat has got her tongue.

She has nothing to say.

Nor does any leadership candidate asked the same question, other than Doug Griffiths, who did respond:

@GriffMLA re debate, why no discussion re Gary Mar's diversion of over $400,000 tax dollars in untendered contracts to his former EA?

22 Augvia web

replies ↓

»

GriffMLADoug Griffiths

@Rob_Harvie I think you will probably need to ask those who format the debate or those who ask the questions. I have power over neither.

At least Doug responded, though I think that saying, basically, "No one has asked me about it" isn't the most helpful response.

And there's the rub.

These people work for us, the taxpayers.

Yet - on the inside, behind the doors, in places that you don't see - they make their decisions, award contracts and positions of significant importance to Albertans, spending Albertans tax dollars - based upon the degree of connection and support for the party.

And Alison Redford can kiss as many babies as she wants, but what I am still waiting for is someone who shows a willingness to really change the culture of cronyism in the PC Party of Alberta.

She talks a good game - but when the rubber hits the road, its all talk, no substance.

Something to think about, taking a quick look at the 2011 budget:

Total Provincial Budget - 2011: $38,400,000,000.00
Total Spending on Health Care - 2011:$15,000,000.00
Total Spending on MLA Compesnation - 2011: $16,950,000.00.

See what a "big deal" MLA Compensation is, in the big picture?

What this, essentially, tells you about Alison Redford's big announcement, is that, effectively, she's doing nothing more than, well, kissing babies.

PC Leadership Candidates Respond to Question of Integrity

Well, not really.

Or have they.. in their silence?

Last week, I blogged that there appears to be a fear on the part of the Alberta PC Leadership Candidates to raise the issue of Gar Mar's past $484,000.00 gift of taxpayer money to his former executive assistant, Kelly Charlebois by way of untendered contracts for undocumented "advice".

So.

To press my point, I tweeted each of the other candidates to their twitter accounts:

"re debate, why no discussion re Gary Mar's diversion of over $400,000 tax dollars in untendered contracts to his former EA?

Well.

So far, no response.  Crickets chirping.  Nothing.

Why?

Well, one comment on my blog from Powell Lucas suggests that they all know that only one of them will win, and they don't want to really change how business is done - and "poison the well" of government goodies that may still be forthcoming after an election.  The "payback" that guys like Kelly Charlebois get when they prove to be "good PC soldiers."

Sadly, I think he's right.

I will be very curious to see if there is one leadership candidate who will stand up for integrity and change.

If you're curious too, copy and past my question and send your own tweet to the candidates:

@Alison4Premier
@Rick_Orman
@Morton4Premier
@GriffMLA
@HornerForAB

I'm not holding my breath for an answer- but, hey, miracles can happen.

Can't they?

Jack Layton Passes Away

This morning we awake to the news that, sadly, Jack Layton lost his battle to cancer this morning at the age of 61.

A relatively young man, it is sad that on the eve of his party's greatest moment, his personal circumstances took such a tragic turn for the worse.

Agree with his politics or not - as I've blogged before, we have to appreciate the effort that it takes to be a politician, particularly in this day and age of instant 24 hour per day news (and blogs).  A politician, particularly the leader of a national party, must endure a grueling examination in a way that was unheard of just a couple decades ago - and while we are fond of pillorying those with him we disagree (and I am no exception), we seldom give them credit for "fighting the good fight".. putting their views on display for all to criticize and sometimes ridicule.

More importantly, I would say this:

The NDP was never going to form a government in this country.

The best that the NDP could hope for was to influence government indirectly, and to perhaps, obtain a few concessions here and there.  They were never going to be able to secure the purely socialist government that their strongest supporters sought like a holy grail.

And, yet.. they persevered with democracy.  Refusing to break the laws to influence change - we never found NDP members taking people hostage, bombing banks, damaging oil sands machinery.  They, and in particular, their leader Jack Layton continued to show an abiding respect for the democratic process.

And that is to be admired.

In his effort, and the effort of his party, there is a lesson that even the hardest core conservatives can take from his example, namely, that the democratic process trumps all.  That as committed as we are to the "rightness" of our cause, even more important than our personal politics is the commitment that we all must share to the democratic process itself.

As such, it is with sadness that we receive the news of Mr. Layton's passing, and certainly, our condolences go out to his family and his friends this sad day.

Mr. Layton - you fought the good fight, the way it was meant to be fought.

Rest in Peace, Jack.

PC Leadership Debate: The Question No One Wants To Ask Gary Mar

The Great PC Leadership Debate: Those Feathers Can Hurt!

Well.

The reports of the so-called PC Leadership Forum in Medicine Hat last night look less like a hard-hitting battle, than a teen-girls' pillow-fight.

The odd jab and poke, here and there, but no one seems to want to take out the big guns on the so-called "contenders" who look more like "pretenders".

The biggest question, no one, including the mainstream media seems to want to ask:

Gary Mar, Tell us about the tax-payer dollars you funnelled to Kelly Charlebois.

Explain to us, as leader, how your explain sending $400,000.00 his way in an untendered contract with no proof of any work of any kind provided for that contract.

Explain to us, as leader, if it was just a coincidence that this same Kelly Charlebois was your former executive assistant.

It's truly curious, isn't it?

I mean - if I was vying for the leadership of this party, if I wanted to "raise the bar" of what we should be demanding of our future leader, I would be hammering Gary Mar with this question every single opportunity I had.

And yet..  when the opportunity arises to raise the issue, we hear...  nothing..  crickets chirping.

How can this be?

I'll tell you.

Because no one in mainstream politics wants to change the game.  In order to gather money and bodies for support of your political goals, the conventional wisdom in the PC Party of Alberta is that you need to be able to use taxpayer dollars to repay your friends.  Because with the exception of the very few, no one seems willing to give hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars without an expectation of payback.

So.

The prospective leaders ignore this dirty little not-so-secret-secret.

Because, imagine, if in the middle of a leadership race, you sent a clear and unequivocal message to your supporters, "There will be no payback".

Suddenly the cheques would dry up and the bodies knocking on doors and making phone calls would start to vanish.

And, I mean, it's not like it's THEIR money they are using for repayment, is it?

No.

It's yours. 

And mine.

Think about that as you watch the leadership race unfold in this Province - and then ask yourself - who is more shameful: Gary Mar for using tax-payer dollars to repay his friend.. or other leadership contenders who refuse to ask him about it?

Wasn't it Edmond Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


**P.S.: I have sent the following twitter to ask each of the leadership hopefuls:

re debate, why no discussion re Gary Mar's diversion of over $400,000 tax dollars in untendered contracts to his former EA?

I will, with great anticipation, await their responses (or lack thereof) and report later.

The Ticking Time Bomb: Demographic Changes in Canada

The Current Liberal  Plan for Health Care Reform

Tick, tick, tick, tick...

There is a time bomb waiting to go off in Canada, and no one is paying much attention to it.

According to a Statistics Canada report released today:

In 1981 - the ratio of working people to retirees: 6 to 1

Projections for 2031 - the ratio of working people to retirees: 3 to 1

Consider as well that according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information:

In 2008, the latest available year for data broken down by age group, provincial and territorial governments spent an average of $10,742 per Canadian age 65 and older, compared to $2,097 on those between age 1 and 64. Within the senior population, spending varies widely by age group, with health care expenditure on seniors age 80 and older, at an average of $18,160 per capita, more than three times higher than for seniors younger than age 70 ($5,828 per person on average).

Now, then.

Do the math.

Ignoring the weight of our debt on the backs of our next generations, the working Canadians of 2031 will be saddled with massively increasing health care costs.  The current Liberal mantra of "keep doing what we've been doing" just doesn't cut it.  For that matter, the current closet Liberal mantra of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta of "keep doing what we've been doing" doesn't cut it.

We need ideas and we need change.

Because the seconds are ticking away, and before long, the answers will no longer be able to be phased in over time - but will become drastic and, perhaps, draconian.

The time to look to address this problem is NOW.

And is, perhaps, just slightly more important than whether or not the military is the "Royal" military.

When Will We Get a "True" Conservative Government?

The Big Blue Tent: Are We All Comfy?

"Conservative"

What does that mean to you?

It's a problem that you don't grapple with much when you are in opposition or in a minority government, because your choices are pretty limited in terms of what you actually have to deliver.

However, win a majority government, and it starts to become a problem. Because now, you CAN do pretty much whatever you want, and the people that vote for you know it. So you start to feel pressure to respond to your constituency.

And this becomes a problem, even for the relatively narrowly focused conservative tent, as compared, for example, to the Liberals, and the NDP who now have to answer to their separatist block (bloc?)

So.

Imagine MY consern when this libertarian and "conservative" voter, as in "government should do LESS not more", decides they need to rename our military to re-align with the Monarchy.

Of all the things we need government to do, changing the name of the military back to "Royal" is about, oh, last on the list.

But here we go anyway.

Canadians are still struggling to restore their standard of living in a slowly improving economy, our national debt continues to mount, and, yet, the priority of our government appears to be spending money, not saving it.

We catch wind that Tony Clement was feathering his constituency nest on the taxpayer dime.

We have the drive to "law and order" even as we learn that the current system is working just fine, thank-you.

What we don't have?

A move to show any effort to truly reduce the scope of government in our lives.

Now - don't get me wrong - as Barack Obama is so fond of saying these days, Stephen Harper inherited quite the mess, which he couldn't do a whole lot with under a minority government.. but we don't get anywhere by expecting less of our leaders.

I want to know more about Tony Clement's spending of my tax dollars, I want the government to abandon further ideological stupidity like efforts to rename our military, and I want our government to make some real effort to reduce government and government spending.

And building more jails and encouraging greater litigation expense by employing manditory minimum sentences isn't cutting it.  It's not going to make us safer and it's going to increase government spending.

So.

Let's see what you do with your majority, Mr. Harper.

Those who voted for you who are not mindless ideologues are watching and do not see your party as the only voting choice they have.

Taking Our Chief Justice to Task: The World Justice "Project"

Well.

Yet again, the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, Madame Beverly McLachlin, is taking our government and our lawyers to task.

Addressing the current Canadian Bar Association annual conference in Halifax, the Justice pointed out that "Canada placed ninth in a recent ranking of 12 European and North America countries" respecting access to Justice, going on to explaining that the finding, by the "World Justice Institute"  underlines the fact that justice is increasingly available only to the wealthy or small minority who are so poor that they qualify for legal aid programs.

Well, first of all, the report is not from the "World Justice Institute", but, rather, by the World Justice Project.  Imagine my consternation when I sought out the study commented on, finding no such study existed.  A broadening of my search finally discovered the World Justice Project 2011 Rule of Law Index.

Which is interesting, if you actually read it, and don't rely on the sound-bite offered us from the press and our Chief Justice.

You see, it appears that we are actually doing pretty well in Canada.

According to the report:

"Canada is among the top ten countries in the world in four categories of the rule of law: limited government powers, order and security, open government, and effective criminal justice. Corruption is minimal and the country generally observes fundamental rights."

It is true, however, that Canada - while still a beacon on a world-wide scale for our Justice System, lags somewhat behind the other high-ranking countries relative to "access to justice", resulting, according to the report, from shortcomings in the affordability of legal advice and the lengthy duration of civil cases.

But here's something to think about.

The report comments, appropriately, that one of the fundamental principals of establishing the "Rule of Law" is that our laws are clear, easily accessible, and predictable.

This, I would suggest, also impacts on issues of "access to justice".

Because, like most professions, the cost of assistance is directly related to the effort required to provide that assistance.  And clear and consistent laws provide for quicker and less expensive legal assistance.  It provides for laws which are easier understood by the public in general, and hence requiring less need to resort to formal legal advice.

To demonstrate:

On every highway in Canada we have posted speed limits.  If you drive faster than said limit, you will be penalized by way of ticket.  This law is well understood, and very few people seek out legal advice for such matters where they come in conflict with the law - and if they do, lawyers can provide assistance, usually, quickly and at an affordable level.

Now then.

Lets look at the issue of spousal support in Canada, shall we?

The Divorce Act of Canada provides a broad framework to determine spousal support.  Basically, it suggests reviewing several factors, however, ultimately it is up to a Judge to determine what is "fair" all things considered.

Now then.

Our august Supreme Court of Canada, shortly after the last major amendment of the Divorce Act in 1985, released three decisions that lawyers referred to as the "trilogy" relating to spousal support, in the decisions of Caron, Richardson, and Pelech.  Those decisions provided a relatively clear and well-considered review and application of the considerations in the Divorce Act.

Which was good.

However - in what can only be described as the most tortured act of legal gymnastics in Canadian legal history, since then, the politicized Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a series of decisions, not overturning the trilogy, but suggesting that "we know that you believe you understand what you think we said, but we're not sure you realize that what you heard is not what we meant."

Over the past 20 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has reworked the concept of spousal support, into a mish-mash of what can only be called gibberish until it means, well, whatever you would like it to mean.

But it gets worse.

You see, if you and your spouse come to some agreement on this issue, you can't just have a lawyer paper it up for you and then rely upon it.

No.

Our Supreme Court of Canada has opined that your agreement will not be valid unless there has been a full and complete disclosure of all financial information relevant to the issue of support.  And, if your lawyer doesn't insist upon it - and if the lawyer complies with the direction of our top Court, the lawyer certainly is required to review that information himself or herself, well, two things are likely:

a) The agreement will not be respected by the Court; and

b) The lawyer will be considered negligent by the Court.

So now.

Even relatively modest divorce files become massive disclosure missions for lawyers - and in seeking out and reviewing that disclosure - well, you guessed it, legal costs increase.

I've appeared before the Court of Appeal in our Province, where I have given every single piece of information requested by opposing counsel, submitted to examination of my client by opposing counsel, and still been met with admonishment from the bench as to why I didn't give MORE information yet.

All of this leads to greater delays and greater effort on the part of lawyers - not because they want to, but because the Courts tell them to.

And all of this leads to uncertainty.

And this leads to more effort to advise a client.

And this leads to longer trials.

And this leads to diminished access to Justice.

And - here in Alberta - we've recently "improved" our Rules of Court.  And now we find that the forms provided in the Rules are being rejected by Court Clerks at the request of Judges who find the Rules inadequate in responding to the needs of litigants - and, so, lawyers are required to revise documents again and again in response.

So.

Then.

If you have concerns respecting "access to justice" My Lady, perhaps, just for a moment, you might want to take a good look in the mirror - and ask this fundamental question:

"Why isn't it easier for a lawyer to deliver timely and concise advice and assistance to their clients?"

And then catch yourself before you complain about the Government or lawyers.

Assault Weapon Attack Outside Delta Hotel in Kelowna, B.C.: Some Thoughts

The Kelowna Delta Grand: Come visit, get some sun, get shot at by gang members!

Well.

Isn't that lovely.

In the middle of the summer holiday in Tourist Mecca Kelowna, B.C., at the Delta Grand Hotel, armed men in hoods jump out of an S.U.V. and start spraying bullets out of assault weapons at what appears to be rival gang members, reportedly killing one of them.

I was in Kelowna last summer.

Stayed at the Delta Grand, in fact.  Very, very busy place.

So - it was with some sadness and shock that I read this morning that less than a year after my last visit, there are armed gang members shooting assault weapons at other gang members in the middle of the resort.

Just a few thoughts today:

a) How did this happen in the face of the National Gun Registry? 

Doesn't the registry prevent people from shooting guns at other people?  That's what Michael Ignatieff said as he paraded the shooting victims of KimVeer Gill before the press (ignoring the fact that KimVeer's weapon was actually registered when he started shooting up Dawson College).

I'm assuming that these gangsters, when they stepped out of their SUV to commit murder were aware that we have a national gun registry.  I'm assuming they realized, as they squeezed the trigger to shoot another human being, that there are strict penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm.

So how could this happen?  How could a drug-dealing murderer possibly wish to risk being charged with possession of an unregistered firearm?

b) Aside from the issue of the registration of the firearm, aren't the police everywhere, all of the time, assuring that we will never be required to take any steps to protect ourselves or our loved ones?  That's the theory.  That we, the law-abiding members of the public, do not need firearms or tasers or even pepper spray.  We are not permitted to protect ourselves in Canada because we have the police to protect us, and, don't you know, they are everywhere, all of the time.

When you have some meth-head breaking in your backdoor at 2:00am, don't you know that as soon as you call 9-1-1, the police magically appear, instantly, to assure that you and your children will never be at risk of any harm at all? 

Because in this country, you can't use a handgun - even properly registered - to protect yourself or your family.  I know.  When I acquired my FAC last year, I made the error of telling the authorities when I was being interrogated over why I wanted one, that I might want one for personal protection in my home.  And they told me that I couldn't obtain an FAC if that was one of my purposes.

Because the police will protect you.

Which leads me to my favorite quote in the article reporting the shooting.

c) "Police believe that the shooting was targeted and that members of the general public are not at risk."

That's right.

When armed gang members step out of an SUV at a crowded resort in a summer resort community and start spraying bullets about, "members of the general public are not at risk."

So.

Don't worry.  You see, not only are the police everywhere, all of the time, but all bullets now, apparently, have magical little guidance systems to assure that they only hit the people they are intended to hit.  No such thing as stray bullets hitting unintended targets.

Personally, I'm tired of this charade.

Just another example of how this country works.  More expense and more obligation placed upon people doing nothing wrong at all - the great middle of the country who do the "right" things.

And when people do protect themselves or their property - THEY are charged with offenses.

Something wrong with this picture.

Don't you think?

Lawyers Suck.

Well.

Somewhat off-topic for a Canadian blog on politics, as this is MY soapbox, I'm going to comment on an event in the legal profession that embarrasses me as a lawyer.

I am very involved in the promotion of Collaborative Law or Collaborative Practice, which is a dispute resolution process effectively invented by Stu Webb, a Minnesota lawyer in the early 1990's.

This process was created as a way to help people find a way to resolve differences, primarily in family law and divorce situations, in a manner which was constructive rather than destructive - an option other than traditional litigation practice where two sides hammer at each other until one says "uncle" or until a Court imposes a solution upon them.

The earmarks of this process are as follows:

• Lawyers who participate must be trained in interest based negotiation - a process where the parties interests are fully examined and where solutions to their interests are sought out - not retribution or revenge;
• All negotiation takes place face to face, between lawyers and their clients - and the lawyers and their clients must commit to being respectful, honest and open in all regards;
• The lawyers, and their clients, commit to a contract which limits the lawyer's retainer to "negotiation only".  The lawyers are barred from EVER going to court against the opposing party - focusing lawyers and clients on ONE goal - finding a solution to whatever is in dispute.

It's a great process.  It isn't for everyone, and doesn't always work - but particularly in family law, in opens up the possibility of a resolution without years of litigation and where the parties can retain their dignity and perhaps even get along in the future - which is handy for anyone, like me, who has raised teenage children post-divorce.

Anyway.. 

Over the last several years, the IACP (International Academy of Collaborative Professionals) has been working very hard to pass a piece of draft legislation called the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in the United States.

And that legislation has been widely endorsed by lawyers all over the U.S., Canada and in fact the world as a good fundamental piece of legislation that assures some uniformity of practice and helps to solidify Collaborative Practice as a widely recognized alternative to the traditional litigation practice of resolving disputes.

Well.

I'm advised today that when this piece of legislation came before the American Bar Association for approval, by it's House of Delegates, it was rejected.

Why?

Well, there are all sorts of reasons which will be given - effectively wall-papering over the real "interests" at work, such as former ABA President Carolyn B. Lamb, who said:

“An essential tenet is that the legal profession is a self-regulating profession."  Instead, she said, it calls for legislatures to pass laws controlling lawyers and how they should represent clients.”

Really?

We should reject a move to encourage civil resolution of disputes because it may impose a "control" on lawyers and how they represent clients?

Yes.

I'm sure.  The ABA and the respective State Bar Associations have done such a bang-up job on assuring that the public is well-served by our profession, haven't they?  The suggestion that lawyers take advantage of others' misfortunes, and that they may even encourage litigation to their own best interests is completely and utterly without basis in fact, isn't it?

See..  here is the thing. 

We're all, in a sense, self-interested.  We would all like our lives to be easier instead of harder and more comfortable instead of less.  But, the key is, every once in a while, you recognize the reality of the effort to achieve your own self-interest and you agree to give up a little bit of your comfort for the benefit of others.  That's called living in a civil society.

I am a lawyer.  And I make very good money going to court when people have a problem.  But - I'm happy to make a little bit less, if it helps my clients get their problems dealt with quicker and easier and more peacefully.

But today, reading this article, I am embarrassed of my profession.

Today, I freely accept the jokes, the derision and the criticisms - and in fact, I join in.

Lawyers suck.

Fellow Pundits: Blaming the "Other Guys" Might Kill You

Take a good look at the blogworld today - liberal, conservative - it doesn't matter.

What will you find?

Well - let's look at some of my favorites today:

• James Curran: Conservatives Are Hypocrits for Criticizing Tumel
• Alberta Aardvark: CBC "Policy" on Naming Suspected Criminals is Based on Political Considerations
• Big City Liberal: Conservatives Expanding Civil Service by Burgeoning Prison System
• Blue Like You: "Social Worker" Police and Moral Relevatism Contributing to London Riots

Much of what we do is complain about what "OTHER" people are doing wrong, and implicitly or explicitly, why that makes MY life worse (in fairness, the above blogs often question their own political spectrum.. ie) engaging in introspection - James Curren in particular).

If you're not careful, that can lead to bitterness.

Especially, perhaps, for Liberals following the last Federal Election and for Ontario Liberals following the upcoming Provincial election.

And "Bitterness" can make you physically ill.

It's true.  According to today's Vancouver Sun, reporting on a study from Concordia University.

It causes your body to release cortisol, which has been shown to negatively impact our physical health.

The antidote?

Accepting responsibility for your own lot in life, and accepting your limitations.

Personally - and, perhaps, politically.

Ask yourself, at least from time to time - is MY party perhaps less than perfect, and, if so, what could WE do better?

In other words - stop complaining about how the "other guy" has prevented you from attaining your goals, and learn to accept that, as the song goes, "You can't always get what you want.. but if you try sometimes, you just might find.. you get what you need."

No Panhandlers

Well.

The U.S. Economy is in the crapper, and their credit rating has been downgraded, in part, as a result of the inability of the Democrats and the Republicans to act in a responsible manner to address their debt woes.

And still, partisan pundits try to desperately lock on to any snippet of S&P's commentary that will suggest that it was MOSTLY the other guy's fault.

But the bottom line, the simple answer, is "too much debt".

Now - you can debate why that debt is there, whether it's entitlement spending, military efforts abroad, an insufficiently punitive tax regime for the wealthy - but you can't deny the problem is too much debt.

And, there but for the grace of God go us Canadians.  Our debt picture is amongst the healthiest in the world, but we are continuing to run an unbalanced deficit budget and are projected to run that deficit budget until 2014.  And this is under a "conservative" government.

Yet notwithstanding watching the harsh cuts being advanced in Greece, and the nightmare of a failing U.S. economy - in Canada, we still don't get it.  We pretend that there are groves of money trees in Ottawa.  We pretend that when it comes to, well, whatever we "need" (that is "want") money is no object.

But the problem, obviously, it is.

So.

Perhaps it's time to dial down the rhetoric, and to start addressing our problems in a non-partisan, pragmatic fashion.

We need to balance our budget.  Let's not equivocate about that - running up debt is a recipe for major problems in a world where the G6 is now the G20 and will, sooner than later be the G100 and more. 

There are countries out there who don't yet have our taste for what we are "entitled" to from government and from our employers.  Countries that don't have bloated pension obligations, where annual trips to Cancun aren't seen as a "necessity", where having a dirt floor and outdoor plumbing is common - and eventually, those developing economies will be seen as very attractive to corporations seeking lower costs both for land and labor.

My two cents?  It's not going to happen in our current political climate - and we're miles ahead of our southern neighbors.

And yet, even hear, noise.

There's too much noise.  Too many special interests screaming for their "piece of the pie".  I sat down at a meeting a couple years ago with a local group asked to meet and talk to the Premier.

And I was disgusted.  To a person, what they used their two or three minutes of face time for was to ask for money.  Not to ask "what they can do for their country", not to suggest changes in government for the public benefit, but to ask for more money.

We have become a nation of panhandlers.

And it's pathetic.

From women's rights to the Fraser Institute, one way or the other, ever one wants either MORE money from government, or to pay LESS taxes - both just opposite sides of the same loonie.

How about we don't ask for "more for me" for a change?

How about we stop being a nation of panhandlers.

Calgary Greenpeace Protesters: "Why don't we get to do whatever we want?"

There is a word for people who seek to impose their views
on others while ignoring laws and democratic principals..

So.

Greenpeace and their lawyer are upset that their "peaceful" protesters who climbed out on the Calgary Tower to hang a protest banner didn't get a discharge.

Judge Allan Franscham fined them each $2,300, and, more importantly, left them with a criminal record (good luck going to the U.S. anytime soon!)

So.

$2,300 fine - and they are complaining. 

According to the Globe and Mail:

“We’re definitely disappointed that the court would prosecute individuals that are courageous enough to stand up to this government, that are courageous enough to stand up to these tar sands giants that are actively destroying our environment,” said Mike Hudema, who oversees the organization’s climate and energy campaigns.

“I think it’s important to remember that this was a peaceful activity.”

Thibault Rehn, 29, and Isabelle Charlebois, 25, of Montreal; Adela Sculean, 26; Zane Trevor Lewis, 36; and Steven Erich Anderson, 30, of Edmonton; Jeffrey Charles Harrison, 22, of Vancouver and Tom Verheaghe, 27, of Belgium had earlier pleaded guilty.

Really.

They're upset.

Because they did nothing wrong.  I mean, it's not like these losers ever fall off things during their stunts..

Protester Falls of Monument in France

Protester Falls of Golden Gate Bridge

Protester Injured in Fall from Chinese Consulate in San Francisco

Lord knows what a 140 pound man dropping 1200 meters would do if they landed on someone, or even just dropped a shoe or a carbiner.

Or - maybe they get stuck and need help.. and then put firemen or police at risk.

And if they did manage to kill someone, I'm sure the victim's family wouldn't be upset or concerned because the protester was being "peaceful".

Welcome to Edmonton: Murder Champions of Canada

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta

Well now.

I am a little ambivalent about the Alberta PC Leadership campaign.

There are some poor candidates, some good candidates and some so-so candidates, but regardless of who succeeds in becoming Alberta's next premier, they will inherit a party which has, truly, given up conservative concepts long ago.

Just as we see Toronto and Ontario begin to see the folly of pointless liberal spending, moving towards more of a small "c" conservative point of view, suddenly, in the last several years, we see our own Government moving ever farther left.

Which I think is pretty unhealthy, all in all.

But as somewhat neutral as I am (I will vote for Ted Morton as leader, but will ultimately vote Wild Rose next election), I think one thing should be pointed out.

The one alleged contender, Allison Redford, has been our Minister of Justice now for some time, and has been driving force behind the ironically named, "Safe Communities" program.

Why "ironic"?

Well, in the backyard of the Legislature in Alberta, Edmonton, we have seen an ongoing carnage on the streets, making Edmonton, of late, better known as the Murder Capital of Canada than for any of it's past Stanley Cup and Gray Cup wins.

Consider:

33 homicides in Edmonton, so far, in 2011.

In Calgary - a city of 250,000 more people than Edmonton - 3 homicides so far.

That's some easy math to examine - a city almost 25% smaller with a murder rate that is 1100% higher.

And consider this as well.

Edmonton is clearly the small "l" liberal stronghold of Alberta.  With half of the Liberal MLA's and the only two NDP MLA's, there is no question but that the political climate in Edmonton leans to the left.

With the University of Alberta, and the profusion of Government employees, there is little question why - but, if Edmonton is so much more "progressive" than the rest of Alberta - well, then why do people in Edmonton kill each other 11 times as often as in Alberta's largest city?

Economic factors?  No doubt.  But then, again, one might question why the "progressive" capital of Alberta has done such a poor job of answering the needs of its citizens compared to the laissez faire capitalists in Southern Alberta.

And one might particularly ask why Alison Redford, the leader of our so-called "conservative" justice system in Alberta has been such an abject failure in making people in our capital city safe.

So.

Anyway.

As we weigh into yet another PC leadership race, you might want to think about these things.

You might want to ask yourself, "What kind of province would I expect to see under an Alison Redford leadership?"

There was a time when Alberta was truly a conservative province.

When the government stood up to unions, when they advocated a society based upon freedom and individual responsibility - which, in the long run, provided us with lower unemployment and higher wages.

And then the government decided, with their pockets flush with money, that it was easier to coddle everyone, instead of making difficult decisions and telling the electorate that they can't have everything they want.  They decided it was easier to be liberal than conservative.

And the result?

Well, 33 less voters in Edmonton.

Jack Layton's "Mistake" and Bloc Lite

Well.

Most pundits are suggesting that Jack Layton made a mistake in appointing Nycole Turmel as interim leader of the NDP Party, following the recent disclosure of her long-standing membership in the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

They point to the fact that this revelation was known to Layton before he made the appointment.

They point to the fact that Turmel, certainly, was aware of her membership in the Bloc and should have been aware that this fact was going to bring the NDP under serious scrutiny.

So.

Then.

Knowing these things, is it perhaps possible that Jack Layton didn't make a "mistake" and that this furor, if you can call it that, is in fact a considered move on the part of Layton and the NDP?

Consider.

That the NDP has never achieved "official opposition status" until this past election..  a status owed almost single-handedly to the Province of Quebec.

That the Province of Quebec, in particular, has a strong degree of acceptance of government manipulation and control of its people - which makes them a particularly good fit for NDP conceptions of creating a "Brave New World" where the state can make everything better if only we let them control everything.

Jack Layton, has perhaps, sought to hitch his wagon the soft-separatist horse - and who better to solidify that connection but a former separatist, now "born again" federalist?
Sure.

It will piss off much of the rest of Canada, particularly in the western Provinces, but then, the chances of any major NDP gains west of Winnipeg are pretty marginal.

So - the saying goes - you dance with the girl who brung ya. 

The NDP is just now, perhaps, the successor to the Bloc for the official party the disaffected Quebecois.

Bloc lite, if you will.

Quebec: No One is Listening Anymore

Quebec.  The tears of a clown.

So.

John Ibbitson of the Globe is worried about Quebec - now that they've voted themselves out of influence in government, and now that Ontario and Western Canada have decided that things work better with a government that encourages self-sufficiency than a government which is premised upon buying votes by handouts.

Poor Quebec, he says, in an article today entitled, "Quebec's Profound Isolation".

He notes that with the birthrate in Quebec dropping, and with self-imposed restrictions on immigration, Quebec will also soon find themselves losing even more - with a re-alignment of seats in Commons, to the benefit of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

His final query?

"If so, then the next time Quebeckers ask why they’re a part of this country, what will the rest of us tell them?"

My response?

Imagine a family where one child constantly threatens to leave home, creating no end of tension and anguish in the family - until, at some point, the rest of the family just gets tired, and decides that the stress on the whole of the family isn't worth the cost of appeasing one spoiled child.

So.

The next time Quebec asks why should they stay.. perhaps the best response is no response at all.