News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

Sooo...

""Of course, the bill was understood," said Shandro.

"Asked if he was fine with the way the original bill was worded, Shandro, a lawyer, responded: "I've given legal advice to [cabinet] about what the options are and what the advantages and disadvantages are for the various different decision points."

""I'm one member of [cabinet] that votes on it," he said. "I'm not going to speak specifically about one particular decision point and what my advice was on that. I think that would be breaching cabinet confidentiality.""

I'm confused, not for the first time and probably not for the last time, but was Shandro speaking to cabinet as a lawyer providing legal advice or was he speaking to cabinet as a member of cabinet? And putting aside the fact that under certain circumstances either of those can provide a veil of confidentiality (and which in either case can be waived), if he was providing advice as counsel, did he also vote as a recipient of that same advice? Because, as someone not in the room, it seems an awful lot like everyone there seems happy enough to change both positions and hats as often as required to let Danielle do and say whatever Danielle wants from one day to the next and get away with it.

It would be nice to be able to say "at least they're full value for entertainment" but the actual costs to the province are so high that it would be far from accurate. :(
 
EdmTrekker said:
I think people will come after "her" and the UCP with pitchforks if they put taxpayers money into the Calgary arena project.
Click to expand...

I don't think they care.

As political scientist Duane Bratt predicts in the story:

"So what does that mean? Will that mean Santa Claus is coming to Calgary with money for an arena and revitalizing Deerfoot Trail? I think that's what it indicates."

And another analyst thinks this:
"Danielle Smith and previous conservative governments have thought that Edmonton has limited value in terms of picking up votes and certainly seats. It may be that she's signaling she doesn't expect [Edmonton-South West MLA] Kaycee Madu to retain his seat," she said.

"In any case, she knows that where she really needs to pick up seats is in Calgary and so that's why she's focusing on programs or concerns that may be of concern to Calgarians."
 
What exactly does she mean by “our arena or our ring road” isn’t she supposed to be the leader of the whole province?
 
I don't know about you, but funneling wads of money to multiple major infrastructure projects into a city that everyone knows will decide the election and then falsely claim that Calgary is behind Edmonton in terms of funding is corrupt. Albertans money belongs to all of Alberta, there should be a framework that governs how it is distributed.
 
Politicians have been buying votes since Christ was a Cowboy…..

But her “we” vs “us” mentality screams she is a YYC’er first and an Albertan 2nd. Wonder where the baby giraffe in high heels will be photo opp’ing next? Has she been seen in Brooks or the Hat lately?
 
MacLac said:
her “we” vs “us” mentality screams she is a YYC’er first and an Albertan 2nd.
Click to expand...
She's angling for votes, nothing deeper than that. The UCP needs to hold Suburban Calgary to win again, that's why all the talk is about expanding the Deerfoot and building an arena (rather than, say, funding the green line).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top