Funny Stuff in Voting Part 2

The so-called Longest Ballot Committee is attempting to get 200 candidates to run in the by-election in Battle-River Crowfoot. While this isn't technically illegal as already discussed and likely didn't impact the outcome of the election, it still stinks of some sort of interference - particularly because they're now targeting Poilievre and the Conservatives again. 

 

Nothing in my research suggests that adding superfluous candidates to an election (or by-election) ballot counts as interference. The Guide for Candidates states that "a person does not have to be ordinarily resident in an electoral division in order to be a candidate in that electoral division".[1]   This ruling is what allows Poilievre to run in Alberta in the first place; however, it also allows anyone in Canada to run wherever they choose. You can see the problem. Members of the Longest Ballot Committee across Canada can flock to ridings of their choosing to “protest”.

However, there is a bit of a caveat. All potential candidates must get the names, addresses, and signatures of 100 (or more) people who are “qualified electors” and live in the appropriate electoral district. [2]  The riding of Battle-River Crowfoot has 81,123 eligible voters, many of whom have previously voted Conservative.[3]  It may be difficult for 200+ candidates to obtain the required number of signatures. Granted, they would only need about 2,000 total but that is still a sizable amount in a Conservative stronghold. Somewhat surprisingly, Poilievre’s former riding of Carleton only has 71,947 eligible voters. I expected it to have more than the Alberta riding.  Still, I would assume given how the votes played out that Carlton had more political active (or disruptive) people who would support Longest Ballot Committee candidates. It remains to be seen how it will play out in Alberta.
 

---

[1] https://www.elections.ab.ca/uploads/204-Guide-for-Candidates-on-the-Election-Act.pdf pg 7.

See also: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=can/bck&document=p2&lang=e

[2] Elections.ca Becoming a Candidate. Step 4.4. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=can/bck&document=p5&lang=e#h12

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_River%E2%80%94Crowfoot

 

For an interesting read on modern election interference see The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/thanks-to-social-media-platforms-election-interference-is-more-insidious-and-pervasive-than-ever-251764

Funny Stuff in Poilievre's Riding

 Pierre Poilievre's riding of Carlton had an astonishing 91 candidates on the ballot. I think that's a record. Obviously, there's some funny business going on. Most of those 91 candidates are independents or have no affiliation. Many of these people are protesting about our voting system. And I understand, there are frustrations with our voting system. But, targeting only one candidate (they claim that they couldn't get people in Carney's riding because he didn't announce it until it was too late) is problematic. Plus, I don't think it will do what they want it to do. It just annoyed and frustrated voters. Did it make a difference in the riding though? Well, when you look at the numbers on elections.ca, it seems like it did. When you count the votes for independents, they come out to around 922 votes. If you add that to Poilievre's existing vote count you get 40,507 which is still short of the Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy's 43,900. 

 

So, it is hard to say if it would have changed the outcome of the election. Maybe those 922 voters were confused. Maybe many couldn't care less about who one. Maybe they wouldn't have voted for the Liberals or Conservatives anyhow. Either way, this "voting protest" seems like a terrible way to do things. 

An Interesting Little Tidbit about Mentzelopoulos

 

The new affidavit, filed Wednesday by AHS’ senior vice president of clinical operations Sean Chilton, says the agency discovered last week that Mentzelopoulos had forwarded nearly a dozen emails from her work account to a personal email address the day before she was fired. Those emails, Chilton claims, “contain confidential information, privileged information, and business records” that Mentzelopoulos was not authorized to keep. 

From: Global News

AHS claims fired CEO kept confidential emails, seeking injunction | Globalnews.ca

Canada Election Polls Comparison

Comparison of the Main Election Polls

All data comes from the respective polling websites except for the  Nanos graphic which was made by me.

 

 

What is Reconciliation?

 

At its basic level, reconciliation is defined as  “the act of coming to an understanding and putting an end to hostility, as when former enemies agree to an amicable true”.[1]  Canada’s definition is based on the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It advocates for a nation to nation and government to government relationship between the Indigenous peoples and Canada. As such, it would seem to state that the Indigenous are not a part of Canada but a separate country (or group of people) with whom the government must work.

That is an enormous idea already. But let’s break it down a bit. Basically, to my understanding, instead of treating the indigenous people as inferior or sovereign citizens of Canada, under rule of the Canadian government, they should be considered their own independent people with their own culture, government, and way of doing things that are equal to (and some would argue superior to) the “Canadian way”. This is very much in line with our Canadian multicultural identity. I remember being taught – somewhat smugly – in school that Canada was a multicultural country not a melting pot like the United States. Here in Canada, we not only allowed but encouraged and embraced many different cultures and ideas. So, logically, that idea applies to our Indigenous policies.

 

By right of previous stewardship and residence on the land now called Canada, the Natives have a superior right and culture – at least that’s what it feels like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and similar documents seem to say. That is where I struggle. I understand that the indigenous people were colonized and that their culture was (mostly) destroyed) but just because they lived on this land prior to colonization does not make them inherently better than colonizers- no more than colonizers were inherently better than the Indigenous peoples. How can we based our decisions on the idea that that “Aboriginal rights are distinct and different from the rights of other Canadians.” [2] After all, section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states  that everyone has the:

• fundamental freedoms, democratic rights
• the right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
• legal rights (life, liberty, and personal security)
• equality rights for all [3]

 

Naturally, I must note that there is a bullet point on Aboriginal rights on the front page. That might really be the heart of the issue. Our Charter and other official legislation have this inherent contradiction. All people are equal, all people have equal rights. But some are more equal than others.

---

[1] Dictionary.com Reconciliation

[2] ictinc.ca blog  “Aboriginal Rights Title, and the Duty to Consult – A Primer, Aug 15, 2016

[3] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html

Thoughts on Reconciliation

 

I have always had strong opinions about Truth and Reconciliation. It is a very complicated topic masked by one simple word: reconciliation. But what does that really mean and how would it work in practice? Recently I read 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act by Bob Joseph. While, he does outline problems with the act and how it affects Indigenous people today, I feel that it was not focused and sometimes overreached it's conclusions. Still, it got me thinking about how reconciliation would work in practice. 

Part of the problem with this effort is the emotions involved. Detractors will claim that reconciliation means erasing “white” history – tearing down statues of Canadian founders and demonizing White (or colonizer) Canadians. Proponents will state that it means recognizing troubling truths about colonization, restoring failed treaties and agreements, and living together in harmony. But, how would this work in the real world? We simply cannot erase all traces of white settlers off of Canada. Even if somehow we managed to move every settler, immigrant, and refugee off of Canadian land, the landscape has still changed irreparably. Native cultures have been forgotten or changed. Lands have been passed down to settler families and some may say they have as much claim to that land as the original tribes. Furthermore, how do you divide up the land? Indigenous tribes have not remained stagnant over the last few hundred years - like any group of people. Tribes were migrated, moved off original land, or merged with other tribes. To untangle that mess of who is who and who should get what is impossible! So, how would you start to try to solve this issue. 

Historically, white settlers (or colonizers, if you rather) dealt with the "problem" forcefully. In the thoughts of the time, they were superior and their needs had precedence. They, quite simply, conquered. Throughout much of history, that is how things have worked (for better or for worse). One country conquers another, asserts their physical and cultural dominance and the conquered are eventually subsumed into the larger culture. But, the Natives were never full assimilated into the British culture. While, I cannot say that early British governments in Canada tried to preserve their culture, they did not integrate them fully. Instead, they created Indian Acts, and, later, reservation systems to deal with this "problem". I do honestly think that they did what they thought best at the time - no matter how badly it turned out. For example, they honestly believed that they were smarter and more advanced than Native cultures. So, to help them, they tried to teach them the "better way" of doing things. They didn't think about the losses of language and tradition - not like we do today. I think it's important to remember historical context when looking back. All that being said, where does that leave us today? 

Last year, I read The Hutterites in North America by Rod Janzen and Max Stanton. I read it in part to compare how Hutterite colonies operated in Canada and how their model might influence reconciliation. But to do that, I want to understand what is meant by reconciliation. Not just on a fanciful level of good gestures and words (land recognition etc.) but in practice. How would reconciliation operate in daily life? In the next few weeks, I will be looking into the definition of Reconciliation and what people, particularly government and tribes) think it should look like. I will also look at how that might work in practice.

 AHS And Smith: The Scandal 

So, let’s break the allegations down. Basically, Athana Mentzelopoulos is suing Alberta Health services because she feels that they wrongly fired her because she was investigating suspicious contracts. Many of these contracts revolve around the Alberta Surgical Group (ASG). She found that ASG rates were higher than their contemporaries’ and she expressed concerns about a new contract. The lawsuit alleges that:

• Mentzelopoulos’s termination was done without proper authority
• She was fired because she authorized an internal investigation into AHS contracts and procurement processes[1]
• She was “repeatedly subject to interference and pressure” to sign off on certain contracts and extensions.[2]
• Marshall Smith’s “handpicked” worker for AHS, Prasad, had a conflict of interest while working with Mentzelopoulos.
• Mentzelopoulos was repeatedly pressured to fire critics of the government. [3]

Same ol’ corruption, different government. I hope not but the allegations aren’t good. I think the big question is where the corruption is. It seems like powerful positions corrupt people – be they government, business, or public health service.

The UCP responded to these allegations in a press conference on February 19^th. Danielle Smith said that they signed many of those contracts to alleviate pressure on the healthcare system. She agreed that Alberta Health oversaw the contracts now but stated that no contracts will be finalized until the investigation is over and all parties have been cleared.

Theoretically, there is a conflict of interest if AHS is in charge of surgical contracts. As stated by Smith, AHS is drafting contracts for their competitors, which would not be allowed in any other company. Admittedly, it would be in AHS’s best interest to give better contracts internally and not externally. However, it is not clear if the government also has a conflict of interest in the matter.

During the press conference, Smith highlighted the nature of the investigation into AGS. In her example, she states that Hip replacements at CIHI cost $10,500. The AHS contract is $8,303. However, Incok’s price point is $6,360. Smith stated that CIHI is an existing facility and that their contract was negotiated before inflation, tariffs, and other problems. This, she says, may be part of the reason for the disparity of numbers.

 

At the time of publishing, the UCP has made their own statement of defence but I have not found it anywhere online. 

 

That still leaves me with many questions including:

Who is ADM Nickerson?

Who has a greater conflict of interest in surgical contracts: AHS or Alberta Health/the government?

What factors determine the cost of surgical contracts?

Could events such as the 2023 Tylenol shortage affect the higher costs they paid for Tylenol in 2024?

And Concerns:

• Is this lawsuit part of a beef between AHS and the UCP? There have already been conflicts over changes made (including the later published Covid report).
• How much will the public know about the inquiry?
• Will the Trump Tariffs take over the news instead of the AHS inquiry?

---

[1] Mentzelopoulos Statement of Claim. Found at https://files.catbox.moe/zthdp1.pdf H/T Reddit

[2] IBID, Paragraph 16

[3] IBID, Paragraph 25.

Who is Who in the AHS Lawsuit?

Alberta Health Services (AHS) - The Defendant in the lawsuit. AHS consists of the boards and councils that oversea all healthcare in Alberta.

Alberta Health - The government ministers and staff over health care in Alberta. They work with AHS and draft legislation. 

Danielle Smith - The current Premier of Alberta and former leader of the Wildrose. She has made enemies in AHS by promising overhauling the system such as adding a mental health and addiction. She has added two new Advisory counsels on the aforementioned subjects and put forward the idea of involuntary confinement of (certain) addicts. 

Marshall Smith - He is a former addict and the former top aid and drug strategy architect in Smith's government. He was replaced by Rob Anderson in late 2024. He works in addiction and recovery and was a strong advocate for an effective approach to drug addiction. 

Adriana LeGrange - The current MP for Red Deer North and former Minister of Education. She is currently the Minister of Health in the UCP government. She was in the contact point for AHS and it was to her that Mentzelopolous brought her concerns. Some MPs have called for her removal after the scandal broke.

 Athana Mentzelopolous - The Plaintiff in the lawsuit. She was the former AHS president and CEO. She has a long history in the public sector and was a former advisor to Christy Clark. She first spoke out about a problem with AHS contracts last summer to Adriana LeGrange.

 Andre Tremblay - AHS administrator as of January 31st, 2025. He is also the current head of AHS, a potential conflict of interest.

AHS: A Primer

Confused by latest scandal between AHS and Premier Danielle Smith? Join me as I try to parse through the information and find out more about our health care system – and any potential corruption or scandals. What is AHS? Alberta Health Services is an enormous entity that oversees public health care services in Alberta including ambulances, cancer centers, and hospitals. They help run both direct and indirect services. They have more than 113,000 direct employees and run provincial labs (Alberta Precision Laboratories), ambulances and other services[1]. AHS has many layers of boards, directors, and counsels. Because they are the sole entity for the province, they have many different departments and levels.

The first two levels are fairly simple, you have the Minister of Health, Adriana LeGrange with the AHS board, chaired by the CEO, reporting directly to her. Underneath them, you have various directors. But what are the Advisory and Wisdom Councils? Both serve to, as the name implies, give advice to health care officials. The Provisional Advisory Council gives advice on province-wide services including Addiction and Mental health; Cancer; Seniors and Continuing Care; and Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression.[1] The Wisdom Council’s purpose is to “provide guidance and recommendations that draw upon traditional and cultural knowledge and practices to ensure appropriate and innovative health service delivery for Indigenous peoples in Alberta.”[2] But you also have the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons who license doctors, administrate, and investigate complaints. They aren’t related to this scandal, at least at this time,but they are another important part of the Alberta Healthcare system.

[1]From the acfp.ca [2] https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/ac/ahs-ac-wisdom-council-tor.pdf [2] https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/ac/ahs-ac-wisdom-council-tor.pdf [3] https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/ac/ahs-ac-wisdom-council-tor.pdf [4] https://acfp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/WhosWhoInHealthcareWebSpread.pdf

Right From the Prairies has Rebranded

It has been a very long time but I have returned to the blogging world. The news is filled with sensationalist titles and opinions are rife with inflmatory language and views. There seems to be no room for political discussion. If you disagree, you are given a dirogetory label - racist, sexist, communist etc. I have rejoined the blogosphere to try to bring a little rationality and discussion to our current news topics. Honestly, I first attemped to use a different platform but I am coming back to an old favourite. I will be reposting my first few short articles about Danielle Smith and the AHS shortly.