Lessons for Liberals, and some advice

The Natural Ruling Party of Canada, AKA the Liberal Party, can only do one thing to regain its past glory going forward in to the new 21st Century.

They need to release their grip on the idea that the management of the party at the centre has all of the answers. In addition the party needs to find out what Canadians want in their politicians, and not tell them what they want. Canadians have already noticed that the Liberal Party still has not figured out that they do not have a patent on superiority of ideas or policies, nor do they have the Holy Grail hidden somewhere in Toronto, to persuade Canadians other wise.

The very idea of the the current so called party braintrust, knowing how the next leadership contest will run, shows that shows that they are bound to follow down the same road, that has gotten the Liberal Party where it is today. The party as a whole should remember that it is this group that was inserted by and through the skulduggery of the Martin camp who got the party to that position.

What would make the Liberal Party truly a party of the future and for the Canadians that don't like the Conservatives, or don't vote at all, is to have the leadership convention open to as many people who have something to say, and make it truly virtual.

Whomever the current so called party braintrust thinks they can parachute into the job as leader, or what ever new skulduggery they develop for the next leadership race, will be suspect, and the end results will be suspect too.

It will not have solved the problem of the Liberal Party, just shown a stronger light on the real problems with the party.

Thanx Norm Greenfield

Green Party in Calgary

So another election gone by, all of you ran good campaigns, and made progress.

Glow in the success, and get ready to get back up on the horse for the next kick at the cat in the next 24 months. Don't stop the work you have all started. Get back in the race now, and start to build on the public notice of the party you have created in the past two national elections.

All of this is possible by the hard work of you and your succesful campaigns, and the momentum you have created and built on. Lets get the EDA's up and running, and lets make sure the money your efforts will flow through the Elections Canada campaign financing legislation laws, can be invested here where it will do the most good, and produce the best return for the party.

With no leader at the helm of the Liberals, a House of Commons that will be bending in the wind to stay in place, there is a prime opportunity for the Green Party to make their presence known, both in Ottawa and Calgary.

We need to grab the party's levers of power and bring them to Calgary and reality.

We need to grab the policy process of the party and drive it so it actually becomes reality, and gets into the minds and hearts of Canadians. We have seen how a campaign of ideas and policies can work. If Harper can do it, so can the Green Party.

We need to grab the party's levers to steer it to their first seat in the House of Commons.

In closing, good campaigns each and everyone of you.


Thanx Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

'Provoco status quo'

My Predictions for Monday, January 23, 2006

Here I am putting my prognostication reputation on the line.

 

Libs - 89

Cons - 134

NDP - 31

Bloc -  54

No bets are being made, but you can throw you adulation my way if I am right. If not adulation, free beer is the next best thing.

Ring Road Debacle

Ring Road Debacle

 

 

Barry Erskine has shown he is not a good politician by the way he has lost his focus and failed to maintain what should be the real focus of city council, on the debate over the ring road.

 

The idea of connecting the community roads to the east of the Tsu Tsina should never have become a condition to having the ring road developed in Calgary’s South West quadrant. The ring road is a project being negotiated between the province and the Tsu Tsina.

 

The issue as to whether we in the communities of Calgary that will be impacted are against the development of either the commercial area of the Tsu Tsina lands, or the ring road is non-starter. As is the idea we are somehow demanding that the access to the commercial and retail area be denied to the members or residents of the Tsu Tsina.

 

What we don’t want are our neighborhoods being used as a feeder area through which all of the traffic will travel to access the retail and commercial development.

 

A ring road’s function, by its very name, is to take traffic around the city, not to be used as a community feeder.

 

The ring road should be left at that.

 

If it is access the Tsu Tsina need for their people to the commercial and retail area, then they can bear that cost themselves, as that is for the benefit of their people. Just like a developer in Calgary does, that cost can be factored into the cost of developing the commercial and retail operation.

 

Any access for the Tsu Tsina people should be done through the lands of the Tsu Tsina, and not through neighborhoods of Calgary that don’t want the extra traffic.

 

There is not one member of any of the affected Calgary communities who would think for one minute they should have access to Westhill’s shopping center through the communities on the Tsu Tsina’s land

 

The commercial and retail area can be accessed quite efficiently from a connection made to Glenmore Trail where it will impact neighborhoods minimally, and allow for the quick access and egress of the traffic on to the ring road.

 

In the past few years, Anderson Road received an expensive upgrade in preparation for the 37^th Street SW Bridge across Fish Creek Park.

 

A large interchange was added as part of the upgrade, for access and egress for both Calgarians and members of the Tsu Tsina nation. Something no Calgarian fought against nor denied there should be.

 

An extension of 90^th Avenue does nothing to alleviate the traffic pressures of either Oakridge, or the far southwest.

 

An extension of Southland could alleviate some of the traffic pressures, if the traffic along Southland would move along to Deerfoot.

 

It does not. It comes along Southland to 24^th, and 14^th streets, or Elbow and MacLeod Trails to further clog a road system that is over taxed as it is, to head downtown.

 

Connecting Southland Drive and 90^th Avenue to the ring road, or to be used, as through roads feeding the commercial and retail developments on the Tsu Tsina does not serve the best interests of Calgary.

 

If the Chief of the Tsu Tsina people wants to only deal with the province and not city hall that is his prerogative.

 

Erskine, et al are not at city hall to work on a solution that best suits the needs of the Tsu Tsina nation.

Eau Claire Make-Over

Before the City goes ahead and renovates Eau Claire Plaza, I have a bit of advice to City Council.

Step away from the drawing board and let the professionals do this. Lets put the creative people in charge and not city council.

We have seen that anything and everything that hints at the smell of fun in this city is quickly chased away when there is a whiff of interest by city council that they want into the room to add their two cents worth. City Council is like a cold shower. Good creative ideas simply wilt away, into boredom.

We need more public places and plazas downtown so that we not only think we are a world class city but be one.

The other question I would want asked, maybe as something to divert the attention of City Council from getting involved with the renovations to Eau Claire Plaza, is why the Olympic Plaza has been ceded to the drug dealers, crack addicts, and homeless?

Why did we have to spend the extra money and close off 17th Avenue SW for the Red Mile, when we have a perfectly good public space to celebrate in, called the Olympic Plaza?

Why does it sit empty so much, and for so long in a city of 1,000,000,000?


Thanx Norm Greenfield

Will federal parties secure Canada's energy future?

January 6, 2006
by Gordon Laxer

The spike in world oil prices after Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to plan for coming oil and natural gas shortages. The Americans are discussing how to ensure security of supply. So are politicians in many countries.

But not in Canada. We now have only 8.7 years of proven supply of natural gas. Conventional oil production is falling. Alberta’s tar sands have plenty of oil, but it comes with horrific environmental damage. During an election campaign, Canada’s main political party leaders seem oblivious to Canada’s energy security needs.

The US has a bold NEP, ‘National Energy Policy’ that stresses two things: the greater the US dependence on foreign energy, the greater the threat to American national security; and the urgency to move toward ‘energy independence’ and ‘energy self-sufficiency’.

A recent US report, Oil Shockwave, warns that oil disruptions could lead to a world shortfall of 3 million barrels, or 4% of global supply, a day. The world price would rise 177% to $161 per barrel. Gasoline would cost US $5.74 per gallon (Cdn $1.78 per litre).

Mexico, which along with Canada, exports the most oil to the US, could weather such a shock. Mexico’s independent policy ensures public ownership and first access for domestic needs.

Of the three NAFTA countries, only Canada has no plans for oil shortages even though Canada imports 1.3 million barrels per day, about half of current use. The question is this. If there are energy shortages, in which of the three NAFTA countries are citizens most likely to freeze in the dark?

Where do the political parties stand on security of supply? The Liberals are committed to the Kyoto Accord, public transit, and wind power, but don’t mention supply security. Neither do the Conservatives, who offer tax credits for transit users, funds for environmental cleanup, reviewing the Kyoto Accord.

The Bloc favours Kyoto, making polluters pay, supporting wind, and taxing oil profits. The NDP has the greenest and most comprehensive energy policy, emphasizing job creation, renewables, protecting low income families and using oil to bargain with the US on softwood lumber.

But, even the best environmental policies will not help much as long as Canada is locked into exporting 70% of its oil and 56% of its natural gas to the US. Under NAFTA’s proportionality rules, we must continue exporting at least the same proportion of energy to the US, even if we face shortages. If Canada conserves energy, as it must, we will export more of our dwindling supplies so that Americans can maintain their SUV ‘fix’. Canada, and Alberta in particular, is the continent’s environmental sacrifice zone.

To conserve energy, Canada must first regain control over energy supply and usage. Our NAFTA partners already have such powers. Mexico got an exemption from proportionality. Only Canada must export a majority of its energy in perpetuity. To remove ourselves from this clause, Canada could either demand a Mexican exemption, or abandon NAFTA on the grounds that the US ignores its rulings anyway. If one party ignores an agreement, other parties are not bound by them either. Giving six months notice to exit NAFTA, article 2205, would get Canada out of this energy encumbrance.

What might an energy security strategy for Canada look like? In contrast to the 1980 National Energy Program which Ottawa imposed unilaterally, a security strategy must be a provincial – federal partnership. What could it incude? First the Dinning principle. RJ Dinning headed an Alberta commission in 1949 and recommended that Alberta retain 50 years supply of natural gas before exporting to other provinces. Only after Canadians were taken care of, should energy be sent abroad. The Dinning principle could be extended to oil and to all producing provinces and territories.

Second, slow the frenetic pace of Alberta tar sands development. Much more can be gained by reducing energy use than through more production. Using less will prolong energy supplies. Leaving the resource in the ground, ‘banking’ it, would increase its value when it’s removed in 15 years.

Third, raise royalties greatly to Norway levels to capture the full value of nature’s non-renewable capital, for the owners, the citizens of the producing provinces. Fourth, reverse the Sarnia – Montreal pipeline and bring western oil to Quebec again. An energy security strategy should follow public opinion and include Canadian ownership and crown corporations.

Since 9-11, security has trumped trade in the US. Canadians haven’t come to terms with this. For Canada, security trumping trade means that Canada’s energy security comes first, ahead of NAFTA. What better time than during the election to debate how the parties plan to secure Canada’s energy future?

Gordon Laxer is the Director and co-founder of Parkland Institute, a public policy research centre based at the University of Alberta. Parkland Institute is developing a made-in-Alberta security strategy for Canada.

Norm Greenfield
Calgary, Alberta
www.provocostatusquo.com

Media and Government Relations
Myth Confectioner
Corporate, Marketing, and Political Communications
New and Old Media
Database, Permission and Direct Marketing
Registered Federal Government Lobbyist
Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist
E-government/E-Democracy Business Development

What About Harper's Idea to Change the Constitution?

A lot of attention is played towards the comments or utterances of the Prime Minister on his sudden change of mind to do with the Not-Withstanding Clause in last nights debate.

I understand the attention it is being paid here in Calgary, because he is a Liberal, and he is from Ottawa, and can do no right.

Shouldn't the complete ignorance being paid to the statement made by Stephen Harper about his wanting to enshrine or add Property Rights in to the constitution, be of concern? Shouldn't we also be looking at the trigger to Martin's foolish idea as well?

Stephen Harper said, 'I think the Charter should be strengthened. I think there should be property rights protection in our Charter.'

This issue is something Harper does not talk about and probably won't in public. If you consider that the oil and gas sector in Alberta will fight the change, and the provincial government's methods of allowing the oil and gas company to ignore the plight of some of the farmer and the land they destroy, it makes as little sense as Martin's new idea for our constitution.

The other question is, what other parts of the Consitution and Bill of Rights does Harper want to change? He cannot be ignorant of the fact that once you open the Constitution to this issue, you open it to all issues.


Shouldn't this idea of putting something into the consitution that was fought against vigerously by both Premier Lougheed and as compatriot, the Premier of Ontario at the time, receive at least the same amount of public debate and attention?

From the transcription of the debates at www.globenandmail.com

Dan Cook of the Globe and Mail does not see fit to include it in his infantile reporting of the debates either.

Mary Janigan, of the Globe's editorial boards talks about it on the Globe's site at 8:24 p.m. 'And harper wants to put back property rights. Which was another part of the deal made in late fall of 1981. We could spend the next five years talking constitution while the world passes us by.' Followed by this comment by Marcus Gee, 8:25 p.m., 'Just what we need: Another constitutional debate! Canadians would rather eat glass.'

Norm Greenfield
Calgary, Alberta
www.provocostatusquo.com

Media and Government Relations
Myth Confectioner
Corporate, Marketing, and Political Communications
New and Old Media
Database, Permission and Direct Marketing
Registered Federal Government Lobbyist
Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist
E-government/E-Democracy Business Development

My comments on the debate.

My comments on the debate.

First it is a detrimental to fixing the democratic deficit to continue the current thinking of the four major parties that these debates serve any practical purpose. The four particpants, (all male, all white) were not held to answer the question as asked, and the fact that one of the people on the panel who is the leader of regional rump party is on stage, but the leader of a party like the Green Party who has a party with 308 candidates running is not, makes the performance a mockery.

We have the two leaders of parties, either of who might be the next Prime Minister throwing promises of changes to the constitution, with no fore thought to what these ideas my trigger in the way of other things. Harper wants to add property rights to the constitution, something that was excluded by the provinces, led by Peter Lougheed. As an example if you put property rights in the constitution, Alberta might just have to rethink the way they allow the pol and gas compmanies to trample all over the farmers and their land. With impunity.

Harper never did reply to Martin's challenge of changing the constitution, about whether Harper would be in favour of removing the 'not with standing clause, for the federal government. Why is that? If Harper is not going to use it when he brings the same sex marriage tokenism motion before the house to appease the narrowminded of his party, why revisit the same-sex marriage issue? Unless you are going to change the law or go against the decision of the Supreme Court?

The fact is that if Harper is elected and brings in his taxation changes and spending he will have to cut somewhere to pay for them. If he follows in the footsteps of his hero's in the Republican Party in the USA, then we are headed for deficit financing, and the gutting of our social programs. Just like they have done in the USA under both Bushes and Reagan.

If not, then Harper should tell us exactly what he has in mind.

If Harper is prepared to allow the Provinces to deal on international issues, is that the same as the firewalls he proposed to build around Alberta. After all if a province is allowed to negotiate international pacts and deals on their own, why have a federal government?

If Harper wants to step on lobbiests, why not ban them from working in his campaign war rooms?

What Martin's move towards removing the Not Withstanding Clause from harper's repetoir when it comes to reducing judicial activism, means now Harper has to explain to Canada, if he doesn't agree with this, then what would he use the clause for?

What Rights in the consititution is Harper prepared to use the clause on? What rights does he believe are negotiable?

Harper has a problem. He wants to cut taxes, raise taxes, cut spending, increase spending, make tougher federal crimes which means more money for prisons, and wants more money for police, but will balance the budget. How?

How can he do this, when the deficits of the USA occur during the reign of a Republican government.

Norm Greenfield
Calgary, Alberta
www.provocostatusquo.com

Media and Government Relations
Myth Confectioner
Corporate, Marketing, and Political Communications
New and Old Media
Database, Permission and Direct Marketing
Registered Federal Government Lobbyist
Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist
E-government/E-Democracy Business Development

What I would focus on if I were in your tent

Subject: What I would focus on if I were in your tent

I know, I know I am not a good Liberal anymore, and few would allow me in the tent anyways, out here in Calgary.

 

If I were the braintrust of the Liberal Party's campaign team I would focus on a little tidbit that Harper said in the last debate.

 

He said he would put Property Rights in to the Charter.

 

This is something that the then Premier of Alberta and Ontario did not want, and something that Trudeau caved in to get the constitution back to Canada.

 

This can be as bad to the oil and gas industry in Alberta as the NEP was. Why? Think about it. What is on top of the minerals that is owned by the province? Land. Land owned by farmers. If a farmer can claim his or her right to keep people of their land due to the property rights then that will bring much of the oil and gas industry to a stand still. If the Property Rights that Harper is alluding to, are the same as in the USA.

 

The cheapness of giving oil and gas companies free reign over the farmers' land is one reason they like working in Alberta/ Just like Texas.

 

The Property Rights issue will play into a problem we will all have if the First Nation's people exercise their property rights. Such as the West Coast natives would in downtown Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.

 

It also plays into the hands of gun owners that do not want gun control.

 

This iddy biddy issue is Harper's weakness. It is something that will open a Pandora's Box.

 

If Harper opens the Charter for this, what is he prepared to give away to get this in, and what is he prepared to give the provinces? Firewalls? That could be the logical end, especially here in Alberta, and is right in line with the 'firewall letter,' of Harpers.

 

I would have Liberal Party members flooding the call in shows, letters to the editor, and such asking these questions of Harper.

 

The media aren't. Martin is not. Why not turn this campaign over to the grassroots of the party now?

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

 

Re: Daily Digest January 10, 2006

Joe:

 

If I were someone who mattered on the national media scene that is covering Canadian Politics, and cared about my work, I would be putting the idea that Harper raised of putting property rights in to the charter.

 

Once the charter is opened for one thing, it is open for all.

 

It is not like penning a lone calf, but a whole herd of cats.

 

To get the property rights into the constitution involves getting the approval of all provinces, and the Senate.

 

Politics is all about horse trading.  What is Harper prepared to give up or change? All the media are focused on Bone Head Martin, but not one word is being raised on this issue.

 

There has to be someone in the media in Western Canada that is not fixated on Harper to the exclusion of examining closely what Harper is saying here.

 

Maybe a discussion here on what could be changed and would be taken out or added to the charter if Harper is able to open it up?

 

What will property rights do for the oil and gas industry or governments who appropriate land for infrastructure? What will this do when it come to crime fighting? Does it mean all people will be able to own a gun because that is a piece of property and the government will not be able to restrict that at all?

 

I think this is something that shows the true nature of Harper, and that he is prepared maybe to allow each province to build a firewall around themselves in exchange for property rights being put in the charter.

 

Harper certainly has not made this policy idea a focal point in any of his campaign speeches or media events.

 

Why?

 

Why did the Premiers of Ontario and Alberta not want property rights in the first charter?

 

Let it be known, I am not slamming Harper on this, and don't find it a bad policy idea, but it is something that needs to be examined and discussed by Canadians, seriously.

Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

Calgary, Alberta

normfg(at)hotmail.com

Paul Martin

David:

Even to a die hard Liberal like you, Paul Martin must be a huge disappointment.

Where is the vision I heard come out of Martin's mouth at the summer Stampede BBQ while he was campaigning for the leadership?

Where is the vision of the Liberal Party that brought us the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Paul Martin seems to be out of his element, with no new and innovative ideas or vision for Canada.

Does he or his handlers understand how bad or desperate he looks and that the public can actually see through his rhetoric?

What frustrates me is that the Liberal government had two opportunities to show its old self.

One was when Chretien decided to retire and could have done anything he wanted to, as he stood no need to look to the next election. After all he is the man behind bringing back our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Martin had a chance to put his stamp on the party with some new and big ideas for the future of Canada. A future that is as vast and endless as the horizon Martin talked about looking past when he was here in Calgary looking for our support in his leadership bid.

Isn't it sad we have no real leaders with big ideas, vision of the future, or any idea as to the potential of Canada in the world, to be a world leader for good, and not war?

There are three or four things Martin should or could have done to put his stamp on the party.

One is to start the rebuilding of Canada's ability to become a trading nation with the world.

Two would be to with draw from our tight relationship with the USA to become the Switzerland of the Western World. We can do this and maintain our trading relationship with the USA but with our best interests at the forefront. They need our cars, oil, wood, water, electricity, shipping, railroads, and brains. There are also 6,000,000,000 other people in the world in need of the same things.

Third idea would be to make every undergraduate an offer to pay their tuition after they graduate, along with better and more flexible student loans and scholarships that reflect the true situation of secondary and life long learning. As well as offer to give grants to Canadian universities to attract the best PhD candidates to study, research and think in Canada.

Fourth make the committments: to become an environmentally neutral country. That means a committment to clean water, both what we drink and flush out in our rivers to the world's oceans; to clean air, both what we breath in and what we send out to the rest of the world; and finally to make sure the dirt we walk on is clean. 

We all know from watching the terms of Republican Presidents that deficits of record amounts, cutting of social services, as well as decreasing the taxation of the richest all occur like clock work.

That is the only logical outcome of Stephen Harper's plans.


Thanx Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

'Provoco status quo'

This is an interesting collection of responses.

Joe:

 

This is an interesting collection of responses. The story itself hits home as my brother and I lost my mother on December 7th, while we stood helplessly by.

 

You go a lifetime with a mother that takes care of you, nurtures you, feeds you, loves you, with out a word of complaint.

 

When it comes your time to help, there is nothing you can do. No credit cards, no contacts in high places, and no brawn could help.

 

So I can empthize with the fealing of powerlessness this mother felt towards finding help for her son, and understand fully why she took the drastic step she did.

 

We should praisie and help a mother who out of desperation takes the last chance she sees to save her kids from a life of harm, not turn away from her.

 

The mother that turned her son in for having a gun did the right thing.

 

In time the son, if he learns from this event, and accepts the lifeline his mother just threw him, will now have a chance to thank her, hopefully not waiting until she comes to her end.

 

The chief enemy of this mother we are talking about in trying to help her son, will be the legal system. The legal system we have is not set up to help, only to punish. It is also the direction the three major political parties in the current federal election campaign want to go further towards.

 

Putting a young man or woman in prison will do nothing but harm. No one I have ever known to have spent anytime in prison, has come out a better person for it.

 

So if this boy is sent to prison, or any of the young bucks are sent to prison in the new rush to treat criminals harsher, we as a society must make sure the prison system is given the resources to fix the problems, and turn the people around. If we do not, all we will get at the other end are criminals with hatred in their heart and new skills in their brains that will ensure they committ bigger and better crimes when they get out.

 

As a community we must reach out to this women and help her steer her child right.

 

A mother or father should not be burying their children.

As a father of a daughter of divorce, I spent 4 years and $50,000 for the eventual joint custody to juct be "dad," in her life to protect here, to teach her, and to help her grow into a productive and compassionate adult. Unfortunately the only flaw I can see in her, is that she is considering voting NDP.

 

The chief enemy in that whole effort of me staying in her life has been and is a legal system dominated by feminazis that say fathers are worthless and should be feared for all they want to do is lord their power over the ex-wife.

 

Bev, when you wonder where the fathers are, look at how society, the courts, and current feminism have managed to sideline and devalue the role of a father in the life of family.

 

In fact you can point to the next pork chop you buy as being worth more.

 

One of the biggest problems I see in the rise in crime among our young people, is that the adults who they look up to flaunt and disregard the laws right in front of them. This in turn sets a low standard for them to fall down to, instead of the adults setting a higer standard for our youth and young people to strive to reach.

 

Our relationship with society is is just that a relationship. If we continue to build fences around each on of our own little piece of society and ignore others in it, we will reap the pains of our lack of vision.

 

The next time you hear or see a kid swearing, stealing, or being uncivil, say something. Say it to them, and make sure you are a reflection of what you expect of those around you. Don't wait for someone else.

 

Happy New Year Joe

 

In Alberta, driving past cruiser cost woman $632

Enough already.

 

Valerie Montgomery has gotten way too much media coverage. Media coverage of her whinging because she broke a law, and thinks that she is innocent because Premier Ralph Klein did not come to her personally and tell her that the law was changing.

 

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

If it was her husband or child that had been one of the twelve people were killed and another 906 injured on Alberta roadways in accidents related to construction or maintenance sites between 2000 and 2004, what would she be saying now?

 

Her whining is going to do nothing but teach her children that whining about your own ignorance is much better than following the law.

 

Somewhere, and somehow we must draw the line and start enforcing the laws, and the people on our roads, must accept the responsibility to know the law. God only knows how much more a government can do to teach the drivers of this province how to drive, without sending Ralph Klein to your door and hitting you over the head with the Highway Safety Act.

 

Valerie Montgomery, suck it up and pay the $632 ticket, your media hissy fit is getting nauseating.

Speeding ticket

Low and behold I wake up this morning to hear that Calgary's Eyeopener Show has now become Traffic Court where you can use the defence not allowed in any other court, ignorance of the law. And common sense it would seem.

 

Can I plead my recent speeding ticket too?

 

Face it Ms Montgomery sped, and broke the law, with her two kids in the car too boot.

 

If she is unable to educate herself on the laws that pertain to her driving, then maybe she needs to hang-up her steering wheel. By fighting the ticket all she is teaching her kids is that they too can remain ignorant of the law and whine on public radio as their only defence.

Thanx Norm Greenfield 403-807-1251 'Provoco status quo'

Ralph Klein's Third Way Up and Out - Why Hide It?

RE: Ralph Klein's Third Way Up and Out - Why Hide It?

 

Why hide it?

 

In a recent posting of an RFP by the Ralph Klein government on December 23, 2005 for a communications firm to help the Alberta Tories sell their, 'Third Way.' The preamble states forthright that, 'Alberta is moving ahead with the Third Way (“Third Way”) of health care delivery as announced by Premier Ralph Klein on July 12, 2005.,

 

One has got to wonder why post it on December 23, 2005, with January 3, 2006 closing date.

 

Is this so it does not get in the way of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party's run for the gold in the current federal election campaign?

 

Why do it over the Christmas lull, both of media and the current federal election campaign?

 

You have to wonder if it was done to keep the issue out of the spot light and not be used as a torpedo once again by Ralph Klein against the federal Conservative Party.

 

Or is it done this way because the Ralph Klein government does not want to show the country that corrupt government practices are not only for the federal Liberal Party to practice.

 

Will Stephen Harper act to stop Ralph Klein's 'Third Way,' if elected as the next Prime Minister?

 

The RFP is entitled Communication Strategy - The Third Way and can be found at http://vendor.purchasingconnection.ca/Opportunity.aspx?Guid=6702E421-62C2-4CDF-920B-AAD2C2D08C0F&

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

www.provocostatusquo.com

http://provocostatusquo.blogspot.com

Media and Government Relations

Myth Confectioner

Corporate, Marketing and Political Communications

New and Old Media