Ralph - duck! Good on you cowboy!

Former Alberta Premier Gets $658,000 In Severance
The Canadian Press
March 13, 2009

EDMONTON — Alberta's former premier topped the list of payouts last year for retired members of the legislature, reports CTV Edmonton.

Ralph Klein received $658,000, even though he retired in 2007.

The numbers rankled some in the province who have recently been laid off and say the money could be put to better use.

“That's like giving welfare money to the millionaires,” complained Tony Erb.

“That's too much to give one person, people in Alberta need that money,” said Brian Lethbridge, who is looking for work.

Liberal Leader David Swann said current Premier Ed Stelmach has said he wants to be transparent and accountable and this is an opportunity for him to step up.

After many years of saying he's open to it, let's set up a commission and establish what's fair and reasonable compensation for politicians.”

In all, nearly $2-million in severance was paid out by the province's Transitional Allowance program.

Long-time cabinet ministers Clint Dunford and Victor Doerksen both received well over $400,000 for their years of service.

Yellowhead-West member Ivan Strang came in with more than $300,000.

The politicians receive three months pay for each year of service and it's calculated on their highest earning years.

The money is paid out whether the member is defeated in an election or retires voluntarily.

The government has long said the payments are needed to attract quality people to public service.

There were 29 members who left office last March and according to documents obtained by CTV, many did not receive their severance packages by the end of the fiscal year.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said another $5.5-million still has to be paid out to such government heavy-weights as Gary Mar, Mike Cardinal and Harvey Cenaiko.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein was greeted with an unexpected addition to the menu at the Calgary Stampede Breakfast that he attended on July 7, 2003. As well as the usual flapjacks and sausages, the Premier was served up a portion of pie, unfortunately delivered directly to his face by a protester, Christopher Geoghegan. Mr Geoghegan was charged with assault under s. 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada. He pied guilty to the charge, and it fell to Judge T.C. Semenuk of the Provincial Court of Alberta to pass sentence on the young man.

Judge Semenuk took his responsibilities very seriously. His eighteen-page judgment thoroughly explored the world of political pie protests and ranged from a discussion of tire Charter guarantee of freedom of expression, pie-throwing cases around the world, and protest poetry, to the underlying principles in determining a fair and appropriate sentence.

First, Judge Semenuk reviewed the Charter protection of freedom of expression. He quoted with approval from a Supreme Court of Canada case, which stated, "While the guarantee of freedom of expression protects all content of expression, certainly violence as a form of expression receives no such protection." In this case, Judge Semenuk concluded, "What the accused did in this case may have been a form of expression, but, because it took the form of violence, it receives no constitutional protection and, in the circumstances of this case, was unlawful, violated the Premier's freedom of expression, and undermined the freedom for everyone."

In determining sentencing, the Judge reviewed a number of Canadian pie-throwing precedents.

He noted that in cases involving Jean Charest and Jacques Parizeau, no charges were laid.

However, when Stephane Dion was hit with a pie, his assailants received a suspended sentence, six months probation, and fifty hours of community service. An accused who hit former Prime Minister Jean Chretien with a pie received thirty days in jail.

He also discussed a number of pie incidents around the world noting, "Aside from the above mentioned Canadian cases, assault by pie has been an international phenomenon. Many prominent political and business figures in the USA and Europe have, within the past few years, been targeted by members of various organizations dedicated to ridicule, embarrass, and humiliate by' pie attack. The motivation for the assault in each case, is usually a public protest against the political or other world views held by the target."

Judge Semenuk commented that pie throwing is often seen as a light-hearted, non-violent protest as expressed in a poem called 'The Pie Road':

"[W]hen things have gotten so bad you think you might explode, and everything around you continues to corrode, don't sink down to their level, though tempting it may be think 'we've gotta have some standards here, and it begins with me'
-- take the pie road!
you'll be really glad you did.
take the pie road--
you can tell it to your kid
when he asks you, [D]ad, what did you do
inventive or surprising
to save the world?' you can say, '[I] baked
for the global pastry uprising'!
With a certain kind of vision what to some looks like a man
to you looks like a target for a cream pie or a flan.
[And] ridicule's important--it gets 'em where it hurts--
let eco-criminals always fear they'll get their just desserts!
take the pie road--
a pastry at a time.
take the pie road--it's
our answer to their crime.
when it's time to test that recipe that you have been devising,
remember that it's good to be in the global pastry uprising!"

Judge Semenuk did not share the opinion of 'The Pie Road' poet. He stated, "Public embarrassment, humiliation, and ridicule of public figures is the usual motive behind pie assaults. In my view, the notion that these assaults are light-hearted and non-violent is misplaced. There is nothing funny about these assaults. They are often violent. Some of them actually cause injury, not only to the target, but to innocent bystanders who may get caught up in the inevitable melee that follows the assault. As a form of protest it is unacceptable because the accused is breaking the law... In my view, The Court has a duty to deter this type of criminal behaviour."

The Judge reviewed the circumstances of this assault and considered both mitigating and aggravating factors in determining Mr Geoghegan's sentence. He rejected the argument from dfence counsel that his client was a youthful first offender and political activist who did trot intend to cause injury. He characterized the offense as serious, premeditated, planned, and deliberate--a public affront to the Premier, which will have lasting consequences on his relationship with the public. He noted that although the accused apologized in court for hurting the Premier, he did not view his actions as wrong. Judge Semenuk sentenced Mr Geoghegan to thirty day's imprisonment to be served on weekends, probation with a long list of conditions including no contact with Premier Klein or his family, and a $50 victim's surcharge.

R. versus Geoghegan, 2004 ABPC 127