February 13, 2019

BOMBSHELL COURT DOCUMENTS: Notley cabinet minister refuses to pay spousal support, addicted to drugs, had affair with fellow MLA

Keean BexteRebel Contributor

Shocking news about Rachel Notley’s NDP on the eve of the Alberta election campaign — we believe we have identified the two government MLAs who were investigated and disciplined by Notley for sexual misconduct — a secret she had been keeping from the public for months.


Notley’s caucus has been rocked by accusations of misconduct, including bullying.

The NDP’s internal culture is so toxic that one of their female MLAs, Robyn Luff, felt the need to physically leave the NDP caucus and sit as an independent, claiming she had been bullied, and that Notley and her senior officials did not take her complaints seriously. It was quite a blow to the reputation of the NDP, which prides itself in being feminist, and a safe place for women.

Other complaints emerged, too, including allegations of sexual misconduct.

Notley commissioned an investigation into those cases, and found that two of her MLAs needed intervention — but she refused to publicly give any details, or even name the MLAs she had disciplined.

So that was that — Notley admits there was a problem with sexual misconduct; but decided to keep it a secret, including the names of those who did it.

And the mainstream media just accepted that. It was a stunning message — that powerful government MLAs will be protected, even if they engage in misconduct. And that any women should think twice before complaining about powerful friends of Notley.

But if Notley’s office described the allegations as serious, and concluded that there was misconduct — is it right that the public be kept in the dark about who these MLAs are?

Don’t voters deserve to know the facts before the election next month? And then voters can decide if the sexual misconduct was disqualifying — and if Notley’s handling of it was, too.

Notley might not think it’s important. But voters might.

Notley’s excuse for keeping these MLA names secret is that she wants to “protect” the complainants.

But affidavits filed in public court documents suggest that there may be other reasons for Notley to have kept it a secret — our investigation suggests the two MLAs involved are key Notley lieutenants.

According to documents filed at the Edmonton Court of Queen’s bench, it seems that the two NDP MLAs who engaged in sexual misconduct are Rachel Notley's second in command, Deron Bilous, the Minister for Economic Development and Trade and Heather Sweet, Notley’s deputy chair of committees and chair of the NDP caucus.

The misconduct revealed in these documents does not seem to involve sexual harassment, but rather an affair between these two senior Notley deputies, which was cited by Bilous’s wife in her bitter divorce proceedings.

Bilous’ wife also claims that, at least on one occasion, a senior NDP staffer, named Heather Mack — the chief of staff to Sandra Jansen — actually went to court, to attend the divorce proceedings, in the middle of her work day. Why? Was she assisting Bilous? Was she there to monitor what was said about him — for damage control? Was she there to intimidate Bilous’s wife? We don’t know.

This story is developing. We’ve asked the parties involved to tell us any facts or points of view they think we’re missing here. If they reply, we’ll let you know in an update.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-02-14 22:43:13 -0500
So these are the people who think they are our betters? No doubt about it, we MUST vote the bums out.
commented 2019-02-14 14:55:02 -0500
Oh, my… This is great stuff, and very entertaining.. Absolutely hilarious….
commented 2019-02-13 22:34:14 -0500
The Alberta voters were stupid to vote these boneheads in the first time. If Albertan’s vote them in again, they will be demonstrating that they are more than stupid. Under the same light, if Canadians vote Trudeau the Traitor back in as Prime Minister. Then they will deserve the Hell that they are asking for.
commented 2019-02-13 21:04:00 -0500
Attaway Deron. Sex scandals and politics make for very dubious bedfellows (and, or) girls. Can’t leave anyone out here. But it doesn’t really matter now anyway, as the upc, will take over from the n- dp-ers and this will be forgotten like a fart in a windstorm. go-eskies.
commented 2019-02-13 20:20:16 -0500
Durward Saar too often that is the case.I think they falsely believe that decrying behavior they indulge in somehow absolves them of guilt. Also it seems as if admitting one of their peers is not above those they demonize is an Anathema to them. This also happens on the right but not anywhere near the same extent as the left.
commented 2019-02-13 19:50:32 -0500
It’s always the loudly self righteous that have closets full of skeletons.
The Left always represent themselves exactly opposite to what they really are.
commented 2019-02-13 19:46:15 -0500
Well Keean…..unfortunately(especially) in today’s world….the only rule is….that there are no rules,so if you are given a weapon,you had better use it.They will not hesitate to use any weapon on you that comes their way.
Do you doubt for a moment,if they were capable of “discovering” any sordid detail about any Rebel staff member,that it would not be immediately used against them?
If you make the mistake of thinking “we are better than that” or “above that sort tactic” then you will never have any real hope of defeating the vermin.They will use your values against you…..
Here in Ontario last year,at this time,the political situation looked beyond grim.Out of nowhere,comes a firestorm that engulfs Patrick Brown.Because he played by the “no rules” playbook,it was extremely fitting that he be dispatched by the same method.
If you play"nice guy" they will beat you….they will always beat you…because they are counting on you playing by the rules,when they do not.
So…..I agree with William Kay and Charred Remains….their private lives are fair game because of the positions of power they have sought out on their own.Because we have entrusted them with(to a large degree) running our lives,we need to know all of their agendas and relationships which could have significant impact on our lives.
It is only prudent for us to do so.Notely’s statement of protecting complainants is the type of ploy I am referring to.She is appealing to your ethics….while she has none.
commented 2019-02-13 17:14:06 -0500
Certainly tells the voters the kind of person they’re electing and his ethics.
commented 2019-02-13 16:49:25 -0500
Correct me if I’m misguided, but if Bilous and/or Sweet were conservatives, CBC would have had their homes staked out and forensic teams going through their trash daily, doxxed them, and reported on it ad nauseam.

That being said….

I get Keean’s point that there are many aspects of this that ARE relevant to Alberta taxpaying voters. But, employing a perverse sort of twisted non-logic, I also get Notley’s version of the impact to others that would result from dragging too much detail into the public eye. (Dang, my ‘roids may flair up from sitting on the fence on this one.) This is, after all, primarily about an affair where the spouses are the true victims. No sexual assault, no sexual harassment, nothing criminal, and nothing even remotely resembling the scale of a Slick Willie Clinton affair. So I question the wisdom of going to press with this based primarily on the civil testimony of an aggrieved spouse, without further time to allow for a response from the idiots in question, despite Keean’s long winded disclaimer. (Just my 2 cents, Keean, and I know that that ain’t worth a penny.)

And to connect it in any way to the alleged bullying in the Luff affair … well, let’s just say that I am surprised she is the only NDP caucus member with overly bruised feelings, given the collection of bleeding-heart social workers, leftist academics, nutjob activists, and snowflake baristas that make up said caucus. In the Canadian system of legislature, all political parties must occasionally, even frequently, whip the caucus to toe the party line. Whether Luff was too dumb to be aware of that, or was simply too much of a leftist snowflake herself to take having her opinions denounced, makes that whole story a nothing burger for me.

See also: Jamie’s comment below.
commented 2019-02-13 15:48:34 -0500
The private lives of politicians are fair game as far as I am concerned. There is so much hypocrisy in that realm. So many posture as straight-laced family folk while behind the scenes they are drug-addled leches.
The reason why Keean gave us one minute of facts and ten minutes of sermon on news ethics is that he is protecting the private life of Our Blessed Virgin Jason Kenney. Is there anyone out there that does not know that Jason is not merely a flaming homosexual but that he is the leader of Canada’s homosexualist movement? This is the same Jason who for 20 years stole the votes of Christian conservatives who would never have voted for him he told the truth about his lifestyle.
commented 2019-02-13 14:43:36 -0500
NDP rides itself on many things until they think they can throw the useful fools who believed in their rhetoric under the bus. If they were true to women they would espouse to the values of solid Christian/Judeo Conservative values which are far removed from the misogyny of the Burka & the lost voice of women in Muslim Cultures. Instead Notley chose to wear the Hijab & suck up to socialists who use women as a means of vacuuming off votes of women who Jews & Christians see as Helpmates in our walk through life.
commented 2019-02-13 14:37:08 -0500
Grubby little socialists with their grubby little love ins. When the people vote for idiots they must expect the result to be idiocy. If they had any brains they would not have been caught. No wonder that Alberta has been ruined, it is misruled by Marxist scum…..Motley Notley & Co
commented 2019-02-13 14:05:27 -0500
Shrug. Sounds more like a story for the Enquirer.

The real rot is in the NDP is what they’ve done to Alberta.
commented 2019-02-13 13:59:16 -0500
Bilous’s reason for refusing the support agreement: he’ll be unemployed in a couple months and wants court to view the support requirement as it pertains to his new income of $0.