Sue's Blog

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Dwight Ball Leadership Campaign - Lies to raise funds

The original is signed - of course.... 



Dwight Ball Leadership Campaign
279 Portugal Cove Road
St John’s, NL A1B 2N8
Tel: (709) 753-1116 or 1-855-753-1116
Email: dwightballleadership@gmail.com
Website: dwightball.ca
September 4, 2013


Dear Members,
As you are aware I am seeking the position of Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Since January 2012 I have been the Interim Leader and under my leadership we have
experienced unprecedented growth in our party.
Many of you are also aware that I have been a member of our profession for over thirty years and
understand the challenges you are facing as community pharmacy owners. In recent years you have
been the target of cut after cut. We’re now fearful that many of our independent pharmacies will
not be able to be financially viable in this environment.
Over the last eighteen months, I have rebuilt the Liberal Party by communicating with individuals,
associations, and small to medium size business owners. Through this open and frank dialogue not
only have we discussed many of the challenges that face our province but we’ve been able to
identify the solutions to many of these challenges.
As Premier of the province, I would continue the process that has produced the current success we
are experiencing in the Liberal Party. I believe that in many cases one solution is not the answer. For
example independent versus chain pharmacies, rural versus urban, are quite different and require
unique solutions to the complex problems. For that reason, it is extremely important that we
continue to meet with organized groups like the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy
Owners to identify individual solutions that work for your membership.
I look forward to working with your council and appreciate your support to my campaign. Together
we can set the course for the future of independent pharmacies and our province.
Sincerely,

Dwight Ball

Dwight lies for votes and lies for campaign financial support


 Then there's this little item he used to raise funds for his campaign.....

 Yes he lied all the way through.

He used this when the Liberals were trying to pay down debt.
He used this to get money for campaign.
He used local small independent businesses for his leadership campaign and last election.
He lied to them in person - he lied to them in writing - and he lied to them when he attached these commitments to a fundraising letter.



Dwight Ball Responses
Candidate Questionnaire -2013
1. If you become Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would you commit to
negotiating a tariff and provider agreement with the Council of Independent
Community Pharmacy Owners on behalf of its 65 local independent pharmacies?
Yes
2. Would you commit to amending the Pharmacy Act to remove mandatory
membership of all pharmacists in the Pharmacists’ Association of Newfoundland
and Labrador? (It is voluntary in other provinces) Yes, I chaired the transition
committee to create the advocacy association for pharmacists, a voluntary
association was always the intent for the new body.
3. Would you actively work with the Council of Independent Pharmacy Owners to
develop cost saving initiatives for government that improve best health outcomes?
Yes
4. Would you take action to ensure that people residing in personal/long-term
private and public care homes retain the right to choose their pharmacy or
pharmacist of choice? Yes
5. How important do you rate a local independent business sector that has 100
million of investment on the ground and provides hundreds of direct jobs –
particularly in rural communities? (1-10) 7 to 8, I answer this by asking myself
this question, what would I do to attract and sustain a 100million industry? A
100million industry would be extremely important therefore the high priority
with my government.
6. How familiar are you with issues regarding independent pharmacy? (1-10) 10

Remember when Dwight Ball? Oh the lies he told.... he tells

Dear Owner,
In December of 2007 – Pharmacy Owners had their businesses threatened by a regulatory
change in the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Please review below.
Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary
Regulations, 2007
under the
Pharmaceutical Services Act
(Filed December 20, 2007 )
Under the authority of sections 19 and 52 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act, I make the
following regulations.
Dated at St. John’s , December 20, 2007 .
Maximum price
        5. (1) In accordance with section 23 of the Act, the maximum price listed for a drug
in the formulary shall not exceed the price listed for the same drug as published in the
formulary to the Ontario public drug program, plus an inventory adjustment fee set by the
minister.
             (2)  A guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer under subsection 23(1) of
the Act which exceeds the price listed for that drug published in the formulary to the
Ontario public drug program does not comply with subsection 23(2) of the Act and that
price shall not, under the authority of subsection (1), be accepted by the minister as a
price at which to list the drug in the formulary.
             (3)  Where a guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer is not accepted by the
minister under subsection (2), for the purpose of setting the maximum price at which a
drug may be listed in the formulary, the minister may substitute as the price for that drug
the price listed for the drug as published in the formulary to the Ontario public drug
program, plus an inventory adjustment fee.
           
Commencement
        7. These regulations shall come into force on January 1, 2008.

2
This arbitrary change would have resulted in a loss of revenues from the dispensary
equaling as much as 25%. It also raised a real concern with respect to the power of one
Minister to control our businesses with the stroke of a pen – with or without consultation.

At that time several business owners from around the province got together and planned a
strategy to delay or reverse this extremely negative law. It was decided that we
recommend the retention of Dr. Wade Locke to complete an Activity Based Costing
(ABC) study – which would demonstrate the catastrophic economic consequences of
enacting such a regulation. The Board of PANL approved this direction and that work is
moving forward.

It was also decided to produce an enabling document for government members – to assist
in their understanding of our enterprises and how such a change in law could severely
damage our investments and deter future growth and expansion in communities around
Newfoundland and Labrador.

While this paper was being produced several of us wrote and/or met with government
MHA’s and Cabinet members to request a delay in the implementation of the new
formulary pricing, These actions were successful and we received an additional 45 days.
From there we distributed the enabling document and further requested an additional 90
days in order to put in place a policy and legislative package for the government to
consider. During this time many of us met with or telephoned government members and
specific Cabinet Ministers to further advance our concerns. This resulted in a delay of
implementation for 9 months to January 01-09.

3
A cursory calculation demonstrates that these postponements have resulted in the savings
of 20 million dollars of revenues for our business operations.

Over this three month period many of us discussed the possibility of having an advocacy
group dedicated to community pharmacy owners. This is a concept which has worked
well in other jurisdictions and one we feel would protect against negative legislation and
assist in the development of new opportunities for our enterprises.

First let me state that we continue to support PANL as an advocacy group for all
pharmacists. This initiative is to separate the business component from the profession of
pharmacy as a whole. This new organization will be dedicated to community pharmacies
– as businesses that contribute significantly to the economy of our province.

The Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners of Newfoundland and
Labrador (CICPONL) is being established to expand government relations to include the
portfolios of Business, Innovation Trade and Rural Renewal, Human Resources and
Employment, and Finance. Our objectives are to:

1. Seek amendments to the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Pharmacy Act
which – if adopted would see – formulary price changes (regulatory) become the
responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) instead of at the
sole discretion of the Minister of Health and Community Services. In this way our
financial concerns could be appropriately addressed to the Minister of Business
and other portfolios aforementioned – before a decision was taken that would
reduce our revenues. As it stands now the Minister of Health and Community

4
Services runs our dispensary and for all intents and purposes is the only individual
who can accurately project our revenues.
2. Seek amendments to the audit process resulting in procedural fairness and a more
accurate reflection of our receipts. Many pharmacy owners have expressed
concern over both the length and method of the process.
3. Develop government relations in a way which addresses all aspects of our
investment and growth potential. Over the coming few years the role a pharmacy
plays in continued health and wellness in our communities should expand and
provide positive investment opportunities for our businesses. This new Council
would seek to meet with Ministers at least twice a year to advance and promote
our role in delivering health and wellness objectives while achieving savings for
government.
4. Develop media relations focused on the objectives of the pharmacy as a
community partner in health and wellness and demonstrate the significance of our
enterprises in employment growth and stability – especially in rural areas –
investment and rural development – and the pharmacy’s role in finding
efficiencies in the health care system. To this end we will issue regular News
Releases and when necessary hold a News Conference – and we will appear each
year before the budget consultation committee. Last week the NLMA made public
concerns regarding the cumbersome process of special authorizations for
prescription drugs. We would in future speak directly to issues which impact our
client base directly.

5
5. Research and compile information demonstrating trends in the business of
pharmacy from all jurisdictions while developing our own for presentation to
government. This includes participation at the federal level. As pharmacies are
anticipated to expand services over the next decade to reflect the changes coming
in healthcare delivery we must be prepared to protect the investment required by
owners to achieve these transfers of responsibility.
6. Develop a mentoring program for individuals who wish to operate a pharmacy
and develop tools and common practices for those already in the business.

It is important to note that other professional sectors have already separated business
operations from their professional advocacy – most notably the Newfoundland and
Labrador Construction Association. While engineers and trades-people have their own
professional associations – if they are also business owners the NLCA speaks for them on
matters of business.

It is important that government recognize that as business owners – albeit in a regulated
profession – we will protect our investments and seek to find areas of growth while
remaining profitable. The tendency has been to restrict us to the portfolio of Health and to
ignore the other contributions we make to the economy.

In the past pharmacists for the most part were all business owners and as such one
association sufficed to advocate for improvements and growth in our sector. Today we
represent only 1/3 this number seems low of the PANL and therefore objectives have
necessarily changed to reflect that percentage. These changes have also been reflected by
the formation of associations for pharmacies operating as part of a chain.

6
Currently we have commissioned the development of a legislative and policy package to
be delivered to government by July 07-08. This action is being taken to allow
government time to review and discuss with us an alternative to the proposed formulary
changes. It will also outline other concerns aforementioned and include options for
government which would see the expansion of our services while allowing cost savings
for the Department of Health and Community Services.

A meeting to review the draft documents will be held with pharmacy owners toward the
end of June. Further details should be available of the exact date and location over the
next couple of weeks.

We are also drafting a constitution – mission statement – and membership forms as we
move forward to formalize this Council of pharmacy business owners. We look forward
to your participation and trust you will find this initiative positive for the health of your
enterprise both in the short and log-terms.

For further information please contact:

Wayne Morris

Robert Doyle

Phil O’Keefe

Dwight Ball

Acting Board of the Council

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Public Inquiry - Demanding Truth to Power - The SNC Lavalin Affair


PART I Public Inquiries


Marginal note:Inquiry

2 The Governor in Council may, whenever the Governor in Council deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 2.

Marginal note:Appointment of commissioners

3 Where an inquiry as described in section 2 is not regulated by any special law, the Governor in Council may, by a commission, appoint persons as commissioners by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 3.

Marginal note:Powers of commissioners concerning evidence

4 The commissioners have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to


(a) give evidence, orally or in writing, and on oath or, if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters on solemn affirmation; and


(b) produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 4.

Marginal note:Idem, enforcement

5 The commissioners have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.

__________________________________________________________________________________

It is important to reiterate:  "cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.."

There is no doubt - regardless of any partisan viewpoint - that an Inquiry regarding the SNC debacle is a matter of "the good government of Canada".

Canadians - despite their political stripe are very concerned about the system of Justice in our country. They need to be reassured or otherwise advised that good government is what exists in Canada right now.

There is also a need for Canadians and in fact many parliamentarians to understand fully what our justice system looks like.

From an education perspective - an Inquiry could provide information through testimony written or oral to Canadians and many parliamentarians about the role of the Attorney General and the role of Minister of Justice. This piece alone would allow Canadians and our lawmakers a good foundation in order to review the roles and the benefits of having the roles separated.

This is evidenced by the ignorant remarks of many politicians, pundits, some journalists,  and the Twitterati. Many are struggling to understand the difference in the two positions.

If the objective is to have a more engaged and participatory electorate - which all Parties say they are interested in achieving - an Inquiry on this affair would be very helpful.

Yesterday, when listening to the testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould (hereinafter referred to as JWR) and the questions from some committee members I have no choice but to conclude they (some committee members) do not understand the roles of the AG and Minister of Justice. If I don't find they are ignorant - I must find they are playing partisan games with an extremely important issue for Canadians.

Subsequent to the testimony of JWR - I observed further juvenile attempts at making the former Attorney General appear as a rigid person with no sympathy for jobs and a Canadian company. Why not join with and cooperate with her colleagues in Cabinet? The fact that she cannot do that as the Attorney General does not seem to faze them. That represents an extreme disrespect for the Justice system and must not be tolerated - particularly by lawmakers.

Let's run it through this way. As Minister of Justice JWR would sit in the Cabinet room and participate in making decisions about changing laws - and referencing the SNC affair the change to the Criminal Code making Remediation agreements a "tool" for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider and then perhaps offered to a company facing corporate corruption charges.

As the Attorney General - JWR's role was not that of Cabinet solidarity and reasoned consensus among equals.

The fact that the two roles are being used in a politically expedient way to justify twisting the story to Canadians is not acceptable. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to answer all questions with "we are interested in protecting good jobs in Canada" - he is deliberately confusing the reality of what occurs during the process of Justice.

From JWR's testimony last evening, I got the distinct impression that she as Minister of Justice may not have agreed with her Cabinet colleagues in making the change to the Criminal Code - when they did. JWR may have taken exception to the haste in which the legislation was occurring - the manner in which it was presented (under a Budget Bill) and further the promise by her own party that the report on DPA's or RA's would be reviewed and time would be given under "Next Steps" for people to comment on the findings of the report. Instead the report was made public for Canadians to see and just five days later a law was drafted and presented in a Budget Bill. This is another example of Justin Trudeau's leadership and the desire to satisfy SNC instead of satisfying the need for good laws and how and when to utilize an RA. Hence why we might be hearing she was too rigid. If what I stated above is the case - JWR once again, made a good decision to slow down the process of changing the Criminal Code simply to satisfy one corporate entity.

I did find it remarkable that while JWR did support the Budget Omnibus Bill as a consolidated member of Cabinet - she was not out extolling the benefits of such a change.

It would be instructive for Canadians to hear what process was used to push through a change in the Criminal Code for potentiially corrupt corporations to escape prosecution. It would be instructive to know why the government reneged on its promise to review the consultation report on RA's DPA's and allow Canadians to comment further on the findings. This certainly leads one to believe that SNC Lavalin was getting preferred treatment even before the law was passed.

An Inquiry would also be very constructive with respect to Canada's global participation and agreement with conventions to deal with Corporate Crime worldwide - particularly in third world nations with emerging economies. There is a reason the World Bank has guidelines for companies - such as SNC Lavalin - for bidding on projects they are financing. There is a reason SNC Lavalin is under debarment by the World Bank. Further having been found in violation of these rules for procurement - SNC would be of concern to emerging economies and the safety of people living in them.

It is important for Canadians to know exactly what has gone on with SNC globally (where the majority of their "employees" work) and why the debarment occurred. It is equally important for Canadians to know why that matters to them and to the commitments made on behalf of our citizens by our government. An Inquiry could achieve this.

Then there are the outlying situations that should be reviewed by an independent body such as an Inquiry. They can call witnesses and it would be beneficial to Canadians if such were to occur.

Upon trying unsuccessfully many times to influence a decision of the Attorney General regarding SNC Lavalin - the government set upon finding another way to change the mind of the Attorney General. The government can and probably will change procurement policy to allow SNC the ability to bid on federal projects regardless of conviction or not. The bigger worry to SNC Lavalin and the majority of its work in the global marketplace is the debarment by the World Bank. In that regard SNC needed to keep its nose clean and if they were convicted by the courts in Canada of corporate crimes - additional penalties may apply.

An Inquiry would be able to examine and call witnesses regarding the miraculous event of Scott Brison retiring from politics thereby allowing a shuffle under less suspicious events. Even today the Prime Minister states that if Scott Brison had not resigned JWR would still be the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. In other words, it would not look so obvious that she was being removed for saying NO as the Attorney General. A quick note on Trudeau's insistance that JWR would still hold the portfolio - it does not jive with the smear campaign that she was rigid, incompetent, and difficult to deal with etc. Let's see what possibly could have happened to make this miraculous opportunity occur. Brison was clearly offered a prestigious position with BMO.

Please read the following:


The Honourable Kevin G. Lynch, P.C., O.C., PH. D, LL.D
Vice-Chair, BMO Financial Group
The Honourable Kevin Lynch has been Vice Chairman of BMO Financial Group since 2010. Prior to that, he was a distinguished former public servant with 33 years of service with the Government of Canada, serving as Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Industry, as well as Executive Director for Canada at the International Monetary Fund.
Kevin is Chancellor of the University of King’s College, a senior Fellow of Massey College and the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo. He chairs the Board of SNC Lavalin and is a director of CN Railway and CNOOC Ltd (China National Overseas Oil Company). As well, Kevin is a Trustee of the Killam Trusts and a Director of Communitech, the Governor General’s Rideau Hall Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Previously, Kevin served on the boards of the Ditchley Foundation of Canada (Chair), the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (ASOC), the Ontario Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, the Gairdner Foundation, the Perimeter Institute, the Bank of Canada, Empire (Sobeys), Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), BMO China and the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Kevin earned his BA from Mount Allison University, a Masters in Economics from the University of Manchester and a doctorate in Economics from McMaster University. He was made a Member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada in 2009, was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2011, has received 11 honorary doctorates from Canadian Universities, and was awarded the Queen’s Golden and Diamond Jubilee Medals for public service.

This CV alone can draw questions as to why an offer to Scott Brison ever occurred and particularly when it occurred.

Interestingly most media outlets and politicians will not delve into this side of things. After all the bankers hold a little bit of influence over them all.

An Inquiry could be very useful in vetting this occurrence and any role it may have played in the miraculous opportunity to shuffle Cabinet. It could sniff out any improper or potentially illegal interference by SNC in the governance of our country. Certainly, the past operations of SNC would lend credit to such interference being possible. They have proven the lengths they will go to get a desired result either in law or for a contract - both inside and outside Canada.

An Inquiry could review the lobbying efforts of a company while under criminal charges and look at real measures to ensure this type of activity is regulated to benefit the best interests of Canadians not SNC Lavalin or any other company in the same position.

Canadians are concerned about transparency and ethical behaviors in government. They are concerned about undue influence by powerful corporations and the people employed by them. They are concerned about the system of Justice and whether our system has the necessary protections to avoid negating the independence of Justice.

The fact that our country has been tied up by this messy SNC Lavalin for this long certainly adds to the need for a Public Inquiry and the clarity it could bring to the broader issues of law and independence of it.

With respect to the Ethics Commissioner and an investigation into these matters - it is limited in scope. It will not - because it cannot - look at the broad implications of interference. By all means carry on looking at ethics and potential conflicts of interest of parliamentarians and some staff - however this must be augmented by an Inquiry to fully review what has taken place here.

An Inquiry into these matters may produce a Shawcross like document - which for Canada and Canadians would be positive and be very relevant to Canadian laws and interpretation. This must only be seen as a good benefit that could be achieved from a very questionable affair.

Positively - an Inquiry may teach a very important lesson to parliamentarians. This sad sorry state of affairs may well have been avoided completely if Trudeau and his government took the transparent approach to SNC Lavalin and its plight. Trudeau's real problem is he was in large part elected because he was not Stephen Harper. He was going to shed light on our system, be transparent, be socially advanced with women in Cabinet and bringing equality to our system. He and his government could have come out and made a public case for DPR's or RA's - particularly for SNC - instead of some backroom deal attempt with the Attorney General and guaranteeing her good op-eds if she would be onside. SNC was not served well by this approach and they clearly believed that Trudeau et al would only respond to the dark backroom of lobbying and potential interference. His commitment to women has been destroyed by this approach - he is willing to throw a woman of integrity under the bus for having integrity and taking her role seriously. Once again the irony exudes as Trudeau uses the words "we take seriously" in his spin lines of preference.

Finally - unless Trudeau removes the gag from JWR - allowing her to continue to provide Canadians the remaining information since her departure from Justice and AG - the Public Inquiry could get to the bottom of that relevant information.

All one has to do is to watch the concerns of Canadians on this matter - to agree there is a need for a Public Inquiry. The Prime Minister of Canada could make this happen and prove his commitment to transparency and the rule of law.

What could possibly be negative about a Public Inquiry unless - you know of course - the findings would be horrific. How about we demand truth to power.