the A to Z Ancestry DNA in NL politics

Let's review why we end up with governments we end up despising. Unfortunately by the time that occurs the damage has been done.

The first of this series looks at the "lifelong" party faithful.

1. Liberal Tory DNA

About 25% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are genetically linked to one party or another. You can diagnose this condition without sending away for a test,
a) yours is a house that 1 party can rely on for life to place political signs on the lawn, in the windows, or across your garage door,
b) you have been card carrying member of "your" party for life,
c) the zealot syndrome - if you do not openly embrace even the most ludicrous ideas - without critique, question, or second thought you don't have it,
d) you find yourself plotting to undermine a person who is not with "your" party without logical reason for doing so,
e) you will disown a family member before you disown "your" party,
f) your ancestry is defined by a political party,
g) you willingly donate to "your" party regardless of what they are offering or not offering,
h) if an MHA from "your" party leaves for reasons of ideological choice on an issue - particularly in the proper representation of their constituents, the MHA - not "your" party - is guilty of treason,
i) you plan a political coming out party for your child or grandchild,
j) you believe that political parties in NL are ideologically different,
k) you believe it's a "your turn" kind of system where you wait it out knowing that "your turn" is coming,
l) you are willing to present your body at a party demonstration or event to up the headcount,
m) if you don't like "your" party's leader - you will choose not to vote - instead of looking at somebody else,
m) you don't mind if "your" party MHA does not read legislation before voting on it,
n) you phone talk-shows with speaking notes - provided by a paid staffer,
o) you treat politics like the World Wrestling Federation,
p) you assume critics of your party's position are from another party - naysayers - conspiracy theorists,
q) you believe question period in the House of Assembly is for name calling and ridicule,
r) you believe in political messiahs
s) you try to stand next to a politician from "your" party to take a much desired selfie,
t) you hang a photo of "your" party's leader/s on your wall,
u) you look for online "question of the day" and press the answer as many times as you can,
v) you plan your summer vacation around a politicians visit to your communities garden party,
w) you believe "your" party is never wrong just always fixing another party's mess,
x) you block opponents to "your" party on Twitter,
y) you attempt to get "your" party MHA's to friend you on Facebook,
z) you think this list has been established by the "other" party.

If you can relate to 50% or more of these traits - you need to rethink before our province is extinct.  

Next up - the corporate party swingers...

Nalcor CEO - Conflict of Interest?

It seems the information on Stan Marshall's contract remains behind closed doors as I write this today.

The past month has been consumed with outrage and calls of "we did not know" as it related to the Ed Martin platinum handshake.

The lesson for the people, media, and MHA's should be don't be blindsided again - make sure we will not end up with more problems resulting from a contract with Nalcor's new CEO.

The now infamous Martin Executive Employment Agreement (renewal) ended up being a lottery win for a fellow who does not show up much on Executive searches for jobs held prior to becoming the CEO of Nalcor. It did however contain important clauses that deserve the same level of scrutiny.

Clauses 3(c) and 4 deal with a common issue for corporate executives and the companies they work for. The issue is conflict or potential conflict of interest.

These clauses are absolutely necessary to ensure that the interests of the company they work for are placed ahead of all other professional involvements.

As such Ed Martin's contract contained the following clauses:

3(c) the Executive shall: not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any member of his family (this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's Conflict of Interest Act, 1995) shall directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement mutual fund(s) investment vehicles.

4. The Executive may, with the approval of the Board, serve as a director or member of service clubs, charitable, recreational and community organizations and may also serve as a director of publicly traded entities which would not in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor having first obtained the approval of the Board.

Stan Marshall's background is well known particularly his tenure with Newfoundland Power and Fortis.

We need to know if these clauses were maintained in Marshall's contract and if not why not.

Further we need to know who drafted the Marshall contract - was it in house (Government) or outside private lawyers.

Tomorrow I will expand on the potential conflicts of interest that are existing.

I repeat: what I think of the appointment of Stan Marshall is not relevant to this discussion - as this discussion deals with prudent precaution regardless of the qualifications of the Executive.

Tories crushed in new polling numbers

It's polling time again - where CRA quarterly polling should be in the field.

I am satisfied however to reveal information from other scientific polling which has been taking place over the past couple of weeks.

I have seen the information myself and it's showing that the PC's are now in third place.

The information shows the Tories in the teens - chasing the NDP for second. The Liberals remain in the lead.

It also shows that support for Danny Williams as the best leader for the PC party sits at over 60% with female voters support for the former Premier at over 70%. Davis is comes in at 12% with Kent at 7%. The Tories have not taken to their new leader.

On the issue of when our next election should be - close to 50% wanted it before now or this summer while 40% are willing to wait until the fall. There is NO appetite to extend beyond September.

The polling also shows Earl McCurdy is quickly catching Paul Davis as second choice for Premier. Dwight Ball remains in the lead as choice for Premier.

If these numbers reflect reality - and I believe they do - this government does not have the moral authority to keep governing and a summer election should be held.

These polls have sampled over a thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the numbers do not look good for the PC's.

It certainly answers why MHA Sandy Collins has been trash talking on Twitter and why the NDP appears to be aiming at the Liberals.

The PC's are protesting too much about the Liberal platform - it is telling me that the numbers I have reviewed are accurate.

Something's Up in #nlpoli

Hold on to your hats Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - political news will be rocking the boat soon.

Let's see how Paul Davis clinging to power is working out.

I wonder how the killing of Don Dunphy is affecting people?

How about the budget fiasco?

Is a Muskrat going to cause a real stink/sink for the Tories.

Has the Alberta trouncing of the Tories made its way to Newfoundland and Labrador. 

Do the Tories miss Danny Williams and how do they like his replacement?

Keeping Steve Kent on the front line may be causing more erosion.

Newfoundland and Labrador Tory politics is going through tough change.

Tory times are hard times - is about to become - Tory times are past times.

Sue's Blog will be making some bold predictions before the next CRA poll.

Charlene's finest hour?

Sometimes it takes the worst of times to reveal the character of a person.

Please take the time to watch the interview with former Finance Minister Charlene Johnson at the CBCNL website click here.

Charlene should have used the results last night as a time to reflect. She should have immediately respected the people's choice - but that did not happen.

As you watch the video clip note some of the commentary:

1. I am completely dumbfounded.

I am sure she is - that is because they were not listening to the people as they claimed they were. That is because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not see the progress the Tories claimed was happening.

2. There's mayors here in this room tonight cause this government did so much for these communities.

I am sure Charlene forgets or never did listen to people saying that mayors and councillors in many communities felt intimidated by the Tory stranglehold and feared that bucking this government in any way might hurt chances for a fire-truck or pavement. Johnson will not recognize the partisanship of her government. Fortunately mayors - councillors - and residents have a secret ballot.

and then this beauty


3. There’s mayors here can’t believe it that we did so much for them and this is what happens in return ... And I can say all of this now because I’m not a politician anymore.

We did so much for them? Excuse me what? Charlene was very fortunate to be chosen by the people and paid by the people for public service. The former Minister forgets - she and they were spending our money - our tax dollars. She nor they did anything for us. They did not create the wealth nor did the put the oil in the ground or control the markets. In return she was paid generously and has a pension from us - the people. Instead of being humbled by past election victories she says:

4. Councillors and mayors here can’t believe that this is how people voted for all we’ve done for their town – it says a lot. 

Yes Charlene it sure does - you were the government - using our money and our resources. What did you expect in return for that? You have a pension - you received wonderful pay-cheques - and benefits. Loyalty to what Charlene? Should the people have kissed your feet - or perhaps they should have curtsied or bowed. 

And then in response to a question of the discrepancy in what Charlene said was support at the doors versus what the vote count was the "retired" politician said 

5. I wish they would have told us that...

Johnson is upset that people withheld information from them. Imagine that! I suspect they invoked Bill 29 and decided to keep that proprietary knowledge to themselves. 

In final exasperation of the situation - she talks about visiting Beaumont Hamel and understanding that the voter is always right. 

Charlene's finest hour? or Charlene unscripted and sooky? 

But wait Charlene is going to give some thought to running again. You do that Charlene - thanks for the pavement and fire-trucks.

 

A Change in Direction for Sue's Blog

Hi all,

Sue's Blog is coming down for a while. When it returns all the archives will be intact but there will be a new look and a new direction.

Some surprises coming as we enter into the 2015 election mode. 

Hope to see you all back.

Sue

Did Dunderdale meet Quebec Premier Marois for 1 to 1 meeting?

According to a story in the Montreal Gazette:

"In addition to Lac-Mégantic, Marois has a one-on-one meeting planned with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale to discuss hydroelectrical projects in Labrador.

Newfoundland plans to build a $7.6-billion, 824-megawatt hydroelectrical project at Muskrat Falls, downstream from the 5,428-megawatt Churchill Falls dam, operated by Hydro-Québec.

Newfoundland is still bitter about a 1969 agreement giving Churchill Falls power to Hydro-Québec for 0.25 of a cent a kilowatt hour, dropping to 0.20 of a cent a kilowatt hour from 2016 until 2041.

Dunderdale wants to export Muskrat Falls power to New England using undersea transmission lines to Newfoundland and then from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.

At the July meeting of the Council of the Federation in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Marois proposed discussing the situation with Dunderdale at the La Malbaie meeting."

Did this meeting occur? If not - why not? If so what happened?
 

Drinking and Driving pays - that's the problem!

It is sad that a tragic and avoidable event precipitates me to write again on drinking and driving.

A young man, a motorcyclist had his life cut terribly short by a deadly collision this past weekend.

A 67 year old man - the driver of the other vehicle has been charged with impaired driving causing death.

Rightfully this man is presumed innocent - and it is not up to the general public to convict him before due process.

What we can do - however- is talk about drinking and driving and the tragic consequences caused by individuals who have no regard for an other's life.

So what's the problem then?

This happens day after day, week after week, month after month in our country- despite the countless needless deaths of others.

1. There should be a review of and amendment to penalties for drinking and driving.

2. As a society we should consider zero tolerance - meaning if you drink at all - regardless of the amount - it is illegal to drive.

3. Most importantly - don't allow this:

The Premier of British Columbia in 2003 is the person who owns the mugshot above. Gordon Campbell's blood alcohol level  was twice the legal limit at .149 when stopped by police.

Did he resign as Premier? No!

He was caught in Hawaii - not in Canada - in Hawaii it's a misdemeanor in Canada it's a criminal code offence.

He could have killed somebody - fortunately that did not happen.

He was stopped because he was speeding and swerving on the road. He had to prop himself up and had slurred speech. 

Let's make matters worse - Gordon Campbell was appointed by Stephen Harper to the diplomatic post of Canada's High Commissioner in London. That comes with a title of "His Excellency".

If he was caught in Canada - and pleaded no contest - what would have happened?

Do you think he has been punished for his mistake?

Do you think this sends the wrong message to those who would drink and drive?

This is the biggest problem.

Lorraine Michael is 100% Right - Here's Why

MHA David Brazil appeared on a talk show this morning to downplay the significance of the findings by Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Victor Powers.

He said the Commissioner said the violation was a "minimum of minimum" - yet I do not see this in the report. In fact Brazil's take on the finding is that he accepts the findings but his actions were not that bad and were an "oversight".

He brushed off the "conflict of interest" comment by saying it was not outlined how he did that.

Basically - he brushed off the Report and inserted his own interpretations of what are clear findings.

How serious is this?

Well let's reflect on why there is a Code of Member's Conduct to begin with.

This was established to satisfy one of the recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green in his report - acting as the head of an Independent Commission of Review set-up by the Williams Government.

All this of course followed the scathing findings of Auditor General ( Elizabeth Marshall) regarding conduct of Members of the House of Assembly.

We had MHA's go to jail, MHA's who just missed the criminal threshold pay thousands of dollars back to the Crown, MHA's buying artwork, women's lingerie, and even trinkets purchased from a company whose owner was also was found guilty of criminal behavior.

Due to the nature and severity of the MHA behavior - it became incumbent on all MHA's in the future to make a concerted effort to understand the law to the point where oversight would not occur. This needed to be achieved for the public to regain trust in their elected representatives.

In Commissioner Powers Report regarding the actions of MHA David Brazil - the Commissioner in no way takes away from the seriousness of the violations of two laws of the Province.

David Brazil contends that the Commissioner stated that his violations of the law were a "minimum of minimum". This is where the buffoonery enters. The minimum of minimum would mean he violated no law. The Commissioner did find that David Brazil was in violation of two laws and that in each case he found the Member should be reprimanded. A reprimand is the lesser of the penalties available.

Victor Powers did not negate the seriousness of Brazil's breaches - he in fact spent many words highlighting the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and further the importance of full disclosure by the Member of his Interests.

Listening to David Brazil on the talk show this morning makes me believe that the MHA does not accept that his actions were serious, he is not taking the Commissioner's report and recommendations seriously, and he is not prepared to be meaningfully remorseful for his actions.

An MHA - a person who is a Member of the Legislature - where laws are debated and passed -should absolutely be crystal clear on what the laws are related to his conduct as a Member. This was clearly not the case if Brazil contends an oversight.

Should the House re-open to deal with this? Yes - after the history of abuse by Members of the law - and in a day of continued breaches by Senators of Canada - it should be treated seriously and dealt with swiftly. If this does not occur - those who may consider breaking or those who may consider being lax with the law in the future - would have no real deterrent. Further Commissioner Powers did say that failure to disclose required information to the Commissioner's Office contributes to the erosion of transparency and accountability as required from members.

If David Brazil were seriously interested in accountability and serious about breaches in the law - he would do the honourable thing and resign - and let his constituents decide what the "reprimand" should be.

Then again this government giveth and taketh away from transparency and accountability. On the one hand we get new laws for disclosure and accountability for MHA's and on the other hand passes Bill 29 which erodes disclosure and accountability. In this respect I find David Brazil's attitude in keeping with his leader and Cabinet. This should be sufficiently concerning to us all.  


Here are the Links to Relevant Material

Commissioner Powers Report
House of Assembly Act
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
The Code Of Conduct
The Green Report - Rebuilding Confidence

Dangerous highways and roads in Newfoundland and Labrador

Since posting

Tracey's Disgraces - The Roads to Aquaculture and Energy 

I have received dozens of emails and comments to the blog on other regions of Newfoundland and Labrador with less than adequate and in most cases outright dangerous roads and highways. 

Let everybody in our province get a visual of your roads and highways. 

Send your emails and pics to sue.kellanddyer@gmail.com 

I will post them on the blog - and you can remain anonymous if you are fearful of repercussion.

Clearly this "have" province has a long way to go before really being able to boast that title. 

A mathematical equation created by Ottawa to direct equalization where it wants is not the same as "real" progress in our province. 

Thanks for all your comments,

Sue

Paul Davis - your department needs a Geography lesson

After the disaster that was the traffic slowdown (2 to 3 hours) just east of Gander - Minister Paul Davis advised that people livyers and tourists alike check his department's website before travel - in order to determine if there will be delays in their trip.

Let's hope that we don't confuse everybody by providing information that is factually incorrect.

Below please find such a notice. You will note that the bridge is on Route 10 not 90 - you travel route 90 Salmonier Line from the TCH or route 10 Southern Shore Highway (it all should be one route) but the bridge is on Route 10 - several communities away from Route 90. Route 90 from the TCH does not extend to 112 km's. The official notice is incorrect.

So at this point one mess leads to another mess.

90	Northeast Trepassey Bridge on Route 90 South from the TCH 112.7km. Bridge deck repairs. (Project #24-13PSR C)	Ongoing	Aug. 09, 2013 07:51 AM
Comments:	Bridge repairs ongoing. One way traffic controlled by signage. Be prepared for frequent stops and slowdowns. Crews and equipment working in roadway and on shoulders. Speed limit reduced. Drive with care and caution, be prepared to stop and expect short delays while work ongoing for the next week.

Poll results demand a Referendum on Muskrat

So the polls are reflecting the REAL feelings on Muskrat Falls, deficits, cuts, social policy on health and education.

Jerome Kennedy is says "they are taking the poll seriously" - really?

Kennedy adds that they will stand by the decisions they have made on cuts and Muskrat Falls - really?

Kennedy, Dunderdale, and Co. reflected not long ago that the most recent election victory was a ringing endorsement of the Muskrat development deal. Despite the millions in brainwashing attempts and hiding results of earlier polls on the issue - they celebrated not long ago that a majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians finally agree with the deal. Really?

The poll results are low enough now that the Tories are not governing with any moral authority. The poll results are a reflection of people beginning to understand the Muskrat giveaway will cost their children, great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren a fortune. The polls are a reflection of the peoples utter disgust with policy and laws of secrecy. The polls are a reflection that people despise the incompetence and false arrogance of this regime.

So Minister Kennedy is really saying to hell with the people - we will do as we want - when we want. The real strength of the backbench is now being displayed as they sit idly by - not really knowing what to do.

Minister Kennedy is acting as if - we - the people are opposing counsel and he will fight us with the best he's got. Unfortunately Minister - you don't have the right stuff - to win this battle. The Court of Public Opinion has spoken - you have lost the case. Appeal if you dare - my guess is - you will lose that also. When the Supreme Court of Public Opinion speaks - the precedent will be set. Dunderdale, Kennedy and Co. will probably achieve a feat of Mulroney proportions - they will have wiped out the PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. Perhaps Ross Wiseman can pull a Peter MacKay.

A conclusion should be made by the people that NOW is the time to stop this government from proceeding further with the Muskrat fiasco. Stop it now while only 10% has been spent. This project can be halted in its tracks and the only ones who''ll be crying are the 5 or 6 people/corporations that are actually going to make serious money on this sell-out.

We have not passed the point of no return on Muskrat - but the PC's have passed the point of no return with the people.

Try to be honourable ladies and gents and call a referendum on whether the project should proceed.

The stench which is SNC Lavalin is pleasantly perfumy when compared with the smell of sewer gas spewing from the decomposition from within.

There is no reason for any administration to continue a project like Muskrat when they have lost the confidence of the people. If the government continues with this now - it's not for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Steve Kent hides behind Cloak? Come out in the Open!

Kent and Harper - two Steve's I want to forget but still living with their incompetence.

Harper lies and generally speaking is not competent on matters of Canada.

Kent just yaps and then re-yaps to explain or re-explain whatever he is talking about.

Both play around with democracy like it's an institution they own and are willing to do whatever to portray favourably whatever outcome they are seeking.

When Kent was dealing with the Boy Scouts of Canada scandal - he assured us he checked and there was nothing hidden. But then he re-explained that there was - he just did not know at the time. Steve's facts are apparently determined based on Steve's knowledge at any given time and not the actual facts of a situation. This makes him dangerous as a public servant.

A fact is: A thing that is indisputably the case.

First of all there are two measures of fairness and balance when the Tories wish to reveal information.

One for Ross Reid and Len Simms, and another for Sue Kelland-Dyer (me)

But let's review what Mr. Kent had to say in the House of Assembly on March 13th 2013.

               ______________________________

They talk about fiscal responsibility and they suggest mismanagement when we provided, in the past, modest bonuses to executives who are doing great work to improve and strengthen the public services we provide. They will talk about those modest bonuses, and the Minister of Finance addressed those in Question Period today, but you will not hear them talk about the $59,000 they paid to Sue Kelland-Dyer for consulting work from May 2001 to April 2002. May 2001 to April 2002, they paid $59,000 to Sue Kelland-Dyer for consulting work. 

Mr. Speaker, the folks over there, like the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands and the Leader of the Opposition, talk about fiscal responsibility, but they will not tell you about what happened several months later in December 2002. In December 2002 they spent $88,000 to hire none other than Sue Kelland-Dyer again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: Eighty-eight thousand dollars, because she was out criticizing government, but once a couple of payments over a period of time totalling $59,000 and then $88,000 on top of that to be a consultant in the Premier's office to monitor the radio shows, Mr. Speaker, and the polls. It is rather disingenuous for members opposite to stand up and talk to us today about fiscal responsibility.   
               ______________________________

This comparative to Len Simms and Ross Reid?

If we are going to talk about private citizens who no longer are under the employ of government and who cannot answer statements made in the People's House of Assembly - then perhaps we should try to do it fairly.

Len Simms and Ross Reid are long-standing Tories - previously elected Tories - fundraising Tories and remain employed by the Government or a Government Agency.

I am not a long-standing Liberal - not previously elected as a Liberal nor run as a Liberal Candidate.
In fact, Mr. Kent, Liberals used to call me a Tory when I opposed the governments of Clyde Wells and Brian Tobin.

I did not take a leave of absence or quit and hit the campaign trail or become a campaign co-chair and then get re-hired after an election.

Please advise us all of the total dollars I have ever received from working with the government, opposition, or as a consultant and then reveal the total compensation that Ross Reid and Len Simms have received.

Then Kent suggests that I was given $88,000 by the government because I opposed the government and then as a consultant to the Premier's Office to monitor Open-Line shows and polls.

First Mr. Kent you should seek the report that was completed by me as a consultant - release it - and then discuss the contents. The "Crown Jewels".

Then you need to ask yourself if I was actually monitoring Open-Line shows and polls or was I in fact working on things such as the need to establish the Ombudsman's Office, Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, A report on our Place in Canada; and policy matters such as natural resource developments, equalization, and class-action lawsuits.

You are a poor excuse of an MHA and even more so as the holder of facts.

Give me a place and time that you and I can discuss these matters in a public forum. Let's see how you hold up when the House of Assembly cloak is removed.