Yesterday Sue's Blog focused on the journalistic style of James McLeod in his story headlined "Nalcor audit won’t be done before retirement: AG".
Today let's look at some of the other information we can take from this interview.
The AG Terry Paddon is retiring at months end. He leaves behind an unfinished audit of specific operations of Nalcor.
The story does not tell us some important things.
How far along is the audit?
When did Paddon expect to finish it when it began?
Did he run into unforeseen difficulties in attaining the information he needed?
Was it Paddon's intent to finish the audit before he retired?
What does Paddon think the cost will be to finish it?
Is it more costly under a new Auditor General than if he completed it before he retired?
Did he find anything worth noting now?
Terry Paddon is one of those nice people. Not much - I've ever seen in his personality that would put people off. He is a professional by designation and as best I could tell - took his role seriously.
Paddon - however - missed a couple of key areas in his tenure with the Department of Finance and as Auditor General. He missed some real activity regarding the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (Equalization) - despite being alerted to it.
Equalization - as the program is normally referred to - primarily has been to the benefit of Quebec. The program which Stephen Harper promised he would change but then did not - I assume was kept whole for Quebec.
Harper's promise to remove royalties from non-renewable resources from the formula - would have meant that our oil revenues could have served to improve the lives of future generations so much more. That was a digression. (still angry at CPC for deliberately conning Newfoundland and Labrador and "Seantor" Manning's standing at Harper's side as he did it)
BREAKING NEWS
Many people may not have noticed - but Hydro-Quebec does a significant
amount of public program spending. They have been doing that for
decades. Why is the question....
ANSWER
Back in 2000 Stephane Dion then President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appeared on Bill Rowe's Open-Line. I asked questions the Minister could not answer on line - so he did as he promised - wrote me the answers to my questions.
Below is the response:
"On the question of the treatment of Churchill Falls under the Equalization program, it should be noted that an adjustment has been made in the calculation of Equalization payments since 1982 which takes into account how Churchill Falls hydro is priced. Equalization payments are based on the relative ability of each province to raise taxes; and the Churchill Falls adjustment shifts some capacity to tax hydro sites from Newfoundland to Quebec. The net effect is to reduce Quebec's annual Equalization payments while raising Newfoundland's. Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's Equalization."
Right from the get-go we were being further penalized on the Upper Churchill - while Quebec reaped even more benefits. Then the formula was changed to reflect the real contract (albeit not enough in my opinion).
Were we ever compensated for the past - NO.
The real kicker though was found accidentally in the last sentence of Dion's response. "Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls
translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec
government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's
Equalization."
That little remark was an eye opener for anybody watching Hydro-Quebec - as I certainly was.
The hundreds of News Releases coming out of Hydro-Quebec in those years were phenomenal. Now it made sense. Before profit - expenses come out. If Hydro-Quebec delivered or helped to deliver public programming on behalf of the Government of Quebec - they lowered their profits - while the province of Quebec saved equalization money - which gave the province even more to spend on public programs.
In short - Hydro-Quebec making billions off our resource - reduced their profits - lowered remitances to the government - in some years almost to zero - to avoid the loss of equalization. This in turn exponentially increased the value from Labrador resources for Quebec.
At the time Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was making money and was remitting profits to Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time we could have taken advantage of the same. Today Nalcor is not "profitable" - only by force of the PUB, our laws, and oil activity. Nalcor never did do the investment and development that Hydro-Quebec has successfully.
Terry Paddon was aware of this and we did nothing. We sat on our hands and did nothing.
The political and media spin in Newfoundland and Labrador became we MUST become a "have" province. The romantic - naive - irrelevant title of "have". The "have being based on a formula that could see a financially destitute province be "have" while a thriving growing super power province be "have not".
Let me be more clear: Quebec has an unemployment rate of 6% Newfoundland and Labrador is at almost 15%. The population in NL was 530,854 in 1971 and 528,817 in 2017 meanwhile the population in Quebec was 6,137,305 in 1971 and 8,394,034 in 2017. Provincial debt NL is $23,052 per person while in Quebec it is $22,104. This does not include the albatross of 13 Billion for Muskrat Falls. Then we take into account that Nalcor is not financing all it's own obligations - we put in a fair chunk and it is only barely profitable because of oil operations. When compared to Hydro-Quebec which has hundreds of millions in profits - without oil revenues.
Paddon failed by not describing what equalization truly is and how the system works. It's not all his fault - but political masters should not have had that much say.
The media - should really get its collective act together and do some real reporting. It should make itself knowledgeable about important issues and policies before it puts out fluff - this denying the people of balanced information on which they can make a decision.
It is no longer acceptable to have zero leadership in politics and zero accountability of the news media.
We are broke. We continue to repeat mistakes. We continue to dream without doing anything that remotely will help us achieve our dream of prosperous future.
By the way - are there any MHA's willing to wade in to this discussion or members of our "press corps"?
Showing posts with label Bill Rowe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Rowe. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Lois and Clark need to get voting for their Iron Lady
That crack pair of superhero and journalist protecting the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had better get auto-clicking to protect the Iron Lady.
Let me see Mr. Marshall - were you referring to the Oxford trained chemist who studied under a Nobel Prize winner? You mean the Barrister Thatcher? Were you referring to the lady who did some damage to the Falklands?
No? You were referring to who? The Iron Lady?
The only thing Margaret and Kathy will ever have in common is that both will have resigned due to unpopular policy and power struggles in their respective parties.
The Iron Lady indeed! Let me see I can see a Lied Piper, an Alice in Wonderland, a Snowed White, of course the Three Refined Mice, and the Valiant Little Spin Tailor.
People may have had their opinions of Kathy Dunderdale and likewise Tom Marshall - all of that may have changed for Minister Marshall as he gushed the words Iron Lady.
Do I hear a Joan of Arc next coming from the lips of our Minister of un-natural resources?
Let me see Mr. Marshall - were you referring to the Oxford trained chemist who studied under a Nobel Prize winner? You mean the Barrister Thatcher? Were you referring to the lady who did some damage to the Falklands?
No? You were referring to who? The Iron Lady?
The only thing Margaret and Kathy will ever have in common is that both will have resigned due to unpopular policy and power struggles in their respective parties.
The Iron Lady indeed! Let me see I can see a Lied Piper, an Alice in Wonderland, a Snowed White, of course the Three Refined Mice, and the Valiant Little Spin Tailor.
People may have had their opinions of Kathy Dunderdale and likewise Tom Marshall - all of that may have changed for Minister Marshall as he gushed the words Iron Lady.
Do I hear a Joan of Arc next coming from the lips of our Minister of un-natural resources?
Monday, March 18, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Talk with Sue Second Show - Electoral Reform - the Sleeping Democracy - Dunderdale's arrogance!
Join us tonight at 8 pm - Talk with Sue - Second Show deals with electoral reform.
Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?
42% of people did not vote. Why?
The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?
Why type of electoral system would you like to see?
Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?
What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.
I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.
We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.
Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!
Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.
Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?
42% of people did not vote. Why?
The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?
Why type of electoral system would you like to see?
Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?
What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.
I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.
We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.
Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!
Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
A real Progressive Conservative versus an Opportunist
Yesterday - I read a very interesting letter posted on the campaign website of Scott Brison - Liberal incumbent Kings-Hants Nova Scotia. Scott as you may remember was a very effective Progressive Conservative federal MP just after the merger of the PC Party and the Alliance Reform Party to form what is now the Conservative party.
Anyway - Joe Clark former Prime Minister and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and in the past outspoken against the Conservative Party - sent Scott an open-letter. Although Joe does not condemn Harper outright - you can read between the lines. Joe is a Progressive Conservative!
Now let me introduce an opportunist. For background purposes this fellow is a Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative MHA and a provincial Cabinet Minister. Kevin O`Brien stood side by side with Danny Williams as the former Premier lead the ABC Campaign after Stephen Harper out and out lied to the people of the province. This lie will cost our children over 10 billion dollars - relative to a non-renewable resource that will be exhausted by the time the next generation enters the workforce.
Currently Kevin - is campaigning for the local Conservative candidates and attempting to fool the people of our province. Please listen to Kevin back in 2008 when he was fighting against Harper. Audio Clip
Kevin O`Brien is an Opportunist.
This Canada is why we are sick of politicians - their lies, their deception, their opportunistic ways - and in Newfoundland and Labrador still sick of Stephen Harper.
Thanks to Donny for the Clip
Anyway - Joe Clark former Prime Minister and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and in the past outspoken against the Conservative Party - sent Scott an open-letter. Although Joe does not condemn Harper outright - you can read between the lines. Joe is a Progressive Conservative!
Now let me introduce an opportunist. For background purposes this fellow is a Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative MHA and a provincial Cabinet Minister. Kevin O`Brien stood side by side with Danny Williams as the former Premier lead the ABC Campaign after Stephen Harper out and out lied to the people of the province. This lie will cost our children over 10 billion dollars - relative to a non-renewable resource that will be exhausted by the time the next generation enters the workforce.
Currently Kevin - is campaigning for the local Conservative candidates and attempting to fool the people of our province. Please listen to Kevin back in 2008 when he was fighting against Harper. Audio Clip
Kevin O`Brien is an Opportunist.
This Canada is why we are sick of politicians - their lies, their deception, their opportunistic ways - and in Newfoundland and Labrador still sick of Stephen Harper.
Thanks to Donny for the Clip
Friday, February 11, 2011
Lifting the Cone of Silence - Let the debate begin!
I assume everybody remembers the "we got it we got it" performance of Premier Danny Williams at the St. John's Airport right? Picture below property of CBC
Okay - let's give the Premier that credit. He did what the previous Liberal provincial governments did not have the guts to do.
That was 2 billion dollars right?
Were there restrictions placed on what the money could be used for?
Was that payment directed by Ottawa to be used for debt repayment of one sort or another?
Did we use that money to partially fund - unfunded pension liabilities?
When that 2 billion dollars was used on refunding pensions (invested) did we lose a chunk of it when the markets collapsed? If so how much did we lose?
If the money were used for NALCOR - then we would be able to finance our project on the Lower Churchill right?
Are we now going cap in hand to Ottawa to get a guarantee? Why?
After receiving the 2 billion from Paul Martin did we then proceed to lose 10 billion from Stephen Harper?
Premier Danny then proclaimed the ABC campaign to punish Harper right?
What was the ultimate punishment?
Where is Loyola Hearn now? What job is he holding? Do you feel he has been punished?
Where is Fabian Manning now? Do you think he has been punished?
Who is the Federal Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador? Have we been punished?
Did Danny accomplish anything from Stephen Harper? Did Danny finish the job?
Each of these questions will have answers one by one - here on Sue's Blog.
Now the biggest questions for Danny Williams - why did you attempt to give away the Lower Churchill - then leave? Why was Kathy Dunderdale chosen by you to replace you? Did you dissuade any individual either directly or indirectly from running for the leadership? Are you or anybody on behalf of you still advising Kathy Dunderdale?
Answers coming one by one.
Why is this province under a cone of silence? Why is our media focused on Brad Cabana, carnage, and the courts? Why are critical questions not being asked by our media?
What about the tobacco suit?
What about any past staffers? Where are they?
What about the fibre optic fiasco?
Answers coming one by one.
Who has major shares in Emera? Who is driving the Muskrat Falls deal? Why is the public not involved? Why will our rates go up? Why are we shipping power out? Why do the PC MHA's not believe we will need the power?
Answers coming one by one.
Make no mistake - this is for the record - for in the off chance this project proceeds the children of tomorrow will know - who is responsible for the deeds of today.
Solid Gold piece of work.
That was 2 billion dollars right?
Were there restrictions placed on what the money could be used for?
Was that payment directed by Ottawa to be used for debt repayment of one sort or another?
Did we use that money to partially fund - unfunded pension liabilities?
When that 2 billion dollars was used on refunding pensions (invested) did we lose a chunk of it when the markets collapsed? If so how much did we lose?
If the money were used for NALCOR - then we would be able to finance our project on the Lower Churchill right?
Are we now going cap in hand to Ottawa to get a guarantee? Why?
After receiving the 2 billion from Paul Martin did we then proceed to lose 10 billion from Stephen Harper?
Premier Danny then proclaimed the ABC campaign to punish Harper right?
What was the ultimate punishment?
Where is Loyola Hearn now? What job is he holding? Do you feel he has been punished?
Where is Fabian Manning now? Do you think he has been punished?
Who is the Federal Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador? Have we been punished?
Did Danny accomplish anything from Stephen Harper? Did Danny finish the job?
Each of these questions will have answers one by one - here on Sue's Blog.
Now the biggest questions for Danny Williams - why did you attempt to give away the Lower Churchill - then leave? Why was Kathy Dunderdale chosen by you to replace you? Did you dissuade any individual either directly or indirectly from running for the leadership? Are you or anybody on behalf of you still advising Kathy Dunderdale?
Answers coming one by one.
Why is this province under a cone of silence? Why is our media focused on Brad Cabana, carnage, and the courts? Why are critical questions not being asked by our media?
What about the tobacco suit?
What about any past staffers? Where are they?
What about the fibre optic fiasco?
Answers coming one by one.
Who has major shares in Emera? Who is driving the Muskrat Falls deal? Why is the public not involved? Why will our rates go up? Why are we shipping power out? Why do the PC MHA's not believe we will need the power?
Answers coming one by one.
Make no mistake - this is for the record - for in the off chance this project proceeds the children of tomorrow will know - who is responsible for the deeds of today.
Solid Gold piece of work.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Story of George Murphy - much more than gas prices!
Everybody knows George - he is the wonderful person that keeps us regularly up to date on home heating fuel and gas prices. This he does for his fellow citizens - at no charge - and is ultimately more valuable than our paid consumer representative.
George has also over the years plunked himself in the middle of other important issues concerning Newfoundland and Labrador - again at no charge. George cares about other people - no doubt about it. He cares so much the Liberals (in their usual way) used his services - at no charge.
George is a tested and true Newfoundlander and Labradorian - he deserves all the accolades he gets for the "public service" he provides. You see that really is public service and not self service. The Liberals need to gut the house and return the party back to the people. There are many George's out there - good people - who have proven their worth and love for this province.
Now George recently ran in a by-election and placed a respectable second - but George deserved to win. If it was based on public profile and service - and not on Danny's leftover team - Brazil probably would have placed second. The Liberals continued to receive the same message - clean house - rid yourselves of the regurgitated, recycled, faceless, inner sanctum dwellers - who are just waiting for their turn again.
The Libs - sitting in wait - honestly- sitting waiting sitting waiting - for the Tories to fail. That is the lump sum ambition of what is left over there. Meanwhile more and more philosophically inclined Libs sit and wait for the Party to clean itself up. It is looking disheveled, worn, weary, and most of all lazy. They feel they are entitled to government.
The Liberals recycling of past politicos and "party-executive" program - if adopted by the provinces multi materials stewardship board - would put to shame the best efforts of green advocates.
Who does this party belong to anyway? Maybe they will tell us. The latest tour of the Province in an effort to "consult" with people is really a public relations exercise - have they listened before?
George is a good fellow - and he is now with the NDP - hope he is being respected. Because I believe in democracy - I can never say - the NDP will not win - but there has not been enough effort into building and attracting - rather just repeating the social messages of Tommy Douglas. Douglas was extraordinary - and as one voice he brought many together and thereby pushed progressive policies through.
Ultimately I suppose the story of George demonstrates the public is not requiring the best - but whatever the partisan chef serves up. In this case it was a PC. Now because I love Bell Island so much - this causes me more grief. Bell Island has always had real promise and has always been let down. Listening to Mayor Gary Gosine speak passionately of his Tickle home is as hard as listening to Gus on the fishery. Why? Because they deserve to be listened to but they are drowned out by partisan mules delivering the message of those addicted to power but allergic to service.
It's too easy for us townies to say "resettle" - to whatever community might be in difficulty. It is too easy for Islanders to say "Labrador has to understand they have little population and have to share their wealth of natural resources". That's just us being lazy and that laziness makes it easy to be partisan. All you have to do is join the chant. That's how a boy from the interior of the island - who has seen more spruce bud-worms than cod can Randy on about there is not enough fish and rural Newfoundland and Labrador just has to suck it up.
Women and men of this province - we have to step to the plate - take our precious democracy seriously - do not seek a messiah - but rather proven Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who just feel it in the gut when our province and her people hurt. We have to take a turn at bat - so that a Brad Cabana cannot be the top news story over the real issues facing us. We have to get to first base and demand our media to - bring us the real goods. How will we know when we are on our way home? When people like George Murphy are not used by the likes of what's left of the Liberal club - when we elect people based on real positions and demonstrated commitment - not somebody who calls Randy, Bill, or Paddy and says I am a first time caller and I'm running for the Williams team. How about when we take stewardship to mean something more than a word on a sign and when we say as parents - it is not good enough to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies - rather protect our children for all your worth from the partisan power brokers and the bobble heads who follow them.
If you do not protect the next generation - your children from this - most of these politicos won't. They make sure their children have a prosperous future another way - and that hurts us all.
Hats off George and I hope you don't mind that I "used" you for this blog post. I did so with all good intentions.
George has also over the years plunked himself in the middle of other important issues concerning Newfoundland and Labrador - again at no charge. George cares about other people - no doubt about it. He cares so much the Liberals (in their usual way) used his services - at no charge.
George is a tested and true Newfoundlander and Labradorian - he deserves all the accolades he gets for the "public service" he provides. You see that really is public service and not self service. The Liberals need to gut the house and return the party back to the people. There are many George's out there - good people - who have proven their worth and love for this province.
Now George recently ran in a by-election and placed a respectable second - but George deserved to win. If it was based on public profile and service - and not on Danny's leftover team - Brazil probably would have placed second. The Liberals continued to receive the same message - clean house - rid yourselves of the regurgitated, recycled, faceless, inner sanctum dwellers - who are just waiting for their turn again.
The Libs - sitting in wait - honestly- sitting waiting sitting waiting - for the Tories to fail. That is the lump sum ambition of what is left over there. Meanwhile more and more philosophically inclined Libs sit and wait for the Party to clean itself up. It is looking disheveled, worn, weary, and most of all lazy. They feel they are entitled to government.
The Liberals recycling of past politicos and "party-executive" program - if adopted by the provinces multi materials stewardship board - would put to shame the best efforts of green advocates.
Who does this party belong to anyway? Maybe they will tell us. The latest tour of the Province in an effort to "consult" with people is really a public relations exercise - have they listened before?
George is a good fellow - and he is now with the NDP - hope he is being respected. Because I believe in democracy - I can never say - the NDP will not win - but there has not been enough effort into building and attracting - rather just repeating the social messages of Tommy Douglas. Douglas was extraordinary - and as one voice he brought many together and thereby pushed progressive policies through.
Ultimately I suppose the story of George demonstrates the public is not requiring the best - but whatever the partisan chef serves up. In this case it was a PC. Now because I love Bell Island so much - this causes me more grief. Bell Island has always had real promise and has always been let down. Listening to Mayor Gary Gosine speak passionately of his Tickle home is as hard as listening to Gus on the fishery. Why? Because they deserve to be listened to but they are drowned out by partisan mules delivering the message of those addicted to power but allergic to service.
It's too easy for us townies to say "resettle" - to whatever community might be in difficulty. It is too easy for Islanders to say "Labrador has to understand they have little population and have to share their wealth of natural resources". That's just us being lazy and that laziness makes it easy to be partisan. All you have to do is join the chant. That's how a boy from the interior of the island - who has seen more spruce bud-worms than cod can Randy on about there is not enough fish and rural Newfoundland and Labrador just has to suck it up.
Women and men of this province - we have to step to the plate - take our precious democracy seriously - do not seek a messiah - but rather proven Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who just feel it in the gut when our province and her people hurt. We have to take a turn at bat - so that a Brad Cabana cannot be the top news story over the real issues facing us. We have to get to first base and demand our media to - bring us the real goods. How will we know when we are on our way home? When people like George Murphy are not used by the likes of what's left of the Liberal club - when we elect people based on real positions and demonstrated commitment - not somebody who calls Randy, Bill, or Paddy and says I am a first time caller and I'm running for the Williams team. How about when we take stewardship to mean something more than a word on a sign and when we say as parents - it is not good enough to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies - rather protect our children for all your worth from the partisan power brokers and the bobble heads who follow them.
If you do not protect the next generation - your children from this - most of these politicos won't. They make sure their children have a prosperous future another way - and that hurts us all.
Hats off George and I hope you don't mind that I "used" you for this blog post. I did so with all good intentions.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Cry me a River downstream
This is a readers digest discussion of the woes of the Upper Churchill contract and continues on from the first installment Cry me a River.
Frank Moores becomes Premier at a time when the first hint emerges that the deal Brinco has with Hydro Quebec is one sided and that Brinco if left alone stood to lose money over the term of the agreement. This is when Newfoundland and Labrador became directly involved in the contract.
Essentially Brinco wanted to develop the Lower Churchill same terms as Upper Churchill - Newfoundland and Labrador political geniuses had now figured out what Quebec was getting in the first round said no. The rest of the story since related by John Crosbie in his book - No Holds Barred - is surely the same as all the rest of the "expose" semi-fictional novels where the author is the hero and others around the situation were just weak.
In either case Frank set out to buy Brinco's water rights - we are told in order to develop the Lower Churchill. The additional truth is that Frank went to a hotel room in Montreal and for all we knew bailed Brinco (Rothschilds) out of a bad deal which would see them lose money.
John Crosbie's interpretation or "recollection" in his book has Frank Moores as spineless and Crosbie further was "unimpressed" Sir Val Duncan or Bill Mulholland or "any of them". Crosbie articulated he assumed he was as brainy as the other side of the table. At this point I will note it is too bad that the grey matter was not up to the same snuff when we did the Upper Churchill. But romantic reflections of our current Lieutenant Governor aside Crosbie admitted the price to buy back the water rights in Labrador and the control of CFLCo was too steep. I'll say - 160 million dollars or so for an investment of what 10 million dollars. They collectively gave the Rothschilds a return on their investment that they never would have seen on the Upper Churchill fiasco.
Three others observations of Crosbie from the time are very relative to now and this proposed deal with Emera.
1. Crosbie concluded that Joey was responsible for the mess of the Upper Churchill which sees hundreds of millions going to Quebec as we receive little more than 10 million (pre resale power under Tobin). Even though John and Bill and Bill and Clyde and others mentioned in the Cry me a River installment - were around during the deal they collectively all watched or assisted it in happening. But no - it's the dead guys fault.
2. Crosbie concluded that there is no doubt the Upper Churchill should not have been developed by Brinco but rather as a joint project between the governments of Newfoundland and Quebec. In this he suggests that nationalizing and maintaining control of resources such as the renewable energy in Labrador is essential. He almost after all these years got it right - yes it should belong to the people - but he forgot the people of Labrador and the absolute battering they have taken on what could have been the industrialization of Labrador for the benefit of the great land.
3. Crosbie speaks of Joey's insistence on dealing with Brinco despite the potential loss to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and speaks to potential conflicts of interest where he speculates on Joey's dabbling in Brinco stock and Smallwood's violation of the peoples' trust. He then compares this to Frank Moores who would not allow any Minister to make decisions on a deal or development of resources where they had private interests - and then goes further to say at the time the provincial legislation was better than the federal in that it did not recognize blind trusts. According to Crosbie and I quote "A blind trust is useless when dealing with private companies." Yes so true is it not? Think about that and what Crosbie is actually saying. For sure if you are the Premier now you could not have interest in the Lower Churchill construction or shares in Emera - but if you are a private citizen you sure can. What's the time frame after having been a Premier - one must wait as a private entrepreneur to buy interest in a private company set to develop the Lower Churchill as a "windfall"?
another installment around the corner.....
Frank Moores becomes Premier at a time when the first hint emerges that the deal Brinco has with Hydro Quebec is one sided and that Brinco if left alone stood to lose money over the term of the agreement. This is when Newfoundland and Labrador became directly involved in the contract.
Essentially Brinco wanted to develop the Lower Churchill same terms as Upper Churchill - Newfoundland and Labrador political geniuses had now figured out what Quebec was getting in the first round said no. The rest of the story since related by John Crosbie in his book - No Holds Barred - is surely the same as all the rest of the "expose" semi-fictional novels where the author is the hero and others around the situation were just weak.
In either case Frank set out to buy Brinco's water rights - we are told in order to develop the Lower Churchill. The additional truth is that Frank went to a hotel room in Montreal and for all we knew bailed Brinco (Rothschilds) out of a bad deal which would see them lose money.
John Crosbie's interpretation or "recollection" in his book has Frank Moores as spineless and Crosbie further was "unimpressed" Sir Val Duncan or Bill Mulholland or "any of them". Crosbie articulated he assumed he was as brainy as the other side of the table. At this point I will note it is too bad that the grey matter was not up to the same snuff when we did the Upper Churchill. But romantic reflections of our current Lieutenant Governor aside Crosbie admitted the price to buy back the water rights in Labrador and the control of CFLCo was too steep. I'll say - 160 million dollars or so for an investment of what 10 million dollars. They collectively gave the Rothschilds a return on their investment that they never would have seen on the Upper Churchill fiasco.
Three others observations of Crosbie from the time are very relative to now and this proposed deal with Emera.
1. Crosbie concluded that Joey was responsible for the mess of the Upper Churchill which sees hundreds of millions going to Quebec as we receive little more than 10 million (pre resale power under Tobin). Even though John and Bill and Bill and Clyde and others mentioned in the Cry me a River installment - were around during the deal they collectively all watched or assisted it in happening. But no - it's the dead guys fault.
2. Crosbie concluded that there is no doubt the Upper Churchill should not have been developed by Brinco but rather as a joint project between the governments of Newfoundland and Quebec. In this he suggests that nationalizing and maintaining control of resources such as the renewable energy in Labrador is essential. He almost after all these years got it right - yes it should belong to the people - but he forgot the people of Labrador and the absolute battering they have taken on what could have been the industrialization of Labrador for the benefit of the great land.
3. Crosbie speaks of Joey's insistence on dealing with Brinco despite the potential loss to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and speaks to potential conflicts of interest where he speculates on Joey's dabbling in Brinco stock and Smallwood's violation of the peoples' trust. He then compares this to Frank Moores who would not allow any Minister to make decisions on a deal or development of resources where they had private interests - and then goes further to say at the time the provincial legislation was better than the federal in that it did not recognize blind trusts. According to Crosbie and I quote "A blind trust is useless when dealing with private companies." Yes so true is it not? Think about that and what Crosbie is actually saying. For sure if you are the Premier now you could not have interest in the Lower Churchill construction or shares in Emera - but if you are a private citizen you sure can. What's the time frame after having been a Premier - one must wait as a private entrepreneur to buy interest in a private company set to develop the Lower Churchill as a "windfall"?
another installment around the corner.....
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Cry me a River
It seems like forever or at least the past few decades that I have been an adult - that tears have fallen slowly down the collective cheek of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Drop by drop our future has been sucked away by this like a case of liposuction gone wrong. This - being the Upper Churchill contract. A deed done in a time when we were told the legal brilliance of our community somehow sucked their thumbs while attached to the teat of Joey Smallwood. Who was around in the sixties and seventies? Who were our leaders?
This is a partial list:
Smallwood, Joseph Newfoundland, Premier, 1949-1971
Barry, Leo D. Newfoundland, Mines and Energy, 1972-1975 and 1979-1981
Callahan, William Newfoundland, Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources 1968-1971
Crosby, John Newfoundland, Minister of Finance and Economic Development
Curtis, Leslie Roy Newfoundland, Attorney General,lMinister of Justice, 1969-1971
Doody, William Newfoundland, Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, 18January-19 April 1972
Gover, Frederick Newfoundland, Deputy Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, 1960s-1970s
Hickrnan, Alec Newfoundland, Justice, Deputy Minister, early 1960s-1966, Minister of Justice, 1966-1969
Lukins, F.1. Newfoundland, Department of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, Chief Engineer, 1960s
Martin, Cabot Newfoundland, Department of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, legal counsel, 1972-1979 and legal counsel to Premier Brian Peckford, 1979-1985
Moores, Frank D. Newfoundland, Premier, 1971-1979
Bill Rowe Elected 1966 at 24 and became one of Canada's youngest Minister 2 years later
Clyde Wells 1966 - to you know the story Hydro once - twice - three times
Sure the whole deal is complicated - and the deal was between Hydro Quebec and Brinco - but these people were aware and were involved at some level in allowing the project to go through or reach fruition.
The one thing that is not complicated is the fact that we have lost billions in revenue for apparently not recognizing that the price of oil might go up over a 70 year period. Clearly Hydro Quebec seen something as they are the party that raised the lions share of the financing. So sure were they that they put the Province of Quebec out on the proverbial limb to the tune of an outrageous amount of money (in sixties terms). The largest external raising of cash of US money.
Now the Churchill deal unfortunately did not only miss escalation - it also seen the decline in prices over the term of the contract. Then there were clauses like if CFLco could not meet its obligations then Hydro Quebec would have the right to pay the monies and receive common shares for the value. In short as CFLco went broke and the minority partner paid the bills the minority partner (Hydro Quebec) would end up owning it all.
Remember though that at the time that partner was Brinco not Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the next few months leading up to the election Sue's Blog will detail every little piece of this failure - but for now let's stick to the Reader's Digest version. So we've summed up the mess the Liberals made - now let's take it to the Tories and the introduction of a new group of geniuses. Who were the leaders then?
Leo Barry was initially elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1972. He served as Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly before being appointed to the Cabinet of Frank Moores as Minister of Mines and Energy In 1979, Barry returned to Newfoundland and contested the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party placing second to Brian Peckford. He won a seat in 1979 and was appointed energy minister in Peckford's cabinet. Barry resigned from cabinet in 1981 due to a disagreement with Peckford over negotiations with the federal government over Newfoundland's claim to offshore resources. On Feb. 21, 1984, he crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party and became the party's leader later that year.
In 1969, John Crosbie challenged Smallwood for the Liberal party leadership and lost. He crossed the floor to join the opposition Progressive Conservatives led by Frank Moores. Crosbie helped the Tories defeat Smallwood and come to power in 1972 and held several senior portfolios in Moores's cabinet.
C. William Doody was active in provincial politics and was first elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1971 as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He became minister of mines, agriculture and resources when Frank Moores formed his government in 1972. In 1975, Doody became the province's finance minister and when Brian Peckford became Premier of the province, Doody was made Minister of Mines and Energy. In October, 1979, Doody left provincial politics and was appointed to the Senate by then Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Joe Clark in 1979.
Tom Farrell was a represented the riding of Humber East in the House of Assembly from 1971 to 1979. He was a member of the PC's.
Noel Murphy entered politics as a Progressive Conservative and won the seat of Humber East in the 1962 provincial election. In 1966 he became party leader and Leader of the Opposition leading the Tories into the 1966 General Election. The party lost four of its seven seats and Murphy was defeated in by Liberal Clyde Wells, a future premier. Murphy was elected mayor of Corner Brook for three terms and was unexpectedly appointed Minister without Portfolio in 1971 in the final cabinet of Liberal Premier Joey Smallwood however he lost the riding of Humber West in the subsequent 1971 election to Conservative leader Frank Moores.
By now you should start to see a very interesting picture emerge.
The next installment of Sue's Blog will takeover with what Frank and company did with the Churchill. But take your time and read things carefully - think about what has happened and know this - it must not happen now. The Emera deal must be stopped. This is only a continuation and that river will flood the banks of Newfoundland and Labrador with the tears of our children and grandchildren.
From the 60's to now - they still believe they can guide us. Many are still here. Over and over they fail. Not this time.
Drop by drop our future has been sucked away by this like a case of liposuction gone wrong. This - being the Upper Churchill contract. A deed done in a time when we were told the legal brilliance of our community somehow sucked their thumbs while attached to the teat of Joey Smallwood. Who was around in the sixties and seventies? Who were our leaders?
This is a partial list:
Smallwood, Joseph Newfoundland, Premier, 1949-1971
Barry, Leo D. Newfoundland, Mines and Energy, 1972-1975 and 1979-1981
Callahan, William Newfoundland, Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources 1968-1971
Crosby, John Newfoundland, Minister of Finance and Economic Development
Curtis, Leslie Roy Newfoundland, Attorney General,lMinister of Justice, 1969-1971
Doody, William Newfoundland, Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, 18January-19 April 1972
Gover, Frederick Newfoundland, Deputy Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, 1960s-1970s
Hickrnan, Alec Newfoundland, Justice, Deputy Minister, early 1960s-1966, Minister of Justice, 1966-1969
Lukins, F.1. Newfoundland, Department of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, Chief Engineer, 1960s
Martin, Cabot Newfoundland, Department of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, legal counsel, 1972-1979 and legal counsel to Premier Brian Peckford, 1979-1985
Moores, Frank D. Newfoundland, Premier, 1971-1979
Bill Rowe Elected 1966 at 24 and became one of Canada's youngest Minister 2 years later
Clyde Wells 1966 - to you know the story Hydro once - twice - three times
Sure the whole deal is complicated - and the deal was between Hydro Quebec and Brinco - but these people were aware and were involved at some level in allowing the project to go through or reach fruition.
The one thing that is not complicated is the fact that we have lost billions in revenue for apparently not recognizing that the price of oil might go up over a 70 year period. Clearly Hydro Quebec seen something as they are the party that raised the lions share of the financing. So sure were they that they put the Province of Quebec out on the proverbial limb to the tune of an outrageous amount of money (in sixties terms). The largest external raising of cash of US money.
Now the Churchill deal unfortunately did not only miss escalation - it also seen the decline in prices over the term of the contract. Then there were clauses like if CFLco could not meet its obligations then Hydro Quebec would have the right to pay the monies and receive common shares for the value. In short as CFLco went broke and the minority partner paid the bills the minority partner (Hydro Quebec) would end up owning it all.
Remember though that at the time that partner was Brinco not Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the next few months leading up to the election Sue's Blog will detail every little piece of this failure - but for now let's stick to the Reader's Digest version. So we've summed up the mess the Liberals made - now let's take it to the Tories and the introduction of a new group of geniuses. Who were the leaders then?
Leo Barry was initially elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1972. He served as Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly before being appointed to the Cabinet of Frank Moores as Minister of Mines and Energy In 1979, Barry returned to Newfoundland and contested the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party placing second to Brian Peckford. He won a seat in 1979 and was appointed energy minister in Peckford's cabinet. Barry resigned from cabinet in 1981 due to a disagreement with Peckford over negotiations with the federal government over Newfoundland's claim to offshore resources. On Feb. 21, 1984, he crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party and became the party's leader later that year.
In 1969, John Crosbie challenged Smallwood for the Liberal party leadership and lost. He crossed the floor to join the opposition Progressive Conservatives led by Frank Moores. Crosbie helped the Tories defeat Smallwood and come to power in 1972 and held several senior portfolios in Moores's cabinet.
C. William Doody was active in provincial politics and was first elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1971 as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He became minister of mines, agriculture and resources when Frank Moores formed his government in 1972. In 1975, Doody became the province's finance minister and when Brian Peckford became Premier of the province, Doody was made Minister of Mines and Energy. In October, 1979, Doody left provincial politics and was appointed to the Senate by then Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Joe Clark in 1979.
Tom Farrell was a represented the riding of Humber East in the House of Assembly from 1971 to 1979. He was a member of the PC's.
Noel Murphy entered politics as a Progressive Conservative and won the seat of Humber East in the 1962 provincial election. In 1966 he became party leader and Leader of the Opposition leading the Tories into the 1966 General Election. The party lost four of its seven seats and Murphy was defeated in by Liberal Clyde Wells, a future premier. Murphy was elected mayor of Corner Brook for three terms and was unexpectedly appointed Minister without Portfolio in 1971 in the final cabinet of Liberal Premier Joey Smallwood however he lost the riding of Humber West in the subsequent 1971 election to Conservative leader Frank Moores.
By now you should start to see a very interesting picture emerge.
The next installment of Sue's Blog will takeover with what Frank and company did with the Churchill. But take your time and read things carefully - think about what has happened and know this - it must not happen now. The Emera deal must be stopped. This is only a continuation and that river will flood the banks of Newfoundland and Labrador with the tears of our children and grandchildren.
From the 60's to now - they still believe they can guide us. Many are still here. Over and over they fail. Not this time.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
What happened to the Voice of the Common Man?
There have been many changes since Danny Williams took office - but the most obvious one to me is VOCM talk shows.
VOCM's Joe Butler sold out to New Cap (publicly traded) and Danny's presence has reduced the effectiveness of the Open-Line forum.
Despite the "take it for granted" attitude of a couple of hosts - people like you and me participate in these forums to promote public debate of public policy.
During an election and even in-between - these programs used to provide 2 and 1/2 hours for the leaders to come on and take questions from the people. Since Danny has been elected - there has not been a full program dedicated to this. Four years and not once did the leaders of the parties spend 2 1/2 hours taking questions.
This is the first time in my memory that this has not happened during an election.
There has also been more rule changes for callers to the programs in the last 4 years than any other time in the past 12.
Geoff Meeker took VOCM to task on anonymous callers a while back - and rightfully so - because the last 4 years has been about "Danny Goons" anonymously questioning the bloggers or regular callers. There has been erroneous and slanderous comments made about me and other regular contributors - but who cares says VOCM.
Then there was the whole episode of Randy Simms wanting the employment history of three callers to open-line because his other employer - newspaper - suggested we were lobbyists.
The shows have become a forum for government Ministers and MHA's with pre-determined messages during CRA polling periods and a place for anonymous callers to question the integrity and purpose of callers who have contributed freely to the program for a decade and some of the very few who will question Danny publicly. The only other regular group nowadays are TONY - LIZ - MINNIE who call to promote the position of a Premier who has a popularity of between 70%-80%.
After the election is over let's see if VOCM will continue in this direction - or really be a forum of open and public debate.
The one thing I have really learned - you don't criticize VOCM and Steele with any different results than criticizing Danny Williams.
VOCM's Joe Butler sold out to New Cap (publicly traded) and Danny's presence has reduced the effectiveness of the Open-Line forum.
Despite the "take it for granted" attitude of a couple of hosts - people like you and me participate in these forums to promote public debate of public policy.
During an election and even in-between - these programs used to provide 2 and 1/2 hours for the leaders to come on and take questions from the people. Since Danny has been elected - there has not been a full program dedicated to this. Four years and not once did the leaders of the parties spend 2 1/2 hours taking questions.
This is the first time in my memory that this has not happened during an election.
There has also been more rule changes for callers to the programs in the last 4 years than any other time in the past 12.
Geoff Meeker took VOCM to task on anonymous callers a while back - and rightfully so - because the last 4 years has been about "Danny Goons" anonymously questioning the bloggers or regular callers. There has been erroneous and slanderous comments made about me and other regular contributors - but who cares says VOCM.
Then there was the whole episode of Randy Simms wanting the employment history of three callers to open-line because his other employer - newspaper - suggested we were lobbyists.
The shows have become a forum for government Ministers and MHA's with pre-determined messages during CRA polling periods and a place for anonymous callers to question the integrity and purpose of callers who have contributed freely to the program for a decade and some of the very few who will question Danny publicly. The only other regular group nowadays are TONY - LIZ - MINNIE who call to promote the position of a Premier who has a popularity of between 70%-80%.
After the election is over let's see if VOCM will continue in this direction - or really be a forum of open and public debate.
The one thing I have really learned - you don't criticize VOCM and Steele with any different results than criticizing Danny Williams.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Simm's fair in lobbyist Coverage
Update:
I am pleased - as we all should be - that VOCM open-line lived up to it's name. Host Randy Simms let free speech flow this morning (August 9-07)- and allowed questions on real lobbyists - who we have employed. Kudo's to Randy! Maybe we will be all the more educated for it.
That is what is being practised on VOCM - when we cannot mention the name Summa Strategies Inc. as lobbyists for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and former lobbyists for the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
This is public information. This at least can be verified. Summa lists IFAW under their Track Record section - as an organization which has benefited from their services. Further Summa and the Federal Lobbyist Registry confirms that they are employed to lobby on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
There is no problem however letting people place innuendo on the air by hosts and others that I "may" be working for somebody therefore my public commentary is purchased. The absolute crap that was permitted on by VOCM by callers - that I am working for one political party or another over the past year. Untrue - but VOCM did not block that. Yet information available on a federal government site and listed on the companies own website is "private".
Double standard. The question is WHY?
Here are the LINKS
IFAW and SUMMA
Summa and Hydro
Summa and IFAW
Summa and Hydro
I am pleased - as we all should be - that VOCM open-line lived up to it's name. Host Randy Simms let free speech flow this morning (August 9-07)- and allowed questions on real lobbyists - who we have employed. Kudo's to Randy! Maybe we will be all the more educated for it.
That is what is being practised on VOCM - when we cannot mention the name Summa Strategies Inc. as lobbyists for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and former lobbyists for the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
This is public information. This at least can be verified. Summa lists IFAW under their Track Record section - as an organization which has benefited from their services. Further Summa and the Federal Lobbyist Registry confirms that they are employed to lobby on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
There is no problem however letting people place innuendo on the air by hosts and others that I "may" be working for somebody therefore my public commentary is purchased. The absolute crap that was permitted on by VOCM by callers - that I am working for one political party or another over the past year. Untrue - but VOCM did not block that. Yet information available on a federal government site and listed on the companies own website is "private".
Double standard. The question is WHY?
Here are the LINKS
IFAW and SUMMA
Summa and Hydro
Summa and IFAW
Summa and Hydro
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Polling Periods and Once a Week Rules
VOCM has adopted a policy during elections that a candidate can only call each program once a week. On Randy's show - ordinary callers are restricted to once a week plus free for all Friday' - ordinary callers on Bill's Back-Talk are limited to once a week unless there is an emerging issue with moving and new information. Linda's Night-Line is open to all ordinary callers every night.
These are the general rules and relatively speaking they are fair.
Four times a year for approximately two weeks each time a political poll is conducted. During this time Government abuses the time open to all of them on the programs for unpaid political messages or information which can be presented at a News Conference or by a News Release. It would then be up to each news agency to determine whether or not the story makes the line-up.
Polling periods should be curtailed in the same way as an election with this exception. Calls to the shows should be limited to one government member a week - with of course open access at all times for the Premier.
The Ministers have an ability and the resources to distribute News Releases and hold News Conference. They can attempt to sway political polls that way.
The government with inordinate amounts of taxpayer dollars - human resources - and political volunteers - does not need to "hog" open-lines as well.
This attempt to alter public opinion in two week "extreme" doses four times a year - is not warranted and takes away from the free and open "public" debate. Ordinary people have only these programs to regularly put out their points of view. To have that time diminished by any government - bent on "good" polling results - with millions in public resources for public relations is wrong. They will not stop themselves - so perhaps we should ask they respect the "peoples" time for discussion.
That's fair - right Premier?
These are the general rules and relatively speaking they are fair.
Four times a year for approximately two weeks each time a political poll is conducted. During this time Government abuses the time open to all of them on the programs for unpaid political messages or information which can be presented at a News Conference or by a News Release. It would then be up to each news agency to determine whether or not the story makes the line-up.
Polling periods should be curtailed in the same way as an election with this exception. Calls to the shows should be limited to one government member a week - with of course open access at all times for the Premier.
The Ministers have an ability and the resources to distribute News Releases and hold News Conference. They can attempt to sway political polls that way.
The government with inordinate amounts of taxpayer dollars - human resources - and political volunteers - does not need to "hog" open-lines as well.
This attempt to alter public opinion in two week "extreme" doses four times a year - is not warranted and takes away from the free and open "public" debate. Ordinary people have only these programs to regularly put out their points of view. To have that time diminished by any government - bent on "good" polling results - with millions in public resources for public relations is wrong. They will not stop themselves - so perhaps we should ask they respect the "peoples" time for discussion.
That's fair - right Premier?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Simon is Right - Russell is Right - Bill is Right
There must be a Public Inquiry into the whole House of Assembly Affair. Sue's Blog is going to call it the - PPP Politicians Plundering the Public and in some morbid respects public - private - partnership.
The issue of PPP is out of control and needs a real hearing. Russell Wangersky is correct when he writes the politicians want this to go away too quickly - especially the Premier.
Bill Rowe is right when he says that Marshall and Williams not taking the $2875 is either elitist or another attempt to cover - "sucking and blowing" at the same time is an appropriate analogy for those two intelligent people trying to skirt the scandal by saying they didn't take the cash.
Simon Lono is absolutely right when he says a Public Inquiry is the only way to go - to "clean the House".
Here are three astute people and are people who have been around politics in one way or another for many years. They know that fundamentally some politicians are going to have to be wiped out and exposed for this PPP mess to truly go away and deter it from happening again.
In our democracy we have a multi-party system - this is designed to bring light to positions so they may be fully exposed - debated - and resolved. When our democracy is faced with all parties being involved in questionable activities at the same time - the role of Opposition must fall to the media and the people - if not we are in a banana republic.
There are many viewpoints out there - many partisan - but many more reflect the disgust over the PPP. We must get to the bottom of this - and the public should make educated choices when voting - this cannot be done without all the information.
Some of the politicians have run for cover - with many more about to do the same.
Chief Justice Greene - with the stated mandate cannot get to the bottom of it.
The RNC with only some of the file cannot get to the bottom of it.
The Auditor General cannot call public witnesses nor release some of the information we need.
We need to hear from all MHA's and others from 2000 - 2007.
Call to the stand Beth Marshall (AG in 2000) - question her on the findings and why she requested to audit the books of the House of Assembly.
You must understand that when she was blocked - those who blocked the Office of the Auditor General are now administratively responsible for costing us millions in overpayment's - special investigations (forensic audits) - the cost of the Chief Justice (special review) - the cost of the RNC and its investigations. All of it may have been prevented if Beth Marshall had been permitted to audit in 2000.
On that note - all MHA's from 2000 should be called to a stand and publicly tell us why they voted for legislation that effectively removed the Auditor General.
Bring back Tobin - make him talk on a stand - under oath.
Bring back Furey - Dicks - Shelley - Byrne and yes Loyola Sullivan - make them talk under oath.
Bring back Lloyd Snow - Tom Lush - Lloyd Matthews - bring them all back.
If we do not hear all of the unfettered evidence from our elected officials - we will never know the truth and we will not deter similar behavior.
The 2004 PPP is the same - the IEC rendered that proposal (#) be approved and every MHA gets the $2875. We know that 2 did not take it - one sat on the IEC and was the former AG that supposedly wanted to bring these types of things to light - and the other is the Premier who claims he wants it all cleaned up.
What we have here are the politicians blocking the use of our taxpayer dollars to investigate them. After the fortune they have cost us to date - under their control - shouldn't we have the same right to answers under our rules?
Let me use this example:
We all remember the vote in the House of Assembly to boot Fraser March our of the position of Citizens Representative - we know there were some expenses that were questionable. They were not questionable enough to have the AG file a 15.1 on him. That's the part of the Act where the AG feels a recommendation for further investigation is warranted.
15.1 's have been issued for:
Ed Byrne
Wally Anderson
Randy Collins
Jim Walsh
Percy Barrett
John Hickey
Kathy Goudie
All but one of these MHA's were sitting in the House of Assembly when they fired Fraser March.
Then John Hickey upon being exonerated from any criminal wrong-doing forgets his incompetence which caused the numerous cases of double-billing and comes out swinging at Roger Grimes. Give me a break John - you are still responsible for too many cases of double billing - all that has changed is that you are incompetent - not corrupt.
Let me say that again - John Hickey you are incompetent not corrupt. Now sue me!
Now the 2006 budget is overspent - and nobody is going to deal with it.
I do not care what rules are put in place "on a go forward basis" it will not be a real deterrent to this type of activity - unless some measurable consequences come to all MHA's that were either incompetent or corrupt.
All MHA's are in a position of conflict regarding the calling of such a Public Inquiry - because it is they that will be examined. For instance - if you had a bank robber and those who watched it - participated in it - knew about it - determine whether or not they should be charged and face trial - we could close the courts.
All the MHA's say they are really concerned about this situation and being "under a cloud" of suspicion - when they are innocent - funny not one of them have said - let's have a Public Inquiry - and that way I can be removed from the pack of others guilty of incompetence or corruption.
The Liberals asked for a Public Inquiry on the fibre-optic deal yet will not demand a Public Inquiry over this - I can assure Gerry Reid the people who will not get out and vote are not deterred by the fibre-optic fiasco - they are deterred by an inability to vote for a perceived dirty house - and it's all about perception right?
Danny will do everything other than an Inquiry which will bring into the limelight more of his own members than he wants - and then there's also the reason he did not take the cash. Let's find out if Beth Marshall and Danny Williams tell the same story.
Let's see who is really serious here! Let's see which organizations will call for the Inquiry.
NAPE?
CUPE?
Federation of Municipalities?
Federation of Labour?
FFAW?
St. John's Board of Trade?
Canadian Federation of Taxpayers?
the Media?
how about the people?
The St. John's Board of Trade can go lie down out of it - if it's calling for the reduction of taxes - when it does not demand to know what the dollars went to and why.
The public service Unions are not that mad over the $2875 if they are not interested in what really took place.
And John Hickey - remember this - you were allowed to stay in Cabinet while after you double-billed expenses and were under investigation by the RNC. If all you had to do was pay back the money - will you stand and demand that Fraser March be returned to Office? Go on hypocrite - show your stuff! Do you think you look any less ridiculous as your former colleague Kathy Goudie because she cried and you yelled?
Saturday, January 20, 2007
29 Cadets go from One Coast to the Other
So the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are training their cadets - aspiring conservation officers - looking to land a job protecting our ocean.
So here's what you do -
You start in Sydney Harbour Nova Scotia and finish up in British Columbia.
You see the DFO needs these new recruits for the future conservation and management of the Atlantic - Pacific - and Arctic Oceans.
After you get your head around the navy running out of money for fisheries patrols - get your head around the obvious problem with training when the Atlantic starts here - and the waters they will most likely face are off our shores.
But what the heck - they give the Central Canadian media another excuse to say from Nova Scotia to British Columbia - or Halifax to Vancouver.
But then again if we were to take Bill's TELE-thoughts seriously - we would completely capitulate with an - if you can't beat em join em - and hop in bed with Quebec - approach. My god what a pile of crap that is - it's only purpose must be to cause controversy in the same pathetic way used by Fenwick on his way out.
I wonder - will you ever believe there is a time to move over and let new blood in? There are plenty of challenges out there to take on - the first of which would be to find solutions to the problems - you played a part in creating.
So here's what you do -
You start in Sydney Harbour Nova Scotia and finish up in British Columbia.
You see the DFO needs these new recruits for the future conservation and management of the Atlantic - Pacific - and Arctic Oceans.
After you get your head around the navy running out of money for fisheries patrols - get your head around the obvious problem with training when the Atlantic starts here - and the waters they will most likely face are off our shores.
But what the heck - they give the Central Canadian media another excuse to say from Nova Scotia to British Columbia - or Halifax to Vancouver.
But then again if we were to take Bill's TELE-thoughts seriously - we would completely capitulate with an - if you can't beat em join em - and hop in bed with Quebec - approach. My god what a pile of crap that is - it's only purpose must be to cause controversy in the same pathetic way used by Fenwick on his way out.
I wonder - will you ever believe there is a time to move over and let new blood in? There are plenty of challenges out there to take on - the first of which would be to find solutions to the problems - you played a part in creating.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)