The original is signed - of course....
Dwight Ball Leadership Campaign
279 Portugal Cove Road
St John’s, NL A1B 2N8
Tel: (709) 753-1116 or 1-855-753-1116
Email: dwightballleadership@gmail.com
Website: dwightball.ca
September 4, 2013
Dear Members,
As you are aware I am seeking the position of Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Since January 2012 I have been the Interim Leader and under my leadership we have
experienced unprecedented growth in our party.
Many of you are also aware that I have been a member of our profession for over thirty years and
understand the challenges you are facing as community pharmacy owners. In recent years you have
been the target of cut after cut. We’re now fearful that many of our independent pharmacies will
not be able to be financially viable in this environment.
Over the last eighteen months, I have rebuilt the Liberal Party by communicating with individuals,
associations, and small to medium size business owners. Through this open and frank dialogue not
only have we discussed many of the challenges that face our province but we’ve been able to
identify the solutions to many of these challenges.
As Premier of the province, I would continue the process that has produced the current success we
are experiencing in the Liberal Party. I believe that in many cases one solution is not the answer. For
example independent versus chain pharmacies, rural versus urban, are quite different and require
unique solutions to the complex problems. For that reason, it is extremely important that we
continue to meet with organized groups like the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy
Owners to identify individual solutions that work for your membership.
I look forward to working with your council and appreciate your support to my campaign. Together
we can set the course for the future of independent pharmacies and our province.
Sincerely,
Dwight Ball
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Dwight lies for votes and lies for campaign financial support
Then there's this little item he used to raise funds for his campaign.....
Yes he lied all the way through.
He used this when the Liberals were trying to pay down debt.
He used this to get money for campaign.
He used local small independent businesses for his leadership campaign and last election.
He lied to them in person - he lied to them in writing - and he lied to them when he attached these commitments to a fundraising letter.
Dwight Ball Responses
Candidate Questionnaire -2013
1. If you become Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would you commit to
negotiating a tariff and provider agreement with the Council of Independent
Community Pharmacy Owners on behalf of its 65 local independent pharmacies?
Yes
2. Would you commit to amending the Pharmacy Act to remove mandatory
membership of all pharmacists in the Pharmacists’ Association of Newfoundland
and Labrador? (It is voluntary in other provinces) Yes, I chaired the transition
committee to create the advocacy association for pharmacists, a voluntary
association was always the intent for the new body.
3. Would you actively work with the Council of Independent Pharmacy Owners to
develop cost saving initiatives for government that improve best health outcomes?
Yes
4. Would you take action to ensure that people residing in personal/long-term
private and public care homes retain the right to choose their pharmacy or
pharmacist of choice? Yes
5. How important do you rate a local independent business sector that has 100
million of investment on the ground and provides hundreds of direct jobs –
particularly in rural communities? (1-10) 7 to 8, I answer this by asking myself
this question, what would I do to attract and sustain a 100million industry? A
100million industry would be extremely important therefore the high priority
with my government.
6. How familiar are you with issues regarding independent pharmacy? (1-10) 10
Remember when Dwight Ball? Oh the lies he told.... he tells
Dear Owner,
In December of 2007 – Pharmacy Owners had their businesses threatened by a regulatory
change in the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Please review below.
Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary
Regulations, 2007
under the
Pharmaceutical Services Act
(Filed December 20, 2007 )
Under the authority of sections 19 and 52 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act, I make the
following regulations.
Dated at St. John’s , December 20, 2007 .
Maximum price
5. (1) In accordance with section 23 of the Act, the maximum price listed for a drug
in the formulary shall not exceed the price listed for the same drug as published in the
formulary to the Ontario public drug program, plus an inventory adjustment fee set by the
minister.
(2) A guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer under subsection 23(1) of
the Act which exceeds the price listed for that drug published in the formulary to the
Ontario public drug program does not comply with subsection 23(2) of the Act and that
price shall not, under the authority of subsection (1), be accepted by the minister as a
price at which to list the drug in the formulary.
(3) Where a guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer is not accepted by the
minister under subsection (2), for the purpose of setting the maximum price at which a
drug may be listed in the formulary, the minister may substitute as the price for that drug
the price listed for the drug as published in the formulary to the Ontario public drug
program, plus an inventory adjustment fee.
Commencement
7. These regulations shall come into force on January 1, 2008.
2
This arbitrary change would have resulted in a loss of revenues from the dispensary
equaling as much as 25%. It also raised a real concern with respect to the power of one
Minister to control our businesses with the stroke of a pen – with or without consultation.
At that time several business owners from around the province got together and planned a
strategy to delay or reverse this extremely negative law. It was decided that we
recommend the retention of Dr. Wade Locke to complete an Activity Based Costing
(ABC) study – which would demonstrate the catastrophic economic consequences of
enacting such a regulation. The Board of PANL approved this direction and that work is
moving forward.
It was also decided to produce an enabling document for government members – to assist
in their understanding of our enterprises and how such a change in law could severely
damage our investments and deter future growth and expansion in communities around
Newfoundland and Labrador.
While this paper was being produced several of us wrote and/or met with government
MHA’s and Cabinet members to request a delay in the implementation of the new
formulary pricing, These actions were successful and we received an additional 45 days.
From there we distributed the enabling document and further requested an additional 90
days in order to put in place a policy and legislative package for the government to
consider. During this time many of us met with or telephoned government members and
specific Cabinet Ministers to further advance our concerns. This resulted in a delay of
implementation for 9 months to January 01-09.
3
A cursory calculation demonstrates that these postponements have resulted in the savings
of 20 million dollars of revenues for our business operations.
Over this three month period many of us discussed the possibility of having an advocacy
group dedicated to community pharmacy owners. This is a concept which has worked
well in other jurisdictions and one we feel would protect against negative legislation and
assist in the development of new opportunities for our enterprises.
First let me state that we continue to support PANL as an advocacy group for all
pharmacists. This initiative is to separate the business component from the profession of
pharmacy as a whole. This new organization will be dedicated to community pharmacies
– as businesses that contribute significantly to the economy of our province.
The Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners of Newfoundland and
Labrador (CICPONL) is being established to expand government relations to include the
portfolios of Business, Innovation Trade and Rural Renewal, Human Resources and
Employment, and Finance. Our objectives are to:
1. Seek amendments to the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Pharmacy Act
which – if adopted would see – formulary price changes (regulatory) become the
responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) instead of at the
sole discretion of the Minister of Health and Community Services. In this way our
financial concerns could be appropriately addressed to the Minister of Business
and other portfolios aforementioned – before a decision was taken that would
reduce our revenues. As it stands now the Minister of Health and Community
4
Services runs our dispensary and for all intents and purposes is the only individual
who can accurately project our revenues.
2. Seek amendments to the audit process resulting in procedural fairness and a more
accurate reflection of our receipts. Many pharmacy owners have expressed
concern over both the length and method of the process.
3. Develop government relations in a way which addresses all aspects of our
investment and growth potential. Over the coming few years the role a pharmacy
plays in continued health and wellness in our communities should expand and
provide positive investment opportunities for our businesses. This new Council
would seek to meet with Ministers at least twice a year to advance and promote
our role in delivering health and wellness objectives while achieving savings for
government.
4. Develop media relations focused on the objectives of the pharmacy as a
community partner in health and wellness and demonstrate the significance of our
enterprises in employment growth and stability – especially in rural areas –
investment and rural development – and the pharmacy’s role in finding
efficiencies in the health care system. To this end we will issue regular News
Releases and when necessary hold a News Conference – and we will appear each
year before the budget consultation committee. Last week the NLMA made public
concerns regarding the cumbersome process of special authorizations for
prescription drugs. We would in future speak directly to issues which impact our
client base directly.
5
5. Research and compile information demonstrating trends in the business of
pharmacy from all jurisdictions while developing our own for presentation to
government. This includes participation at the federal level. As pharmacies are
anticipated to expand services over the next decade to reflect the changes coming
in healthcare delivery we must be prepared to protect the investment required by
owners to achieve these transfers of responsibility.
6. Develop a mentoring program for individuals who wish to operate a pharmacy
and develop tools and common practices for those already in the business.
It is important to note that other professional sectors have already separated business
operations from their professional advocacy – most notably the Newfoundland and
Labrador Construction Association. While engineers and trades-people have their own
professional associations – if they are also business owners the NLCA speaks for them on
matters of business.
It is important that government recognize that as business owners – albeit in a regulated
profession – we will protect our investments and seek to find areas of growth while
remaining profitable. The tendency has been to restrict us to the portfolio of Health and to
ignore the other contributions we make to the economy.
In the past pharmacists for the most part were all business owners and as such one
association sufficed to advocate for improvements and growth in our sector. Today we
represent only 1/3 this number seems low of the PANL and therefore objectives have
necessarily changed to reflect that percentage. These changes have also been reflected by
the formation of associations for pharmacies operating as part of a chain.
6
Currently we have commissioned the development of a legislative and policy package to
be delivered to government by July 07-08. This action is being taken to allow
government time to review and discuss with us an alternative to the proposed formulary
changes. It will also outline other concerns aforementioned and include options for
government which would see the expansion of our services while allowing cost savings
for the Department of Health and Community Services.
A meeting to review the draft documents will be held with pharmacy owners toward the
end of June. Further details should be available of the exact date and location over the
next couple of weeks.
We are also drafting a constitution – mission statement – and membership forms as we
move forward to formalize this Council of pharmacy business owners. We look forward
to your participation and trust you will find this initiative positive for the health of your
enterprise both in the short and log-terms.
For further information please contact:
Wayne Morris
Robert Doyle
Phil O’Keefe
Dwight Ball
Acting Board of the Council
In December of 2007 – Pharmacy Owners had their businesses threatened by a regulatory
change in the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Please review below.
Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary
Regulations, 2007
under the
Pharmaceutical Services Act
(Filed December 20, 2007 )
Under the authority of sections 19 and 52 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act, I make the
following regulations.
Dated at St. John’s , December 20, 2007 .
Maximum price
5. (1) In accordance with section 23 of the Act, the maximum price listed for a drug
in the formulary shall not exceed the price listed for the same drug as published in the
formulary to the Ontario public drug program, plus an inventory adjustment fee set by the
minister.
(2) A guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer under subsection 23(1) of
the Act which exceeds the price listed for that drug published in the formulary to the
Ontario public drug program does not comply with subsection 23(2) of the Act and that
price shall not, under the authority of subsection (1), be accepted by the minister as a
price at which to list the drug in the formulary.
(3) Where a guaranteed price submitted by a manufacturer is not accepted by the
minister under subsection (2), for the purpose of setting the maximum price at which a
drug may be listed in the formulary, the minister may substitute as the price for that drug
the price listed for the drug as published in the formulary to the Ontario public drug
program, plus an inventory adjustment fee.
Commencement
7. These regulations shall come into force on January 1, 2008.
2
This arbitrary change would have resulted in a loss of revenues from the dispensary
equaling as much as 25%. It also raised a real concern with respect to the power of one
Minister to control our businesses with the stroke of a pen – with or without consultation.
At that time several business owners from around the province got together and planned a
strategy to delay or reverse this extremely negative law. It was decided that we
recommend the retention of Dr. Wade Locke to complete an Activity Based Costing
(ABC) study – which would demonstrate the catastrophic economic consequences of
enacting such a regulation. The Board of PANL approved this direction and that work is
moving forward.
It was also decided to produce an enabling document for government members – to assist
in their understanding of our enterprises and how such a change in law could severely
damage our investments and deter future growth and expansion in communities around
Newfoundland and Labrador.
While this paper was being produced several of us wrote and/or met with government
MHA’s and Cabinet members to request a delay in the implementation of the new
formulary pricing, These actions were successful and we received an additional 45 days.
From there we distributed the enabling document and further requested an additional 90
days in order to put in place a policy and legislative package for the government to
consider. During this time many of us met with or telephoned government members and
specific Cabinet Ministers to further advance our concerns. This resulted in a delay of
implementation for 9 months to January 01-09.
3
A cursory calculation demonstrates that these postponements have resulted in the savings
of 20 million dollars of revenues for our business operations.
Over this three month period many of us discussed the possibility of having an advocacy
group dedicated to community pharmacy owners. This is a concept which has worked
well in other jurisdictions and one we feel would protect against negative legislation and
assist in the development of new opportunities for our enterprises.
First let me state that we continue to support PANL as an advocacy group for all
pharmacists. This initiative is to separate the business component from the profession of
pharmacy as a whole. This new organization will be dedicated to community pharmacies
– as businesses that contribute significantly to the economy of our province.
The Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners of Newfoundland and
Labrador (CICPONL) is being established to expand government relations to include the
portfolios of Business, Innovation Trade and Rural Renewal, Human Resources and
Employment, and Finance. Our objectives are to:
1. Seek amendments to the Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Pharmacy Act
which – if adopted would see – formulary price changes (regulatory) become the
responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Cabinet) instead of at the
sole discretion of the Minister of Health and Community Services. In this way our
financial concerns could be appropriately addressed to the Minister of Business
and other portfolios aforementioned – before a decision was taken that would
reduce our revenues. As it stands now the Minister of Health and Community
4
Services runs our dispensary and for all intents and purposes is the only individual
who can accurately project our revenues.
2. Seek amendments to the audit process resulting in procedural fairness and a more
accurate reflection of our receipts. Many pharmacy owners have expressed
concern over both the length and method of the process.
3. Develop government relations in a way which addresses all aspects of our
investment and growth potential. Over the coming few years the role a pharmacy
plays in continued health and wellness in our communities should expand and
provide positive investment opportunities for our businesses. This new Council
would seek to meet with Ministers at least twice a year to advance and promote
our role in delivering health and wellness objectives while achieving savings for
government.
4. Develop media relations focused on the objectives of the pharmacy as a
community partner in health and wellness and demonstrate the significance of our
enterprises in employment growth and stability – especially in rural areas –
investment and rural development – and the pharmacy’s role in finding
efficiencies in the health care system. To this end we will issue regular News
Releases and when necessary hold a News Conference – and we will appear each
year before the budget consultation committee. Last week the NLMA made public
concerns regarding the cumbersome process of special authorizations for
prescription drugs. We would in future speak directly to issues which impact our
client base directly.
5
5. Research and compile information demonstrating trends in the business of
pharmacy from all jurisdictions while developing our own for presentation to
government. This includes participation at the federal level. As pharmacies are
anticipated to expand services over the next decade to reflect the changes coming
in healthcare delivery we must be prepared to protect the investment required by
owners to achieve these transfers of responsibility.
6. Develop a mentoring program for individuals who wish to operate a pharmacy
and develop tools and common practices for those already in the business.
It is important to note that other professional sectors have already separated business
operations from their professional advocacy – most notably the Newfoundland and
Labrador Construction Association. While engineers and trades-people have their own
professional associations – if they are also business owners the NLCA speaks for them on
matters of business.
It is important that government recognize that as business owners – albeit in a regulated
profession – we will protect our investments and seek to find areas of growth while
remaining profitable. The tendency has been to restrict us to the portfolio of Health and to
ignore the other contributions we make to the economy.
In the past pharmacists for the most part were all business owners and as such one
association sufficed to advocate for improvements and growth in our sector. Today we
represent only 1/3 this number seems low of the PANL and therefore objectives have
necessarily changed to reflect that percentage. These changes have also been reflected by
the formation of associations for pharmacies operating as part of a chain.
6
Currently we have commissioned the development of a legislative and policy package to
be delivered to government by July 07-08. This action is being taken to allow
government time to review and discuss with us an alternative to the proposed formulary
changes. It will also outline other concerns aforementioned and include options for
government which would see the expansion of our services while allowing cost savings
for the Department of Health and Community Services.
A meeting to review the draft documents will be held with pharmacy owners toward the
end of June. Further details should be available of the exact date and location over the
next couple of weeks.
We are also drafting a constitution – mission statement – and membership forms as we
move forward to formalize this Council of pharmacy business owners. We look forward
to your participation and trust you will find this initiative positive for the health of your
enterprise both in the short and log-terms.
For further information please contact:
Wayne Morris
Robert Doyle
Phil O’Keefe
Dwight Ball
Acting Board of the Council
Friday, February 15, 2019
YES NC Trudeau
By now most Canadians are asking what happened between former Justice Minister and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould (JWR), the Prime Minister, the PMO and SNC Lavalin.
After watching and reading many different news stories, commentaries/opinions, social media discourse, legal filings, banking information, global conventions, and documents of the World Bank - I am prepared to put together a maybe.
The following represents my thoughts, speculations, and opinions based on what really seems plausible to me.
Please note that not all the statements below are facts - rather a group of facts and hypothesis based on what we know and don't.
SNC Lavalin is experiencing difficulties primarily do to their self-made legal troubles. I do not believe losing the Canadian marketplace is where they are most worried (easy for government to get around that).
The companies urgent concerns are anywhere where the World Bank is backing developments wherein SNC is likely and able to bid for work.
I believe it's possible that JWR - the former Justice Minister was chosen by Trudeau and strategists for that Cabinet post for 2 reasons. The first is to enhance and display their branding - indigenous woman holding a top portfolio - the second they estimated that JWR was malleable to execute a saving agreement for SNC Lavalin. I find the first reason insulting as I do not believe it was sincere - just part of a large scale marketing plan and the second was one of the the greatest miscalculations of a person and their integrity, intelligence, and backbone I have ever seen.
SNC Lavalin knew what they needed long ago. They pegged the Liberals for delivery and worked their back-room magic for insurance.
They "lobbied" that is to say they prettied up influence to make an attempt at a legal process to direct their reward.
They did not want - they needed - very desperately for the bribery and fraud allegations and charges to disappear.
They could not suffer an additional blow to their already trashed reputation at the World Bank.
The Liberals did the first thing that was necessary and that was to change the Criminal Code. They did so under a Budget Bill. That was more due to urgency than it was anything else. If it had gone through a proper process - a process expected when one proposes to change the Criminal Code it would likely have been too late for SNC Lavalin.
Once the Budget Bill passed - the rush was on to get SNC Lavalin the fix they needed.
They needed a Remediation Agreement (RA) applied to the company.
No doubt SNC Lavalin went through the motions of "lobbying" while who knows what other methods of communication to get this process moving.
The prosecutor was not budging - so the deed was passed to JWR.
One can guess that this whole compromise deal was raised in Cabinet and probably the majority of Cabinet agreed to the proposed fix for the company. Unlike other Cabinet Posts the Department of Justice and the Attorney General must be independent. It's only proper. It was then no doubt that JWR started to feel the pressure. It may have come from a combined effort applied by Cabinet colleagues and the PMO.
It may have been at this point that JWR started to put it all together and began to wonder what was truly her "role" in the Trudeau administration.
She started to smell a rat and felt that she must do what was expected or she would end up under a political bus.
At that time she probably did want reassurance from the man who had praised her so highly and made a very compelling public case for equality in the Cabinet. Surely this man - who had embraced her and praised her skills and intelligence would provide some assurance that making - what she felt was the right decision - would be welcome by this Prime Minister.
Whatever happened at the meeting and the tone of which words were spoken will only be known when JWR speaks.
Trudeau however had his answer and it was not what he or SNC wanted to hear. No deal!
It could have been real tidy, a Minister that played her role - for the sake of saving Quebec enterprise. Gazetted by Minister JWR and in the event of a backlash (spin did not work on the SNC file) she could have been sacrificed while the rest stayed "clean". No deal!
That presented a unique and difficult situation for the Liberals and their buddies. Now what?
Well if he hauled her out of the portfolio it may very well be seen as pandering to SNC and firing her for not doing what they expected she would.
BMO and other banks and their investment divisions certainly are affected by the potential outcomes of a potential SNC Lavalin failure or takeover.
This part is a bit trickier because I have mixed thoughts on whether Scott Brison knew or not - regarding a needed Cabinet Shuffle. BMO might have offered him what is a very lucrative and prestigious position at a time when Brison may have wanted a change for more than one reason. They all might have played him like a fiddle or he might have taken one for the larger corporate/political team (so to speak) as the cushion he landed on was quite soft.
Trudeau said it perfectly today - if Brison had not resigned JWR would have remained and still be the Minister of Justice and AG. Reread above - yes we can assume that just throwing her out on her own without another reason for a shuffle would have been too obvious.
Regardless of why Brison took the leap - he did and this gave the PM an opportunity to shuffle. The shuffle was ridiculous and clearly a demotion for JWR. That is part of the Liberal's incompetent attempt at covering.
The PM then appointed a person who could certainly be seen to enjoy towing the line and getting done what JWR would not.
The new Minister and AG did a poor job of playing it coy and generally delivered an amateur attempt at being a master "politician" - at a time when the Liberals needed one most.
JWR stayed in Cabinet and probably learned that SNC would be taken care of - so to speak.
Between that and the mixed, confused, and inconsistent messaging attempts of Trudeau and his overrated cast of cohorts - JWR decided it was time to pull out.
One thing remains if Trudeau can be taken at his word - being she would have remained as Minister of Justice had Brison not resigned - then certainly we can assume that the decisions she made re: SNC would be continued and would have been acceptable (not). This is what makes the whole thing ridiculous, unbelievable, and and likely the reason the Liberals may be defeated.
Then again - I am of the belief that SNC will be saved at the cost of losing government if necessary. All those who deliver would certainly expect to land as softly as let's say Scott Brison.
As Trudeau likes to say we are working for the middle class and those trying to join the middle class - just like his loyal backbench is working hard to join the Cabinet.
They might just want to pause and really think about what their actual role is.
Everything you have read above makes coincidence unlikely but political/corporate collusion more than likely.
One last note - remember this:
On December 17, 1997, Canada signed the Convention on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD Convention). In 1998 Parliament passed the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) to implement Canada’s obligations under the OECD Convention into Canadian law.
The OECD Convention aims to stop the flow of bribes and to remove bribery as a non-tariff barrier to trade, producing a level playing field in international business. The OECD Convention came into force on February 15, 1999, following Canada’s ratification. To date, 44 states have ratified the OECD Convention, including the 36 member states of the OECD and eight non-member states: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Russia and South Africa.
In June 2013 Parliament amended the CFPOA to increase the maximum penalty for convicted individuals, to create a new books and records offence and to expand jurisdiction based on nationality. In addition, the 2013 amendment stated that at a later date the Government would eliminate the exception for facilitation payments. Facilitation payments are those made to foreign public officials to secure or expedite the performance of acts of a routine nature that are within the scope of the official's duties. The repeal came into force on October 31, 2017 and such payments are now included under the foreign bribery offences listed in the CFPOA.
and now in 2018 The Trudeau government did this:
In September 2018, a Remediation Agreement (RA) regime came into force through the creation of a new Part (Part XXII.1) of the Criminal Code. An RA is a new tool available for use by prosecutorial authorities – at their discretion, in the public interest and in appropriate circumstances – to address corporate criminal wrongdoing. It is an agreement, between an organization accused of committing a listed offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence, if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.
Perhaps it's time the World Bank amended its position to ignore such weakening of commitment to cleaning up the global market by not recognizing such RA's.
and there is this last little bit: (emphasis added for easier read)
The Honourable Kevin G. Lynch, P.C., O.C., PH. D, LL.D
Vice-Chair, BMO Financial Group
The Honourable Kevin Lynch has been Vice Chairman of BMO Financial Group since 2010. Prior to that, he was a distinguished former public servant with 33 years of service with the Government of Canada, serving as Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Industry, as well as Executive Director for Canada at the International Monetary Fund.
Kevin is Chancellor of the University of King’s College, a senior Fellow of Massey College and the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo. He chairs the Board of SNC Lavalin and is a director of CN Railway and CNOOC Ltd (China National Overseas Oil Company). As well, Kevin is a Trustee of the Killam Trusts and a Director of Communitech, the Governor General’s Rideau Hall Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Previously, Kevin served on the boards of the Ditchley Foundation of Canada (Chair), the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (ASOC), the Ontario Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, the Gairdner Foundation, the Perimeter Institute, the Bank of Canada, Empire (Sobeys), Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), BMO China and the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Come on now.... Really? Yes Canada they really do believe we are stupid.... but they also underestimated Jody Wilson-Raybould...
After watching and reading many different news stories, commentaries/opinions, social media discourse, legal filings, banking information, global conventions, and documents of the World Bank - I am prepared to put together a maybe.
The following represents my thoughts, speculations, and opinions based on what really seems plausible to me.
Please note that not all the statements below are facts - rather a group of facts and hypothesis based on what we know and don't.
SNC Lavalin is experiencing difficulties primarily do to their self-made legal troubles. I do not believe losing the Canadian marketplace is where they are most worried (easy for government to get around that).
The companies urgent concerns are anywhere where the World Bank is backing developments wherein SNC is likely and able to bid for work.
I believe it's possible that JWR - the former Justice Minister was chosen by Trudeau and strategists for that Cabinet post for 2 reasons. The first is to enhance and display their branding - indigenous woman holding a top portfolio - the second they estimated that JWR was malleable to execute a saving agreement for SNC Lavalin. I find the first reason insulting as I do not believe it was sincere - just part of a large scale marketing plan and the second was one of the the greatest miscalculations of a person and their integrity, intelligence, and backbone I have ever seen.
SNC Lavalin knew what they needed long ago. They pegged the Liberals for delivery and worked their back-room magic for insurance.
They "lobbied" that is to say they prettied up influence to make an attempt at a legal process to direct their reward.
They did not want - they needed - very desperately for the bribery and fraud allegations and charges to disappear.
They could not suffer an additional blow to their already trashed reputation at the World Bank.
The Liberals did the first thing that was necessary and that was to change the Criminal Code. They did so under a Budget Bill. That was more due to urgency than it was anything else. If it had gone through a proper process - a process expected when one proposes to change the Criminal Code it would likely have been too late for SNC Lavalin.
Once the Budget Bill passed - the rush was on to get SNC Lavalin the fix they needed.
They needed a Remediation Agreement (RA) applied to the company.
No doubt SNC Lavalin went through the motions of "lobbying" while who knows what other methods of communication to get this process moving.
The prosecutor was not budging - so the deed was passed to JWR.
One can guess that this whole compromise deal was raised in Cabinet and probably the majority of Cabinet agreed to the proposed fix for the company. Unlike other Cabinet Posts the Department of Justice and the Attorney General must be independent. It's only proper. It was then no doubt that JWR started to feel the pressure. It may have come from a combined effort applied by Cabinet colleagues and the PMO.
It may have been at this point that JWR started to put it all together and began to wonder what was truly her "role" in the Trudeau administration.
She started to smell a rat and felt that she must do what was expected or she would end up under a political bus.
At that time she probably did want reassurance from the man who had praised her so highly and made a very compelling public case for equality in the Cabinet. Surely this man - who had embraced her and praised her skills and intelligence would provide some assurance that making - what she felt was the right decision - would be welcome by this Prime Minister.
Whatever happened at the meeting and the tone of which words were spoken will only be known when JWR speaks.
Trudeau however had his answer and it was not what he or SNC wanted to hear. No deal!
It could have been real tidy, a Minister that played her role - for the sake of saving Quebec enterprise. Gazetted by Minister JWR and in the event of a backlash (spin did not work on the SNC file) she could have been sacrificed while the rest stayed "clean". No deal!
That presented a unique and difficult situation for the Liberals and their buddies. Now what?
Well if he hauled her out of the portfolio it may very well be seen as pandering to SNC and firing her for not doing what they expected she would.
BMO and other banks and their investment divisions certainly are affected by the potential outcomes of a potential SNC Lavalin failure or takeover.
This part is a bit trickier because I have mixed thoughts on whether Scott Brison knew or not - regarding a needed Cabinet Shuffle. BMO might have offered him what is a very lucrative and prestigious position at a time when Brison may have wanted a change for more than one reason. They all might have played him like a fiddle or he might have taken one for the larger corporate/political team (so to speak) as the cushion he landed on was quite soft.
Trudeau said it perfectly today - if Brison had not resigned JWR would have remained and still be the Minister of Justice and AG. Reread above - yes we can assume that just throwing her out on her own without another reason for a shuffle would have been too obvious.
Regardless of why Brison took the leap - he did and this gave the PM an opportunity to shuffle. The shuffle was ridiculous and clearly a demotion for JWR. That is part of the Liberal's incompetent attempt at covering.
The PM then appointed a person who could certainly be seen to enjoy towing the line and getting done what JWR would not.
The new Minister and AG did a poor job of playing it coy and generally delivered an amateur attempt at being a master "politician" - at a time when the Liberals needed one most.
JWR stayed in Cabinet and probably learned that SNC would be taken care of - so to speak.
Between that and the mixed, confused, and inconsistent messaging attempts of Trudeau and his overrated cast of cohorts - JWR decided it was time to pull out.
One thing remains if Trudeau can be taken at his word - being she would have remained as Minister of Justice had Brison not resigned - then certainly we can assume that the decisions she made re: SNC would be continued and would have been acceptable (not). This is what makes the whole thing ridiculous, unbelievable, and and likely the reason the Liberals may be defeated.
Then again - I am of the belief that SNC will be saved at the cost of losing government if necessary. All those who deliver would certainly expect to land as softly as let's say Scott Brison.
As Trudeau likes to say we are working for the middle class and those trying to join the middle class - just like his loyal backbench is working hard to join the Cabinet.
They might just want to pause and really think about what their actual role is.
Everything you have read above makes coincidence unlikely but political/corporate collusion more than likely.
One last note - remember this:
On December 17, 1997, Canada signed the Convention on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD Convention). In 1998 Parliament passed the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) to implement Canada’s obligations under the OECD Convention into Canadian law.
The OECD Convention aims to stop the flow of bribes and to remove bribery as a non-tariff barrier to trade, producing a level playing field in international business. The OECD Convention came into force on February 15, 1999, following Canada’s ratification. To date, 44 states have ratified the OECD Convention, including the 36 member states of the OECD and eight non-member states: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Russia and South Africa.
In June 2013 Parliament amended the CFPOA to increase the maximum penalty for convicted individuals, to create a new books and records offence and to expand jurisdiction based on nationality. In addition, the 2013 amendment stated that at a later date the Government would eliminate the exception for facilitation payments. Facilitation payments are those made to foreign public officials to secure or expedite the performance of acts of a routine nature that are within the scope of the official's duties. The repeal came into force on October 31, 2017 and such payments are now included under the foreign bribery offences listed in the CFPOA.
and now in 2018 The Trudeau government did this:
In September 2018, a Remediation Agreement (RA) regime came into force through the creation of a new Part (Part XXII.1) of the Criminal Code. An RA is a new tool available for use by prosecutorial authorities – at their discretion, in the public interest and in appropriate circumstances – to address corporate criminal wrongdoing. It is an agreement, between an organization accused of committing a listed offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence, if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.
Perhaps it's time the World Bank amended its position to ignore such weakening of commitment to cleaning up the global market by not recognizing such RA's.
and there is this last little bit: (emphasis added for easier read)
The Honourable Kevin G. Lynch, P.C., O.C., PH. D, LL.D
Vice-Chair, BMO Financial Group
The Honourable Kevin Lynch has been Vice Chairman of BMO Financial Group since 2010. Prior to that, he was a distinguished former public servant with 33 years of service with the Government of Canada, serving as Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Industry, as well as Executive Director for Canada at the International Monetary Fund.
Kevin is Chancellor of the University of King’s College, a senior Fellow of Massey College and the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo. He chairs the Board of SNC Lavalin and is a director of CN Railway and CNOOC Ltd (China National Overseas Oil Company). As well, Kevin is a Trustee of the Killam Trusts and a Director of Communitech, the Governor General’s Rideau Hall Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Previously, Kevin served on the boards of the Ditchley Foundation of Canada (Chair), the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (ASOC), the Ontario Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, the Gairdner Foundation, the Perimeter Institute, the Bank of Canada, Empire (Sobeys), Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), BMO China and the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Come on now.... Really? Yes Canada they really do believe we are stupid.... but they also underestimated Jody Wilson-Raybould...
Monday, October 29, 2018
You did it too...
The pathetic answer to any questions posed by the Opposition during Question Period.
If we can assume that what the Tories did while in office is what got them booted from office, then surely we can assume doing the same thing will bring the same result for the sitting Liberals.
Here is how it goes.
The PC's are in office. They make a patronage appointment. The Liberals and NDP call them out on it and say that it's not acceptable.
As part of the Party Platform the Liberals say they will get rid of patronage appointments.
The Liberals form government and commence patronage appointments.
When challenged in the House by a PC member - the answer is "you did it too".
When you remove all the glitter and bring it back to the basics - this is Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
The story behind the Appointments Commission is a good one. Perhaps Dwight would like to share that and many more stories.
While we are at it lets talk about the continuation of the boondoggle called Muskrat. Another "you did it too" situation?
Look at what Mexico did. Press HERE
If we can assume that what the Tories did while in office is what got them booted from office, then surely we can assume doing the same thing will bring the same result for the sitting Liberals.
Here is how it goes.
The PC's are in office. They make a patronage appointment. The Liberals and NDP call them out on it and say that it's not acceptable.
As part of the Party Platform the Liberals say they will get rid of patronage appointments.
The Liberals form government and commence patronage appointments.
When challenged in the House by a PC member - the answer is "you did it too".
When you remove all the glitter and bring it back to the basics - this is Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
The story behind the Appointments Commission is a good one. Perhaps Dwight would like to share that and many more stories.
While we are at it lets talk about the continuation of the boondoggle called Muskrat. Another "you did it too" situation?
Look at what Mexico did. Press HERE
Thursday, October 12, 2017
More Breaking News
Puerto Rico as you have all probably heard by now - is essentially bankrupt - on fiscal life support - in need of massive bailout. It is considered impoverished.
Newfoundland and Labrador on the other hand is designated as a "have province". That puts us ahead of the provinces collecting equalization.
In the 2017-2018 year, the following provinces will receive equalization payments:
Outstanding debt: 70 billion
Population: 3.4 million
$20,588 per person
Unemployment 10%
Newfoundland and Labrador
Outstanding debt: 13 billion
Population: 528,000
$24,621 per person
Unemployment 15%
This does not include the 13 billion dollar boondoggle Muskrat.
Both Puerto Rico and Newfoundland and Labrador see migration to the continental parts of their countries - both permanently and for temporary work.
Puerto Rico and Newfoundland and Labrador are losing population.
Puerto Rico's aging demographics are much healthier than Newfoundland and Labrador's
We must also consider that Newfoundland and Labrador receives as all provinces do - transfer payments for programs such as health and education not so much for Puerto Rico.
There is a three-pronged problem here.
The first is the understanding or lack thereof of the Equalization program. I have discussed this briefly in a previous post.
The second is that even the reasonable or equitable (to some degree) parts of equalization - leaves us essentially bankrupt because although we have the resources to generate tax, royalties, revenues - we have mismanaged the resources so badly that what equalization considers we should generate from resources - we don't actually generate from them. (oil revenues unfair part)
The third problem is the absolute ignorance deliberate or otherwise of our politicians - refusing to actually understand the mess we are in.
And these same people continue to permit spending on Muskrat Falls.
The people of Puerto Rico just like the people of Newfoundland and Labrador love where they live and want to stay. However both jurisdictions are likely to see significant migration to their respective "mainlands" simply to survive and thrive.
Note to Labradorians - my use of the word "mainland" does not refer to you. I recognize the difference.
Newfoundland and Labrador on the other hand is designated as a "have province". That puts us ahead of the provinces collecting equalization.
In the 2017-2018 year, the following provinces will receive equalization payments:
- Quebec ($11.081 billion) (please note this amount) program designed to suit them.
- Manitoba ($1.820 billion)
- Nova Scotia ($1.779 billion)
- New Brunswick ($1.760 billion)
- Ontario ($1.424 billion)
- Prince Edward Island ($390 million)
Outstanding debt: 70 billion
Population: 3.4 million
$20,588 per person
Unemployment 10%
Newfoundland and Labrador
Outstanding debt: 13 billion
Population: 528,000
$24,621 per person
Unemployment 15%
This does not include the 13 billion dollar boondoggle Muskrat.
Both Puerto Rico and Newfoundland and Labrador see migration to the continental parts of their countries - both permanently and for temporary work.
Puerto Rico and Newfoundland and Labrador are losing population.
Puerto Rico's aging demographics are much healthier than Newfoundland and Labrador's
We must also consider that Newfoundland and Labrador receives as all provinces do - transfer payments for programs such as health and education not so much for Puerto Rico.
There is a three-pronged problem here.
The first is the understanding or lack thereof of the Equalization program. I have discussed this briefly in a previous post.
The second is that even the reasonable or equitable (to some degree) parts of equalization - leaves us essentially bankrupt because although we have the resources to generate tax, royalties, revenues - we have mismanaged the resources so badly that what equalization considers we should generate from resources - we don't actually generate from them. (oil revenues unfair part)
The third problem is the absolute ignorance deliberate or otherwise of our politicians - refusing to actually understand the mess we are in.
And these same people continue to permit spending on Muskrat Falls.
The people of Puerto Rico just like the people of Newfoundland and Labrador love where they live and want to stay. However both jurisdictions are likely to see significant migration to their respective "mainlands" simply to survive and thrive.
Note to Labradorians - my use of the word "mainland" does not refer to you. I recognize the difference.
Monday, September 25, 2017
How Trudeau may lose the next election?
There is a poll out today by Forum Poll that actually has the Conservative Party of Canada ahead of the Trudeau Liberals - this despite the unknown entity of Andrew Scheer as the CPC leader.
It shows many Canadians moving back to the Conservatives. After the Stephen Harper debacle - that's not a desirable prospect.
The Trudeau Liberals are defining themselves as ultra-tolerant socially while moving themselves to fiscal conservatives with policies regarding trade deals, pipelines, and big (foreign) corporations. They have also taken a page out of Harper's book - by ignoring their promise to end the First Past the Post system.
This combination will probably fail in the next election if not corrected - quickly.
Canadians on majority are a very tolerant lot and we do live in a multi-cultural country. But there are feelings of angst within the population - and feelings that we are being too tolerant.
Some of this is coming from the diametrically opposed positions of protecting human rights socially - while continuing to deal with Saudi Arabia and other religious states for business purposes.
In Canada our government is not run on a religious platform. In fact Trudeau comes from a perspective that religion is a personal choice and is a freedom.
The story regarding Saudi Arabia funding schools in Canada though presents a real problem. It is a foreign government which is run on the basis that Sunni-Islam is the state religion. Their laws are dictated by religion. When money from that country is being used to expand and run an Islamic private school in Ottawa - people begin to question what the outcome of that may be. Schools in Canada should be funded within Canada.
There are already disputes in Canada regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of religious beliefs. For instance will Sharia Law be allowed in circumstances regarding that faith (marriage, divorce, ans infidelity as an example) and if that will replace in those circumstances Canadian Law. This is true of other religions as well.
Then there are situations like the one witnessed in Quebec where a woman was denied a day in court because she was wearing a Hijab. Although a Superior Court found the Judge erred - the Court would not grant that all cases would end up with the same result.
What of - equality for women? This becomes very complex even on the global level. In all cultures and most religions there is room for complaint regarding the inequality of women.
In Canada - Trudeau has made it a very public cause to ensure that women are equally represented in Parliament and all Canadian institutions - yet at the same time feeling very comfortable with religious leaders/heads of State who do not practice or believe in the same.
For as far back as history takes us - women defined by religions - have not been equal. The cause of equality for women has been and continues to be a struggle. The same is not true of men. Men are not fighting backwards all the time - religion always places them ahead of women in some way or another.
It used to be that Canada had ongoing debates on equalization, transfer payments to provinces, universal healthcare, democratic reform, debts and deficits, indigenous peoples, and the woes of Confederation. Nowadays much of parliament is tied up with the rights of one religious group or another, immigration from Muslim countries, the Hijab, freedom of speech versus what is hate, and how to balance the rights of women versus the cultural rights of women.
On the fiscal side - all is wide open. If it's good for Canadian business - we will deal, trade, and cooperate with countries that continue to execute based on sexual preference, countries that continue to treat women as property, countries that restrict freedom of speech and the press, countries that have and do fund terrorist organizations, and countries that continue to run under a dictatorship.
This is causing Canadians to rethink - this is driving Canadians back to an extreme on the social far-right.
We have just witnessed an insurgence of support for the extreme-right party in Germany and we all know what happened in the USA.
When Capitalist countries are attracted to wealth - and a dictatorship offers them an ability to increase wealth - potential social consequences may not be that attractive.
Canada is a tolerant nation - but now our people are worried that it might become intolerant if religious views and practices of other religious states become too influential in our society.
Pierre Trudeau once said:
‘There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation’
likewise
Religious states have no place in the Parliament of Canada.
The younger Trudeau must deal with this sooner rather than later. If not the next election may already be lost.
The younger Trudeau must focus on real democratic reform, a balanced economic agenda, equalization, healthcare for an aging population, federal/provincial relations, problems with trade deals that put corporations ahead of people, the environment, employment and manufacturing, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, Muskrat Falls, the fishery, Search and Rescue, and Federal jobs and establishing a Crown Corporation in our province.
Democracy is about what people want - what they want their country to be - priorities regarding social programs and economic development - advancing human rights - and positively reinforcing democratic principles and enhancing them. It is not about the promotion of any religion, the contortions required to being seen as tolerant (we are tolerant), the hypocritical business dealings with countries that are not democratic and do not protect basic human rights, the attraction of bloodsucking multinational companies at all costs and not about the personal agendas of politicians.
The fact that any scientific poll puts Andrew Scheer and the CPC close - let alone ahead of the Liberals is something that should open some Parliamentarian eyes. Please reflect and do not place us right back with Stephen Harper and his buddies.
It shows many Canadians moving back to the Conservatives. After the Stephen Harper debacle - that's not a desirable prospect.
The Trudeau Liberals are defining themselves as ultra-tolerant socially while moving themselves to fiscal conservatives with policies regarding trade deals, pipelines, and big (foreign) corporations. They have also taken a page out of Harper's book - by ignoring their promise to end the First Past the Post system.
This combination will probably fail in the next election if not corrected - quickly.
Canadians on majority are a very tolerant lot and we do live in a multi-cultural country. But there are feelings of angst within the population - and feelings that we are being too tolerant.
Some of this is coming from the diametrically opposed positions of protecting human rights socially - while continuing to deal with Saudi Arabia and other religious states for business purposes.
In Canada our government is not run on a religious platform. In fact Trudeau comes from a perspective that religion is a personal choice and is a freedom.
The story regarding Saudi Arabia funding schools in Canada though presents a real problem. It is a foreign government which is run on the basis that Sunni-Islam is the state religion. Their laws are dictated by religion. When money from that country is being used to expand and run an Islamic private school in Ottawa - people begin to question what the outcome of that may be. Schools in Canada should be funded within Canada.
There are already disputes in Canada regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of religious beliefs. For instance will Sharia Law be allowed in circumstances regarding that faith (marriage, divorce, ans infidelity as an example) and if that will replace in those circumstances Canadian Law. This is true of other religions as well.
Then there are situations like the one witnessed in Quebec where a woman was denied a day in court because she was wearing a Hijab. Although a Superior Court found the Judge erred - the Court would not grant that all cases would end up with the same result.
What of - equality for women? This becomes very complex even on the global level. In all cultures and most religions there is room for complaint regarding the inequality of women.
In Canada - Trudeau has made it a very public cause to ensure that women are equally represented in Parliament and all Canadian institutions - yet at the same time feeling very comfortable with religious leaders/heads of State who do not practice or believe in the same.
For as far back as history takes us - women defined by religions - have not been equal. The cause of equality for women has been and continues to be a struggle. The same is not true of men. Men are not fighting backwards all the time - religion always places them ahead of women in some way or another.
It used to be that Canada had ongoing debates on equalization, transfer payments to provinces, universal healthcare, democratic reform, debts and deficits, indigenous peoples, and the woes of Confederation. Nowadays much of parliament is tied up with the rights of one religious group or another, immigration from Muslim countries, the Hijab, freedom of speech versus what is hate, and how to balance the rights of women versus the cultural rights of women.
On the fiscal side - all is wide open. If it's good for Canadian business - we will deal, trade, and cooperate with countries that continue to execute based on sexual preference, countries that continue to treat women as property, countries that restrict freedom of speech and the press, countries that have and do fund terrorist organizations, and countries that continue to run under a dictatorship.
This is causing Canadians to rethink - this is driving Canadians back to an extreme on the social far-right.
We have just witnessed an insurgence of support for the extreme-right party in Germany and we all know what happened in the USA.
When Capitalist countries are attracted to wealth - and a dictatorship offers them an ability to increase wealth - potential social consequences may not be that attractive.
Canada is a tolerant nation - but now our people are worried that it might become intolerant if religious views and practices of other religious states become too influential in our society.
Pierre Trudeau once said:
‘There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation’
likewise
Religious states have no place in the Parliament of Canada.
The younger Trudeau must deal with this sooner rather than later. If not the next election may already be lost.
The younger Trudeau must focus on real democratic reform, a balanced economic agenda, equalization, healthcare for an aging population, federal/provincial relations, problems with trade deals that put corporations ahead of people, the environment, employment and manufacturing, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, Muskrat Falls, the fishery, Search and Rescue, and Federal jobs and establishing a Crown Corporation in our province.
Democracy is about what people want - what they want their country to be - priorities regarding social programs and economic development - advancing human rights - and positively reinforcing democratic principles and enhancing them. It is not about the promotion of any religion, the contortions required to being seen as tolerant (we are tolerant), the hypocritical business dealings with countries that are not democratic and do not protect basic human rights, the attraction of bloodsucking multinational companies at all costs and not about the personal agendas of politicians.
The fact that any scientific poll puts Andrew Scheer and the CPC close - let alone ahead of the Liberals is something that should open some Parliamentarian eyes. Please reflect and do not place us right back with Stephen Harper and his buddies.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Apathy and disorganization - a politician's dream
So much is known now about the Muskrat Falls fiasco - that even with the information we do not have - we know we've been had.
The perplexing question is how do we stop it?
Dwight Ball, Danny Williams, and those making fortunes on our bankrupt backs are counting on 2 things.
The first is apathy and the second is disorganization.
Let's talk about apathy. In the last CRA Poll of "decided" voters the Liberals held 40%, the PC's held 33%, the NDP held 24%, the Labrador Party 2% and the Greens (not a provincial party) held 1%.
Now the reality is that the undecided/refused was 43%, therefore the Liberals have support of 22.8% the PC's have support of 18.8%, the NDP have support of 13.6%, the Labrador Party have support of 1.1% and the Greens have support of .57%.
Part of this can be attributed to apathy and that suits the politicians just fine. Despite their protestations that voter participation should be higher - they are doing nothing really to entice those who either are sick of politicians or those who could care less.
Next we get to disorganization - a large chunk of that 43% undecided/refused are people who want to participate - but are so fed up with the big three choices that they can't commit to anything. They are also discouraged by the improbability that any new or marginal party would stand a chance.
There are twitter and blog trolls whose job it is to discourage active democratic movement - by simply saying things like "that won't work" "can't be done" "extremists and naysayers" etc.
Politicians are currently comfortable that this is all it will take to keep a real democratic movement from going forward. Why are they comfortable? Because the opposition to them is disorganized.
We have talented bloggers, intelligent tweeters, backroom experts, and call show gurus. They come from varied backgrounds and have personalities that are as diverse as you can get. They certainly have enough wherewithal to begin a new political movement. They could form a Cabinet that would make the current crew and the PC's before them look like rank amateurs.
For the most part - these people - many of whom have had political affiliations in the past - do not put Party in front of Province. They will take aim at the real issues and let rip.
The government (regardless of which one) will attempt to take some of them out with political appointments or engage them in another way to diminish the pool of articulate opposition.
In Quebec and other provinces - political movements are seen as advantageous and are encouraged. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have oodles of political minions who will take great pleasure in knocking them down. They don't have the capability to take them down on wits - so they get involved in name calling like "naysayer", "partisan", and/or "conspiracy theorists".
The other favourite pastime in Newfoundland and Labrador is to turn one of these people who oppose government against another who opposes government. This is done subtly - someone who knows someone says this about someone. You know - I'm sure you've all heard it. Then there is the politicians go-to, try and negatively impact the life of one of their antagonists. Yes - they do this - all the time.
The not-so-subtle approach is to just have a number of minions go beyond the normal types of insults and question a person's sanity - publicly. They also bring out "experts" to try and downplay the findings of a blogger - regardless of the validity. This public approach is also designed to deter others from becoming involved.
This is what we are dealing with. This is real.
Until the bloggers, the Tweeters, the backroom experts, and the call-show gurus (unofficial opposition) get together and plan some real action under real leadership - Muskrat and every other fiasco will continue.
We won't have a province left - but thanks to social media we'll have an historical account of the opposition.
The perplexing question is how do we stop it?
Dwight Ball, Danny Williams, and those making fortunes on our bankrupt backs are counting on 2 things.
The first is apathy and the second is disorganization.
Let's talk about apathy. In the last CRA Poll of "decided" voters the Liberals held 40%, the PC's held 33%, the NDP held 24%, the Labrador Party 2% and the Greens (not a provincial party) held 1%.
Now the reality is that the undecided/refused was 43%, therefore the Liberals have support of 22.8% the PC's have support of 18.8%, the NDP have support of 13.6%, the Labrador Party have support of 1.1% and the Greens have support of .57%.
Part of this can be attributed to apathy and that suits the politicians just fine. Despite their protestations that voter participation should be higher - they are doing nothing really to entice those who either are sick of politicians or those who could care less.
Next we get to disorganization - a large chunk of that 43% undecided/refused are people who want to participate - but are so fed up with the big three choices that they can't commit to anything. They are also discouraged by the improbability that any new or marginal party would stand a chance.
There are twitter and blog trolls whose job it is to discourage active democratic movement - by simply saying things like "that won't work" "can't be done" "extremists and naysayers" etc.
Politicians are currently comfortable that this is all it will take to keep a real democratic movement from going forward. Why are they comfortable? Because the opposition to them is disorganized.
We have talented bloggers, intelligent tweeters, backroom experts, and call show gurus. They come from varied backgrounds and have personalities that are as diverse as you can get. They certainly have enough wherewithal to begin a new political movement. They could form a Cabinet that would make the current crew and the PC's before them look like rank amateurs.
For the most part - these people - many of whom have had political affiliations in the past - do not put Party in front of Province. They will take aim at the real issues and let rip.
The government (regardless of which one) will attempt to take some of them out with political appointments or engage them in another way to diminish the pool of articulate opposition.
In Quebec and other provinces - political movements are seen as advantageous and are encouraged. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have oodles of political minions who will take great pleasure in knocking them down. They don't have the capability to take them down on wits - so they get involved in name calling like "naysayer", "partisan", and/or "conspiracy theorists".
The other favourite pastime in Newfoundland and Labrador is to turn one of these people who oppose government against another who opposes government. This is done subtly - someone who knows someone says this about someone. You know - I'm sure you've all heard it. Then there is the politicians go-to, try and negatively impact the life of one of their antagonists. Yes - they do this - all the time.
The not-so-subtle approach is to just have a number of minions go beyond the normal types of insults and question a person's sanity - publicly. They also bring out "experts" to try and downplay the findings of a blogger - regardless of the validity. This public approach is also designed to deter others from becoming involved.
This is what we are dealing with. This is real.
Until the bloggers, the Tweeters, the backroom experts, and the call-show gurus (unofficial opposition) get together and plan some real action under real leadership - Muskrat and every other fiasco will continue.
We won't have a province left - but thanks to social media we'll have an historical account of the opposition.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Dear Premier - do you see the red flags? Forensic Audit
A forensic audit is the process of reviewing a person's or company's
financial statements to determine if they are accurate and lawful.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Continuing to fail our children
At what point do we - as a society - say - enough?
The history of child abuse in Newfoundland and Labrador is horrific.
The cover-ups at Mount Cashel, the inordinate number of times we witnessed "systemic failure", and the constant stories of our children being battered, tortured, molested and traumatized by foster parents, parents, priests, relatives, and strangers.
These precious little people, innocent, without a voice, without protection from society.
Pedophiles in every position of power and authority - having their pick of victims.
Please have a look into the sweet faces of one of your children, grandchildren, your niece or nephew - and try to imagine a so-called human-being harming them.
These predators need to go to prison and go to prison for a long time. Yet many of them are walking among us - they are living life freely as they take a child and crush their trust, their innocence, their life.
The "system" designed to protect them has failed over and over again.
It is time to terminate the employment of adults who through negligence, incompetence, or reprehensible lack of caring, allow these atrocities to occur.
It is time to create a fail-safe system.
Clearly policies and legislation have failed.
The voices of adults speaking out against, racism, gender bias, and inequalities of all sorts are strong, united, and get the attention of media on a daily basis. Yet virtually the only time we hear the voice of a child who is a victim of abuse is after the crime has been committed - and usually it is after multiple occurances.
A 12 year old girl impregnated by her adult caregiver twice and twice having an abortion!
If we can't do something to prevent this - then we are not fit to be called an advanced society.
Grown men - pretending to be boys - stalking young girls on the internet for their twisted pleasure while the community and family want to add that otherwise they are good people?
Little children being murdered by a parent - to spite another parent? Yes people this is the type of garbage walking our streets.
So politicians and bureaucrats - get your collective act together - and make certain our children are protected.
Fish policy, energy policy, forestry policy, health policy, tourism policy, education policy can all be damned if we cannot first find a way to make our children safe.
We have had Inquiries, reviews, panels of experts, and promises.
Enough of that crap - protect the children of our province. If you can't step aside, quit, hide your head somewhere out of it.
If a child is failed by the system - fire the system.
It is rather difficult to focus on all the economic turmoil, corruption, and boondoggles of our province when 12 year olds are whisked into a room for impregnation by an adult caregiver.
Does this turn your guts? It should. Please join me and demand a resolve to this. Let no other child suffer like this again.
No more excuses.
The history of child abuse in Newfoundland and Labrador is horrific.
The cover-ups at Mount Cashel, the inordinate number of times we witnessed "systemic failure", and the constant stories of our children being battered, tortured, molested and traumatized by foster parents, parents, priests, relatives, and strangers.
These precious little people, innocent, without a voice, without protection from society.
Pedophiles in every position of power and authority - having their pick of victims.
Please have a look into the sweet faces of one of your children, grandchildren, your niece or nephew - and try to imagine a so-called human-being harming them.
These predators need to go to prison and go to prison for a long time. Yet many of them are walking among us - they are living life freely as they take a child and crush their trust, their innocence, their life.
The "system" designed to protect them has failed over and over again.
It is time to terminate the employment of adults who through negligence, incompetence, or reprehensible lack of caring, allow these atrocities to occur.
It is time to create a fail-safe system.
Clearly policies and legislation have failed.
The voices of adults speaking out against, racism, gender bias, and inequalities of all sorts are strong, united, and get the attention of media on a daily basis. Yet virtually the only time we hear the voice of a child who is a victim of abuse is after the crime has been committed - and usually it is after multiple occurances.
A 12 year old girl impregnated by her adult caregiver twice and twice having an abortion!
If we can't do something to prevent this - then we are not fit to be called an advanced society.
Grown men - pretending to be boys - stalking young girls on the internet for their twisted pleasure while the community and family want to add that otherwise they are good people?
Little children being murdered by a parent - to spite another parent? Yes people this is the type of garbage walking our streets.
So politicians and bureaucrats - get your collective act together - and make certain our children are protected.
Fish policy, energy policy, forestry policy, health policy, tourism policy, education policy can all be damned if we cannot first find a way to make our children safe.
We have had Inquiries, reviews, panels of experts, and promises.
Enough of that crap - protect the children of our province. If you can't step aside, quit, hide your head somewhere out of it.
If a child is failed by the system - fire the system.
It is rather difficult to focus on all the economic turmoil, corruption, and boondoggles of our province when 12 year olds are whisked into a room for impregnation by an adult caregiver.
Does this turn your guts? It should. Please join me and demand a resolve to this. Let no other child suffer like this again.
No more excuses.
Friday, August 11, 2017
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...
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...
Friday, November 06, 2015
Harper hands off to MacKay
As a political junkie and an active citizen - I always like to review the term/s of any Prime Minister or Premier.
Usually there are good and bad policies in all governments regardless of stripe. Then again - usually in Canada the mainstream parties Progressive Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrat are just left or right of center. They are not right or left wing zealots attempting to change the very soul of the Country.
Then came Stephen Harper - one half of a deceitful duo - with Peter MacKay. These two politicians were supposed to "unite the right". In truth - it was the Reforms effort to mask itself enough and form government and for Peter MacKay it was a lazy and selfish way to bring his Progressive Conservatives back from near extinction.
For PC's like David Orchard and Joe Clark the merger represented the greatest act of treachery in the party's history.
The right wing extremist Harper and the self-centered MacKay had no problem moving on - each with their own agenda. Harper is not a stupid man and understood immediately that he was smarter than the lazy selfish MacKay. As long as Harper kept MacKay happy - Harper could keep the ideologically fractured caucus in check.
Satisfying Peter meant just that - satisfying Peter. He could have the portfolios he desired, the travel he desired, and the prominence he desired. Little by little Harper changed our Country - right under the nose of MacKay who give in little by little on ideology if it meant progressive improvement for himself.
MacKay did not care if the Country was being stripped of democratic principles, stripped of judicial values, stripped of its Constitution as long as he - Peter MacKay - was upwardly mobile. Mackay became more and more arrogant - more and more aloof - more and more deceitful.
The Harper era was - I believe - based on an agreement. That is to say - he and his political partner - set rules for each other and more importantly time-frames. I have no doubt that the merger of the parties came with an opportunity for both to lead it.
The red-carpet send off for MacKay by the Prime Minister was unprecedented and quite unusual. The political love-in was scripted by both and in my opinion written a decade earlier. All of this was pulled off because an ever weakening media answered the call. Sure MacKay leaving was a story - but that news was not important enough for live coverage of every word.
Shifting away from the extreme right will be the reason to elect MacKay sometime in late 2016 or early 2017 - it will be determined as "necessary" to lure the public back with moderate social policy.
Peter in the meanwhile will be a free agent - but very accessible to an adoring press. He's already begun playing them like a fiddle.
Harper did considerable damage to the "free" press - they became the propaganda delivery team - trained like a circus animal - through continued punish and learn exercises. The odd journalist that delivered news had to do so very carefully or with the blessing of a boss through commentary.
There were media rules and deals that we the public did not see during the election - we seen the result but not backroom agreements.
Have you ever watched a flock of hungry starlings upon the discovery of food? If not - all you had to do was watch our national media question the hours old Cabinet - to envision what the starlings are like.
As many of you know - I - as one citizen - insist on freedom of the press. I am unforgiving as a voter to a leader or MP who demands full control of media. I did not expect or need particulars about what the Ministers were going to do in their new portfolios on day one. I would expect them to tell me their priorities and any urgent and immediate changes within a week or two. The "Hill" reporters were savages on Wednesday - they even giggled - (watch the video) if there is one. Justin Trudeau said they were important and should be able to ask tough questions - and as if Trudeau was Pavlov - he rang a bell.
For the past five years at least - they were obedient - if they complained it must have been at a virtual kitchen table - we never heard it.
They have become so irrelevant that when Trudeau opened the access and advised them they were important again - they fed like piranha.
Let me be clear dear media - before you increase your dislike of me - you demonstrated it again in spades when you "interviewed" Ms. Ambrose. You were respectful of the rules Harper put in place for you.
Without considerable determination of journalists - the next couple of years will be high-energy focus on keeping Trudeau "accountable" while allowing MacKay and Ambrose to play by Harper media rules. Peter will become the heir apparent and will demand of the media - respect and boundaries that will be set by him.
The media continues to let Harper off the accountability hook and unless this changes - Trudeau's commitment to revitalize the CBC will only mean a license for journalists to investigate and report on Liberals - while letting MacKay and the CPC go unchecked into the next election.
Ready - set - go....
Usually there are good and bad policies in all governments regardless of stripe. Then again - usually in Canada the mainstream parties Progressive Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrat are just left or right of center. They are not right or left wing zealots attempting to change the very soul of the Country.
Then came Stephen Harper - one half of a deceitful duo - with Peter MacKay. These two politicians were supposed to "unite the right". In truth - it was the Reforms effort to mask itself enough and form government and for Peter MacKay it was a lazy and selfish way to bring his Progressive Conservatives back from near extinction.
For PC's like David Orchard and Joe Clark the merger represented the greatest act of treachery in the party's history.
The right wing extremist Harper and the self-centered MacKay had no problem moving on - each with their own agenda. Harper is not a stupid man and understood immediately that he was smarter than the lazy selfish MacKay. As long as Harper kept MacKay happy - Harper could keep the ideologically fractured caucus in check.
Satisfying Peter meant just that - satisfying Peter. He could have the portfolios he desired, the travel he desired, and the prominence he desired. Little by little Harper changed our Country - right under the nose of MacKay who give in little by little on ideology if it meant progressive improvement for himself.
MacKay did not care if the Country was being stripped of democratic principles, stripped of judicial values, stripped of its Constitution as long as he - Peter MacKay - was upwardly mobile. Mackay became more and more arrogant - more and more aloof - more and more deceitful.
The Harper era was - I believe - based on an agreement. That is to say - he and his political partner - set rules for each other and more importantly time-frames. I have no doubt that the merger of the parties came with an opportunity for both to lead it.
The red-carpet send off for MacKay by the Prime Minister was unprecedented and quite unusual. The political love-in was scripted by both and in my opinion written a decade earlier. All of this was pulled off because an ever weakening media answered the call. Sure MacKay leaving was a story - but that news was not important enough for live coverage of every word.
Shifting away from the extreme right will be the reason to elect MacKay sometime in late 2016 or early 2017 - it will be determined as "necessary" to lure the public back with moderate social policy.
Peter in the meanwhile will be a free agent - but very accessible to an adoring press. He's already begun playing them like a fiddle.
Harper did considerable damage to the "free" press - they became the propaganda delivery team - trained like a circus animal - through continued punish and learn exercises. The odd journalist that delivered news had to do so very carefully or with the blessing of a boss through commentary.
There were media rules and deals that we the public did not see during the election - we seen the result but not backroom agreements.
Have you ever watched a flock of hungry starlings upon the discovery of food? If not - all you had to do was watch our national media question the hours old Cabinet - to envision what the starlings are like.
As many of you know - I - as one citizen - insist on freedom of the press. I am unforgiving as a voter to a leader or MP who demands full control of media. I did not expect or need particulars about what the Ministers were going to do in their new portfolios on day one. I would expect them to tell me their priorities and any urgent and immediate changes within a week or two. The "Hill" reporters were savages on Wednesday - they even giggled - (watch the video) if there is one. Justin Trudeau said they were important and should be able to ask tough questions - and as if Trudeau was Pavlov - he rang a bell.
For the past five years at least - they were obedient - if they complained it must have been at a virtual kitchen table - we never heard it.
They have become so irrelevant that when Trudeau opened the access and advised them they were important again - they fed like piranha.
Let me be clear dear media - before you increase your dislike of me - you demonstrated it again in spades when you "interviewed" Ms. Ambrose. You were respectful of the rules Harper put in place for you.
Without considerable determination of journalists - the next couple of years will be high-energy focus on keeping Trudeau "accountable" while allowing MacKay and Ambrose to play by Harper media rules. Peter will become the heir apparent and will demand of the media - respect and boundaries that will be set by him.
The media continues to let Harper off the accountability hook and unless this changes - Trudeau's commitment to revitalize the CBC will only mean a license for journalists to investigate and report on Liberals - while letting MacKay and the CPC go unchecked into the next election.
Ready - set - go....
Monday, June 01, 2015
Duffy Trial over?
The deal may be made between Crown and Defence in the trial of Senator Mike Duffy.
The only way Stephen Harper is going to eliminate the messiness that is the PMO is to make the Duffy trial go away.
Justice Charles Vaillancourt has allowed a critical Senate Committee report to be entered as evidence.
So if the Senate fights this ruling and is successful - it will be determined that the Defense is being unfairly restricted.
The trial has adjourned today with witnesses now set to testify tomorrow.
Will tomorrow ever come - and if so will it be a short one?
It appears the raising of the report may work as well for Stephen Harper as it does for Mike Duffy.
This may have been all planned with negotiations just complete.
Win win for the CPC and buddies and lose lose for the people of Canada.
The trial of Mike Duffy may well be over before we - the people - had a chance to hear witnesses like Nigel Wright.
This is justice right?
The only way Stephen Harper is going to eliminate the messiness that is the PMO is to make the Duffy trial go away.
Justice Charles Vaillancourt has allowed a critical Senate Committee report to be entered as evidence.
So if the Senate fights this ruling and is successful - it will be determined that the Defense is being unfairly restricted.
The trial has adjourned today with witnesses now set to testify tomorrow.
Will tomorrow ever come - and if so will it be a short one?
It appears the raising of the report may work as well for Stephen Harper as it does for Mike Duffy.
This may have been all planned with negotiations just complete.
Win win for the CPC and buddies and lose lose for the people of Canada.
The trial of Mike Duffy may well be over before we - the people - had a chance to hear witnesses like Nigel Wright.
This is justice right?
Thursday, May 21, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
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.
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.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Danny's Coatails for by-election?
The political future for PC's in Newfoundland and Labrador is pretty grim. Now there's subtle and not so subtle moves by the Tories that demonstrate how bad the situation is.
Many of us were wondering why Tom Marshall - the fellow who did not want to stay around anymore - was taking so much time to leave. Timing in politics is everything - we often hear - and I guess this is a good example.
Make no mistake there are still some political strategists left in the diminished Tory house - and in my opinion - they made the call on Marshall's retirement.
Humber East is the one the PC's will throw everything at to hold and they appear to have dipped back into a familiar well. Tom Marshall announced his resignation Monday - November 3rd. Uncharacteristically - Premier Paul Davis announced the by-election for the district the same day. The government that usually takes its time (subject to legislation) in calling by-elections was swift in this case.
The Tories were definitely timing Marshall's departure and were ready when he did.
What happened next?
Well on November 12th with the by-election in full swing - the screening of "Danny" is at the Arts and Culture Centre in Corner Brook with an audience full of prospective voters.
The glorification of all that is "Danny" their former MHA and Premier was there - in the flesh - saying things like - “To come here tonight was like coming home”.
Better yet - an always fawning media willing to entertain a Q&A session with Williams - including political banter - and to "report" on his political comments. Here are a few excerpts from the Telegram
1. While saying he is staying out of today’s political scene, in true Williams style, he offered his support to Larry Wells, the Conservative candidate trying to hold on to the Humber East seat in an upcoming by-election.“Hello Larry, wherever you are out there,” he said.
2. However, he said he’s not ready to concede a Conservative defeat. “They all, like me, have a genuine love for this wonderful place in which we live,” he said of party candidates and leaders.
3. “I’m a big believer that it doesn’t have to be fracked in order to find it,” he announced to the crowd. “I am not advocating fracking. If there is petroleum there that we can access normally, and I do believe it is there on the west coast.”
4. “To come here tonight was like coming home,” he said. “To put (the film) in front of them and say, ‘you have been a big part of this.’”
5. Danny Williams says he has no real regrets from his political tenure, but he admits he would have liked to have seen more things to ignite the economy on the west coast of the province.
Here are my questions:
1. When was the booking made for the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre for the screening?
2. When did the Tories become aware of that date?
3. Was Tom Marshall's dragged out (despite the groaning) retirement - and by-election call - timed with the screening of the film during the campaign?
4. Did the PC's ask Danny Williams to do a bit of campaigning at the screening?
Outside of this observation - I note the careful footing around economic growth in the district during Danny's tenure. His on-again off-again "home" had to be gently almost with humility asked to believe in a PC resurrection.
What an insult to the people this was and is.
Another excerpt from the Telegram article:
He thanked the audience for that 2001 by-election win in Humber East, which he claimed launched his entire tenure.
Well - how nice - they launched his political career - so he went home and then did so again to launch his film.
Meanwhile the hospital - you know the hospital - yes that hospital - maybe changing hospital - need more design hospital - need to change the services hospital - is NOT built. On the bright side - they did get a Court House - what's it called again? Oh yes - I remember - the Danny Williams building.
So thanks for what you've done for me - but by the way can you do one more thing? Elect another PC.
He asked the people in former Premier Dunderdale's riding of Virginia Waters to do it. Now he wants the good people of Humber East to do it.
Never forget though - all this could not have happened right? - Cause Williams believes when Premiers leave office they should stay out of it - shut their mouths - right?
Many of us were wondering why Tom Marshall - the fellow who did not want to stay around anymore - was taking so much time to leave. Timing in politics is everything - we often hear - and I guess this is a good example.
Make no mistake there are still some political strategists left in the diminished Tory house - and in my opinion - they made the call on Marshall's retirement.
Humber East is the one the PC's will throw everything at to hold and they appear to have dipped back into a familiar well. Tom Marshall announced his resignation Monday - November 3rd. Uncharacteristically - Premier Paul Davis announced the by-election for the district the same day. The government that usually takes its time (subject to legislation) in calling by-elections was swift in this case.
The Tories were definitely timing Marshall's departure and were ready when he did.
What happened next?
Well on November 12th with the by-election in full swing - the screening of "Danny" is at the Arts and Culture Centre in Corner Brook with an audience full of prospective voters.
The glorification of all that is "Danny" their former MHA and Premier was there - in the flesh - saying things like - “To come here tonight was like coming home”.
Better yet - an always fawning media willing to entertain a Q&A session with Williams - including political banter - and to "report" on his political comments. Here are a few excerpts from the Telegram
1. While saying he is staying out of today’s political scene, in true Williams style, he offered his support to Larry Wells, the Conservative candidate trying to hold on to the Humber East seat in an upcoming by-election.“Hello Larry, wherever you are out there,” he said.
2. However, he said he’s not ready to concede a Conservative defeat. “They all, like me, have a genuine love for this wonderful place in which we live,” he said of party candidates and leaders.
3. “I’m a big believer that it doesn’t have to be fracked in order to find it,” he announced to the crowd. “I am not advocating fracking. If there is petroleum there that we can access normally, and I do believe it is there on the west coast.”
4. “To come here tonight was like coming home,” he said. “To put (the film) in front of them and say, ‘you have been a big part of this.’”
5. Danny Williams says he has no real regrets from his political tenure, but he admits he would have liked to have seen more things to ignite the economy on the west coast of the province.
Here are my questions:
1. When was the booking made for the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre for the screening?
2. When did the Tories become aware of that date?
3. Was Tom Marshall's dragged out (despite the groaning) retirement - and by-election call - timed with the screening of the film during the campaign?
4. Did the PC's ask Danny Williams to do a bit of campaigning at the screening?
Outside of this observation - I note the careful footing around economic growth in the district during Danny's tenure. His on-again off-again "home" had to be gently almost with humility asked to believe in a PC resurrection.
What an insult to the people this was and is.
Another excerpt from the Telegram article:
He thanked the audience for that 2001 by-election win in Humber East, which he claimed launched his entire tenure.
Well - how nice - they launched his political career - so he went home and then did so again to launch his film.
Meanwhile the hospital - you know the hospital - yes that hospital - maybe changing hospital - need more design hospital - need to change the services hospital - is NOT built. On the bright side - they did get a Court House - what's it called again? Oh yes - I remember - the Danny Williams building.
So thanks for what you've done for me - but by the way can you do one more thing? Elect another PC.
He asked the people in former Premier Dunderdale's riding of Virginia Waters to do it. Now he wants the good people of Humber East to do it.
Never forget though - all this could not have happened right? - Cause Williams believes when Premiers leave office they should stay out of it - shut their mouths - right?
Friday, October 24, 2014
Conservative disgrace!
I visited friends this evening and during the course of our discussion over tea - what they told me was unbelievable.
At approximately 2:30 pm today Newfoundland and Labrador time - they received a call from 709-702-8496. On the other end of the phone was a representative of the Conservative Party of Canada's "customer care" line looking for a political donation. First the caller asked if perhaps the person would like to donate $100 and then after a "no thank you" reply asked perhaps if $50 would be better - and after a further "no thank you" suggested $35 to which he received the same reply. He then asked my friends what they would like to contribute - they responded nothing - not interested.
What followed next was appalling - the Conservative representative then suggested that my friends should really reconsider - and why was that? Well imagine if Trudeau had been the Prime Minister in the week that we just had....and on it went.
So on the day that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was reopened and 2 new guards took their places - and on the day that the procession of Corporal Nathan Cirillo carried his body home from Ottawa to Hamilton - the Conservatives felt this was an ideal time to fund raise?
This is a disgrace.
So while Canadians were paying tribute to a fine young man - the Conservatives wanted some cash?
This is a disgrace.
At approximately 2:30 pm today Newfoundland and Labrador time - they received a call from 709-702-8496. On the other end of the phone was a representative of the Conservative Party of Canada's "customer care" line looking for a political donation. First the caller asked if perhaps the person would like to donate $100 and then after a "no thank you" reply asked perhaps if $50 would be better - and after a further "no thank you" suggested $35 to which he received the same reply. He then asked my friends what they would like to contribute - they responded nothing - not interested.
What followed next was appalling - the Conservative representative then suggested that my friends should really reconsider - and why was that? Well imagine if Trudeau had been the Prime Minister in the week that we just had....and on it went.
So on the day that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was reopened and 2 new guards took their places - and on the day that the procession of Corporal Nathan Cirillo carried his body home from Ottawa to Hamilton - the Conservatives felt this was an ideal time to fund raise?
This is a disgrace.
So while Canadians were paying tribute to a fine young man - the Conservatives wanted some cash?
This is a disgrace.
Thursday, October 02, 2014
Davis - putting lipstick on a pig?
As the bogeyman can be either gender - the use of the word should not cause sexist issues. Now as our new "unelected" Attorney General raised the topic of fear - I should not be accused of being nasty.
Judy Manning believes that criticism of her appointment is coming from the Opposition Parties as they are "threatened by the Progressive Conservative Government". Telegram story HERE
I would "with respect" reword that to read the electorate is threatened by the Progressive Conservative Government.
Threatened by the mounting debt,
Threatened by the unfunded pension liabilities,
Threatened by the Muskrat Falls project and escalating energy costs,
Threatened by scandal such as the Humber Valley Paving Contract,
Threatened by the erosion of democratic conventions,
Threatened by the level of patronage that continues,
Threatened by the continued loss of industry,
Threatened by our population statistics,
Threatened by the loss of the Justice Department,
Threatened by an "unelected" Attorney General who makes decisions based on her emotions (my heart is in the Placentia - St.Mary's District so I can't run anywhere else)
Threatened by the continued loss of rural communities, and
Threatened by the arrogance and disrespect this government has toward the people of the province.
If the whole idea of Ms. Manning's appointment was to frighten the Opposition - then I guess they are relying on the introduction of a bogeyman to frighten the critics into better behaviour.
Considering Ms. Manning brought up the topic of threatened let's look at why the PC's are making "innovative" changes to our democracy. Paul Davis is going to be different - see - look what he did. He plucked a well-connected Tory unelected out of a sole practitioner law office and threw her into a new Department of Public Safety. Furthermore - just to be different our "unelected" Premier chose somebody who was afraid to run in any of the by-elections. Then - just to be different he accepted the resignation of one Minister (who he would have fired anyway) and left another Minister named in the HVP report right where he was. Additionally - just to be different - he found that Labrador was without a Minister so - he plucked arguably the most controversial and bad-tempered off the backbench and presented him to the electorate as a changed man. Lastly he wanted to up the number of women in government - so he ignored an elected woman and went out and found one that he thought was more worthy of a Cabinet post?
One can only reasonably believe that Davis made such outrageous choices in a desperate attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Or if you prefer -You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. The end product is the same.
How about we outline why the PC government feels threatened:
1. The polls,
2. The by-election losses,
3. The defections or resignations of key Cabinet and caucus people,
4. The acrimonious mess of a failed first leadership race,
5. The divisive actions of Deputy Premier Steve Kent during the second leadership contest,
6. The very loud criticism from Progressive Conservatives,
7. The weak backbench (as evidenced by the "unelected" Premier's recent Cabinet shuffle),
8. Continued failure to communicate or continued failure of decisions,
9. The numbers of people showing up to vote for Liberal nominations in Tory districts, and
10. The growing voice of the people demanding both an election and a judicial inquiry on HVP.
Please just call an election - so we can sort this out. Let's see who the people want and don't want.
Judy Manning believes that criticism of her appointment is coming from the Opposition Parties as they are "threatened by the Progressive Conservative Government". Telegram story HERE
I would "with respect" reword that to read the electorate is threatened by the Progressive Conservative Government.
Threatened by the mounting debt,
Threatened by the unfunded pension liabilities,
Threatened by the Muskrat Falls project and escalating energy costs,
Threatened by scandal such as the Humber Valley Paving Contract,
Threatened by the erosion of democratic conventions,
Threatened by the level of patronage that continues,
Threatened by the continued loss of industry,
Threatened by our population statistics,
Threatened by the loss of the Justice Department,
Threatened by an "unelected" Attorney General who makes decisions based on her emotions (my heart is in the Placentia - St.Mary's District so I can't run anywhere else)
Threatened by the continued loss of rural communities, and
Threatened by the arrogance and disrespect this government has toward the people of the province.
If the whole idea of Ms. Manning's appointment was to frighten the Opposition - then I guess they are relying on the introduction of a bogeyman to frighten the critics into better behaviour.
Considering Ms. Manning brought up the topic of threatened let's look at why the PC's are making "innovative" changes to our democracy. Paul Davis is going to be different - see - look what he did. He plucked a well-connected Tory unelected out of a sole practitioner law office and threw her into a new Department of Public Safety. Furthermore - just to be different our "unelected" Premier chose somebody who was afraid to run in any of the by-elections. Then - just to be different he accepted the resignation of one Minister (who he would have fired anyway) and left another Minister named in the HVP report right where he was. Additionally - just to be different - he found that Labrador was without a Minister so - he plucked arguably the most controversial and bad-tempered off the backbench and presented him to the electorate as a changed man. Lastly he wanted to up the number of women in government - so he ignored an elected woman and went out and found one that he thought was more worthy of a Cabinet post?
One can only reasonably believe that Davis made such outrageous choices in a desperate attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Or if you prefer -You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. The end product is the same.
How about we outline why the PC government feels threatened:
1. The polls,
2. The by-election losses,
3. The defections or resignations of key Cabinet and caucus people,
4. The acrimonious mess of a failed first leadership race,
5. The divisive actions of Deputy Premier Steve Kent during the second leadership contest,
6. The very loud criticism from Progressive Conservatives,
7. The weak backbench (as evidenced by the "unelected" Premier's recent Cabinet shuffle),
8. Continued failure to communicate or continued failure of decisions,
9. The numbers of people showing up to vote for Liberal nominations in Tory districts, and
10. The growing voice of the people demanding both an election and a judicial inquiry on HVP.
Please just call an election - so we can sort this out. Let's see who the people want and don't want.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
What did the PC's Promise?
Please read below the promise from the PC Blue Book 2003
"The party in power always has an advantage in political fund raising, but it has an unfair advantage over other parties by being able to determine when elections are called, and by spending unlimited amounts of public money to buy pre-election advertising that does nothing but polish its political image."
So
"A Progressive Conservative Government will propose amendments... that will: Require that provincial elections are held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly, or within twelve months if the Premier resigns during the first three years of a four year term."(emphasis added)
There is no doubt that the election should be called by January and held in February of 2015. The fact that PC's are now behind in the poll is not the point. The fact that they have a new leader is not the point. The fact that they want more time to re-prove themselves is not the point.
Are the PC's now saying that the new laws are for anybody but a PC government?
If this is the new Premier's first act - that is to delay a general election because it's not opportune for his party - then he will have demonstrated their collective democratic worth. Zero!
"The party in power always has an advantage in political fund raising, but it has an unfair advantage over other parties by being able to determine when elections are called, and by spending unlimited amounts of public money to buy pre-election advertising that does nothing but polish its political image."
So
"A Progressive Conservative Government will propose amendments... that will: Require that provincial elections are held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly, or within twelve months if the Premier resigns during the first three years of a four year term."(emphasis added)
There is no doubt that the election should be called by January and held in February of 2015. The fact that PC's are now behind in the poll is not the point. The fact that they have a new leader is not the point. The fact that they want more time to re-prove themselves is not the point.
Are the PC's now saying that the new laws are for anybody but a PC government?
If this is the new Premier's first act - that is to delay a general election because it's not opportune for his party - then he will have demonstrated their collective democratic worth. Zero!
Monday, September 08, 2014
The Spite Act - biting back
Apparently the House of Assembly Act has been nicknamed the "Spite Act" by a Labradorian blogger. That's probably accurate - based on the PC's failure to accept their lot with respect to the upcoming election.
There is no doubt that Williams and company spent a significant amount of time referring to Roger Grimes as the unelected and illegitimate Premier when they were in Opposition. Williams was determined to fix what he saw as a weakness in our democracy. Almost as soon as they achieved government - he and his colleagues did just that. There was no way - in Williams mind (as he articulated it) that any Premier who was elected by the party but was not the leader under the last general election should be making any significant policy decisions and certainly not be signing contracts.
Many provinces have opted to go with a fixed election date - but only this province it appears has gone with a change in election dates based on an early resignation of the Premier. This further proves that Williams and his Tory caucus absolutely meant to shorten the time to an election should a Premier resign early.
Unfortunately for the Tories - the first test of this law has come under their administration and while the polls are horrific. This does not change the law.
The PC's would like us to swallow - and their doing a good job of that with most media outlets - that the 12 month election clock comes after the swearing in of their newly elected leader. So for a moment lets look at what that would have to mean. It would mean that the House of Assembly Act - a non-partisan legislation - has gone to the dark side. They would have us believe that the law was designed to allow a political party on its own time to pick/select/elect a leader and then recognize that the party needed time to re brand - so be lenient - and allow the party to get its act together (no pun intended). This is too silly to even consider as legitimate. Danny Williams used to pontificate that a bunch of Liberals got in a convention room and picked their leader - who was then thrust upon the people without their approval.
Now the Tories want us to believe their new leader is "legitimate" and "elected" totally contrary to their position in 2001-2003. They want their new leader to be able to make deals and sign contracts and spend billions before going to an election.
What is most ludicrous about this is there are media and politicians running around claiming and believing this is what the Act means.
If that's the case we might as well add another feature and allow the official opposition an additional 12 months before an election following the resignation of one leader and only after they elect and swear in a new Opposition leader. After all - the House of Assembly Act must be seen to be equal to all officers of the House and our government and democracy.
Why not throw a by-election into the mix. Allow the governing party to appoint an interim member to replace a resigned member until they choose to have a nomination and then allow the party to rebuild the party image in the district before going to the polls.
There is NO room in this act for political party anything - this is an act that deals with the House - all 48 members. If this Act was seriously worded to suggest that a political party can have time to call for nominations, have a convention, elect a leader, and that person swear in before a clock started sticking to an election - then I guess the Act would have prescribed a maximum amount of time to achieve a new leader. Otherwise it would be indefinite.
The election must be called by January with an election no later than February.
While the Tories are at it the "interim Premier" particularly - stop committing the taxpayers of this province to billions in spending over long periods of time. You arrogant hypocritical people.
If this Act was indeed a result of spite - I guess it's in spite of oneself. Perhaps you should table a new Bill entitled "An Act to revoke other Acts if we are down in the polls"
There is no doubt that Williams and company spent a significant amount of time referring to Roger Grimes as the unelected and illegitimate Premier when they were in Opposition. Williams was determined to fix what he saw as a weakness in our democracy. Almost as soon as they achieved government - he and his colleagues did just that. There was no way - in Williams mind (as he articulated it) that any Premier who was elected by the party but was not the leader under the last general election should be making any significant policy decisions and certainly not be signing contracts.
Many provinces have opted to go with a fixed election date - but only this province it appears has gone with a change in election dates based on an early resignation of the Premier. This further proves that Williams and his Tory caucus absolutely meant to shorten the time to an election should a Premier resign early.
Unfortunately for the Tories - the first test of this law has come under their administration and while the polls are horrific. This does not change the law.
The PC's would like us to swallow - and their doing a good job of that with most media outlets - that the 12 month election clock comes after the swearing in of their newly elected leader. So for a moment lets look at what that would have to mean. It would mean that the House of Assembly Act - a non-partisan legislation - has gone to the dark side. They would have us believe that the law was designed to allow a political party on its own time to pick/select/elect a leader and then recognize that the party needed time to re brand - so be lenient - and allow the party to get its act together (no pun intended). This is too silly to even consider as legitimate. Danny Williams used to pontificate that a bunch of Liberals got in a convention room and picked their leader - who was then thrust upon the people without their approval.
Now the Tories want us to believe their new leader is "legitimate" and "elected" totally contrary to their position in 2001-2003. They want their new leader to be able to make deals and sign contracts and spend billions before going to an election.
What is most ludicrous about this is there are media and politicians running around claiming and believing this is what the Act means.
If that's the case we might as well add another feature and allow the official opposition an additional 12 months before an election following the resignation of one leader and only after they elect and swear in a new Opposition leader. After all - the House of Assembly Act must be seen to be equal to all officers of the House and our government and democracy.
Why not throw a by-election into the mix. Allow the governing party to appoint an interim member to replace a resigned member until they choose to have a nomination and then allow the party to rebuild the party image in the district before going to the polls.
There is NO room in this act for political party anything - this is an act that deals with the House - all 48 members. If this Act was seriously worded to suggest that a political party can have time to call for nominations, have a convention, elect a leader, and that person swear in before a clock started sticking to an election - then I guess the Act would have prescribed a maximum amount of time to achieve a new leader. Otherwise it would be indefinite.
The election must be called by January with an election no later than February.
While the Tories are at it the "interim Premier" particularly - stop committing the taxpayers of this province to billions in spending over long periods of time. You arrogant hypocritical people.
If this Act was indeed a result of spite - I guess it's in spite of oneself. Perhaps you should table a new Bill entitled "An Act to revoke other Acts if we are down in the polls"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)