Wangersky's Wisdom Waning

Russell Wangersky should know better. He likes to wax poetic. He likes to believe that his columns are of intellectual value. His current column titled: 22 words with a very big bite is not intellectual but is naively romantic.

This is yet another example of Telegram employees giving a pass to politicians regarding Muskrat. 

Since Dwight Ball orated - to an elite corporate community - that his government will conduct a public inquiry on the boondoggle - Telegram employees have been joining in an attempt to calm the seas of public dissent. When I say joining - I don't mean collaborating - I mean they are buying the government spin.

His piece begins with the sentence: "The single dirtiest trick played on electrical customers in this province hasn’t hit home yet. But it will."

Wangersky's assumption that the Muskrat disaster is a dirty trick played on consumers is downplaying the obvious gross negligence, the continued and often deliberate obfuscation, the real engineering concerns, the failure of equipment before the project is even finished, the doubling of the budget, the unending changes to project completion dates, and the number of red flags that demand a forensic audit.  It also negates the real possibility of criminal negligence, fraud, and bribery. 

When the World Bank blacklisted SNC Lavalin and its subsidiaries in 2013 from "bidding on its global projects under its fraud and corruption policy" - while Wangersky proclaims "..dirtiest trick.." - is irresponsible. 

Muskrat Falls stinks to the high heavens - it must be stopped. How do we know that documents are not being shredded as we speak? 

There remains a number of executives at Nalcor who have been there since sanctioning. How is this even possible? How is it possible that we paid a king's ransom for Ed Martin? 

So when Wangersky describes this fiasco as a dirty trick - he brings to mind events like fooling a candidates supporters into showing up at the wrong location. This is not a dirty trick. 

The most offensive and irresponsible part of this column is his concluding thought: "It’s water over the dam. The money’s gone anyway. The best thing we can do is to learn from the mistake, allow for independent oversight and not step in a pile of crap like this again."

I can only conclude that this intelligent and thinking human being must be bored with Muskrat, be suffering writers block, or simply and inexplicably buying the Tobinesque spin delivered by Dwight Ball. 

Learn from this mistake? How? By suffering bankruptcy? It's water over the dam? How does Russell know what we would be responsible for if illegal activities were found during a forensic audit? How does Russell know that the assets could not be used for another deal? He doesn't know. 

The Upper Churchill is a fiasco because of the contractual and economic contracts. The Upper Churchill is significantly successful in it's construction. It was on time and on budget. It stands as one of the best hydro facilities in the world. 

So here's what we learned. What we did right in development of the Upper Churchill - on time and on budget - we completely reversed for Muskrat Falls. The stinging and gross minimal return for Newfoundland and Labrador on the Upper Churchill - we repeat for Muskrat. 

If you went back 20 years and said we are going to repeat the mistakes of Churchill Falls - politicians would have been politically lynched. 

Now that the main stream media in Newfoundland and Labrador have been exposed for their unquestioning support of Danny Williams Muskrat fiasco - the line is "water over the dam"? 

Let's watch the same media as they spin the lines of the current failed administration. Watch as they play dirty tricks and marginalize the critics of this continued boondoggle. Watch as they contort to explain that giving away Gull Island to Quebec is going to be a good thing. 

This Wangersky wisdom we can do without.

  

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. 

Ches Crosbie takes himself out of contention

And with one sentence - Ches Crosbie removed himself from being a potential Premier.

The sentence is found at his blog Press Here 

"If you agree that we need an immediate forensic audit of Muskrat Falls so that we can be smarter with how we spend our resources on the remainder of the project,.."

Before this audit - he calls for is even complete - he determines that the project will be finished (just a question of how we spend our  money for the remainder of the project). 

Yes people of Newfoundland and Labrador generally our politicians believe we are that naive - that ignorant. 

Raised in a house of politics will allow you to gain the special skill of siding both ways.

Crosbie's message is - he will order an audit - but in the same breath he concludes regardless of the findings we will finish the project.

Message to labour, message to Tories, and  most importantly a message to the corporate elite. 

Unless that position is changed - Crosbie is the same old - same old. 

Proof that Emera is in control

Below is an excerpt from Emera's response to the Massachusetts Clean Energy RFP July 2017. 

 

"Hydro-Québec’s current contractual access to energy from the Churchill Falls facility, through arrangements with Nalcor, expires in 2041. As the end of that contract draws closer, having Atlantic Link as an additional large-scale transmission path creates options for Massachusetts and the New England electricity system to secure cost-effective clean energy, including supply originating at Churchill Falls. Massachusetts has a unique opportunity to position the New England electricity system for future optionality by choosing Atlantic Link infrastructure in the 2017 Clean Energy RFP process."

 

So good to know that Emera is going to take the reigns of the Upper Churchill for the next generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. 

 

I wonder - should we expect CFLco to have something to say about this?

 

It also says:  " Nalcor is currently constructing the 824 MW Muskrat Falls generating station (scheduled in-service date of 2020)."

 

Is this correct also? 

 

Seems Emera has more information than the people of our province do. 

 

Why not have a peek at what Emera has in store for us. It is Emera that is running our energy system. I think Emera may be running the whole works. Of course we can't stop Muskrat "Premier" Ball - Emera won't let you.

Press here to view Emera's proposal. 

I plan to contact the Massachusetts Clean Energy group and give them our side of the story. What Emera is saying is simply inaccurate or WE the people don't have a clue as to what's going on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stan Marshall? Not at this cost!

Oh come on media - where are you?

After such a big miss on the energy monolith - one might expect for the media to be on their toes.

After a complete miss on Muskrat and all the information freely provided by citizens was ignored - the damning truth was forced on them and all of us.

In comes Stan Marshall - instant messiah treatment oozed out of dull swords of ink painfully reminiscent of the coming of Danny Williams.

Stan Marshall's appointment was swift with few details. One available was Marshall would accept the same as Ed Martin but with no severance option.

Time went by and no contract.

Then the contract appeared to be stalled in negotiation.

Marshall won. We lost.

His employment is in complete conflict.

There are no excuses - no spinning - no exceptions that make this okay.

The media has disappeared. The media will not take Marshall on the same way they avoided Williams.

Martin's contract dealt with Conflict of Interest. Here is the clause:

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

Marshall's contract deals with Conflict of Interest. Here is the clause:

4 (a) The Executive shall not acquire or hold, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business of operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor, NLH or a company considered to be a subsidiary of Nalcor in accordance with Section 13 of the Energy Corporation Act, with the exception to the foregoing being that the Executive may own 5% or less of the shares of a publicly traded company;

Here's the deal - Marshall is allowed to be in a potential conflict of interest. This defies all logic and pith and the purpose of same.

Unfortunately but understandably Marshall nor his family want to be interfered with as that relates to personal financial affairs. Unfortunately this means Mr. Marshall does not qualify to sit as the head of our Crown Corporation.

When a government starts making exceptions to Conflict of Interest guidelines, laws, and intent we are already on the wrong side of right.

We have experienced too much of this. We need change.

Marshall - despite his professional qualifications - has decided not to relinquish his other interests - same for his family - some of which conflict.

Marshall should resign or should be replaced.

In our desperation to replace Martin - we must not be forced to forego conflict of interest protection - regardless the candidate. 

Tomorrow we delve into this contract and terms further.

Political Fail - throwing in the towel

Dear Canada,

The absolutely disgraceful events at Beaumont Hamel this year highlight once again the fake embrace of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada.

Jim Winter expressed my feelings precisely in his letter to the Telegram.

He along with many of us want an apology. I will go a step further and say I want a do-over.

I have a really difficult time every year when Canada Day celebrations overtake Memorial Day. When Canada so politely places us into the event schedule in Ottawa for half an hour or so.

It is Memorial Day not Memorial Morning. It is time we take our culture and history seriously and stop relegating ourselves behind the birthday of Canada in which we were not a part.

A real consequence of that devestating loss of our men on that day is the loss of our country and subsequent joining in with a group of provinces that would always consider us an afterthought. Those men were young leaders and innovators with real courage to forge a future for our beloved Newfoundland and Labrador. 

When I was a child 45 years ago Memorial Day still kept some of its prominence but slowly and surely it is disappearing into the Canadian mosaic - whatever that is. In our county of multiculturalism - it is ironic that Newfoundland and Labrador's culture is one that is being sacrificed.

The provincial politicians and their Canadian masters are showing how little they really feel in their hearts about who we are and where we come from. Since confederation it has been the reason we have given away so much.

The non-renewable constructed auto-sector manufacturing has always been more important to Ottawa than our renewable culturally essential fishery here at home.

The by-passing of our coastal sector to that of the original coast of Nova Scotia has meant refining, ship-building, and Navy and Coast Guard activities are removed from our potentials.

Our renewable energy sector has been sacrificed for the "green good" of the nation instead of a necessary growth industry for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Danny Williams - the self-proclaimed proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian has all but insured our demise with the disastrous Muskrat Falls deal with Emera.

The Rooms had a significant ceremony for the 100th anniversary of the Battle - however it was dignitaries - we could all see it later.

Maybe this statement on Veterans Affairs Canada says it all:

"Anyone attending the July 1^st ceremony at the Beaumont- Hamel Newfoundland Memorial site in France to mark the 100^th anniversary of Canada’s participation in the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel must register online by Tuesday, May 31, 2016."

Our local politicians have dropped the ball on the whole fiasco at Beaumont Hamel and have taken the Canadian line regarding the major slight on our history. But that just demonstrates the lack of real understanding and appreciation of our culture. It just demonstrates ignorance and shallowness. They are the ones who don't tear up at the Ode but rather see it as part of political protocol representative of their titles.

Pathetic - really pathetic - and if we do not do something soon - we will chewed up entirely and become part of Atlantica - (Ottawa's pet project).

Don't let any of these pompous underperforming egotistical "leaders" take away who we are. If any of them had the courage and strength of the boys and men we lost - we would be sitting pretty now in a place that would survive forever. 

When a loss is a big win

The media spin was typical and unfortunately dismissive of a very important win in the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal.

The headlines to this story could have - should have been much more interesting.

Example: Brad Cabana's Appeal denied

Yes the Appeal by Cabana was dismissed but the real story is the Appeal's Court take on costs.

Appeal's Court Justices Malcolm Rowe, Gail Welsh, and Michael Harrington helped define a very real and important principle in justice.

These exemplary jurists did rule the applications judge was wrong to award the defendants costs against Cabana — two counsel for the government and one each for Nalcor and CF(L)Co. 

They ruled instead in favour of good people interested in the public well-being.

They rules that Cabana's interests were not for personal gain but rather for the good of society.

They sent a clear message to government, Crown Corporations, and other heavy hitters that the Court will not automatically squash the little guy for challenging a serious public issue. 

We all know now what many of us have been preaching for some time about Muskrat Falls - it is an absolute mess. It is going to cost a fortune and we have once again subjected future generations to the enormous costs of either corrupt or incompetent activities.

Brad took his fight a different way - he tried valiantly to protect the people from their leadership.

We should take note today that three Appeals Court Judges found that Brad Cabana's motives were pure.

Tell me - can we say that about the politicians and corporate executives involved in Muskrat Falls?

Poster scandal symptom of larger problem

The political signs in the news were and are a demonstration of expression by people who feel the Premier is not serving them well. This is a legitimate form of protest in our democracy. Considering the most recent CRA poll - the signs and their owners reflect the feelings of a significant number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Rather than attempt to deal with those legitimate feelings toward a newbie Premier and Cabinet - the government decided that removing the sight of a protest was far more important than dealing with it.

Many people in the province have been struggling to determine if the Premier and his government are deceptive, grossly incompetent or both.

What we do know is that:
1. Ed Martin was given a very questionable and costly severance package,
2. the Nalcor Board went rogue and government did nothing to protect us,
3. The Muskrat Falls debacle continues,
4. The Government missed significant contract deadlines to begin negotiations with two significant Unions,
5. Delivered a budget completely contrary to the election promises (claiming ignorance of the scale of the financial mess left by the PC's).

Each of these topics deserve their own attention and I will - as one citizen - do my part and post separately on each one.

For now I will focus on the sign issue.

What makes this so relevant is the attempt by government to cover-up involvement by a staffer in the Premier's Office to thwart democratic expression and what is a growing pattern of deception, incompetence or both.

The CBC uncovered the fact that the Communications Director for the Premier, Nancy O'Connor, emailed the Memorial University for 3 reasons:

1. She wanted to know who owned poles on the parkway,
2. If the University owned the poles did they have a policy about posters on them, and
3 If the policy was no posters allowed - would they take them down.

Nancy O'Connor was clearly looking for a way to remove the signs calling for the Premier's resignation.
Nancy O'Connor was not seeking to police MU on its policies on campus.
Nancy O'Connor does not know the most basic information about our electrical supply system.
Nancy O'Connor is either incompetent or dismissive regarding the very basics of democracy.
Nancy O'Connor placed a priority on this minor albeit politically annoying issue when compared with the issues that generated the poster campaign.

The priority to protect her boss from having to see his political mugshot on the way to work is not the action of a competent communications "expert". This in part (albeit a hidden one until yesterday) is what in part caused the sign scandal.

O'Connor's email was clear and it was an attempt to have political expression quashed.
The Minister of Transportation and Works is on the record as saying it was not his decision to remove the signs and if it were it may very well have been a different decision.
So while the Minister is concerned about the actions of a worker conducting unacceptable "operational" tasks - the Premier's Director of Communication was out attempting to achieve the same result.

The Premier in a scrum yesterday on this issue answered the first question by stating the actions of Nancy O'Connor "...it really wasn't about taking the posters down."
The public are left again asking the question incompetence or deception?
O'Connor's email was clear - she was seeking a way to have the posters removed.

Then the Premier said the call (email) of O'Connor "that would be expected of someone working in the Premier's Office or a Director of Communications simply to get some clarification on what the policy was around those posters." Here - once again - the public are left to ask incompetence or lies? In a government where the overriding belief is supposed to be supportive of free political expression as part of democracy - a Communications Director for the Premier would not be asking the University about it's poster policies.

The next question and answer is telling. The Premier was asked why he did not tell the public about this when asked about it three weeks ago. The Premier responded, "The question was about taking down those posters. There was no direction given from the Premier's Office in any way shape or form in taking down those policies (not a typo) ."

This is - at best - obfuscation. Let's review the actual body of the email from Nancy O'Connor to the University "Telling DB to resign ... Are these poles belonging to MUN or Power? And are ppl allowed to put posters on them? If not can someone take them down?"

The request was made by Nancy O'Connor to "take them down". The fact that she was unsuccessful as she was barking up the wrong pole owner and trivializing free expression only demonstrates her ignorance not her intent. The fact that she was unsuccessful does not remove the Premier's Office from the same thinking and actions used by somebody working for the Department of Transportation and Works.  

Lastly the Telegram's James McLeod asked the logical question after the Premier stated earlier that O'Conner's call (email) "...it really wasn't about taking the posters down". He asked "but she did ask to take these posters down?" The Premier responded "if indeed the policy was that they were allowed to be there - the answer came back and said this was not a contradiction or indeed there was no policy around this they were allowed to be there."

It clearly was about taking the posters down if O'Connor could get another party to do it. To say it was not about taking the posters down is a deceptive comment. The fact that O'Connor spent time on a Sunday to find someway to take the posters down and was unsuccessful leads the mind to ask about the coincidence that an unknown person in the Department of Transportation and works was thinking the same political way on that Sunday.

This is what makes this story go far beyond posters or signs. It adds to a pattern of incompetence or deception or both. This is what is driving the polls for the Liberals and the Premier off a cliff.

I would need to hear the response from the University to determine if Nancy O'Connor found out from them that not only did they not own the poles but that the real owner allows posters. If the response did not state this as a fact - how did O'Connor ever determine that posters were allowed on the poles. Did O'Conner ever ask the city? Newfoundland Power? Nalcor? Ministers?

Let's imagine for a moment that MU owned the poles and had a policy of no posters - is it really the job of the Premier's Office to police MU to ensure it's following its poster rules? Is that the priority? Of course not - instead it looks like the work of a rookie zealous party partisan. 

If a manager in the Department of Works and Services got word that the Premier's Office were trying to find a way to remove posters from utility poles - perhaps they decided they were assisting the Premier's Office in achieving its objective.

I repeat from yesterday, if Nancy O'Connor - who has stated experience in communications regarding Nalcor and Muskrat Falls - does not know who owns utility poles and has no resources to find out other than a University colleague - she should be fired. In a Telegram story this morning one of the people involved in the poster campaign said “We didn’t go out and do this willy nilly. We actually read the municipal guidelines and made sure what we were doing was not illegal,” (emphasis added)  Instead we watch a Premier protecting a senior staffer in the same way he protected Ed Martin and the former Board until the contract and severance package became public.

One more line of questions: why did this reportedly seasoned communications professional concentrate on these posters on a Sunday? Did the Chief of Staff give her a call? Did anybody encourage her to take on this useless waste of time? Perhaps I am being harsh and somebody else should be fired. Perhaps this pattern of behavior is not coming from the Director of Communications - maybe it's higher up.








 

The chickens ate the fox...

Now that we have seen the first moves of Nalcor's new CEO - underwhelmed seems an appropriate reaction.

Stan Marshall the successful head of regulated private utilities has either lost his touch or has been directed to stay the course.

Ed Martin was not the only executive responsible for the complete failure of our corporation. Martin however appears to be the only casualty.

We have already been told that Marshall will carry on with Muskrat without real justification or real numbers relative to cancel or go on the project.

The savvy that the former head of Fortis demonstrated at the helm of the private utility is absent now.

One very telling comment came during a media event last week when Marshall was responding to a question regarding potential privatization of the Crown Corporation. He stated "The sheer fact that I'm in my role means it can't be done."

In a world of real journalism this would have been like a red flag to a bull. This would have caused a flurry of questions similar to a nor'easter - fast furious and fierce. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador progressive natural resource deals were placed on the endangered list starting with the Upper Churchill deal - and competence on the subject from our "journalists" has been extinct for decades.

There is no excuse for missing this. We must be able to have some faith in the news media - but we can't. If we are relying on them to keep their eye on the ball - we have lost the game before we played.

What was Stan Marshall saying? He is in a conflict? What role? What can't be done? What prevents him from considering that option?

As all of you know I am the champion of keeping Nalcor/Hydro Crown - but if what Marshall says means what I think it does - it would also prevent the company from looking at the reverse - nationalizing Newfoundland power. It would also prevent Nalcor from becoming aggressive with other potential opportunities. Ones that could make us money.

Worse than all of this - in a round about way - was Marshall indicating that the conflict of interest provisions applicable to the former CEO of Nalcor's contract do not exist in his?

If this is the case and Marshall refuses to clean up the conflict - he too should be replaced.

Enough already. Show us Marshall's contract - what are you hiding now?

MacDonald Tobin Williams - the three amigos - whose turn is it this time?

Quebec controls our power - Emera shareholders rejoice?

In 2011 I wrote a piece on the proposed Emera deal. The big talking point for politicians was to avoid big bad Quebec and Hydro-Quebec.

At the time I asked what protections were in place to keep Emera out of the hands of Hydro-Quebec.

Please read the earlier post HERE

The Government of  Nova Scotia may have some protections against the takeover of Nova Scotia Power (wholly owned subsidiary of Emera) however the parts of Emera important to our province have no such protection.

What has changed since 2011? Hydro-Quebec has. They have announced a new direction.

The Crown Company will back off new large scale hydro while optimizing current assets and completing those started (Romaine 3 and 4), concentrate on energy efficiency, transportation electrification, environmentally sustainable management practices and ...

Putting aside for a moment the exceptional organization, human resources, performance, and tight governmental directions for the corporation - HQ continues to plan 15-20 years out with measurable targets and results.

The ... above represents the real problem for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the promise to double the profits and size of HQ from $13.5 billion to $27 billion.

They have formed a special new group within the company to focus on mergers and acquisitions.

Specifically their sights are set on assets in Europe, the US and the Maritimes.

Imagine if they follow through - Emera shareholders may be in for a bonanza and HQ will have us going out and in both on the Island and Labrador. Even the line that crosses at Soldiers pond may be partly owned by HQ. Imagine that!

So all the people who pushed Emera and Muskrat down our throats may be in for a big payday - if they are shareholders of Emera. In my opinion the problem with cutting a deal with HQ on the Lower Churchill was never really about avoiding Quebec it was about making sure the partner was a venue that was available for share acquisition. No direct money for the elite if Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro cut a deal.

HQ CEO - Éric Martel says, “The idea is to increase the benefit for Quebec, to enrich Hydro-Québec and Quebec at the same time, without having to increase rates too much. So this will help us meet our engagement of maintaining rate increase to the cost of inflation, or less”.

Imagine if our leaders did the same.

Stan Marshall - Conflict of Interest? Fracking?

Stan Marshall has had an illustrious career with Newfoundland Power and then Fortis. He has proven himself in a way that Ed Martin never did. The comparison of Ed Martin to Stan Marshall in terms of executive remuneration is a joke.

A Telegram story upon Marshall's retirement noted the following:

"Since 1996, total shareholder return is approximately 855 per cent and the average annual total shareholder return is approximately 13 per cent."

As the new CEO of Nalcor his role should be no different - it's just the nature of the shareholders.

He has the potential to be great at the job if and these are big ifs:
1. He is not in a conflict of interest and
2. He has progressive direction from government.

Yesterday I outlined the conflict of interest clauses in Martin's contract and asked if they were included in Marshall's. I have not seen anything yet to let people know exactly what the terms of the employment are.

If he is a shareholder in Fortis - it is my opinion he cannot do the job needed for Nalcor. There are too many possibilities of business, administrative and operational issues that may collide and thereby not be considered.

But Stan Marshall's interests go beyond Fortis.

Stan Marshall is a Director of Enerflex - this vote occurred on May 5th after he became the CEO of Nalcor.

There are potential conflicts or appearances of conflict here. Did Marshall seek from the new Board of Directors of Nalcor approval for this new professional commitment? If not why not and are there any rules he has to follow. Afterall - we must remember that Marshall protested taking the job by telling us he did not want it.

Enerflex for example builds/designs customized and standardized fractionation equipment.
Other areas include: oil and gas - particularly LNG.

I want Marshall to concentrate on Nalcor. I want him to deliver for Nalcor, the government, the province and the people of the province.

Is he qualified? Yes particularly in the area of regulated utilities.

It would be interesting to find out who in fact recommended him to the Premier.

People like Dave Vardy (who I respect) who welcome the appointment of Marshall must also not do so in oblivion to the terms of the appointment.

As Marshall has already stated it's too late to stop Muskrat - it would appear to me that those supporting the appointment now - are not concerned about the project continuing in the absence of a thorough review of the option to stop the project. Further I am sure many who may support Marshall's appointment must be waiting to hear what Marshall is going to say or do about the North Spur.

One can have all the potential and expertise in the world to deliver the goods - but he is not a savior - so giving him a pass on conflict does not cut it. Further if the government is asking him to determine the goals and aspirations of the people of the province and how they can be achieved through proper management of natural resources - they are being negligent of their duties as elected officials.

Next - a post on what it could look like and a Corporate move that could be devastating to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nalcor CEO - Conflict of Interest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Martin/Marshall contract

Our history is riddled with mistakes, incompetence, corruption and bad decisions.

The last two weeks have been about the Ed Martin compensation lottery.

Part of the fury is the contract itself. The public did not have ready access to the document until it was released by Des Sullivan. Uncle Gnarley shed light on the whole sordid mess is an articulate post.

There has been much made of the contract and the Executive benefits Martin enjoyed during his tenure of failure.

We now have a new CEO, Stan Marshall. His success with private or publicly traded regulated utilities is well known and unlike his predecessor he has the bio to prove it.

Regardless of what I think about the appointment (I will deal with that in another post) there is a need for more openness and accountability. This is what was promised and expected.

With the aforementioned considered we are in need of significantly more information on this appointment than what we have now.

1. Has a contract been executed with Stan Marshall?
2. When was the contract achieved?
3. What is the duration of the contract?
4. Was the contract achieved under Section 7 or 9(1)(2)(3) of the Energy Corporation Act?
5, What are the terms of the contract?

I really do not care if it's Bill Gates we have employed - the public must know the terms of Stan Marshall's appointment. We must know if it contains clauses that are unacceptable regardless of his past accomplishments.

We have many times had a "savior" in politics who turned out to be not so beneficial despite successes in their pre-political life. Now we are depending on a "savior"for Muskrat Falls. This thinking is deliberately ignorant and very dangerous.

It is not acceptable that we be in the dark about it until Marshall goes out the door. 

Considering what we have just gone through and continue to go through - the government and Nalcor should be anxious to make this information available and the media should be anxious to go after it.

Glaring inconsistency - did it cost a life?

I have been blogging and tweeting for the past few days on the need for an inquiry on the death of Don Dunphy.

Always remembering to keep an open mind helps when you are seeking fair questions. Analytical versus confrontational is best when tragedies like this occur.

One of the most contentious points in this entire discussion has been whether or not Don Dunphy's tweets were threatening or simply a political statement.

Most people I have heard or spoken to and much of what I have read points to the latter - a political statement.

I will be open about my belief - I believe the statements were a political rant in response to two politicians out driving on a sunny day listening to a CD. People who suffer as much as Don said he did with respect to a workplace injury are bound to get riled when he perceives two politicians relaxing out for a drive - while he tries to get any one of them to listen to his plight.

Forget what I believe for a moment - let's go back to the objective and not subjective.

If the police, Premier's staff, and others really believed that a threat might have been made or in the absence of that - had been made - they erred on the side of caution and treated it like a threat. A decision was then made to follow that up by investigating Mr. Dunphy - part of which was visiting him at his home. So we can say with certainty that what police authorities and staff of the Premier are telling us is that they believe the tweets might represent a threat.

Now let's move to the risk assessment portion of this tragic event. Apparently an assessment was done on Mr. Dunphy with participation of both the RNC and RCMP - this is what we have been told. Considering a decision was made that a "threat" might be present here - enough to warrant investigation - then how did a risk assessment come back as "low". Why did they not err on the side of caution with respect to the type of deployment to Mr. Dunphy's house?

Err on the side of caution to protect politicians - but not err on the side of caution for Mr. Dunphy? This thinking is not logical and leads one to suspect the visit was more of an intimidation than a justified interrogation.

If we are to believe the officer's statement in full - then we must also believe completely that the risk assessment was incorrect. If it was incorrect then - obviously we need changes so as to avoid another such tragedy.

If the visit was one of political intimidation then we may find some clues as to the state of mind of both the officer and Mr. Dunphy at the time of the event.

The inconsistency in determining the tweet was a potential threat but the risk assessment was low - may have cost a man his life.

Further as the assessment was completed with participation by both RNC and RCMP - neither can investigate this aspect of the event.

We need an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.

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?
 

Felix Collins - on his own terms?

Last evening came news that Felix Collins refused the Cabinet post of Attorney General. The unelected person who took his place is conveniently a Manning from the Cape Shore. Her "heart" is preventing her from seeking election in the upcoming three by-elections and on that basis we the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to suffer an unelected Minister.

If Felix Collins - elected by the people of Placentia - St. Mary's, is unwilling to serve in the Cabinet at the Premier's pleasure - then he should clearly resign. The people of his district deserve a member who is willing to step to the Cabinet table when asked.

So Felix what are you up to? Do you live in the district anymore? Why are you sitting around in caucus for what's left of this term - when you clearly have no real interest in governing.

Now because the PC's are so cute with words sometimes - this question must be asked for clarification. Did Paul Davis ask you to become Attorney General only if you agreed to run in the next election? Is that why you said no?

So Judy Manning - the Manning insert - seemed to have as little problem justifying the unjustifiable as Fabs did when he sat with Harper as he nailed Newfoundland and Labrador.

Paul Davis appears to be shoring up a chosen candidates in a very unique way. Let's start you off in Cabinet and then tell the people of Placentia - St. Mary's that this is who you need to please me - the Premier.

Paul Davis and company seem to believe the people of the district are less than astute. The Premier thinks it's okay for a member from the area to turn down a Cabinet post and just sit there until he decides to call an election.

Felix - are you willing to be used in such a fashion? I think you owe the people of Placentia - St. Mary's more that that. Resign your seat and release Manning from her "heart" felt dilemma.

I hear there's polling going on in the district. If that's favourable - I guess your boss will tell you when to go. I recommend you leave on your terms - with a bit of integrity and show some respect to the people who provided you such a rare opportunity to serve.

Imagine that Newfoundland and Labrador

Is it Scotland's Oil and Gas offshore?

Answer: The vast majority of oil and gas in the UK comes from the Scottish Continental Shelf and will be in Scotland after independence.

Analysis by academics at Aberdeen University tells us that in excess of 90 per cent of the oil and gas revenues are from fields in Scottish waters (based on well-established principles of international law).

Wanted: Captain Obvious

I waited with interest to see what the headlines would be this morning on the definitive defeat of the PC's in St. George's - Stephenville East.

I was not surprised - which means I was disappointed in our media.

Last night the governing Tories were crushed with a wave of discontent - in the middle of their "exciting" leadership debacle. Last night the polls continued to send a strong message to the government that their time is done. Get out - we no longer support your policies or direction - the electorate seem to be saying.

The numbers in this by-election certainly put an exclamation mark on the feelings of dissatisfaction the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have with this government.

The numbers are as follows:

2011 General Election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7959  
Votes Cast: 4287 
Voter turnout 53.9 %
PC's 49.3%
Liberal 32.7%
NDP 16.5%
Kevin Aylward was the candidate and the Leader of the Liberal Party at the time. A experienced politician - from the district - who actually did a decent job in helping to keep the Liberals in an Opposition position.

2014 By-election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7274 (a significant reduction in voting population in three years)
Votes Cast: 3738
Voter turnout 51.4
PC's 25.4%
Liberal 59.1%
NDP 15.5%

A by-election in the last week of summer vacation almost matched the turnout of a fall general election - that's pretty remarkable. It is also remarkable that a Minister's seat was so soundly defeated.

The candidates were solid people in what appears to have been a clean race.

What does this mean for the three Premier wannabes?

1. It was not all Kathy's fault,
2. They are as to blame for the by-election defeat as Kathy and Tom would be,
3. As all are former Ministers of this failing government and have been directly involved in policy choices - that clearly the people do not approve of,
4. The leadership candidates are not making a difference in the mood of the electorate,
5. They should stop spending taxpayer dollars on deals or agreements and call an election.

They have clearly lost the support of the people as the by-elections in Virgina Waters, Carbonear-Harbour Grace and now St. George's - Stephenville East have demonstrated. In their arrogance they continue to spend billions on a project the people DO NOT want, continue to commit billions in multi-year schemes and plans, and continue to govern like they have the overwhelming support of the people.

Their desperation to hang on to every little benefit their elected office provides - and their desperation to get all the contracts nailed down on energy resources reflects a feeling of political entitlement that has nothing to do with the electorate. They are finished.

Whether the election is being delayed for reasons of gross incompetance or mass manipulation of their leadership circus - the people are being ignored. The much touted House of Assembly Act passed by the Tories that included a provision should a leader leave before the end of the third year in office is being blatently ignored. The media is ignoring this.

The headlines in the media this morning do not reflect the gravity of this situation. The headlines were as if the Liberals were a popular government and they won another by-election. The headlines should have been screaming as loud as the people. "It is time to call an election".

Perhaps our media outlets would be best served if they hired "Captain Obvious" as lead journalist.

Journalism dealt another blow by James McLeod

This morning - the Telegram has served up another waste of space by "journalist" James McLeod. Under the News section you'll see a story headlined; "Rumours swirl about PC leadership ahead of critical meeting Saturday".

The story begins by outlining rumours about who may seek the leadership of the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party.

It quickly turns into another Liberal bashing through the bias pen of the reporter.

The subheading reads: "Throwing stones" In this paragraph McLeod talks about tweets by Liberals regarding the Tory delegate style convention. What it does not say - is there have been Tory tweets as well taking smacks at the Liberal convention style.

McLeod then adds that it is unclear what glass ceiling the Liberal party broke as they elected a middle-aged man. If McLeod is using a strict interpretation of glass ceiling - with feminist meaning - then I would suggest - the open leadership of the Liberal party allowed many thousands of women to vote for the next leader - without restriction of finance to attend a convention, without restriction of geography, and without restriction of conflicting commitments to job and family. If one were to use a more broad interpretation of glass ceiling  - where men and women could be included in the advancement - then obviously over 20,000 people voting in a leadership election for any party in our province - not only broke it but shattered it.

McLeod then says "it was the PC Party that first put a woman in the role of Premier". If James were actually producing news not spin - he might have opined that there were rumours of backroom deals to keep men interested in the role from running. It is also interesting that McLeod finds that anybody putting a woman anywhere is somehow breaking a glass ceiling.

The next subheading reads: "Delegates decide" - and in that paragraph McLeod paraphrases something allegedly said by PC Party President Sheahan. He said the Liberals were so thoroughly decimated — without active district associations, donors or membership lists — that they needed to use their leadership race to rebuild the mangled party.

Right of the top - this is an example of Tories once again taking smacks at the Liberal process and further ignores the obvious balance to that statement.

The Tories are probably using the delegate style convention because they have been decimated in the polls and must raise some excitement to rebuild the battered party. The rumours of so many people running may simply be a set-up by the PC's in an attempt to show artificial interest in the publicly admonished party. Names like Ottenheimer, Skinner, Manning, and Oram - Tory stalwarts not new blood - and a bunch of Cabinet Ministers positioning themselves to be a king/queen maker.

The other obvious thing here is that the PC's that McLeod says put the female Premier in office - are the same group that so obviously threw her out and the same bunch that are acting now like it was all Dunderdale's fault.

There are some real problems with much that McLeod reports on - but this one is Duffyesque and shows a real bias.

Loopholes - Electronics Environmental Fee

Well then - I guess we now know why the Electronic Products Recycling Association needs a contingency fund.

If you go online to Future Shop of Best Buy as examples - you can buy a "refurbished" TV without being charged the fee.

Refurbished is described as by Best Buy:

What do refurbished, refreshed and recertified mean?

A refurbished, refreshed or recertified item found on bestbuy.ca is a product that has been returned, repaired and/or tested as necessary, and restocked for sale at a lower-than-retail price. Products that are returned to either Best Buy or the original manufacturer are sent to a facility where they are repaired (if needed) tested, repackaged, and sent back to our store or put online for sale at a lower-than-retail price. A refurbished item is something that (but is not limited to):

• had a cosmetic defect such as a scratch, blemish, or dent
• did not work to customer’s expectations
• was of older or used stock that was restored and tested 

Below is an example of a check-in online for "refurbished" TV's

Your Order

Best Buy

Enter postal code to update local taxes and fees

Calculate

Scheduled Delivery - $49.99

One of your larger items requires a scheduled delivery from our Home Delivery Service.Learn More

Add a promotional code

• Product Total $989.85
• Scheduled Delivery Charge: $49.99
• Subtotal $1,039.84
• Estimated NL HST $135.18
• Total$1,175.02 

now below find a check-in online for a "new" TV

Your Order

Enter postal code to update local taxes and fees

Calculate

Scheduled Delivery - $49.99

One of your larger items requires a scheduled delivery from our Home Delivery Service.Learn More

Add a promotional code

• Product Total $689.98
• Scheduled Delivery Charge: $49.99
• Subtotal $739.97
• Environmental Handling Fees:Details $42.50 (emphasis added)
• Estimated NL HST $101.72
• Total$884.19

So then I ask if I buy a new TV and return it for reasons above - do I get my fee back - the answer is yes.

That TV can then be sold as refurbished without the fee - and an environmental fee would never have been paid.

Clearly there are loopholes in the system and thereby those paying higher fees for new products are probably covering the cost of refurbished TV recycling as a fee would never have been paid on it.