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?
Showing posts with label brad cabana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brad cabana. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Monday, April 13, 2015
Did Chief Janes give thumbs up to email?
On Saturday Sue's Blog dealt with an email allegedly written by the RNC officer who shot Don Dunphy.
Read here
Later - blogger Brad Cabana tracked down a Canadian Press story Read here
The story was a reaction to the email that was allegedly leaked to the CBC and then disseminated by some media outlets to the public.
According to the story - lawyer Erin Breen commented that; the family was frustrated to see this email considering they knew very little about the incident themselves. Further the story contained the following quotes from the lawyer:
1. “Any time a person is under investigation, any statement they make is potentially evidence. So what you have is potentially a piece of evidence, because it does refer to the incident, being thrown out there in the public domain at a time when this investigation has just commenced,”
2. “That flies in the face of everything that we believe should be happening right now.”
The journalist added that he was unable to reach the RNC to confirm the authenticity of the email.
I agree with the lawyer's concern regarding the potential public release of evidence. When reading it I was questioning how I would even be able to see such information at this time.
Now we need answers to these questions:
1. Was the alleged email actually written by the RNC officer?
2. Was the alleged email vetted by a superior officer before transmitted?
3. Did RNC Chief Janes see the alleged email before transmission?
4. What is the complete list of recipients of this alleged email.
5. Will the team investigating the shooting of Don Dunphy provide opinion on the release?
6. Will media or the RNC authenticate the alleged email?
7. Is this another example of interference in an ongoing police investigation?
8. Does this alleged email break any rules regarding the transmission of evidence during an investigation?
9. Is the release of the alleged email currently under investigation?
10. Was the alleged email leaked to the CBC via the RNC officer involved or was it released by another source?
11. Considering the leaks to the media regarding this case - are the leaks under investigation by the RNC or the RCMP?
Considering the content of the alleged email - these are reasonable questions. The public needs answers.
Read here
Later - blogger Brad Cabana tracked down a Canadian Press story Read here
The story was a reaction to the email that was allegedly leaked to the CBC and then disseminated by some media outlets to the public.
According to the story - lawyer Erin Breen commented that; the family was frustrated to see this email considering they knew very little about the incident themselves. Further the story contained the following quotes from the lawyer:
1. “Any time a person is under investigation, any statement they make is potentially evidence. So what you have is potentially a piece of evidence, because it does refer to the incident, being thrown out there in the public domain at a time when this investigation has just commenced,”
2. “That flies in the face of everything that we believe should be happening right now.”
The journalist added that he was unable to reach the RNC to confirm the authenticity of the email.
I agree with the lawyer's concern regarding the potential public release of evidence. When reading it I was questioning how I would even be able to see such information at this time.
Now we need answers to these questions:
1. Was the alleged email actually written by the RNC officer?
2. Was the alleged email vetted by a superior officer before transmitted?
3. Did RNC Chief Janes see the alleged email before transmission?
4. What is the complete list of recipients of this alleged email.
5. Will the team investigating the shooting of Don Dunphy provide opinion on the release?
6. Will media or the RNC authenticate the alleged email?
7. Is this another example of interference in an ongoing police investigation?
8. Does this alleged email break any rules regarding the transmission of evidence during an investigation?
9. Is the release of the alleged email currently under investigation?
10. Was the alleged email leaked to the CBC via the RNC officer involved or was it released by another source?
11. Considering the leaks to the media regarding this case - are the leaks under investigation by the RNC or the RCMP?
Considering the content of the alleged email - these are reasonable questions. The public needs answers.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Tory Turmoil Continues - Legacy of Williams?
Here we go again. Back to square one. A new leadership process for the Tories begins as it did the last time.
Same group of people who may run.
Each day brings word of one of the list saying no.
Each day brings another Kent musing.
Media covering the same nonsense once again with almost the same panting breath.
The best we have so far is John Ottenheimer has announced he is running. Whoopee!
Is he how we describe renewal? Is he how we get new ideas? Is he the definition of fresh?
Nice fellow - John - despite his agreeing to do many things we have problems with. Is this the result of the Danny Williams leadership legacy?
Surround yourself with weak followers - surround yourself with obedient "colleagues" and voila you get leadership potential deficit.
A real leader surrounds him/herself with strong people - those with ambition and drive - those who strive to learn - listen - and lead.
One would figure there would be clamouring to get the top job after Williams left. He appointed Kathy Dunderdale to be an "interim" leader - while all other potential "new" leaders came to the for. Who did we get? We got lots of mumblings, whispers, and speculation. We had Brad Cabana try to run - but was determined "ineligible". So after all the fumbling, bumbling, and mumbling - Kathy was appointed.
Then Kathy the "interim" left - we should have expected the door to the candidacy locker to be kicked down - charged - and jammed with leadership hopefuls.
I woke-up one day and the media had a dozen or so waiting to come forward. Inside caucus - outside caucus - a retired army general, retired politicians, defeated politicians, a lobbyist, a retired fellow from the west coast, a fish merchant, and a grocer.
Day by day - the media plucked one off the list. We were down to three. Coleman, Bennett, and Barry. Danny did not like Barry and declared who he would not support. Delegate meetings were taking place before the actual campaign started. Bennett was thrown out of the race - Barry was procedurally crippled by the process and all we had left was one. No race again.
So the Premiership was Coleman's - the party had a leader and an election should have been called. Marshall stood in the House of Assembly and basically said his good-byes as he prepared to move over and let Frank take the helm. Sure before the handover occurred the Premiers Office staff went through a gutting putting Coleman's people in before he himself arrived.
Joan Shea quit so there was one seat open. Nope - Frank was not taking that one - so it became obvious that Tom Marshall was leaving his seat and Coleman could run at home.
Before a by-election could be called in St. George's - Stephenville East - the Premier appointed was gone - as quick as he came - with all his staff at the ready in the office he would never take over.
One clear sign of a good leader is that he/she has a reasonable succession plan. Draw your own conclusions.
Regardless, call an election now - your party mess is not our mess and is not the mess of government.
Same group of people who may run.
Each day brings word of one of the list saying no.
Each day brings another Kent musing.
Media covering the same nonsense once again with almost the same panting breath.
The best we have so far is John Ottenheimer has announced he is running. Whoopee!
Is he how we describe renewal? Is he how we get new ideas? Is he the definition of fresh?
Nice fellow - John - despite his agreeing to do many things we have problems with. Is this the result of the Danny Williams leadership legacy?
Surround yourself with weak followers - surround yourself with obedient "colleagues" and voila you get leadership potential deficit.
A real leader surrounds him/herself with strong people - those with ambition and drive - those who strive to learn - listen - and lead.
One would figure there would be clamouring to get the top job after Williams left. He appointed Kathy Dunderdale to be an "interim" leader - while all other potential "new" leaders came to the for. Who did we get? We got lots of mumblings, whispers, and speculation. We had Brad Cabana try to run - but was determined "ineligible". So after all the fumbling, bumbling, and mumbling - Kathy was appointed.
Then Kathy the "interim" left - we should have expected the door to the candidacy locker to be kicked down - charged - and jammed with leadership hopefuls.
I woke-up one day and the media had a dozen or so waiting to come forward. Inside caucus - outside caucus - a retired army general, retired politicians, defeated politicians, a lobbyist, a retired fellow from the west coast, a fish merchant, and a grocer.
Day by day - the media plucked one off the list. We were down to three. Coleman, Bennett, and Barry. Danny did not like Barry and declared who he would not support. Delegate meetings were taking place before the actual campaign started. Bennett was thrown out of the race - Barry was procedurally crippled by the process and all we had left was one. No race again.
So the Premiership was Coleman's - the party had a leader and an election should have been called. Marshall stood in the House of Assembly and basically said his good-byes as he prepared to move over and let Frank take the helm. Sure before the handover occurred the Premiers Office staff went through a gutting putting Coleman's people in before he himself arrived.
Joan Shea quit so there was one seat open. Nope - Frank was not taking that one - so it became obvious that Tom Marshall was leaving his seat and Coleman could run at home.
Before a by-election could be called in St. George's - Stephenville East - the Premier appointed was gone - as quick as he came - with all his staff at the ready in the office he would never take over.
One clear sign of a good leader is that he/she has a reasonable succession plan. Draw your own conclusions.
Regardless, call an election now - your party mess is not our mess and is not the mess of government.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Collins shows loss of Premier in vain for PC's
Newfoundland and Labrador has many serious issues on the table. Not the least of which are the Muskrat Falls legacy of economic horror, health care, the Auditor General's findings, chronic unemployment and continued secrecy in government. The governing PC's have a few serious issues of their own.
One would think that the loss of a Premier - due to crashing polls, a complete disconnect with what the people of the province want, and a number of people dead during the blackout - would wake-up the skeleton left behind. Unfortunately - it's business as usual for this arrogant crew of partisans.
Sandy Collins at the height of this mess - decides - it's business as usual for him. What device was Sandy using to tweet? Who pays for the device? Who employs Sandy? Who pays his salary and benefits? He is a wannabe farceur - who confuses the role of his office with his amateur hobby.
He demonstrates this government's trademark arrogance and embraces the opportunity to verbally abuse ordinary citizens. His level of immaturity is obvious when one considers what he chooses to spend time on.
Your Premier just resigned - your party is in the tank - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want your government anymore. Playing twitter tag may be amusing to you but perhaps you should try marbles instead.
Collins has not learned a thing from the past month or so and clearly he plans to carry on - business as usual. No doubt that will land him a plum Cabinet post.
First demonstration:
It all started when Brad Cabana and Sandy Collins were having a few twitter jabs.
One would think that the loss of a Premier - due to crashing polls, a complete disconnect with what the people of the province want, and a number of people dead during the blackout - would wake-up the skeleton left behind. Unfortunately - it's business as usual for this arrogant crew of partisans.
Sandy Collins at the height of this mess - decides - it's business as usual for him. What device was Sandy using to tweet? Who pays for the device? Who employs Sandy? Who pays his salary and benefits? He is a wannabe farceur - who confuses the role of his office with his amateur hobby.
He demonstrates this government's trademark arrogance and embraces the opportunity to verbally abuse ordinary citizens. His level of immaturity is obvious when one considers what he chooses to spend time on.
Your Premier just resigned - your party is in the tank - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want your government anymore. Playing twitter tag may be amusing to you but perhaps you should try marbles instead.
Collins has not learned a thing from the past month or so and clearly he plans to carry on - business as usual. No doubt that will land him a plum Cabinet post.
First demonstration:
It all started when Brad Cabana and Sandy Collins were having a few twitter jabs.
@SandyRCollins I notice Kathy didn't give Sandi a hug or kiss as she left..-
@BradCabana Bradley! It's you! Have you heard the news?...there's a leadership race coming up? You in? -
-
@BradCabana You left?....or you were ignored to the point where it was just kinda...how do I say...awkward? @SandyRCollins@BradCabana what an interesting yet commonly arrogant response. Business as usual.@SandyRCollins You mean you cheated so publicly that the country laughed out loud, and it was...awkward-
-
@SandyRCollins Ya, akward to break the rules to get the woman in,and then akward to stab her in the back to get out -
@BradCabana listen I wanna make it up to you....i'll pay the $5k or whatever it is and you run this time 'round k? @SandyRCollins@MurfAD@BradCabana@NfldAnchor@mclabradore hI'll pay 5000 for you to stop using"k" like a child on a playground. grow up- Interesting offer MT@SandyRCollins:
@BradCabana listen I wanna make it up to you....i'll pay the $5k or whatever it is and you run this time -
@PeterCBC@BradCabana Peter, if he accepts I may have to ask you to spot me $5k...that cool? -
-
@PeterCBC@BradCabana True, I hear though one of those positions just opened up:) Want me to drop your name? - you.
#nlpoli
Sandy Collins
@SandyRCollins@hydroqueen@MurfAD@PeterCBC@BradCabana How Sue Kelland-Dyer-ish of you to be trolling. Are you ever NOT on Twitter?
Rock Solid Politics
Sue Kelland-Dyer
Peter Cowan
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
VOCM apology to Innu people - Sincere? or...
The headline in the Telegram says it all - or does it?
Steele Communications apologizes on air for behavior of radio host
VOCM - it's parent company, Steele Communications, Randy Simms, and general manager Mike Murphy have all publicly apologized to Simeon Tshakapesh and the Innu people for remarks made by Openline Host Randy Simms.
Obviously an apology was deserved and the man behind the mic should be watched carefully - however was the apology sincere?
Randy Simms and Paddy Daley have oft in the past allowed or made comments on air that were false, misleading, offensive, and personally damaging - yet they continued on - no apology - no retraction. In fact - they usually justify by saying that some private citizens are not private because they call a talk show. This apparently justification for using their power behind the mic for whatever reason they choose.
The difference is they will not apologize to women, particularly to a woman they have always felt comfortable attacking - probably with the government's blessing.
Refresh your memory click HERE or HERE or HERE
I am not the only one that VOCM, Steele Communications, Newfoundland Capital Corporation, Randy and Paddy allow to be slandered - there are many more.
The difference right now is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the multi-millionaires, and certain business interests need the Innu people to work with them. This I'm sure VOCM will assist in when they can. The government does not need me or many other citizens of this province and would prefer if we would just go away. The public attack on people such as myself assists the government in their efforts to avoid critique, tough questions, and opposition to ill-fated policy positions.
In my opinion this apology to the Innu people was necessary not sincere. The truth is always in the facts somewhere - we just have to open our eyes and look.
Steele Communications apologizes on air for behavior of radio host
VOCM - it's parent company, Steele Communications, Randy Simms, and general manager Mike Murphy have all publicly apologized to Simeon Tshakapesh and the Innu people for remarks made by Openline Host Randy Simms.
Obviously an apology was deserved and the man behind the mic should be watched carefully - however was the apology sincere?
Randy Simms and Paddy Daley have oft in the past allowed or made comments on air that were false, misleading, offensive, and personally damaging - yet they continued on - no apology - no retraction. In fact - they usually justify by saying that some private citizens are not private because they call a talk show. This apparently justification for using their power behind the mic for whatever reason they choose.
The difference is they will not apologize to women, particularly to a woman they have always felt comfortable attacking - probably with the government's blessing.
Refresh your memory click HERE or HERE or HERE
I am not the only one that VOCM, Steele Communications, Newfoundland Capital Corporation, Randy and Paddy allow to be slandered - there are many more.
The difference right now is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the multi-millionaires, and certain business interests need the Innu people to work with them. This I'm sure VOCM will assist in when they can. The government does not need me or many other citizens of this province and would prefer if we would just go away. The public attack on people such as myself assists the government in their efforts to avoid critique, tough questions, and opposition to ill-fated policy positions.
In my opinion this apology to the Innu people was necessary not sincere. The truth is always in the facts somewhere - we just have to open our eyes and look.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Talk with Sue - For the Record with Brad Cabana
Thursday - Talk with Sue - For the Record Series - with Brad Cabana
Press HERE to go visit the Show Page or listen live on Thursday night.
With a broad and varied background Brad brings to the discussion straight forward opinions based on his research and some connect the dots analysis.
He has become a colourful politico in Newfoundland and Labrador and he makes no bones about his interest in all things Canada.
The proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls has certainly peaked such an interest and he fully plans to have a say. Like most people opposed to or concerned about the deal - airtime for Brad is limited and commercial advertising prohibitive.
Unlike some who are waiting for new or additional information before making a decision to support or reject - Brad feels he has enough information to say no. He is not alone as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have reached the same conclusion.
This program with Brad will certainly provide the undecided an opportunity to hear him explain the process he used to make a decision. Does he share - like many of you - the idea that a referendum is needed? While serving on a municipal council he was involved with a referendum process on the Meech Lake Accord; does he think the process best served his constituents in that case?
The free flow of information and opinion continues on For the Record with Brad Cabana this Thursday at 8 pm Island time and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador.
Press HERE to visit show page or to listen live on Thursday.
To listen to archived programs with Danny Dumaresque, Roger Grimes and Bruno Marcocchio PRESS HERE
Press HERE to go visit the Show Page or listen live on Thursday night.
With a broad and varied background Brad brings to the discussion straight forward opinions based on his research and some connect the dots analysis.
He has become a colourful politico in Newfoundland and Labrador and he makes no bones about his interest in all things Canada.
The proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls has certainly peaked such an interest and he fully plans to have a say. Like most people opposed to or concerned about the deal - airtime for Brad is limited and commercial advertising prohibitive.
Unlike some who are waiting for new or additional information before making a decision to support or reject - Brad feels he has enough information to say no. He is not alone as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have reached the same conclusion.
This program with Brad will certainly provide the undecided an opportunity to hear him explain the process he used to make a decision. Does he share - like many of you - the idea that a referendum is needed? While serving on a municipal council he was involved with a referendum process on the Meech Lake Accord; does he think the process best served his constituents in that case?
The free flow of information and opinion continues on For the Record with Brad Cabana this Thursday at 8 pm Island time and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador.
Press HERE to visit show page or to listen live on Thursday.
To listen to archived programs with Danny Dumaresque, Roger Grimes and Bruno Marcocchio PRESS HERE
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Willderdale Government and Sensational Distractions
Russell Wangersky continues his justified written assault on "tobacco gate" today in the Telegram. He stirs up more questions and comparisons that causes one - who wants to believe in the Willderdale government - to necessarily plug their nose and ears and place a blindfold over their eyes.
Several media outlets have continued to semi-probe the Matthews appointment to the CNLOPB - leaving PC supporters including Ministers like Shawn Skinner to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify the move. Pass out those plugs and blindfolds again.
Since Williams resigned unexpectedly and hurriedly almost immediately after a proposed deal was cut with a publicly traded company (Emera) to develop Muskrat Falls - bits and pieces of sensationalism have cropped up - almost on a weekly basis.
1. The Cabana Fiasco - kept the media hopping for weeks as if somebody really relevant had stepped forward. (That has nothing to do with Brad's CFA status - rather the fact that he is a rookie relative to Newfoundland and Labrador affairs). A guaranteed pass apparently into the "new" Liberals club.
2. The Dumeresque Enlightenment on the resale of Upper Churchill power - pointing an already complicit finger at the PC's - while he himself was involved with a) the attempted privatization b) responsible for a deal that made the already inept Churchill Falls deal with Hydro-Quebec even worse.
3. The almost "pee in one's pants" return of the great one as he inserted himself hypocritically into the Humber West by-election.
4. The awarding of the tobacco lawsuit to Danny's former and maybe current business buddies and former partners in his old law firm - including the Phoenix rising from the ashes piece as the "Firm" moved into new offices - after an investigation found nothing on cause of the fire and rendered it "undetermined".
5. The release of the Fisheries Report - designed apparently to show us the way forward on that Ottawa battered and fried resource. The provincial Minister Clyde Jackman claimed the report was useless and not what they were looking for - particularly in an election year. Then we had everyone from Earl McCurdy to Lorraine Michael to Derek Butler weighing in on it.
6. The fibre optic deal - with another of Danny's former business buddies - Dean MacDonald got the go over by the Auditor General - and apparently has us left stranded and unlit.
7. Of course the Elizabeth Matthews nomination by the Willderdale government to be the Vice-Chair of the CNLOPB. That has the whole gang singing her praises - as beautifully and choreographed as if a maestro was hiding behind curtain number one.
All of these things have kept us a safe distance from the real issue before the people now and one which won't cost us $200,000 a year but may risk the future of several generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the proposed deal on the Lower Churchill. These billions and billions of dollars of potential - the hundreds of millions and thousands of hundreds of thousands ... you know what Joey meant - is sitting unprotected - unquestioned - not debated - in hopes of slipping this Legacy of Shame through.
If you really want history to repeat itself - continue your blind journey into this abyss - and while Emera shareholders and likely Hydro-Quebec delight in the folly - your children and grandchildren will have to make the U-Haul journey across the rails to roads ruts and take an inadequate ferry service to the great Canada beyond - and Labradorians will be left still unserviced providing economic nutrition needed to strengthen Atlantic Canada.
The Liberals, the NDP, and the media must stop this unimpeded Williams parade into this devastating energy giveaway - by truly engaging the people in debate and discourse designed to ensure we are not marching ourselves into decades of regret and moaning over what could have been. Those in power in the sixties could have stopped the Upper Churchill and those in power now must stop the Emera deal.
Several media outlets have continued to semi-probe the Matthews appointment to the CNLOPB - leaving PC supporters including Ministers like Shawn Skinner to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify the move. Pass out those plugs and blindfolds again.
Since Williams resigned unexpectedly and hurriedly almost immediately after a proposed deal was cut with a publicly traded company (Emera) to develop Muskrat Falls - bits and pieces of sensationalism have cropped up - almost on a weekly basis.
1. The Cabana Fiasco - kept the media hopping for weeks as if somebody really relevant had stepped forward. (That has nothing to do with Brad's CFA status - rather the fact that he is a rookie relative to Newfoundland and Labrador affairs). A guaranteed pass apparently into the "new" Liberals club.
2. The Dumeresque Enlightenment on the resale of Upper Churchill power - pointing an already complicit finger at the PC's - while he himself was involved with a) the attempted privatization b) responsible for a deal that made the already inept Churchill Falls deal with Hydro-Quebec even worse.
3. The almost "pee in one's pants" return of the great one as he inserted himself hypocritically into the Humber West by-election.
4. The awarding of the tobacco lawsuit to Danny's former and maybe current business buddies and former partners in his old law firm - including the Phoenix rising from the ashes piece as the "Firm" moved into new offices - after an investigation found nothing on cause of the fire and rendered it "undetermined".
5. The release of the Fisheries Report - designed apparently to show us the way forward on that Ottawa battered and fried resource. The provincial Minister Clyde Jackman claimed the report was useless and not what they were looking for - particularly in an election year. Then we had everyone from Earl McCurdy to Lorraine Michael to Derek Butler weighing in on it.
6. The fibre optic deal - with another of Danny's former business buddies - Dean MacDonald got the go over by the Auditor General - and apparently has us left stranded and unlit.
7. Of course the Elizabeth Matthews nomination by the Willderdale government to be the Vice-Chair of the CNLOPB. That has the whole gang singing her praises - as beautifully and choreographed as if a maestro was hiding behind curtain number one.
All of these things have kept us a safe distance from the real issue before the people now and one which won't cost us $200,000 a year but may risk the future of several generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the proposed deal on the Lower Churchill. These billions and billions of dollars of potential - the hundreds of millions and thousands of hundreds of thousands ... you know what Joey meant - is sitting unprotected - unquestioned - not debated - in hopes of slipping this Legacy of Shame through.
If you really want history to repeat itself - continue your blind journey into this abyss - and while Emera shareholders and likely Hydro-Quebec delight in the folly - your children and grandchildren will have to make the U-Haul journey across the rails to roads ruts and take an inadequate ferry service to the great Canada beyond - and Labradorians will be left still unserviced providing economic nutrition needed to strengthen Atlantic Canada.
The Liberals, the NDP, and the media must stop this unimpeded Williams parade into this devastating energy giveaway - by truly engaging the people in debate and discourse designed to ensure we are not marching ourselves into decades of regret and moaning over what could have been. Those in power in the sixties could have stopped the Upper Churchill and those in power now must stop the Emera deal.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Telegram story demonstrates Liberals don't know own Party Constitution
Telegram Story "Cabana throws in with the Liberals"
Below is an excerpt from the story - I have underlined certain areas for emphasis.Liberal party president Judy Morrow said Cabana called her Sunday night to say he was interested in getting involved in the party.
“We have no membership in the party; we’re an open and democratic party and anyone is free to seek a nomination or to partake in provincial party activities,” Morrow said.
She said Cabana is welcome to get involved, but as party president she has to stay impartial on who is nominated to carry the Liberal banner into the election.
“My role is to insure that we have a fair process in place,” Morrow said. “I think that that’s indicative of what didn’t go on in the PC party in the last little while.”
Liberal MHA and acting Opposition Leader Kelvin Parsons also said the party is open to anyone who wants to get involved.
“It’s not complicated, I mean, we have an open door policy,” he said. “I would encourage anyone who wants to run for the Liberal party, don’t wait for September or October to do it.”
Now please go HERE and view the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador - see under bylaws.
Cabana's rules Cup runneth over - oh oh here we go again
Some years ago - I was enquiring about the membership rules of the Liberal Party. The reason was innocent enough - I wanted to know what would happen to party members of the provincial Liberal party as many of them were in the middle of condemning the federal party under Paul Martin during the equalization war.
Anyway in that party I was told - you can be a member of the provincial and federal Liberal party at the same time - or you can be a member of the provincial division only - HOWEVER - you are not permitted to be a member of any other political party - Provincial or Federal.
This I was told as the parties jointly raise cash - share election and policy stuff - back and forth.
Means you could not have a federally Conservative Cabana in a provincially Liberal party.
ARTICLE I - MEMBERSHIP
1. The Party shall be open to all who desire to support the Party and who wish to be known as Liberals. To this end, all individuals who are resident of the Province and are Canadian Citizens, aged fourteen (14) years of age or older shall be eligible for membership in the Party without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability, provided that they are not members of any other political party.
You see it appears that most all rules of the libs are entwined fed-prov - prov-fed example below:
2. (a) There shall be an Executive Committee consisting of the President, Vice President
(Provincial), Vice President (Federal) Treasurer, Secretary, and Party Leader; all
of whom, except the Party Leader, shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting
of the Party in years which end in even numbers. The Provincial Regional
Directors shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting of the Party in years
which end in uneven numbers.
So will Brad - quit the federal conservative party in order to join the federally managed controlled - undemocratic provincial liberal party?
Yes Newfoundland and Labrador if the federal libs do anything anti-Newfoundland and Labrador (common) you can't oppose that and remain a member of the provincial party....so they say.
Anyway in that party I was told - you can be a member of the provincial and federal Liberal party at the same time - or you can be a member of the provincial division only - HOWEVER - you are not permitted to be a member of any other political party - Provincial or Federal.
This I was told as the parties jointly raise cash - share election and policy stuff - back and forth.
Means you could not have a federally Conservative Cabana in a provincially Liberal party.
ARTICLE I - MEMBERSHIP
1. The Party shall be open to all who desire to support the Party and who wish to be known as Liberals. To this end, all individuals who are resident of the Province and are Canadian Citizens, aged fourteen (14) years of age or older shall be eligible for membership in the Party without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability, provided that they are not members of any other political party.
You see it appears that most all rules of the libs are entwined fed-prov - prov-fed example below:
2. (a) There shall be an Executive Committee consisting of the President, Vice President
(Provincial), Vice President (Federal) Treasurer, Secretary, and Party Leader; all
of whom, except the Party Leader, shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting
of the Party in years which end in even numbers. The Provincial Regional
Directors shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting of the Party in years
which end in uneven numbers.
So will Brad - quit the federal conservative party in order to join the federally managed controlled - undemocratic provincial liberal party?
Yes Newfoundland and Labrador if the federal libs do anything anti-Newfoundland and Labrador (common) you can't oppose that and remain a member of the provincial party....so they say.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Take the Cabana Poll
Please participate in the poll found on the left hand margin of Sue's Blog.
We know what the rules committee said - how about you?
Has it changed how you will vote in the upcoming election this fall?
Leave your comments and have your say.
What do you think is left of your democaracy?
Are the PC's bullies in their approach to critics?
Do you think the grassroots of the party had a say in the decision?
We know what the rules committee said - how about you?
Has it changed how you will vote in the upcoming election this fall?
Leave your comments and have your say.
What do you think is left of your democaracy?
Are the PC's bullies in their approach to critics?
Do you think the grassroots of the party had a say in the decision?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The most important reason Brad Cabana should be able to run for PC leadership
A TAX CREDIT IS AVAILABLE
The Provincial Income Tax Act allows for a credit against Newfoundland and Labrador personal and corporate income taxes payable for a portion of political contributions.The tax credit available is calculated as follows:
- 75 per cent of the first $100 of total contributions, andFor a maximum available credit of $500.
- 50 per cent of the next $450 of total contributions, and
- 33 1/3 per cent of the next $600 of total contributions
If a political party is unable or unwilling to provide reasonable information to a candidate (rules) - clear and simple and if that same political party has inconsistent policies such as the litmus test for an MHA candidacy is different materially than the policy for running for a leader - they should be unable to offer tax receipts.
If you contribute to a political party and receive a credit in return that involves all of our money regardless of our stripe and the party receives public money. The test for fairness for things such as rules for leadership candidacy must be clear and certainly appear democratic. If it wishes to act as a private club - where rules are changed to suit the executive - then no public money. This is my money and yours - yet we are unable to nominate an individual?
People using arguments about the PC pedigree of Cabana are being partisan to the extreme. If 50 ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot qualify to suggest to a PC convention that they support this fellow or anybody else to run then what should the party expect during the election? How many at an average PC (while in government) convention? 500 - well Cabana got 10% of that number and I am relatively sure they were resident in this province. The PC's and the Liberals do a fine job controlling the conventions - what is troubling them?
If the rules are that you must have been at a convention, showed up at a district association meeting, or somehow convinced somebody on the PC executive that you are PC - then who will be voting for them in the next election. Some 100,000 people should be on the list from the last time.
If you want public funds - then you're mandatory constitution should be fair, open, and accountable.
Then again that is not their strong point - right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)