The original is signed - of course....
Dwight Ball Leadership Campaign
279 Portugal Cove Road
St John’s, NL A1B 2N8
Tel: (709) 753-1116 or 1-855-753-1116
Email: dwightballleadership@gmail.com
Website: dwightball.ca
September 4, 2013
Dear Members,
As you are aware I am seeking the position of Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Since January 2012 I have been the Interim Leader and under my leadership we have
experienced unprecedented growth in our party.
Many of you are also aware that I have been a member of our profession for over thirty years and
understand the challenges you are facing as community pharmacy owners. In recent years you have
been the target of cut after cut. We’re now fearful that many of our independent pharmacies will
not be able to be financially viable in this environment.
Over the last eighteen months, I have rebuilt the Liberal Party by communicating with individuals,
associations, and small to medium size business owners. Through this open and frank dialogue not
only have we discussed many of the challenges that face our province but we’ve been able to
identify the solutions to many of these challenges.
As Premier of the province, I would continue the process that has produced the current success we
are experiencing in the Liberal Party. I believe that in many cases one solution is not the answer. For
example independent versus chain pharmacies, rural versus urban, are quite different and require
unique solutions to the complex problems. For that reason, it is extremely important that we
continue to meet with organized groups like the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy
Owners to identify individual solutions that work for your membership.
I look forward to working with your council and appreciate your support to my campaign. Together
we can set the course for the future of independent pharmacies and our province.
Sincerely,
Dwight Ball
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Dwight lies for votes and lies for campaign financial support
Then there's this little item he used to raise funds for his campaign.....
Yes he lied all the way through.
He used this when the Liberals were trying to pay down debt.
He used this to get money for campaign.
He used local small independent businesses for his leadership campaign and last election.
He lied to them in person - he lied to them in writing - and he lied to them when he attached these commitments to a fundraising letter.
Dwight Ball Responses
Candidate Questionnaire -2013
1. If you become Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would you commit to
negotiating a tariff and provider agreement with the Council of Independent
Community Pharmacy Owners on behalf of its 65 local independent pharmacies?
Yes
2. Would you commit to amending the Pharmacy Act to remove mandatory
membership of all pharmacists in the Pharmacists’ Association of Newfoundland
and Labrador? (It is voluntary in other provinces) Yes, I chaired the transition
committee to create the advocacy association for pharmacists, a voluntary
association was always the intent for the new body.
3. Would you actively work with the Council of Independent Pharmacy Owners to
develop cost saving initiatives for government that improve best health outcomes?
Yes
4. Would you take action to ensure that people residing in personal/long-term
private and public care homes retain the right to choose their pharmacy or
pharmacist of choice? Yes
5. How important do you rate a local independent business sector that has 100
million of investment on the ground and provides hundreds of direct jobs –
particularly in rural communities? (1-10) 7 to 8, I answer this by asking myself
this question, what would I do to attract and sustain a 100million industry? A
100million industry would be extremely important therefore the high priority
with my government.
6. How familiar are you with issues regarding independent pharmacy? (1-10) 10
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Warm and Fuzzy lobbies
Today the CBC ran a story titled
Why is this important?
Corporations are a person under the law - but like Permanent residents are not citizens therefore cannot vote or run for office.
Corporations have for years complained using the same arguments as a Permanent Resident - they reside in the municipality, contribute to the municipality and pay tax in the municipality. They too want the right to vote.
Once you take away the citizenship requirement for voting and standing for election - you open up significant issues and ones that will be challenged.
In the CBC story one such Permanent Resident - Philippa Jones - claims she is not a citizen of Canada but she lives in St. John's so therefore a citizen of St. John's. Patently false and wrong. She resides in St. John's. She is a resident not a citizen of St. John's. You are either a Canadian citizen or not. This does not break down to to a provincial or municipal level. It is one or the other.
I'd like to be a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador - skip the Canada part - however this would take a referendum with defined boundaries and rules. That's the way it is.
Further - this lobby wants the right to vote but not the right to seek electoral office. This is absurd - and once again - open the can of worms and see what happens next.
As a Permanent Resident - there are numerous benefits and rights - but the right to vote and seek electoral office is reserved for citizens.
One pays tax because they are employed and they pay property tax because they own property. These are choices. If one wants to vote - however - they must be a citizen. If they want to have or achieve a high level security clearance they must be a citizen.
I can guarantee that corporations with the same claims of paying tax - residing in - contributing to a municipality will attempt again to get the right to vote.
If we change the status of a Permanent Resident to allow them to vote - all kinds of challenges to include other "persons" will begin.
The CBC should have been more thorough, Maggie Burton should have polled the citizens on their thoughts, and Permanent Residents should apply for citizenship - and in the event they already have wait until they take the Oath of Citizenship.
There are reasons for these rules and law - and we should not forget them for a warm and fuzzy lobby.
I have read Maggie Burton's campaign material - and she has some wonderful ideas for the City. As with all elected politicians and those seeking to be elected - the quick jump on the warm and fuzzy lobby demonstrates a little bit of naiveté - that should be kept in check. Or sometimes we end up with something we don't want - like Muskrat Falls.
They work, they own homes, they pay taxes, but permanent residents can't vote for city council
That story resulted in some twitter commentary, opposition and support - including Maggie Burton - a candidate for St. John's City Council.
Ms. Burton appears to favour a change that would allow non-citizens to vote.
I tweeted back and forth with Ms. Burton - and found that her agreement with allowing such a change to law was more wrapped up in the warm and fuzzy - not the law, the intent of citizenship, and without polling the citizens she wants support from.
One of her first responses to me is that other cities are looking at it - and referenced the CBC story.
Followed my "it's not fair"
Followed by "it's not a radical idea"
So I got down to it. I asked some questions, put out my own opinion and why I held that opinion - and outside an interlude with a Permanent Resident of Canada - living in Newfoundland and Labrador - the tweets back and forth between myself and Ms. Burton ran on.
The self-identified Permanent Resident attempted to depict me as somebody who was opposed to him having and voicing an opinion. A Permanent Resident in Canada is protected by the Charter and laws - they just can't vote or stand for election. He knew this when he signed up for that status.
The conversation with Ms. Burton raised some serious concerns for me as a citizen - regarding the ability of a warm and fuzzy lobby to make politicians jump on a bandwagon of ignorance. That is to say the implications of such a change were not examined thoroughly - and in spite of this - a person running for office was willing to go to battle for such a concept.
The CBC for their part should have broadened the story to get opinions and feelings of citizens who are opposed to such a change and outline their reasons for that stance.
Here's the real deal:
What permanent residents can do
As a permanent resident, you have the right to:- get most social benefits that Canadian citizens receive, including health care coverage,
- live, work or study anywhere in Canada,
- apply for Canadian citizenship,
- protection under Canadian law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What permanent residents cannot do
You are not allowed to:- vote or run for political office,
- hold some jobs that need a high-level security clearance.
Why is this important?
The act of incorporating creates a new legal entity called a corporation, commonly referred to as a “company”. Your corporation will have the same rights and obligations under Canadian law as a natural person.
Corporations are a person under the law - but like Permanent residents are not citizens therefore cannot vote or run for office.
Corporations have for years complained using the same arguments as a Permanent Resident - they reside in the municipality, contribute to the municipality and pay tax in the municipality. They too want the right to vote.
Once you take away the citizenship requirement for voting and standing for election - you open up significant issues and ones that will be challenged.
In the CBC story one such Permanent Resident - Philippa Jones - claims she is not a citizen of Canada but she lives in St. John's so therefore a citizen of St. John's. Patently false and wrong. She resides in St. John's. She is a resident not a citizen of St. John's. You are either a Canadian citizen or not. This does not break down to to a provincial or municipal level. It is one or the other.
I'd like to be a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador - skip the Canada part - however this would take a referendum with defined boundaries and rules. That's the way it is.
Further - this lobby wants the right to vote but not the right to seek electoral office. This is absurd - and once again - open the can of worms and see what happens next.
As a Permanent Resident - there are numerous benefits and rights - but the right to vote and seek electoral office is reserved for citizens.
One pays tax because they are employed and they pay property tax because they own property. These are choices. If one wants to vote - however - they must be a citizen. If they want to have or achieve a high level security clearance they must be a citizen.
I can guarantee that corporations with the same claims of paying tax - residing in - contributing to a municipality will attempt again to get the right to vote.
If we change the status of a Permanent Resident to allow them to vote - all kinds of challenges to include other "persons" will begin.
The CBC should have been more thorough, Maggie Burton should have polled the citizens on their thoughts, and Permanent Residents should apply for citizenship - and in the event they already have wait until they take the Oath of Citizenship.
There are reasons for these rules and law - and we should not forget them for a warm and fuzzy lobby.
I have read Maggie Burton's campaign material - and she has some wonderful ideas for the City. As with all elected politicians and those seeking to be elected - the quick jump on the warm and fuzzy lobby demonstrates a little bit of naiveté - that should be kept in check. Or sometimes we end up with something we don't want - like Muskrat Falls.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
STOP before you spend the Universal Child Care Benefit
The Universal Child Care Benefit, blatantly used as political material by the Conservative Party of Canada - may actually have a silver lining.
Before you spend the retroactive cheque - consider how what you spend it on may best benefit your children.
If you use $400 of it to make a political contribution you will get a $300 tax credit. If you donate it to any party other than the CPC - you may very well be making the best investment for your child's future.
If you believe as I do that the CPC is corrupt, deceitful, ethically bankrupt, and a danger to the future of Canada as we used to know it - then that $400 contribution might be the best money you ever spend for the benefit of your children.
Middle class families who find it difficult to find money to help a candidate or party defeat Harper and his cronies - have a unique opportunity to use this CPC taxpayer funded slush fund to do just that.
Just imagine the CPC being inundated with Green Party, NDP, and Liberal ads being funded by the Tories own abuse of taxpayer money.
Imagine getting a T-Shirt saying I used Poilievre's UCCB to defeat the CPC.
You see the $300 tax credit for a $400 contribution may be worth more to you than spending that $400 that you will be taxed on to buy a service or product that you have to pay GST on.
For all those Canadians who believe that Harper must go - consider the above as a real option to create a better future for your child in Canada.
Think before you spend - consider supporting something other than the Conservative Party of Canada.
Before you spend the retroactive cheque - consider how what you spend it on may best benefit your children.
If you use $400 of it to make a political contribution you will get a $300 tax credit. If you donate it to any party other than the CPC - you may very well be making the best investment for your child's future.
If you believe as I do that the CPC is corrupt, deceitful, ethically bankrupt, and a danger to the future of Canada as we used to know it - then that $400 contribution might be the best money you ever spend for the benefit of your children.
Middle class families who find it difficult to find money to help a candidate or party defeat Harper and his cronies - have a unique opportunity to use this CPC taxpayer funded slush fund to do just that.
Just imagine the CPC being inundated with Green Party, NDP, and Liberal ads being funded by the Tories own abuse of taxpayer money.
Imagine getting a T-Shirt saying I used Poilievre's UCCB to defeat the CPC.
You see the $300 tax credit for a $400 contribution may be worth more to you than spending that $400 that you will be taxed on to buy a service or product that you have to pay GST on.
For all those Canadians who believe that Harper must go - consider the above as a real option to create a better future for your child in Canada.
Think before you spend - consider supporting something other than the Conservative Party of Canada.
Is Pierre Poilievre being monitored?
The most obvious example of how blatantly corrupt the Harper government is was on full social media display the past few days.
The Universal Child Care benefit - touted as everything short of the savior of mankind (which it is not) - is being used by the Harper government as a major election plank.
Pierre Poilievre Harper's choice for Minister of Employment and Social Development has taken propaganda, deception, and unethical to a whole new level.
This born again Harperite preaches from the Conservative Party Pulpit wearing a CPC Cassock and expects that thinking Canadians will accept his version of the Harper bible.
In a completely abused Twitter account Poilievre spams the Canadian Twitter-sphere with garbage like: "One more sleep until Christmas in July for Moms and Dads!"
This Minister should be removed from his portfolio and made to apologize to Canadians for ignoring/breaking Treasury Board rules. This extremist should be monitored to insure this zealot is not dangerous to the social well being of Canada. He is knowingly and deliberately ignoring established guidelines and is a Minister of the Crown.
I have no idea - as a Canadian - how far this fellow will go to promote the CPC doctrine - which in and of itself is concerning.
The fellow who once said - "But I can’t accept a union representing public servants working for the government of Canada which forcefully takes money out of the pockets of Canada’s public servants to support parties that want to break up the country. How can it be in the interests of public servants to support the breakup of Canada? - has no problem using government money (our tax dollars) to support a political party.
The fellow who used the term "tar baby" and used foul language in a committee meeting and made unparliamentary gestures - continues to believe he is not out of control.
The fellow who despite his vocal concern on national security did not believe rules applied to him and "got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected."
The fellow who suggested that aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need financial compensation - should probably apply that thought to himself.
The fellow who when talking about the Fair Elections Act (a complete fiasco) claimed the Chief Electoral Officer wanted "more power, a bigger budget and less accountability." - when Marc Mayrand dared criticize the Act.
It is time that Canadians from coast to coast to coast removed from office - through the election process - this Minister and many more of the CPC zealots.
On another note - the NDP and LPC should remember that the majority of Canadians do not want Harper or the Conservatives re-elected - therefore they should do everything to insure that does not happen. Focusing on their own political lot versus focusing on defeating the CPC is self-serving - not nation-serving.
The Conservatives believe that the collective intelligence of the Canadian public can be mitigated by sending out this Minister who acts like the head cheerleader of a dictator. Listening to him - one wonders if there will be only one name on ballots this fall.
Lastly - while the national media made an attempt to counter the propaganda of the CPC on the Universal Child Care benefit bribe - they continue to fall short on holding Stephen Harper to account. The PM continues to successfully manipulate journalists by avoiding scrums and open interviews.
The national media continues to be a source for parliamentary secretaries to chant CPC propaganda - while hoping to convince Canadians that such rubbish is news.
Is this Minister being monitored?
The Universal Child Care benefit - touted as everything short of the savior of mankind (which it is not) - is being used by the Harper government as a major election plank.
Pierre Poilievre Harper's choice for Minister of Employment and Social Development has taken propaganda, deception, and unethical to a whole new level.
This born again Harperite preaches from the Conservative Party Pulpit wearing a CPC Cassock and expects that thinking Canadians will accept his version of the Harper bible.
In a completely abused Twitter account Poilievre spams the Canadian Twitter-sphere with garbage like: "One more sleep until Christmas in July for Moms and Dads!"
This Minister should be removed from his portfolio and made to apologize to Canadians for ignoring/breaking Treasury Board rules. This extremist should be monitored to insure this zealot is not dangerous to the social well being of Canada. He is knowingly and deliberately ignoring established guidelines and is a Minister of the Crown.
I have no idea - as a Canadian - how far this fellow will go to promote the CPC doctrine - which in and of itself is concerning.
The fellow who once said - "But I can’t accept a union representing public servants working for the government of Canada which forcefully takes money out of the pockets of Canada’s public servants to support parties that want to break up the country. How can it be in the interests of public servants to support the breakup of Canada? - has no problem using government money (our tax dollars) to support a political party.
The fellow who used the term "tar baby" and used foul language in a committee meeting and made unparliamentary gestures - continues to believe he is not out of control.
The fellow who despite his vocal concern on national security did not believe rules applied to him and "got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected."
The fellow who suggested that aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need financial compensation - should probably apply that thought to himself.
The fellow who when talking about the Fair Elections Act (a complete fiasco) claimed the Chief Electoral Officer wanted "more power, a bigger budget and less accountability." - when Marc Mayrand dared criticize the Act.
It is time that Canadians from coast to coast to coast removed from office - through the election process - this Minister and many more of the CPC zealots.
On another note - the NDP and LPC should remember that the majority of Canadians do not want Harper or the Conservatives re-elected - therefore they should do everything to insure that does not happen. Focusing on their own political lot versus focusing on defeating the CPC is self-serving - not nation-serving.
The Conservatives believe that the collective intelligence of the Canadian public can be mitigated by sending out this Minister who acts like the head cheerleader of a dictator. Listening to him - one wonders if there will be only one name on ballots this fall.
Lastly - while the national media made an attempt to counter the propaganda of the CPC on the Universal Child Care benefit bribe - they continue to fall short on holding Stephen Harper to account. The PM continues to successfully manipulate journalists by avoiding scrums and open interviews.
The national media continues to be a source for parliamentary secretaries to chant CPC propaganda - while hoping to convince Canadians that such rubbish is news.
Is this Minister being monitored?
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
George of the people
George Murphy is leaving politics - our loss - and hopefully his gain.
When I think of our democratic system and the kind of people it should attract - George is the kind of person that comes to mind.
George spent years advising the people on gas and oil prices - for free. He felt it was something that he could do to assist people to reduce or control their living expenses.
George would also participate in talk shows and showed a genuine interest in public service through the political process.
The family guy who loves his kids sat in the House and fought for many things common to most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He was and is of the people and for the people. He was humble in his service to the public and felt real privilege at the opportunity to serve.
I found George to be a respectful and considerate individual who also worked well with others and enjoyed listening and learning. He would make a great student should he decide to reach for new academic goals.
Although a Townie - George had no problem relating to rural communities and the beautiful Labrador. I did not agree with all decisions - most particularly support of the Muskrat Falls deal. He did however on balance provide good service to the people and was honourable during his tenure.
George leaves without a pension - and in many ways that's too bad. Some of the nodding head career politicians in the House of Assembly who will receive a pension - deserve it far less than Mr. Murphy.
I don't want to diminish this post on George - but I would be remiss if I didn't add that - George is not the one who should be retiring. Lorraine Michael -"me and my party"- continues to come across as entitled. I do wonder why she chose not to discuss with George the new district and encourage him to take the torch and carry forward.
I believe the provincial NDP momentum just took a hit for two reasons. One is that George is leaving - the other is that Lorraine is staying.
Being able to relate to the majority of people you represent while willing to learn to relate to the rest is a characteristic of George Murphy. In my opinion the exact opposite is true of Lorraine Michael.
I hope to see George back in some public capacity - but in the meantime - I wish him all happiness and success in private life.
See you sometime - out and about.
George's Gas and Oil Blog site PRESS HERE
When I think of our democratic system and the kind of people it should attract - George is the kind of person that comes to mind.
George spent years advising the people on gas and oil prices - for free. He felt it was something that he could do to assist people to reduce or control their living expenses.
George would also participate in talk shows and showed a genuine interest in public service through the political process.
The family guy who loves his kids sat in the House and fought for many things common to most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He was and is of the people and for the people. He was humble in his service to the public and felt real privilege at the opportunity to serve.
I found George to be a respectful and considerate individual who also worked well with others and enjoyed listening and learning. He would make a great student should he decide to reach for new academic goals.
Although a Townie - George had no problem relating to rural communities and the beautiful Labrador. I did not agree with all decisions - most particularly support of the Muskrat Falls deal. He did however on balance provide good service to the people and was honourable during his tenure.
George leaves without a pension - and in many ways that's too bad. Some of the nodding head career politicians in the House of Assembly who will receive a pension - deserve it far less than Mr. Murphy.
I don't want to diminish this post on George - but I would be remiss if I didn't add that - George is not the one who should be retiring. Lorraine Michael -"me and my party"- continues to come across as entitled. I do wonder why she chose not to discuss with George the new district and encourage him to take the torch and carry forward.
I believe the provincial NDP momentum just took a hit for two reasons. One is that George is leaving - the other is that Lorraine is staying.
Being able to relate to the majority of people you represent while willing to learn to relate to the rest is a characteristic of George Murphy. In my opinion the exact opposite is true of Lorraine Michael.
I hope to see George back in some public capacity - but in the meantime - I wish him all happiness and success in private life.
See you sometime - out and about.
George's Gas and Oil Blog site PRESS HERE
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Somewhere Over the Budget
"Somewhere Over The Budget" "What a Wasted World"
a Newfoundland and Labrador Lament
I hear babies cry and I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more than we'll know
And I think to myself
What do they think of their world
Someday I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above the Holyrood chimney top
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget way up high
And the dream that you dare to, what oh what did they do?
a Newfoundland and Labrador Lament
Somewhere over the budget
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
now will go Bye Bye
Somewhere over the budget
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
now will go Bye Bye
Somewhere over the budget
Blue backbenchers fly
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Dreams really don't come true ooh oh
Someday I'll wish upon a star
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above Holyrood chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget backbenchers fly
And the dream that you dare to,
Oh why, oh why can't I?
Well I see trees of debt and red ink too,
I'll watch them saddle me and you
And I think to myself
What a wasted world
Well I see skies of blue
And I see clouds of blue
And the light during the day
I like the dark
And I think to myself
What a darknl world
The colors of the Muskrat so clear in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passing by
I see friends clasping hands
Saying, "What did they do?"
They're really saying, oh we're screwed.
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Dreams really don't come true ooh oh
Someday I'll wish upon a star
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above Holyrood chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget backbenchers fly
And the dream that you dare to,
Oh why, oh why can't I?
Well I see trees of debt and red ink too,
I'll watch them saddle me and you
And I think to myself
What a wasted world
Well I see skies of blue
And I see clouds of blue
And the light during the day
I like the dark
And I think to myself
What a darknl world
The colors of the Muskrat so clear in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passing by
I see friends clasping hands
Saying, "What did they do?"
They're really saying, oh we're screwed.
I hear babies cry and I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more than we'll know
And I think to myself
What do they think of their world
Someday I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above the Holyrood chimney top
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget way up high
And the dream that you dare to, what oh what did they do?
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
The Open and Accountable Tory Times
We should have a new online paper called the "Tory Times".
Everyday the examples of secrecy, incompetence, and avoidance of elections should be headlined.
Today we should deal with falling oil prices. I predict the election will come before the budget - if the prices stay down. What will the PC's do with the financial mess we are in?
The Humber Valley Paving Contract remains a mystery as the "open and accountable" Davis government will not call a much needed inquiry into the mess. Labrador paving deadlines continue to fall to the wayside while the Minister believes everything is wonderful.
Minister Manning - continues to run away from the opportunity to be elected by the people - while John Crosbie continues to try and "con"vince us this is okay. Amazing the levels of entitlement some people feel and believe.
The Muskrat Falls fiasco hums along - while the failing CEO continues to collect a cheque - a very big cheque.
Whatever is going on at Ocean Pond?
How many lawsuits are we currently involved in and with whom?
Paul Davis says he IS listening to the people so he changed the changed name of the former Department of Justice. He apparently is NOT listening to the people who want an election.
Where is the contribution list for the Premier's leadership campaign?
What is going on with the roving transformer?
Let's keep an eye on the Tory Times which has an "unelected" "mandateless" Premier guiding an unelected Minister of some department - supposed to be similar to Justice - who is determined to run only when her hometown is available. That is to say Davis has a preferential candidate - who he is introducing as a Minister - prior to her election - in some pathetic effort to tell the people of Placentia - St. Mary's what to do.
Call an election Premier Davis and see if you can get a mandate of your own.
Everyday the examples of secrecy, incompetence, and avoidance of elections should be headlined.
Today we should deal with falling oil prices. I predict the election will come before the budget - if the prices stay down. What will the PC's do with the financial mess we are in?
The Humber Valley Paving Contract remains a mystery as the "open and accountable" Davis government will not call a much needed inquiry into the mess. Labrador paving deadlines continue to fall to the wayside while the Minister believes everything is wonderful.
Minister Manning - continues to run away from the opportunity to be elected by the people - while John Crosbie continues to try and "con"vince us this is okay. Amazing the levels of entitlement some people feel and believe.
The Muskrat Falls fiasco hums along - while the failing CEO continues to collect a cheque - a very big cheque.
Whatever is going on at Ocean Pond?
How many lawsuits are we currently involved in and with whom?
Paul Davis says he IS listening to the people so he changed the changed name of the former Department of Justice. He apparently is NOT listening to the people who want an election.
Where is the contribution list for the Premier's leadership campaign?
What is going on with the roving transformer?
Let's keep an eye on the Tory Times which has an "unelected" "mandateless" Premier guiding an unelected Minister of some department - supposed to be similar to Justice - who is determined to run only when her hometown is available. That is to say Davis has a preferential candidate - who he is introducing as a Minister - prior to her election - in some pathetic effort to tell the people of Placentia - St. Mary's what to do.
Call an election Premier Davis and see if you can get a mandate of your own.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
What did the PC's Promise?
Please read below the promise from the PC Blue Book 2003
"The party in power always has an advantage in political fund raising, but it has an unfair advantage over other parties by being able to determine when elections are called, and by spending unlimited amounts of public money to buy pre-election advertising that does nothing but polish its political image."
So
"A Progressive Conservative Government will propose amendments... that will: Require that provincial elections are held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly, or within twelve months if the Premier resigns during the first three years of a four year term."(emphasis added)
There is no doubt that the election should be called by January and held in February of 2015. The fact that PC's are now behind in the poll is not the point. The fact that they have a new leader is not the point. The fact that they want more time to re-prove themselves is not the point.
Are the PC's now saying that the new laws are for anybody but a PC government?
If this is the new Premier's first act - that is to delay a general election because it's not opportune for his party - then he will have demonstrated their collective democratic worth. Zero!
"The party in power always has an advantage in political fund raising, but it has an unfair advantage over other parties by being able to determine when elections are called, and by spending unlimited amounts of public money to buy pre-election advertising that does nothing but polish its political image."
So
"A Progressive Conservative Government will propose amendments... that will: Require that provincial elections are held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly, or within twelve months if the Premier resigns during the first three years of a four year term."(emphasis added)
There is no doubt that the election should be called by January and held in February of 2015. The fact that PC's are now behind in the poll is not the point. The fact that they have a new leader is not the point. The fact that they want more time to re-prove themselves is not the point.
Are the PC's now saying that the new laws are for anybody but a PC government?
If this is the new Premier's first act - that is to delay a general election because it's not opportune for his party - then he will have demonstrated their collective democratic worth. Zero!
Monday, September 08, 2014
The Spite Act - biting back
Apparently the House of Assembly Act has been nicknamed the "Spite Act" by a Labradorian blogger. That's probably accurate - based on the PC's failure to accept their lot with respect to the upcoming election.
There is no doubt that Williams and company spent a significant amount of time referring to Roger Grimes as the unelected and illegitimate Premier when they were in Opposition. Williams was determined to fix what he saw as a weakness in our democracy. Almost as soon as they achieved government - he and his colleagues did just that. There was no way - in Williams mind (as he articulated it) that any Premier who was elected by the party but was not the leader under the last general election should be making any significant policy decisions and certainly not be signing contracts.
Many provinces have opted to go with a fixed election date - but only this province it appears has gone with a change in election dates based on an early resignation of the Premier. This further proves that Williams and his Tory caucus absolutely meant to shorten the time to an election should a Premier resign early.
Unfortunately for the Tories - the first test of this law has come under their administration and while the polls are horrific. This does not change the law.
The PC's would like us to swallow - and their doing a good job of that with most media outlets - that the 12 month election clock comes after the swearing in of their newly elected leader. So for a moment lets look at what that would have to mean. It would mean that the House of Assembly Act - a non-partisan legislation - has gone to the dark side. They would have us believe that the law was designed to allow a political party on its own time to pick/select/elect a leader and then recognize that the party needed time to re brand - so be lenient - and allow the party to get its act together (no pun intended). This is too silly to even consider as legitimate. Danny Williams used to pontificate that a bunch of Liberals got in a convention room and picked their leader - who was then thrust upon the people without their approval.
Now the Tories want us to believe their new leader is "legitimate" and "elected" totally contrary to their position in 2001-2003. They want their new leader to be able to make deals and sign contracts and spend billions before going to an election.
What is most ludicrous about this is there are media and politicians running around claiming and believing this is what the Act means.
If that's the case we might as well add another feature and allow the official opposition an additional 12 months before an election following the resignation of one leader and only after they elect and swear in a new Opposition leader. After all - the House of Assembly Act must be seen to be equal to all officers of the House and our government and democracy.
Why not throw a by-election into the mix. Allow the governing party to appoint an interim member to replace a resigned member until they choose to have a nomination and then allow the party to rebuild the party image in the district before going to the polls.
There is NO room in this act for political party anything - this is an act that deals with the House - all 48 members. If this Act was seriously worded to suggest that a political party can have time to call for nominations, have a convention, elect a leader, and that person swear in before a clock started sticking to an election - then I guess the Act would have prescribed a maximum amount of time to achieve a new leader. Otherwise it would be indefinite.
The election must be called by January with an election no later than February.
While the Tories are at it the "interim Premier" particularly - stop committing the taxpayers of this province to billions in spending over long periods of time. You arrogant hypocritical people.
If this Act was indeed a result of spite - I guess it's in spite of oneself. Perhaps you should table a new Bill entitled "An Act to revoke other Acts if we are down in the polls"
There is no doubt that Williams and company spent a significant amount of time referring to Roger Grimes as the unelected and illegitimate Premier when they were in Opposition. Williams was determined to fix what he saw as a weakness in our democracy. Almost as soon as they achieved government - he and his colleagues did just that. There was no way - in Williams mind (as he articulated it) that any Premier who was elected by the party but was not the leader under the last general election should be making any significant policy decisions and certainly not be signing contracts.
Many provinces have opted to go with a fixed election date - but only this province it appears has gone with a change in election dates based on an early resignation of the Premier. This further proves that Williams and his Tory caucus absolutely meant to shorten the time to an election should a Premier resign early.
Unfortunately for the Tories - the first test of this law has come under their administration and while the polls are horrific. This does not change the law.
The PC's would like us to swallow - and their doing a good job of that with most media outlets - that the 12 month election clock comes after the swearing in of their newly elected leader. So for a moment lets look at what that would have to mean. It would mean that the House of Assembly Act - a non-partisan legislation - has gone to the dark side. They would have us believe that the law was designed to allow a political party on its own time to pick/select/elect a leader and then recognize that the party needed time to re brand - so be lenient - and allow the party to get its act together (no pun intended). This is too silly to even consider as legitimate. Danny Williams used to pontificate that a bunch of Liberals got in a convention room and picked their leader - who was then thrust upon the people without their approval.
Now the Tories want us to believe their new leader is "legitimate" and "elected" totally contrary to their position in 2001-2003. They want their new leader to be able to make deals and sign contracts and spend billions before going to an election.
What is most ludicrous about this is there are media and politicians running around claiming and believing this is what the Act means.
If that's the case we might as well add another feature and allow the official opposition an additional 12 months before an election following the resignation of one leader and only after they elect and swear in a new Opposition leader. After all - the House of Assembly Act must be seen to be equal to all officers of the House and our government and democracy.
Why not throw a by-election into the mix. Allow the governing party to appoint an interim member to replace a resigned member until they choose to have a nomination and then allow the party to rebuild the party image in the district before going to the polls.
There is NO room in this act for political party anything - this is an act that deals with the House - all 48 members. If this Act was seriously worded to suggest that a political party can have time to call for nominations, have a convention, elect a leader, and that person swear in before a clock started sticking to an election - then I guess the Act would have prescribed a maximum amount of time to achieve a new leader. Otherwise it would be indefinite.
The election must be called by January with an election no later than February.
While the Tories are at it the "interim Premier" particularly - stop committing the taxpayers of this province to billions in spending over long periods of time. You arrogant hypocritical people.
If this Act was indeed a result of spite - I guess it's in spite of oneself. Perhaps you should table a new Bill entitled "An Act to revoke other Acts if we are down in the polls"
Sunday, September 07, 2014
Will lawmakers follow their own law?
Let me preface this post by stating that it is the right of a Lieutenant Governor or Governor General to cause an election to be called at any time. Secondly an election would follow a successful vote of non-confidence in a government. These are long-standing parliamentary practises.
Newfoundland and Labrador also has a fixed election date. It is to occur on the 2nd Tuesday of October in the 4th calendar year following the most recent general election. This because of a new law in 2004. The only exception to this is if a Premier resigns before the end of the third year of the term - also enacted in 2004.
This means the fixed election date is replaced with a date not to exceed 12 months following the actual resignation date of the Premier. Once that election is held - regardless of the month, week or day - the election following will revert back to the fixed election date.
Okay let's take the Tory interpretation of this exception.
The Tories would have us believe that they have until they decide to hold a leadership, elect a leader, and swear the person in as Premier before the 12 month clock starts ticking.
Let's say a Premier resigns on October the 5th of the third year of the term. If we take their current actions as a benchmark - it would take them 8 months to select a leader. That would bring us to June of the last year of the term. Then let's say they were quick and swore the new leader in as Premier in June. What they claim is they would have 12 months past June to call an election - in other words 8/9 months later than the fixed election date.
The Tories would have us believe that the law they fondly nicknamed the Roger Grimes law was meant to give an "unelected" Premier even more time in office? Of course not. The whole point the Williams lead government was making is that you can't let an "unelected" Premier run the show - an election must be called. They used the words "unelected" and "illegitimate" Premier to describe Roger Grimes - but at that time it was only political rhetoric. Once the Tories took office - they made it real, legal, and binding regardless of which party formed a government.
The only meaning for the word "afterward" in section 3.1 (the section wherein there is an early resignation of a Premier) could only be related to a fixed date. That date is the resignation date of the Premier. The House of Assembly Act deals with sitting members of the House and the administration of our legislature and government - it has no interest - nor should it - with a Party's business and administration. It deals with Government and is not partisan.
The Act says without debate 12 months - that is a fixed number of months. The Act was giving a time frame relative to another fixed point in time. As the call for nominations and a party leadership process is a movable and a partisan time-frame - it certainly cannot be used as the fixed time frame from which the 12 months follow.
They must call an election by January 24th of 2015 and from there the Elections Act provisions will guide the date options of the election and the rules of the election.
Seriously people - do the people who made the laws - our MHA's - understand the laws they made? They want your vote in order to make more laws - think about that.
Newfoundland and Labrador also has a fixed election date. It is to occur on the 2nd Tuesday of October in the 4th calendar year following the most recent general election. This because of a new law in 2004. The only exception to this is if a Premier resigns before the end of the third year of the term - also enacted in 2004.
This means the fixed election date is replaced with a date not to exceed 12 months following the actual resignation date of the Premier. Once that election is held - regardless of the month, week or day - the election following will revert back to the fixed election date.
Okay let's take the Tory interpretation of this exception.
The Tories would have us believe that they have until they decide to hold a leadership, elect a leader, and swear the person in as Premier before the 12 month clock starts ticking.
Let's say a Premier resigns on October the 5th of the third year of the term. If we take their current actions as a benchmark - it would take them 8 months to select a leader. That would bring us to June of the last year of the term. Then let's say they were quick and swore the new leader in as Premier in June. What they claim is they would have 12 months past June to call an election - in other words 8/9 months later than the fixed election date.
The Tories would have us believe that the law they fondly nicknamed the Roger Grimes law was meant to give an "unelected" Premier even more time in office? Of course not. The whole point the Williams lead government was making is that you can't let an "unelected" Premier run the show - an election must be called. They used the words "unelected" and "illegitimate" Premier to describe Roger Grimes - but at that time it was only political rhetoric. Once the Tories took office - they made it real, legal, and binding regardless of which party formed a government.
The only meaning for the word "afterward" in section 3.1 (the section wherein there is an early resignation of a Premier) could only be related to a fixed date. That date is the resignation date of the Premier. The House of Assembly Act deals with sitting members of the House and the administration of our legislature and government - it has no interest - nor should it - with a Party's business and administration. It deals with Government and is not partisan.
The Act says without debate 12 months - that is a fixed number of months. The Act was giving a time frame relative to another fixed point in time. As the call for nominations and a party leadership process is a movable and a partisan time-frame - it certainly cannot be used as the fixed time frame from which the 12 months follow.
They must call an election by January 24th of 2015 and from there the Elections Act provisions will guide the date options of the election and the rules of the election.
Seriously people - do the people who made the laws - our MHA's - understand the laws they made? They want your vote in order to make more laws - think about that.
Friday, September 05, 2014
Election must be called by January 2015
If the PC's go beyond January 24th to call an election - they are ignoring the law. The House of Assembly Act was amended in 2004. This is the first time since - provisions for election upon the early resignation of a Premier - 3.1 - apply.
Where are the experts? Where are the authoritative opinions or interpretations? Our democracy and laws are at stake.
Here are the relevant sections:
Duration of House of Assembly
The people of this province must demand that the law be upheld and demand a ruling on the legislation.
Let's look at the intent - the law provides the establishment of a fixed election date - to provide predictability and stability in the election process and to reduce political opportunism. Secondly the law provided for an exception - in that it anticipates that a Premier could resign early. The law defines early as before the end of the third year. Given this eventuality the law prescribes that the fixed election date provision is no longer applicable and establishes a new process with limits. The limit prescribed is- not later than 12 months afterward.
The reason the wording "before the end of the third year" is used in 3.1 to outline timing - is that by the end of the third year the election is already set by law in 3.
Therefore the only meaning one can attribute to the word "afterward" is relative to the resignation date NOT the date a new leader is chosen and sworn in. Otherwise an election would never have to be held as long as he/she is not sworn in as Premier. That is also the reason the words "in either case no later than provided for in 3" are not used to define a new time limit in the event of a resignation.
The election must be called by January 24th 2015 and we must demand the law be followed. If this means going to the Lieutenant Governor or to the courts for interpretation - then so be it.
The reason for my review of the language again - this time - taking off the "loophole" blinders and giving credit to the drafters (Justice Department officials) - is because what was taking place by the PC's appeared to be in direct conflict with the intent of the law.
Additionally if one reads section 3.1 minus the wording between comma's which defines a new leader - one can see the intent was the date referring to the resignation. The only reason the inserted wording was used was to differentiate the authority of a new leader versus an interim leader.
Where are the experts? Where are the authoritative opinions or interpretations? Our democracy and laws are at stake.
Here are the relevant sections:
Duration of House of Assembly
3.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by
proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of
Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.
(2)
A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday
in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the
fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held
general election.
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
The people of this province must demand that the law be upheld and demand a ruling on the legislation.
Let's look at the intent - the law provides the establishment of a fixed election date - to provide predictability and stability in the election process and to reduce political opportunism. Secondly the law provided for an exception - in that it anticipates that a Premier could resign early. The law defines early as before the end of the third year. Given this eventuality the law prescribes that the fixed election date provision is no longer applicable and establishes a new process with limits. The limit prescribed is- not later than 12 months afterward.
The reason the wording "before the end of the third year" is used in 3.1 to outline timing - is that by the end of the third year the election is already set by law in 3.
Therefore the only meaning one can attribute to the word "afterward" is relative to the resignation date NOT the date a new leader is chosen and sworn in. Otherwise an election would never have to be held as long as he/she is not sworn in as Premier. That is also the reason the words "in either case no later than provided for in 3" are not used to define a new time limit in the event of a resignation.
The election must be called by January 24th 2015 and we must demand the law be followed. If this means going to the Lieutenant Governor or to the courts for interpretation - then so be it.
The reason for my review of the language again - this time - taking off the "loophole" blinders and giving credit to the drafters (Justice Department officials) - is because what was taking place by the PC's appeared to be in direct conflict with the intent of the law.
Additionally if one reads section 3.1 minus the wording between comma's which defines a new leader - one can see the intent was the date referring to the resignation. The only reason the inserted wording was used was to differentiate the authority of a new leader versus an interim leader.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Ottenheimer fumbles out of gate
The PC CAMP Condescending - Arrogant - Manipulative - Peremp(tory) is desperate to cling to power.
Sue's Blog has already raised the issue of the Tory Party abusing the intent of a law - the Tory government introduced in 2004. Now ten years later and the first time this part of the law is being utilized - they are showing us how they really operate.
There is no doubt that popular Tories of 2004 - are no so hot to trot with their new law - when they are behind in the polls.
Minister Terry French said this on December 07-2004
"Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that."
Right now Mr. French and all his PC colleagues are using a loophole Sue's Blog pointed out months ago after Dunderdale resigned. They are using their leadership process to drag on the time frame in which they must call an election. It was not the intent of this law to have political parties abuse and use it for political gain - in fact it was supposed to minimize political interference.
Enter Ottenhiemer Cochrane's Failure
John Ottenheimer is now an official entrant in the PC leadership race. His debut on CBC'c On Point with David Cochrane was less than stellar and gave us some insight as to how he may use his office - if elected by the Party.
Ottenheimer is an experienced lawyer and parliamentarian - yet he chose these words:
"It's well perhaps 14 or 15 months before the next general election - which is in keeping with what the mandate allows the party anyway - in terms of when we were first elected or more recently elected in 2011."
Ottenheimer talks of a mandate as if there were no premature resignation of the Premier. He knows - he was there - he knows that a law - his party - the party he wants to lead - promoted and as majority government passed - says the original mandate no longer exists. Therefore Mr. Ottenheimer has decided to mislead instead of dealing with the subject truthfully.
For David Cochrane's part - it was a miss - he ignored the much touted and self praised initiative of the Tories - to remove pure politics from the calling of an election.
For Ottenheimer there remains many questions regarding his time as Minister of Health and this latest foray into a convenient memory does not bode well - if such is a demonstration of his leadership.
The PC's of late have been adopting Liberal policy almost as quick as they hear it - bankrupt clearly of anything progressive on the policy development side.
Next up - The Crosbie Monarchy
Sue's Blog has already raised the issue of the Tory Party abusing the intent of a law - the Tory government introduced in 2004. Now ten years later and the first time this part of the law is being utilized - they are showing us how they really operate.
There is no doubt that popular Tories of 2004 - are no so hot to trot with their new law - when they are behind in the polls.
Minister Terry French said this on December 07-2004
"Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that."
Right now Mr. French and all his PC colleagues are using a loophole Sue's Blog pointed out months ago after Dunderdale resigned. They are using their leadership process to drag on the time frame in which they must call an election. It was not the intent of this law to have political parties abuse and use it for political gain - in fact it was supposed to minimize political interference.
Enter Ottenhiemer Cochrane's Failure
John Ottenheimer is now an official entrant in the PC leadership race. His debut on CBC'c On Point with David Cochrane was less than stellar and gave us some insight as to how he may use his office - if elected by the Party.
Ottenheimer is an experienced lawyer and parliamentarian - yet he chose these words:
"It's well perhaps 14 or 15 months before the next general election - which is in keeping with what the mandate allows the party anyway - in terms of when we were first elected or more recently elected in 2011."
Ottenheimer talks of a mandate as if there were no premature resignation of the Premier. He knows - he was there - he knows that a law - his party - the party he wants to lead - promoted and as majority government passed - says the original mandate no longer exists. Therefore Mr. Ottenheimer has decided to mislead instead of dealing with the subject truthfully.
For David Cochrane's part - it was a miss - he ignored the much touted and self praised initiative of the Tories - to remove pure politics from the calling of an election.
For Ottenheimer there remains many questions regarding his time as Minister of Health and this latest foray into a convenient memory does not bode well - if such is a demonstration of his leadership.
The PC's of late have been adopting Liberal policy almost as quick as they hear it - bankrupt clearly of anything progressive on the policy development side.
Next up - The Crosbie Monarchy
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Tom Marshall - Misleading the People!
Tom Marshall has made comments recently that really call his integrity into question. It is curious that a former Attorney General, Minister of Justice, a lawyer and current Premier would place his personal professional accomplishments behind party politics - but yet it appears he has.
Yesterday in this CBC interview - Marshall said "There's a premier in place, there's a cabinet in place, there's a caucus in place with a mandate to govern until October 2015"
This is - a deceptive comment that ignores the pith and substance - the meaning and intent of an important law respecting our democracy.
Fixed term elections were put into legislation to IMPROVE the democratic process. A few of us have noted that a loophole exists within the Tory initiated law - yet that concern has been ignored and now the PC Party is taking advantage of it. Below are the relevant sections: As you can see the intent under the "Election on change of Premier" exists to expedite the process of renewing a mandate if a Premier leaves before the end of the 3rd year of a term. This recognizes the need to go back to the electorate once the leader of the governing party exits. This is additionally important as the Premier is a public unelected office. So Marshall's comment - that there exists a mandate to govern until October 2015 - is not true.
We know in the case of Kathy Dunderdale - that her term ended 9 months before the end of the 3rd year in office and we should therefore expect - reasonably - that the PC Party would have a leader elected or selected in short order and then get to an election as soon as possible.
When this Bill was being debated in December of 2004 - the issue of leadership departure was significant.
Kelvin Parsons - at the time said after a leader leaves - it should be like a by-election and an election called within 60-90 day period. Terry French was agreeing with the concept - although felt 12 months allowed more reasonable time for a leader to be chosen and an election called.
Terry French said the following: Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that.
So what exactly are they up to? Why are the PC's not honouring the intent of the law? It is not our problem that they are mired in disorganization or worse - manipulation. Tom Marshall knows or should know the purpose of the law.
Marshall is dishonouring himself and all sitting PC MHA's by continuing to put off the call of an election - by using a loophole.
Tom Marshall must call an election immediately.
Shame on you Mr. Marshall - you have lowered yourself to protecting your party's interests instead of the people's.
Yesterday in this CBC interview - Marshall said "There's a premier in place, there's a cabinet in place, there's a caucus in place with a mandate to govern until October 2015"
This is - a deceptive comment that ignores the pith and substance - the meaning and intent of an important law respecting our democracy.
Fixed term elections were put into legislation to IMPROVE the democratic process. A few of us have noted that a loophole exists within the Tory initiated law - yet that concern has been ignored and now the PC Party is taking advantage of it. Below are the relevant sections: As you can see the intent under the "Election on change of Premier" exists to expedite the process of renewing a mandate if a Premier leaves before the end of the 3rd year of a term. This recognizes the need to go back to the electorate once the leader of the governing party exits. This is additionally important as the Premier is a public unelected office. So Marshall's comment - that there exists a mandate to govern until October 2015 - is not true.
Duration of House of Assembly
3.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by
proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of
Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.
(2)
A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday
in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the
fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held
general election.
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
We know in the case of Kathy Dunderdale - that her term ended 9 months before the end of the 3rd year in office and we should therefore expect - reasonably - that the PC Party would have a leader elected or selected in short order and then get to an election as soon as possible.
When this Bill was being debated in December of 2004 - the issue of leadership departure was significant.
Kelvin Parsons - at the time said after a leader leaves - it should be like a by-election and an election called within 60-90 day period. Terry French was agreeing with the concept - although felt 12 months allowed more reasonable time for a leader to be chosen and an election called.
Terry French said the following: Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that.
So what exactly are they up to? Why are the PC's not honouring the intent of the law? It is not our problem that they are mired in disorganization or worse - manipulation. Tom Marshall knows or should know the purpose of the law.
Marshall is dishonouring himself and all sitting PC MHA's by continuing to put off the call of an election - by using a loophole.
Tom Marshall must call an election immediately.
Shame on you Mr. Marshall - you have lowered yourself to protecting your party's interests instead of the people's.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Kudos to Antle and Cochrane - Exercise in Accountability
Rob Antle and Dave Cochrane - two CBC journalists - are to be commended for scratching the surface of PC hypocrisy. Their story today deals with promises made by the Tories in 2003 regarding electoral reform - and the promises broken regarding same. You can read their story HERE.
The bravado and chest-thumping of Danny Williams in 2002-2003 - came with it - promises to do many things differently than the Liberals.
Party leadership contests and the financing of same was absent in legislation and Williams promised to fix it. It did not get fixed.
This is a serious matter - no doubt - but pales in comparison to other promises of change made by then Opposition leader Danny Williams.
These two journalists have begun the process - I hope they continue the probe by reviewing promises on - energy, mining, forestry, and fishery. The people deserve to know - if not by the Tories or Opposition - then by the media - what exactly was promised on natural resource developments.
The information is all there - the only thing missing - the direct questions to the government on why they did not live up to the promises they made.
The commentary on the fishery, the paper mills, the mining sector, and energy was very aggressive and designed to make people believe that we would get more benefits under natural resource development than we would have under the Liberals.
The continued pouncing on the governing Liberals by Williams and rat-pack was specific and aimed toward the ear of the voter.
What should we have expected over the decade that followed 2003? How many long-term jobs from industrial development? How many projects where "construction" was not the objective - but permanent well paying trades positions was the objective?
The Tories have stripped away at the value of resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they have ushered in closures of many industrial operations, failed to improve our place in Canada, and squandered billions of our oil revenues.
So hats off to Cochrane and Antle - let's keep the accountability coming.
I do have one small critique - you state that, "This is the party’s first contested leadership race in nearly two decades, and the first chance for the Tories to play by the rules they promised to implement while in opposition."
It's not a contested race yet.
The bravado and chest-thumping of Danny Williams in 2002-2003 - came with it - promises to do many things differently than the Liberals.
Party leadership contests and the financing of same was absent in legislation and Williams promised to fix it. It did not get fixed.
This is a serious matter - no doubt - but pales in comparison to other promises of change made by then Opposition leader Danny Williams.
These two journalists have begun the process - I hope they continue the probe by reviewing promises on - energy, mining, forestry, and fishery. The people deserve to know - if not by the Tories or Opposition - then by the media - what exactly was promised on natural resource developments.
The information is all there - the only thing missing - the direct questions to the government on why they did not live up to the promises they made.
The commentary on the fishery, the paper mills, the mining sector, and energy was very aggressive and designed to make people believe that we would get more benefits under natural resource development than we would have under the Liberals.
The continued pouncing on the governing Liberals by Williams and rat-pack was specific and aimed toward the ear of the voter.
What should we have expected over the decade that followed 2003? How many long-term jobs from industrial development? How many projects where "construction" was not the objective - but permanent well paying trades positions was the objective?
The Tories have stripped away at the value of resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they have ushered in closures of many industrial operations, failed to improve our place in Canada, and squandered billions of our oil revenues.
So hats off to Cochrane and Antle - let's keep the accountability coming.
I do have one small critique - you state that, "This is the party’s first contested leadership race in nearly two decades, and the first chance for the Tories to play by the rules they promised to implement while in opposition."
It's not a contested race yet.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Media - Marshall - Muskrat
Let's all go back to 2002/2003 when Danny Williams was the coming of the savior. The Liberals were on their way out and the Tories were in a fit of hyperbole. The local media were chewing it up and spitting it out.
So let's find out if even the basic levels of investigation and balance exists in our current crop of journalists.
How about we get these basic questions answered.
What did the polls look like in March of 2003? Where did the Tories and Liberals sit?
What were the polls on leadership in that same time frame?
When you finish gathering that information - have a look at the House of Assembly Hansard and the statements coming out of the Tory Opposition - including Danny Williams.
From that information - please answer the following:
1. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because of the polls the government had no mandate to carry on?
2. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because Roger Grimes was not an "elected" Premier - he did not have the mandate to strike any resource deals?
3. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues suggest that Grimes and his government were afraid to take such deals to the public in an election?
4. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues hammer on the following points:
a) The findings of the Auditor General with respect to similar issues that AG Terry Paddon is
talking about now
b) The development of the Lower Churchill and Voisey's Bay and the mandate of former
Premier Brian Tobin with respect to any deal - any change of promise or term of a deal
c) The unfunded pension liabilities
d) The deficit and debt
e) the secrecy of the government
The information is all there. Will the media hold them accountable?
How about this - Dunderdale was elected based on a proposed agreement with Emera - the deal changed before sanction - and while their polling tanked. If this was 2003 and Danny Williams was addressing then Premier Roger Grimes - what would have been said?
Well that information is there. The Liberals did not have a mandate to change the terms outlined by former Premier Brian Tobin on Voisey's Bay.
Premier Marshall and his government need to take the changed agreement on Muskrat to the people in the form of a general election. They need to stop proceeding with this project unless they can renew their mandate. More particularly as Danny Williams would have said: Mr. Marshall you are not an elected Premier.
To make matters worse - soon we will have gone through 4 Premiers for one project - to sanction.
So let's find out if even the basic levels of investigation and balance exists in our current crop of journalists.
How about we get these basic questions answered.
What did the polls look like in March of 2003? Where did the Tories and Liberals sit?
What were the polls on leadership in that same time frame?
When you finish gathering that information - have a look at the House of Assembly Hansard and the statements coming out of the Tory Opposition - including Danny Williams.
From that information - please answer the following:
1. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because of the polls the government had no mandate to carry on?
2. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because Roger Grimes was not an "elected" Premier - he did not have the mandate to strike any resource deals?
3. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues suggest that Grimes and his government were afraid to take such deals to the public in an election?
4. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues hammer on the following points:
a) The findings of the Auditor General with respect to similar issues that AG Terry Paddon is
talking about now
b) The development of the Lower Churchill and Voisey's Bay and the mandate of former
Premier Brian Tobin with respect to any deal - any change of promise or term of a deal
c) The unfunded pension liabilities
d) The deficit and debt
e) the secrecy of the government
The information is all there. Will the media hold them accountable?
How about this - Dunderdale was elected based on a proposed agreement with Emera - the deal changed before sanction - and while their polling tanked. If this was 2003 and Danny Williams was addressing then Premier Roger Grimes - what would have been said?
Well that information is there. The Liberals did not have a mandate to change the terms outlined by former Premier Brian Tobin on Voisey's Bay.
Premier Marshall and his government need to take the changed agreement on Muskrat to the people in the form of a general election. They need to stop proceeding with this project unless they can renew their mandate. More particularly as Danny Williams would have said: Mr. Marshall you are not an elected Premier.
To make matters worse - soon we will have gone through 4 Premiers for one project - to sanction.
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
The CRA Poll will be 2015 Result
The latest CRA poll - I believe - will end up representing the election result in 2015.
The Tories have come in the same as last poll when you allow for percentage of error.
The NDP have collapsed and those left of centre swing Liberal/NDP have moved back to their Liberal base.
This is all of course premised on the Liberal Opposition not doing anything so outrageous (as happened with the NDP) as to eliminate themselves. As I have posted before - Dwight Ball's style of leadership is build not burn bridges and his thoughtful approach to policy is inclusive and open not exclusive and secret.
Back to the numbers:
1. The Liberals 52% is representative of the 30% or so solid Liberal support. 15% recaptured from the left leaning Liberals who had parked themselves tentatively with the NDP and 7% of centre Tories who swing based on the mood of the electorate and the current leadership of the Liberal Party.
2. The Tories are currently sitting with their solid PC base and not much else.
3. The NDP are likely to drop a couple of more points yet as they return to their solid base only - with that support going to the Liberals.
4. The Tories have shown they are unable to spend their way out this time and despite exorbitant amounts of warm and fuzzy Muskrat advertising - the population is not convinced that this project is good for Newfoundland and Labrador.
5. There will be a couple of more points coming to the Liberals as the sports fan like undecided - go out and vote for the winning team.
The Liberals chose the best leader at the best time. Dwight Ball will reinvigorate the party, rebuild party coffers, gain business support, promote district association development, unite right and left with solid economic planning, respect and include government employees, engage and involve the municipalities, be proactive on housing, health, education, and seniors issues, attract new industrial interests while maintaining and growing local small business. Ball will also be able to attract quality candidates including some of his leadership rivals. He is a quintessential Liberal.
This does not mean there will not be challenges over the coming 18 months. Ross Reid will try to direct a comeback for the Tories through outrageous spending, brainwashing levels of Tory self-promotion and advertising, and sometime in the New Year present a new potential leader. If the PC's cannot gain significantly by the next CRA poll result - the Tories will be in rebuild for 2019 mode.
Now let's talk about district predictions.
Here is my list of retirees (either before or at the dropping of the 2015 writ):
Felix Collins, Paul Davis, Kathy Dunderdale, Clayton Forsey, Tom Hedderson, Ray Hunter, Clyde Jackman, Charlene Johnson, Tom Marshall, Kevin O'Brien, Joan Shea, Susan Sullivan, Ross Wiseman.
Here is my list of potential floor crossers:
Dave Brazil, Sandy Collins, Tony Cornect, and Keith Russell
Those remaining may run again but only the following has a chance of retaining their seats:
Terry French, Keith Hutchings, Steve Kent, and John Dinn
This is what makes the next prediction very interesting.
I believe that Darin King thinks he is a leader in waiting and I believe that Hutchings and French will be his team of support. The problem is - I believe that - Darin King will lose his seat.
Dwight Ball has made it this far without the team of 10 establishment interests from both the Liberal and PC parties - if he keeps this approach - he will be a people's leader able to do the real job of a Premier.
As for the 2 independents - Mitchelmore and Kirby - I can see Kirby being comfortable under a Dwight Ball Liberal Opposition and Government - however Mitchelmore presents more as an opportunist who is a Tory one day and an NDPer the next. If he does not go Liberal he will - I predict - lose his seat.
The Tories have come in the same as last poll when you allow for percentage of error.
The NDP have collapsed and those left of centre swing Liberal/NDP have moved back to their Liberal base.
This is all of course premised on the Liberal Opposition not doing anything so outrageous (as happened with the NDP) as to eliminate themselves. As I have posted before - Dwight Ball's style of leadership is build not burn bridges and his thoughtful approach to policy is inclusive and open not exclusive and secret.
Back to the numbers:
1. The Liberals 52% is representative of the 30% or so solid Liberal support. 15% recaptured from the left leaning Liberals who had parked themselves tentatively with the NDP and 7% of centre Tories who swing based on the mood of the electorate and the current leadership of the Liberal Party.
2. The Tories are currently sitting with their solid PC base and not much else.
3. The NDP are likely to drop a couple of more points yet as they return to their solid base only - with that support going to the Liberals.
4. The Tories have shown they are unable to spend their way out this time and despite exorbitant amounts of warm and fuzzy Muskrat advertising - the population is not convinced that this project is good for Newfoundland and Labrador.
5. There will be a couple of more points coming to the Liberals as the sports fan like undecided - go out and vote for the winning team.
The Liberals chose the best leader at the best time. Dwight Ball will reinvigorate the party, rebuild party coffers, gain business support, promote district association development, unite right and left with solid economic planning, respect and include government employees, engage and involve the municipalities, be proactive on housing, health, education, and seniors issues, attract new industrial interests while maintaining and growing local small business. Ball will also be able to attract quality candidates including some of his leadership rivals. He is a quintessential Liberal.
This does not mean there will not be challenges over the coming 18 months. Ross Reid will try to direct a comeback for the Tories through outrageous spending, brainwashing levels of Tory self-promotion and advertising, and sometime in the New Year present a new potential leader. If the PC's cannot gain significantly by the next CRA poll result - the Tories will be in rebuild for 2019 mode.
Now let's talk about district predictions.
Here is my list of retirees (either before or at the dropping of the 2015 writ):
Felix Collins, Paul Davis, Kathy Dunderdale, Clayton Forsey, Tom Hedderson, Ray Hunter, Clyde Jackman, Charlene Johnson, Tom Marshall, Kevin O'Brien, Joan Shea, Susan Sullivan, Ross Wiseman.
Here is my list of potential floor crossers:
Dave Brazil, Sandy Collins, Tony Cornect, and Keith Russell
Those remaining may run again but only the following has a chance of retaining their seats:
Terry French, Keith Hutchings, Steve Kent, and John Dinn
This is what makes the next prediction very interesting.
I believe that Darin King thinks he is a leader in waiting and I believe that Hutchings and French will be his team of support. The problem is - I believe that - Darin King will lose his seat.
Dwight Ball has made it this far without the team of 10 establishment interests from both the Liberal and PC parties - if he keeps this approach - he will be a people's leader able to do the real job of a Premier.
As for the 2 independents - Mitchelmore and Kirby - I can see Kirby being comfortable under a Dwight Ball Liberal Opposition and Government - however Mitchelmore presents more as an opportunist who is a Tory one day and an NDPer the next. If he does not go Liberal he will - I predict - lose his seat.
Friday, September 06, 2013
Election Act may allow PC's to avoid the Polls - if Kathy departs this October.
The Sir Robert Bond Papers says:
"Rumours have started to circulate that Kathy Dunderdale will toss her teddy bear in the corner in October. Maybe. Unless the Tories change the House of Assembly Act to reverse the changes they made a decade ago, they’ll be forced to go to the polls within 12 months of her departure. That might have made sense once, but with the mess they currently have , there’s no guarantee the Tories would be able to run a successful election that quickly."
Actually Ed Hollett may be wrong - the Act is weak and says the following:
"Rumours have started to circulate that Kathy Dunderdale will toss her teddy bear in the corner in October. Maybe. Unless the Tories change the House of Assembly Act to reverse the changes they made a decade ago, they’ll be forced to go to the polls within 12 months of her departure. That might have made sense once, but with the mess they currently have , there’s no guarantee the Tories would be able to run a successful election that quickly."
Actually Ed Hollett may be wrong - the Act is weak and says the following:
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
You will note that the party has to have an election to get a new leader first; that can take them up to a year before the election. In that time an interim leader can be appointed (not elected) and caucus can make many changes to try and turn the tide.
For sure the interpretations on this will vary - however - there is certainly significant wiggle room. Section 3.1 has two conditions that must be achieved; election of a new leader and then 12 months to call a general election.
I'm sure the PC's have looked at this and we will know their interpretation soon. I'd say Kathy is gone and perhaps Terry French will provide interim leadership. My guess is Darin King is gathering his leadership gang together as I write this blog.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Dunderdale and Co. going going...gone
Cathy Bennett, Dean MacDonald, Paul Antle - all coming from the woodwork. The Establishment has determined the PC's are not winning the next election.
If the backbench Tories do not see this yet - well - they might not. They seem to just nod their heads.
The media is picking up the frenzy on possible candidates for the Liberal leadership and in so doing hyping up the race. Dunderdale is already passe and a new guard is forming in front of her face. The lady got her job done - she has delivered Danny's Muskrat child.
The problem now is that - is it really done? What about the other assets left to snatch by the elite investors?
The money is getting a fever and is starting to realize that power might land in the hands of somebody who will work - first and foremost for the people.
They are sweating the fact that Ball is a worthy candidate who can deliver competent and forward direction for the people.
They underestimated the people and overestimated Kathy, Jerome, and Darin.
Let's give the old boys club a royal boot and take back our province.
I would like the next leader to show the people all papers relating to the Muskrat deal to date. All contracts, all discussions, all written material. That's what they are really afraid of.
SNC Lavalin right here at home.
If the backbench Tories do not see this yet - well - they might not. They seem to just nod their heads.
The media is picking up the frenzy on possible candidates for the Liberal leadership and in so doing hyping up the race. Dunderdale is already passe and a new guard is forming in front of her face. The lady got her job done - she has delivered Danny's Muskrat child.
The problem now is that - is it really done? What about the other assets left to snatch by the elite investors?
The money is getting a fever and is starting to realize that power might land in the hands of somebody who will work - first and foremost for the people.
They are sweating the fact that Ball is a worthy candidate who can deliver competent and forward direction for the people.
They underestimated the people and overestimated Kathy, Jerome, and Darin.
Let's give the old boys club a royal boot and take back our province.
I would like the next leader to show the people all papers relating to the Muskrat deal to date. All contracts, all discussions, all written material. That's what they are really afraid of.
SNC Lavalin right here at home.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Conservative Deceptive Ads - Placing one Region above another
Trudeau puts one region above another - That's what the Conservative Ad says.
Who said the following?
"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism"
Oh yeah that's right - Mr. Harper - about Atlantic Canada
He just puts one region under the rest.
On that basis I would think Mr. Harper will vote for Trudeau.
I think the difference is Harper said this when he was the leader of Canada's Opposition.
So Atlantic Canada lets practice defeatism - Defeat Harper in every Atlantic Canadian seat.
Next up - what did Harper say in his younger political career?
Who said the following?
"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism"
Oh yeah that's right - Mr. Harper - about Atlantic Canada
He just puts one region under the rest.
On that basis I would think Mr. Harper will vote for Trudeau.
I think the difference is Harper said this when he was the leader of Canada's Opposition.
So Atlantic Canada lets practice defeatism - Defeat Harper in every Atlantic Canadian seat.
Next up - what did Harper say in his younger political career?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)