"Sources told the CBC"

It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.

This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.

Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.

Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.

I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.

Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good,  that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.

There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.

Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.

The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.

In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?

1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication


This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.

I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?

We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.

Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.

A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family.  Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.

We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.

We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.

It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.

On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.

Harper and Coleman eerily similar

Continuing from my post yesterday - the Conservative edge of politics both here and in Ottawa has adopted an arrogant dictatorial sharpness that is cutting the electorate patience to the core.

Harper has amped his manliness up by intellectually going after our Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice - Beverly McLachlin; a frontal lobe competition our Prime Minister will soon regret.

But really the most concerning, revealing, and consistent trait of Harper is his refusal to communicate; at least in a way that is normal for a mature democracy.

At the basic core of this fellow is a stereo-typical troglodyte - a being so caught up in self-preservation that he appears paranoid. With his basic refusal to accept some science as real - he may easily believe that Mansbridge, Soloman, Martin or any Ottawa journalist are the dinosaurs waiting to pounce.

Sadly - as Canadians - we have failed by generally treating the PM's dismissal of unfettered scrums or appearances on national network political programs - as normal. Harper's protective communication goons have effectively removed their boss from open media access. The man has also annihilated the First Minister's conference. Why meet openly with Canada's real leaders - the Premiers of the federation.

The PMO has become a term that we have become too familiar with - as it's not Harper who is responsible for the bad deeds. The PMO said this and that. Media now reports regularly on what the PMO says - not what the PM says. In this regard the media is failing in its duty to the people of our country. The photo-ops carefully planned and executed are dutifully reported by the Hill's men and women - who have otherwise been trained to probe and ask questions in an open environment.

So what does all this have to do with Frank Coleman? You should seriously consider that question and look at what we've been handed by the chosen one to date. The training of our media here has already begun.

Jim Flaherty joins Stephen Harper at the top of the Lying Elite (Power and Politics)

I just finished watching Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on Power and Politics.

I am absolutely relieved to know that our Jim will be a one term wonder and that he will destroy any confidence Canadians who voted for him and his party had.

Our Princeton schooled elite lawyer is now all about the second coming of the "Common Sense Revolution" - you know the economic religion of Mike Harris promoted by then Minister of Finance of Ontario, the one and only (thankfully) Mr. Flaherty.

Ultra fiscal Conservative and disciple Flaherty and ultra social Conservative  Reform disciple Stephen Harper. It will be a rough 4 years but then I believe it will end.

Flaherty is not a financial guru - he used the systems left by former Finance Ministers - and those who operated distinctly different in ideology than him. He inherited banking policy, EI funds, balanced books, and a system which was fundamentally different than the USA (crippled by its own fraudulent, corrupt, and unregulated system). Flaherty as was his boss Mike Harris - is a Reaganomics lovers.

Flaherty and his PC's in Ontario were replaced after people became sick of waiting for the rebirth of finance and he (Flaherty) successfully accomplished nothing memorable during his tenure - other than hardship for anyone other than financially wealthy families. Then Flaherty ran - unsuccessfully twice - for the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives. Why did Tories not elect this "genius" to be their leader? He was too conservative. He is absolutely at home with his new ultra-right-wing reform party.

Now as is typical of right wing conservative fanatics - Flaherty is hypocritical - and will do what is necessary in the moment. In a minority Harper government - he spent like a drunken labour socialist on steroids - with the exception of who actually benefited. Make no mistake social - human welfare will be replaced by corporate welfare. He will keep taxing ordinary Canadians to reduce taxes for the largest of the corporate world.

Today - on Power and Politics - with Evan Solomon - Flaherty tried to defend the elimination of election financing. As with other ultra-right-wing liars - the Minister kept looking toward the floor and not the camera (presumably to keep a straight face) as he tried to justify the elimination of fairness and equity in democracy.

Flaherty tried to explain to Solomon that the $2 dollar per vote system meant that somehow my money would not be going to a party I support. Hang on now Minister it is based on actual votes. It is a fair system that places us closer to a representative system rather than the "first past the post" system we suffer under.

Now Mr. Flaherty hear this from this taxpayer and voter - you have not removed the system of tax credits for political contributions wherein I know my money is going to support parties and candidates I do not support.

Mr. Flaherty talked about "passing the hat" and getting a contribution - he added write a cheque. Ditto Mr. Flaherty - when people give a political contribution - they will continue to get a tax credit. How about if you write a cheque for a political party - don't hold your hand out waiting for me to give you a partial refund of your contribution.

The Finance Minister was also very elitist when he suggested the writing of cheques - what of Canadians - the families he goes on and on about who pay tax - and at the end of the day do not have enough to put away for a pension? Flaherty is talking about more affluent Canadians who have funds to spare after the basic needs, tax, pension contributions, and financial contribution for their children's' education. These affluent Canadians will write the cheque because Mr. Flaherty will make sure the companies they head or run will get tax breaks - and they are likely to get the opportunity to pick up public assets at a cheap privatization price.

Flaherty is going to hack the public service and he will hack programs that are important to people in most need. Flaherty will continue the practice of Corporate welfare and you and I will pay for it.

Flaherty had no problem bailing out the auto giants - and will claim he did so to save a job. Jobs would have rebounded as new corporate entities filled the void of bankrupt companies who "did not live within their means".

Ontario put him in - and Ontario should have known better. But as is usually the case in this failed federation - the big decide and the smaller pay and suffer.

Flaherty will justify the G8 G20 fiasco about to be revealed - including a fake lake - however clean water and food for children - that will have to wait. That's just "common sense", as Mr. Flaherty sees it.

I wonder how easy it would be to get a face to face with the Minister if you are the CEO of Scotia Bank? Do you think you can get the same meeting to address your needs?

Mr. Flaherty you and your party have sucked off the public teat to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. You and your party have benefited more from our election financing than any other - and still the Conservatives wanted to break the rules/law when it suited the political needs.

Flaherty like Harper is a political fraud and a hypocrite.

Thank you Evan Solomon for a decent interview that was very revealing. The only question you missed was - when are they cutting all funds for the CBC?

Evan Solomon - Power & Propaganda - Co-A-Li-Tion

Power & Politics with Evan Solomon today - has confirmed for me that a name change is in order. Power & Propaganda as I will now refer to it - proved what Sue's Blog alluded to in an earlier post is true. Conservative candidates must line up to have a crack at being able to spew the "official" Harper message - over and over on a program that allows such rubbish.

Solomon had no control over the Conservative talking head Pierre Poilievre - who lied through omission over and over - while the NDP Robert Chisholm and Liberal Christine Innes did not have equal time.

First of all - the issue of coalition was concocted by Stephen Harper and was pursued by the media not the public. Mansbridge raised the issue again when interviewing Ignatieff. Next the CBC re fabricated the issue which is not being driven by the people of Canada.

The Conservative was once again - as is always the case with Solomon - permitted to avoid questions and continue to lie about what Ignatieff said. He further lied when he stated what was in the minds of Duceppe, Ignatieff, and Layton.

Solomon referred to getting the most seats in an election. He appears to have a difficult time understanding the obvious.

If Canada gives party A 4 seats party B 3 seats Party C 2 seats and party D 1 seat what does that mean?

It means that party A can attempt to form a government representing 40% of the public ideology but must however address the 60% with another ideology. If Party A can convince either Party B or C  individually to go along with a modified or cooperative combination of ideology then Party A can have 70% or 60% respectively of the parliament. That then would give them a way to operate like a majority.

If Party A can convince party's C and D to support a cooperative platform then Party A could sit with 70% of the parliament and thereby Canadians support.

If Party A acts like its 40% is a majority and ignores the wishes of 60% of the country then Party A will have failed to get majority support and would fall.

Then Party B would get a chance to try to make 30% become a majority by working cooperatively with parties C and D or even Party A.

So if Stephen Harper wants to remain in power if he receives a minority - he has to stop his contempt of the Canadian people and our democracy and find common ground. If this man cannot achieve this after so many years trying - he should do the honourable thing and resign. Perhaps this is the point Canada - Harper is intolerant of our democracy and therefore threatens to use our own system to frighten us.

Harper has spent more time manipulating the media and message regarding a coalition than ever spent on convincing Canadians that his party is the best party for the people.

If Evan Solomon cannot control Conservatives who come to his show day after day and say the same things including lies - day after day - then perhaps there should be a critical review of the program.

Ty to fellow twitter David for some info...

Conservative MP's targeting Evan Solomon to spin away from bad news stories

The CBC must do something to stop Conservative Members of Parliament appearing on Evan Solomon's program to spin away from obvious major mistakes, deliberate breaches, and even lies by members of their Caucus and Cabinet. Every time Power and Politics attempts to investigate these stories - the Conservative member assigned to Evan successfully trips the interviewer and is permitted to go on and on with a message of spin to redirect bad behavior back to Liberals and NDP.

The government is the government and should be held to the highest level of account. Further the Conservatives continually being allowed to say "the Liberals did the same thing" without simply cutting them off - is beyond me. The Conservatives did not campaign by saying we are going to do exactly what the Liberals did so elect us instead. They campaigned on openness, accountability, no patronage, elected Senate, and MP's being permitted to represent their people.

Evan today was presenting an actual government document dealing with electioneering. The Conservative assigned today - then read from unsubstantiated documents that he held up partially to the camera - that Evan did not see prior nor was able to investigate. Evan then says to the Liberal representative - is there anything to this? Excuse me what?

Document from Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney's office - targeting ethnic vote - to the point of being offensive to me or to anybody for that matter. I would have to say the contents the media displayed are essentially racial electoral profiling, identification, and then targeting for votes.

This is extremely serious and the media must be able to control spin doctors of the Conservative Party. The acceptability of inconsistencies and irregularities in politics today - has made our democracy less than what it should be - and is causing continued growth of voter apathy. A few decades ago - a Prime Minister would have dismissed these people - full period - stop.

Evan Solomon drops a big ball - politicians on a polygraph new CBC Reality Show?

Tom Lukiwski Conservative MP - interviewed by Evan Solomon Power and Politics

Tom - was a Harper Conservative today - when not-answering a question about documents regarding policies on crime which do not attach a cost to them for implementation. He did not answer it again and again and at the same time talked about how the Liberals did the same thing when in office. Wow - guess what - Tom if you are the same as the Liberals - why did people elect you?

As for Evan - CBC - have a look at the interview - Evan not only managed to not get one answer - but absolutely did not take Tom to task and shut him down when he refused to answer the question. Evan provided an unpaid political announcement for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Can we possibly get a journalist, host, interviewer, reporter who will get the individual to answer or refuse the cheap political time on our dime.

And then there was the concentration by Evan to get the Liberal and NDP members to say that Bev Oda lied - why? Because Tom suggested he should focus on that.

Please CBC can we get somebody who will seek to find answers and get answers - or give the politician the correct response when they won't answer - shut them down.

Either Bev Oda lied or she has no ability to remember what she herself ordered. This is simple - fire her.

As for Harper - Evan - I have no problem - Stephen Harper lied. The Prime Minister is a liar.

By the way - how many of our sitting politicians would agree to a reality show where they are placed on a polygraph and asked questions about why they wanted to get elected, have they enriched themselves by doing so, have they helped any particular corporation get contracts....you get the picture. Then we can have ordinary citizens who speak out publicly - and ask why they are doing that.

This has got to be more entertaining than Peter MacKay pretending to be a soldier.

Come on CBC - see how many of them would take a polygraph. That should not offend them right? Surely Harper believes in polygraphs.