You did it too...

The pathetic answer to any questions posed  by the Opposition during Question Period.

If we can assume that what the Tories did while in office is what got them booted from office, then surely we can assume doing the same thing will bring the same result for the sitting Liberals.

Here is how it goes.

The PC's are in office. They make a patronage appointment. The Liberals and NDP call them out on it and say that it's not acceptable.

As part of the Party Platform the Liberals say they will get rid of patronage appointments.

The Liberals form government and commence patronage appointments.

When challenged in the House by a PC member - the answer is "you did it too".

When you remove all the glitter and bring it back to the basics - this is Newfoundland and Labrador politics.

The story behind the Appointments Commission is a good one. Perhaps Dwight would like to share that and many more stories.

While we are at it lets talk about the continuation of the boondoggle called Muskrat. Another "you did it too"  situation?

Look at what Mexico did. Press HERE 

Pam Frampton provides déjà vu

Pam Frampton's latest attempt to thwart Muskrat Falls critics who are demanding that the project be shut down while a forensic audit is completed - fails.

If you are feeling a déjà vu - you're not alone.

The majority of media took exactly the same approach when Muskrat Falls was initially talked about and during sanctioning.

From the outset - I can tell you we most certainly won't learn from this "mistake" if we allow this one to be completed. In fact - the more we let this "boondoggle" continue - without a forensic audit being completed - we are watching ourselves - knowingly - make a "mistake".

Frampton titles her government/corporate puff piece, "Inquiring minds want to know" a phrase that is familiar to most people as being used by the gossip rag The National Enquirer (with the exception of I instead of E). The writer - with her first scribbles - attempts to diminish, downplay, and question the Muskrat critics who want the project to stop and a forensic audit commissioned. déjà vu

The first paragraph of her article reads: "While it should never have been started, the hydroelectric project is way beyond the point of no return. With more than 80 per cent of the work finished, the province can’t afford — financially, legally or practically — to stop now."

The serious critics of the project wrote, made public comment, and drew attention in whatever way possible to argue that the project should not start. We didn't wait until it was 50%, 60%, 70% and "80" % completed to pull the fire alarm.

The serious critics of this project know that Frampton's claim "With more than 80 per cent of the work finished, the province can’t afford — financially, legally or practically — to stop now." is not based on fact - but based on politically and corporately produced spin. The spin cannot possibly be backed up unless a forensic audit and financial investigation were completed.

The serious critics of this project know that there are dozens of red flags waving prominently over this damn dam and would lead any knowledgeable person to demand a forensic audit. These red flags could be indicators of fraud, gross negligence, bribery, and other corrupt potentials.

If any of these serious and illegal activities were found - contracts entered into would have to be re-assessed, renegotiated or dismissed - yes people could go to jail - and yes the project could have to be stopped.

It's like saying Enron would have to be continued - resurrected - or reworked because it's too big to fail.

If we are actually in a position where this project is too big to fail - then I expect the Government of Canada to come in pay off the debt on the project and re-work something with Nalcor that leaves the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whole - (as they were before the boondoggle started).

Doing nothing is paramount to knowingly bankrupting the future of our province.

Let me add this for Ms. Frampton - if an engineering investigation found that the North Spur would probably fail at some time in the future - would it be too expensive to stop, not practical to stop, not legally wise to stop?

This continued writing on Muskrat Falls without truly fully understanding what the options are regarding the project - is nothing short of irresponsible at best or a deliberate re-spin at worst. The Tobinesque speech by Ball and dutiful and predictable media fawning over it - is the same old same old technique used to get the project sanctioned.

Spinster used to have a different meaning in Newfoundland and Labrador in days of old. The meaning today is less innocuous.

Then Frampton - inexplicably - goes on to suggest what the Public Inquiry (not yet established) should examine. Ms. Frampton - respectfully but barely - I suggest that you don't possess enough knowledge on the subject to reasonably put perimeters on it.

The "eight main thrusts" that Ms. Frampton articulates can be answered before an inquiry begins. That's the problem.

Value for money? Really? the answer is no!

Good decision making? Really clearly not!

Lessons learned? Come on now. Naive (please read the Economist article again) or if you have the time our history on the development of natural resources)

Financial consequences? Oh my~ They are obvious!

Commercial sensitivity? What where the owner of a company cannot know or see the content of financial remuneration contracts? Surely you jest.

The key motivations? Okay that's just silliness. It's called corporate welfare. It's called idiotic legacies. It's called political pandering.

You see Ms. Frampton - you and many other journalists, columnists, and/or announcers are a very real part of our ongoing and historical record of failure.

One must be knowledgeable enough on a subject to ask the pertinent questions and follow-up. One must be willing to ask critics - why they really hold opinions, express concerns, or continue to put out "warning trouble ahead" information. Particularly when these people have nothing to gain directly. When you base all you opinion on those who have something to gain - then you are likely putting out spin.

This inundation by some media - of late - is EXACTLY the same type of nonsensical rhetoric that got us here to begin with.

Then - finally- indulge me as I review this paragraph of fiction:

"Let’s be clear: no inquiry into Muskrat Falls is going to result in a parade of former politicians being hauled away in shackles, satisfying as that might be. None of the money squandered will be paid back. If we accept those basic facts, then what is it we want an inquiry to accomplish?"

You have no idea what a yet to be established inquiry may or may not result in. Therefore the fact that politicians will not be hauled away on shackles - is not a fact. An inquiry could in fact lead to information that could be used to investigate potentially illegal activity. Remember those trinkets in the House of Assembly. People went to jail there - right? And how much money was that over? I am going to suggest that IF illegal activity were going on - those involved on any level would try to prevent it being discovered.

None of the money squandered will be paid back. Not a fact. First you do not know if the money was "squandered" or if it disappeared (illegally) - you don't know if somebody doesn't have a million in their back-pocket from a wink and a nod - you don't know if significant amounts of equipment was stolen or cannot be found - you don't know if somebody has taken a kickback. You do know that the projected cost has doubled.

So to accept those "basic facts" as you call them - is to continue to be fooled. It is a continuation of spoon-feeding the public - information being spoon-fed to you.

I do not have a desire to shut you up as James McLeod might say - but I do have a desire for you to to be really cognizant of the potential damage you may cause by writing facts that are not facts.

My previous blog posts from 6/7 years ago talk about not needing the power, Emera owning the transmission line to the Island, the concern about budget projections and so on - demonstrate that there were a number of us people - who seen through the last round of spin. I for one am seeing through this current onslaught of it.

Maybe we should do an inquiry on how the media plays a role in advancing the "boondoggles" of governments. Perhaps they should be tested on their knowledge of subjects they confidently write about. Perhaps somebody should look at that record. The Johnny Come Lately media questions about the Muskrat fiasco - should probably continue and not get swept under another carpet for historical review.

Next up - James Mcleod and his story on our retiring Auditor General.... does it ever end...

Manning - face and eyes into new job...

The unelected Minister - Judy Manning - is face and eyes into her new portfolio. See!

Out on the campaign trail drumming up votes for somebody else as she sits on her unelected throne.

Churning up the activity - on family violence court, WHSCC reviews, and generally preparing new legislation.

Seen here leafing through the voluminous material and briefing notes with her Cabinet colleague?

Pounding the pavement for justice and getting up to speed on her appointed Ministry?

Posing again above with Departmental literature? Enjoying a stroll while explaining to the good people of CBS why they should elect a PC MHA.

Why they must ask? Why not appoint somebody from the district right on into Cabinet and then hold a by-election. Hardly seems fair that Placentia - St. Mary's has 2 representatives. One donated by the Premier - the other elected but not in the mood to sit in Cabinet.

I suppose this could be be on-the-job political training.

Maybe Ms. Manning should have done as her uncle Fabs did. Run - don't get elected and get reappointed. Win - Win

The people of CBS must be at least a little annoyed that this person is being shoved in their faces in the middle of a democratic process.

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 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"

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.

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

        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.

 

Perversion of Democracy! Media complicit?

With the latest news regarding the futures of Charlene Johnson - Minister of Finance and Terry French - Minister of Justice - the electorate must demand the call of an election.

Where to start - that's the problem here. The ignorance of or deliberate avoidance of the intent of the House of Assembly Act - passed by the Tories. A very significant part of this law deals with the early departure of a Premier.

When one reads the House of Assembly debate regarding this law - one can only conclude that the latest an election call would be is February/March of 2015. The intent was clear. If the governing party - responsible for the introduction, tabling, then supporting the passage of the law were planning to abuse the Act - why make the change? Why indeed. The Act does not provide for the bungling of or deliberate manipulation of the provisions of 3.1 and it certainly does not say anything about bad polls.

Kathy Dunderdale resigned in January of this year - and the party should have immediately called nominations for leader and settled in on a 2 month process to (s)elect a new leader. Instead they have been prolonging the process in a manner that achieves a full unentitled term.

The media has been irresponsible in their ignorance or avoidance of this situation - and as a result this so-called pillar of democracy has been absent. It is their job - their profession - to report, review, research, and present these real issues to the public.

Adding to the perversion of our "democracy" is the continued spending of taxpayer dollars by a caretaker Premier/s. Tom Marshall - is spending like the leader of a newly elected and wildly popular governing party. None of this is real. His view on power and democracy is nothing short of arrogant. He is spending and committing billions of dollars for generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In my opinion - I think it's safe to say that the Tories under Marshall/Dunderdale/Williams will continue to govern for at least the next decade whether re-elected or not.

The spending on pensions, pay and benefits packages, infrastructure, education, health, and resource developments are commitments that will go on in some cases for years and in others for decades - long after their government is gone.

It can be argued that all governments must make some multi-year commitments - usually however it is under a legitimate term and legitimate leadership. This has been over since the New Year.

They will double our debt obligations in a province where they have not grown population and private sector industry. They will double our debt obligations in a province that is aging faster than any other.

Ironically as another 2 Ministers remove themselves from office - the biggest headline is Danny is going to give us an extra year of the Ice-Caps. Yay...

Note to "Journalists" - Get off your arses and provide the public with real information instead of the leaning drivel of another fellow in a bow-tie who appears thankful that the Tories will provide him with a delegated convention - so as to ward off the boredom of an open leadership process.

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

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.

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. 

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. 

EPRA - the Good,the Bad, & the big FEE

 EPRA Electronic Products Recycling Association

Today was a day of the upset consumer.

Buy a $150 Television and pay an additional $42.50 for a recycling fee.

There are some pretty upset people out there and they want answers.

Sometimes when trying to listen to politicians on something they have already bungled becomes more and more difficult.

Every now and then for various reasons - I will go at something in an attempt to find the real skinny on the subject. This was one of those times - and is a result of one consumer who got to the checkout and realized they could not afford the purchase. They had received advertising - as is so obvious this time of year - and were delighted to find they could afford a very special gift for their child. The sale meant there would be a very special surprise for one little guy very proud parents that they could achieve this. You probably have guessed by now that they became very embarrassed at the check-out and more importantly somewhat devastated that the surprise for their son had just evaporated.

What happened?

What happened was an environmental recycling fee of $42.50 that they were unaware of and the company had not informed them of in the advertisement.

Time to go backwards:

1. The government decided that electronics must be recycled and that industry players must become stewards of these materials.

2. The regulations were put in place and EPRA was chosen to be the administrator of such a program.

3. This was first advertised by EPRA in July and became effective in August.

4. The MMSB and government worked with EPRA to see the program established.

5. The Government and the MMSB did not conduct public consultation or awareness on electronic recycling and did not involve the public in choosing the agency or corporation private or public that would undertake and manage the program.

6. The public for the most part does not know who the EPRA is and does not know what they do and why they are doing it.

Different electronic products have different fees and they are established by EPRA - all manufacturers and retailers of these products within Newfoundland and Labrador must collect the set fees and remit them to the EPRA. These fees are for the administration, collection, and processing of these materials.

The EPRA is a not-for-profit corporation without share capital and its members are retailers and manufacturers of electronic products.

Currently the EPRA's head office is in Ontario and they operate provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

First thing that strikes you is that Ontario does not currently operate under EPRA but the national office is there. I write that off to normal arrogance. I am advised however that Ontario will be the next EPRA location.

Now let's get to the fees. The fees are different based on the product but one significant example is for what's termed a big-screen TV. I am told that that is any TV over 30 inches. In Newfoundland and Labrador the fee is $42.50 and is higher than in other provinces - which I am advised is because of additional transportation costs.

In Newfoundland and Labrador there are 17 drop-off locations which is not acceptable if the program is to succeed. Nova Scotia has 39 locations - which when you compare the geography - is ridiculous. There is 55,000 square kilometres in Nova Scotia and 405,000 square kilometres in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Clearly we are going to need some hundreds of locations in this province. With a mere 5,000 square kilometres in PEI - they have 6 drop-off points. So right off the bat we are not rolling this project out in the best possible way.

Once products are dropped off in any of the 17 locations they are forwarded to a collaboration centre in Mount Pearl and from there head to the mainland.

That is to say Newfoundland and Labrador does none of the processing of the products. Our products are shipped to Quebec for processing. Nova Scotia currently has a processor that handles about 20% of their recycling. There is no Atlantic regional facility and that - in my opinion - is a lost opportunity for us.

The choice of processing location I am told was through an RFP (request for proposals) but not within Newfoundland and Labrador. That - in my opinion - was another mistake and we should now work diligently to establish an Atlantic Processing facility here in our province. In that way we can gain employment from this recycling initiative.

The choice for the collaboration facility was not done through tender or an RFP but was done by the company based on their own research - leading to communication with a few potentials and ultimately chosen by them - I am told on the basis of price, service, and experience. This too - in my opinion was a mistake and leaves the door wide open to speculation on why so and so got the contract.

Now for the breakdown. A drop-off location is paid a fee to collect and store materials dropped off to them by us the consumers - then a processing centre is paid to recycle the materials. The processing centres - which are private - for-profit enterprises also retain all revenues generated by selling the recycled materials. Clearly these processors are not paying corporate tax or benefits in our province because we have no processors here. EPRA is paid to administer and manage the program.

I do not yet have specific breakdowns with respect to what percentage of the fee we pay goes to EPRA, the drop off centres, or the processors. I do not know what remuneration is in place for the national and provincial executives. The list of these individuals can be found at the end of this post.
                                                                                                                                                                   EPRA will be tested over the next year and then we can determine if the organization here in our province and in fact nationally is run well. Whether or not the MMSB could have administered this program more efficiently is a question worth asking. Whether or not the best drop-off locations have been established is a good question. Whether or not the best collaboration centre has been achieved is a good question and whether or not we could have done at least a percentage of the processing here is a good question.

There clearly was an opportunity here for government to go after processing these materials for Atlantic Canada and we certainly have enough empty plants etc. to put such a facility in - and our private sector could have been tapped for a partnership initiative.

My experience with EPRA today was mixed. The first phone call I made was to the head office - in Ontario. I was met with significant resistance first and then promised that my questions could be answered by Christy Teasdale, National Director Marketing and Communication for EPRA. I called back at the scheduled time and was left on hold for 45 minutes. I then called the main office again and asked some general questions of the staffer and was further advised to talk to Terry Greene - Program Director for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Executive Director for our region is located in Nova Scotia - in my opinion - another mistake.

Terry Greene is a personable fellow with a good grasp of the company he works for and the program. He was able to answer the questions I had with confidence and for the most part without hesitation. The problems I have with this program are not with him - they are with government and the MMSB.

Before EPRA was chosen for this province there should have been broad public consultations with more than one option for proceeding. Further the government and the MMSB should have taken the transitional lead in the introduction of this program to consumers here in our province.

Secondarily - but as important - are the retailers and manufacturers who are the members of EPRA - they should have collectively decided to conduct responsible advertising and list the environmental fees alongside product costs in their flyers and promotional materials.

EPRA needs to outline its executive remuneration and also more particulars about how are money is spent. Without this information the consumer who pays the fee will be left to speculate on whether or not money is being spent wisely and ethically. It is also important to know that some of our money will be spent in the USA and Europe as some of the processing will be done there.

Is recycling electronic products the right thing to do? Sure it is. Is this the best program to do it? I don't know and I suspect our politicians don't know either. Is EPRA the best company to administer it? I don't know - perhaps the MMSB could have. Are we maximizing our full potential to gain additional employment? No. Has EPRA used the best process in choosing drop-off and processing facilities - I don't believe so. Have the retailers and manufacturers done enough to educate and promote openly this initiative? No. Has the government explained how this whole thing started, why it started, and who started it? No.

Most importantly the fees are determined and established by EPRA without government involvement. Therefore they should have to answer to a PUB like regulator to ensure the fees are appropriate and the expenditures warranted. 

EPRA represents the industry retailers and manufacturers - middlemen to accommodate government regulation. Is this the best process? It's time we had the discussion with the people we elect to govern and make policy and legislation.

The Opposition parties hold some responsibility here as well - where were they when this all went down and what did they recommend?

Chief Executive Officer and Staff

Cliff Hacking

as Chief Executive Officer. 

Other senior EPRA staff includes:

Lynda Kitamura

Chief Financial Officer 

Jay Illingworth

Director of Harmonization

Sean De Vries

Director, Recycler Qualification Office

Christy Teasdale

Director, Marketing and Communications

Each provincial EPRA program has an Executive or Program Director responsible for the day to day management of

the programs:

Craig Wisehart

EPRA Western Canada

Dennis Neufeld

EPRA Manitoba

Dominique Levesque

EPRA-Québec

Gerard MacLellan

EPRA Atlantic Canada

 

Question Period - PC's on last political legs

Watch carefully, Question Period in the House of Assembly. There is a real sign that the Tories are on their last political legs.

Question Period is to gain information from government and to call on government to account for its policies and actions.

Members Opposite ask the questions and government provides the answers. We all know that our government is not very good at providing answers and for the most part Question Period is like an adult playground for Government Ministers and Members.

These days - however there is one particular behavior that is ramping up. When an Opposition or Third Party Member asks a question more often than not the Minister responding - says "I want to know what the Liberals or NDP" thinks about this or that - or supports this or that.

This is going to become a "be careful what you wish for" scenario. So the Ministers of the Dunderdale government want to ask questions in the House of Assembly - no problem - just hang on for a couple of years and the few who are left standing will get plenty of time to do just that.

The Dunderdale Ministers and backbench hecklers are begging - no longing - to become Opposition - keep it up and they will get their wish.

Soon enough the few that are left can become a real rat-pack and ask all the questions they like.

The partisan zealotry of this government and vindictiveness toward those who are not absolute Kool-Aid drinkers goes beyond anything most of us have seen before. These people are not fit to govern and are absolute abusers of power.

Will any of them do a polygraph? We are the employers so maybe that's what we should demand.

Lorraine Michael is 100% Right - Here's Why

MHA David Brazil appeared on a talk show this morning to downplay the significance of the findings by Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Victor Powers.

He said the Commissioner said the violation was a "minimum of minimum" - yet I do not see this in the report. In fact Brazil's take on the finding is that he accepts the findings but his actions were not that bad and were an "oversight".

He brushed off the "conflict of interest" comment by saying it was not outlined how he did that.

Basically - he brushed off the Report and inserted his own interpretations of what are clear findings.

How serious is this?

Well let's reflect on why there is a Code of Member's Conduct to begin with.

This was established to satisfy one of the recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green in his report - acting as the head of an Independent Commission of Review set-up by the Williams Government.

All this of course followed the scathing findings of Auditor General ( Elizabeth Marshall) regarding conduct of Members of the House of Assembly.

We had MHA's go to jail, MHA's who just missed the criminal threshold pay thousands of dollars back to the Crown, MHA's buying artwork, women's lingerie, and even trinkets purchased from a company whose owner was also was found guilty of criminal behavior.

Due to the nature and severity of the MHA behavior - it became incumbent on all MHA's in the future to make a concerted effort to understand the law to the point where oversight would not occur. This needed to be achieved for the public to regain trust in their elected representatives.

In Commissioner Powers Report regarding the actions of MHA David Brazil - the Commissioner in no way takes away from the seriousness of the violations of two laws of the Province.

David Brazil contends that the Commissioner stated that his violations of the law were a "minimum of minimum". This is where the buffoonery enters. The minimum of minimum would mean he violated no law. The Commissioner did find that David Brazil was in violation of two laws and that in each case he found the Member should be reprimanded. A reprimand is the lesser of the penalties available.

Victor Powers did not negate the seriousness of Brazil's breaches - he in fact spent many words highlighting the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and further the importance of full disclosure by the Member of his Interests.

Listening to David Brazil on the talk show this morning makes me believe that the MHA does not accept that his actions were serious, he is not taking the Commissioner's report and recommendations seriously, and he is not prepared to be meaningfully remorseful for his actions.

An MHA - a person who is a Member of the Legislature - where laws are debated and passed -should absolutely be crystal clear on what the laws are related to his conduct as a Member. This was clearly not the case if Brazil contends an oversight.

Should the House re-open to deal with this? Yes - after the history of abuse by Members of the law - and in a day of continued breaches by Senators of Canada - it should be treated seriously and dealt with swiftly. If this does not occur - those who may consider breaking or those who may consider being lax with the law in the future - would have no real deterrent. Further Commissioner Powers did say that failure to disclose required information to the Commissioner's Office contributes to the erosion of transparency and accountability as required from members.

If David Brazil were seriously interested in accountability and serious about breaches in the law - he would do the honourable thing and resign - and let his constituents decide what the "reprimand" should be.

Then again this government giveth and taketh away from transparency and accountability. On the one hand we get new laws for disclosure and accountability for MHA's and on the other hand passes Bill 29 which erodes disclosure and accountability. In this respect I find David Brazil's attitude in keeping with his leader and Cabinet. This should be sufficiently concerning to us all.  


Here are the Links to Relevant Material

Commissioner Powers Report
House of Assembly Act
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
The Code Of Conduct
The Green Report - Rebuilding Confidence

Kent strips Nova Scotia Government! He has hidden concerns about Muskrat Falls?

The debate continued in the House of Assembly last night and I must say some interesting things came to light.

Steve Kent got up to speak to a Bill and spent almost his entire time disparaging the NDP government in Nova Scotia.

On Twitter he added the following:

The NDP approach: By end of fiscal year, Nova Scotians will have paid 45% more HST than four years ago. More than $500 million.

The NDP approach: A more than 30% increase in corporate taxes in four years of NDP government, while economy remains stagnant.

The NDP approach: Personal taxes in Nova Scotia increase 25% in four years, while population shrinks.

The NDP approach: Unemployment in Nova Scotia remains high, while personal income taxes grow 6.8% in 2013 and 2014

So this man who appointed Kathy Dunderdale to be Premier does not seem to be worried about Dexter's NDP approach.

Williams thought Dexter's position on Muskrat was very responsible, very forward thinking, after-all he agreed with Williams.

Dunderdale does not look uncomfortable with NDP Premier Dexter here:

or here:

and  then these comments in Hansard during the Muskrat discussion in 2012.

MR. KENNEDY: It might be helpful if I could make a suggestion to the Leader of the Third Party that she have a conversation with Premier Dexter. He could probably educate her on the benefits of this project, not only to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the people of Atlantic Canada and Canada as a whole. 


PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have Navigant, we have Manitoba Hydro, and we have the consumer advocate and his expert. We have Dr. Wade Locke who sometimes, I admit, is the second coming from the other side of the House, other times he is the devil incarnate, so it depends on what day of the week. We have a lot of respect for Dr. Locke. Mr. Speaker, we had the late Jack Layton. We have Jack Harris, we have Premier Dexter, we have the federal Government of Canada, and now we have Dean MacDonald. How many more (inaudible)?

and then this diddly by Minister Kennedy

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not aware of the Premier of Nova Scotia abruptly cancelling any meetings. I do know that the Premier of Nova Scotia, the NDP Premier, is very supportive of the Lower Churchill and Muskrat Falls Project.

Mr. Speaker, I was present at the meetings. We had a very good discussion about the status of the Emera-Nalcor agreements. We talked about the project in general. I can tell the Third Party opposite that the NDP in Nova Scotia are very committed to this project and it shows that Premier Dexter possesses some of that visionary scope that is possessed by this government.(emphasis added)

and this where Minister Kennedy takes instructive reminder:

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The President of Nalcor and the President of Emera were both present at this meeting. It was a wide-ranging discussion, Mr. Speaker, about the benefits of this project. Premier Dexter emphasized for us, Mr. Speaker, the importance of Muskrat Falls power to his province. Even though there could be power available from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia does not want to be held hostage by Quebec anymore than this Province. What Muskrat Falls allows us to do, Mr. Speaker, is build that alternate route that will allow us again to develop our resources to their fullest potential.

You know there are many other examples of praise and accolades for the NDP Premier of Nova Scotia by our PC Government.

Now - MHA Steve Kent - speaking on the government side - rips the daylights out of this "visionary" NDP Premier.

Kent has now presented one of the best reasons to question - once again - the Muskrat Falls deal.

Kent's description of the NDP in Nova Scotia likens them to the most inept, irresponsible, and finacially backward government in Canada today.

If that is the case - their support of the Muskrat deal - and the deal itself must be questioned - right Mr. Kent? 

  
 

The Jovial Setting in the House of Assembly

Please go to this LINK

Go to 7:03 of the recording and watch the Minister of Finance - Jerome Kennedy - congratulate the accomplishments of a sexual predator.

All MHA's should advise if they celebrated with the Minister knowing that Mark Yetman was a convicted sexual offender.

How is this permitted to stand in the Hansard of the People's House of Assembly.

An apology is owed to the women who were victims of Mark Yetman.

If any MHA was not aware of this circumstance prior to congratulating the sexual predator - are you willing to ask for a statement in the House apologizing to the women.

Further can legislation be tabled that would prevent violent sex offenders from playing on provincial teams while on bail - awaiting for sentencing.

There is no pride here for the Coach and administration of the team - they welcomed in a sexual predator.

He (Yetman) is not an example for young men and women - children - He is a disgrace.

This is not acceptable.

Where is the conscience of men and women serving the people in political office? These people are supposed to be our leaders.

Shame!

As for Minister Kennedy - the quote that most suits him is:

"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." Paul Keating former PM Australia

Esso, BMO, Eastlink, Canadian Tire and the House of Assembly

So now we can be certain - the discussion about bullying, violence against women, and crime in the House of Assembly is apparently just that - talk. Words that MHA's want people to hear them saying.

Understand this - Mark Yetman was stopping rubber discs from going into a net - in front of cheering crowds and apparently to the adulation of some Members of the House of Assembly - while knowing full well he had raped a young woman in her sleep.

and this:

This convict was playing hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador because of bail conditions not because it's where he wanted to play. He was in Ontario playing hockey with a University and he raped three women. Those are the circumstances which returned him to our province.

He was cheered on by some media outlets, at least one Minister of the Crown, adoring fans and many business sponsors after having been convicted of two other sexual assaults.

From the Ceebees site key sponsors for the team - which included the sexual predator - include Eastlink, BMO, Bud Light, Egg Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador, The Town of Harbour Grace, Esso, Canadian Tire Gas Bar, KIXX Country, Esso, and Rona.

Key questions for these companies who make money from thousands of women who buy their products is: Do you support through sponsorship of a team that includes a sexual predator -violence against women? Will you apologize to the women who were raped and all women? Were the people responsible or involved with procuring sponsorship for the corporate contribution aware that the CeeBees team included a convicted sexual offender - returned to NL in accordance with his bail conditions? 

Worse than that - A Town Council supported the team. Taxpayers of the province? 

There is NO excuse for dealing with this person in a different way than we deal with all sexual offenders. There is no excuse for positively mentioning the sexual predator's name in the People's House of Assembly.

There is no justification for treating this sexual predator any differently because he is a hockey player and on the team that won the Herder Cup.

Stop this hypocrisy and deal with this issue. If the House of Assembly was so outraged at the treatment of Gerry Rogers by Minister Darin King and Speaker Ross Wiseman - then why is the same House not doubly outraged at the praise given to a sexual predator in the House of Assembly.

Deal with it - if Mark Yetman did not rape three women he would not likely have been back in Newfoundland and Labrador - goal tending for the CeeBees winning team.

Finally - I can only feel bad for the men who were mentioned in the same sentence as him and feel worse for all the fine young men on the team who did not receive a mention.

Celebrating a Sexual Predator? House of Assembly Flap not over yet!

So the House of Assembly allowed Darin King to do "something" regarding Gerry Rogers? She is a pleasant, peaceful, compassionate human being - who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of her fellow man and woman.

There is nothing in the nature of this person that would condone any violence rather everything in her nature to condemn it.

So as an apparent ploy to eliminate further criticism of a failing government under failing leadership - all political knives turned on Gerry.

So Thursday in the House of Assembly Ms. Rogers asked about the closure of the Family Violence Intervention Court and the Premier responded by saying:

"I personally have been engaged in, Mr. Speaker, all of my adult life, and I can point to shelters, I can point to programs, I can point to funding of transition houses. I can point to gender and diversity agreements, Mr. Speaker, because at the heart of violence is a lack of access to economic ways of supporting yourself and your family, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of the work that we have done as a government with regard to this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everybody that it is important to understand the dynamics of violence in this Province and around the world. There has been, for me personally, a devastating ignorance of the impacts of violence and what violence looks like in the work of this government and the work of this House of Assembly during the last number of weeks.
Mr. Speaker, my record and the record of this government speaks for itself. Anti-violence has been something"

Well how about this! 

As one peruses the Hansard and notices the condemnation of critics of the government - one can only be shocked at who these same people celebrate. In that context - I am happy to be condemned. 

  One can be a sexual predator and get kudos from the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General for ones hockey prowess. If you however are opposed to government's position on anything you may receive his wrath?

They will impugn you with haste and apparent delight, thumps and cat-calling - but a sexual predator??
 
Hansard - March 19th - 2013 - MR. KENNEDY: It is with great pride, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to one of the greatest sports franchises in the history of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On Saturday night, March 16, the Eastlink CeeBee Stars captured the Herder Memorial Trophy for the eighth time in franchise history –

MR. KENNEDY: – and their fourth in the last eight years, pulling off what has been called one of the greatest upsets in the history of senior hockey in this Province.
This year's CeeBees team is a shining example of how hard work, heart, and determination in the face of adversity can pay off. After having won only seven games, Mr. Speaker, in the regular season, facing financial difficulties, and amidst rumours that the team may fold, the CeeBees made the playoffs on the last day of the regular season, defeating the Gander Flyers at home. They went on to eliminate the first place Grand Falls-Windsor team and then completed a sweep, Mr. Speaker, of your team, the Clarenville Caribous, before almost 2,000 fans at SW Moores Memorial Stadium.
Playing and winning in the face of adversity was personified by players like Terry Ryan, who returned to the lineup in game three just two weeks after he had been hospitalized with two broken ribs. Terry raised the Herder for the first time Saturday night. Ryan Delaney, named Herder MVP, was rewarded for his hard work and gritty play game after game. His line mate for game four, fourth liner Daniel Sparkes, played the game of his life and had a goal and two assists in ten minutes, including setting up the game winner. Players like Chris Sparkes defined the CeeBees spirit, after coming back in game six with staples in his lips because he did not want to miss the rest of the games. The CeeBees rode stellar goaltending by Mark Yetman and were led on and off the ice by their captain, veteran Keith Delaney, and assistant captains, Mike Dyke, Donnie Gosse, and Robert Slaney.
Special congratulations to Ian Moores, coach, for his fifth Herder, Mr. Speaker, and Peter George, who captured his fourth. I would also like to congratulate former coach Corey Crocker who, together with Ian and Peter, put together the team.

___________________________________________________________

So let's review this shall we?

Minister Kennedy has no problem as a lawyer, an officer of the court, a Minister of the Crown, a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General celebrating the sports accomplishments of a convicted sexual predator?

The Premier and her female colleagues have no problem allowing that celebration?

All one has to do is to read the "Surviving Sexual Assault" pamphlet Women's Policy Office regarding the make-up of sexual predators. Link HERE

And to make matters worse - subsequent to winning the now ruined Herder Trophy and the Minister's remarks in celebration of the predator - another shoe has dropped. In an agreed to Statement of Facts regarding the predator's third victim (a sleeping woman) - Yetman admitted to - in part - the following according to media reports :

The court heard Yetman and the other woman started getting intimate, but when she realized he didn't have a condom, she said he should leave because nothing was going to happen and she was tired.
"Mark Yetman had difficulty accepting her refusal," Settimi read from the statement of facts. "He initially held onto (the woman) and then followed her into the bathroom."
The woman was able to convince Yetman to go back to the living room, and when he did, she sent a text message to her own roommates to come get her and then ran out of the apartment wearing only shorts, a bra and a random jacket she found near the door.
Settimi told the court once she was out of the apartment, the woman started texting and calling the victim "in an attempt to rouse her from her sleep and warn her about the accused."
When Yetman realized the other woman had left the apartment, he went into the victim's bedroom.
While she was asleep, he removed her pajama bottoms and underwear and began having non-consensual intercourse with her, the court heard.    

So this government is opposed to violence against women?

So this government respects women?

I believe that by celebrating a person who is now sitting in jail for three convictions of sexual assault - the Minister has offended every woman in the province.


Now let's go a step further - here is a picture of many young men huddled around their goalie - the sexual predator - as they celebrate his performance.

And then this headline in the Compass Newspaper : New Heights for Mark Yetman

Then this quote in the same story:
Yetman's play has had a positive impact on his teammates as well.
“Players get so much energy and they have a sense of confidence when they have a guy back there, the goaltender, making all of these big saves,” said coach Ian Moores.

So in a place where if Gerry Rogers was only a Herder winning goaltender - not a word of malice would likely have been said - the Premier and her Ministers are yammering about violence, bullying, and the mistreatment of women?

Where is the media? 

Do you remember the condemnation of Lance Armstrong for cheating by using banned substances? That condemnation was before he admitted guilt. The man at least has a charitable foundation for Cancer.

Further he has been stripped of all the yellow jerseys.

Is the Premier more fearful of Gerry Rogers or Mark Yetman?

The thinking surrounding Mark Yetman - is similar to some of the thinking behind the cover-up of the Mount Cashel affair. Can we say that one's station in life be it behind a frock or in front of a net - gets you different treatment from the powers at be?

So they might remove themselves from Twitter for a following by a porn participant or explicit content and attempt to crucify Gerry Rogers for being a member of a Facebook group of thousands - wherein Gerry Rogers did not make threats.

Let's see if Dunderdale even passes this test.

The House is, by tradition, intolerant of any apparent misuse by its Members of the privilege of freedom of speech. It is a powerful immunity and Speakers have dealt decisively with Members who have appeared to be taking advantage of this privilege. Speakers have often cautioned Members that in expressing their opinions, they should not unfairly or needlessly attack the reputation of citizens or groups. 

Clearly in Newfoundland and Labrador the House is at it all the time. Where is the Speaker in this? Does Kathy understand "privilege"?

Premier does "privilege" mean if I were an Herder winning hockey player - you would not allow yourself or others to lie about me and others in the House of Assembly?


When Yetman was sentenced to three years for the third conviction of sexual assault the Judge said:
 “Make no mistake, this is conduct on your behalf that is simply not tolerated in our society and can never be tolerated in this society,” Judge Patrick Flynn told Yetman in the Superior Court of Justice in St. Catharines.

Not only has it been tolerated by allowing him to play hockey in our Province's Senior Hockey League - but the man has been celebrated in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. In the Hansard and on the Sex Offender Registry at the same time? Yes we surely know how to combat violence here in Newfoundland and Labrador. 

The Judge added: “Protect other women from yourself and people like you,” Justice Patrick Flynn said as Yetman looked on from the prisoner’s box in the Superior Court of Justice in St. Catharines.

The fellow brought 40 letters of reference to his sentencing including those from Teachers, Billets, and others who knew him.

The judge said he’d never seen so many reference letters. “It says a lot about your character,” Flynn said, “but these events happened in the dead of night in the bedroom of a sleeping woman. All the hockey coaches and the parish priest in Newfoundland weren’t there.”
Flynn said he found parts of the letters describing Yetman as a role model to school classes he’s visited and to hockey players coming up through the ranks disturbing. 
“Let’s hope when they look at your whole person, you are not a role model to them."

Headline from VOCM News April 21st. 2013 

 NL Has One of Highest Rates of Sexual Assault in Country

Should we really start asking some tough questions? Should we start by removing an automatic "privilege" for those playing hockey and winning some award?

The flap in the House of Assembly is NOT over - we have just scratched the surface. Time for us to clean up our act. 

As it relates to Mark Yetman - should he be stripped of his "accomplishments" from his conviction date forward? Sure he should and we should demand it.

Perhaps the Speaker could rule on this issue and remove those from the House of Assembly who knew Mark Yetman was a convicted sexual offender but celebrated him despite it.