When listening to the radio, watching television or reading the newspapers about events in this province, there seems to be a missing link. One that bridges all that information together and provides a way for people to contribute, express or lobby their concerns in their own time. After-all, this is our home and everyone cannot fit in Lukie's boat and paddle their way to Upper Canada, nor should we!
Yesterday Sue's Blog focused on the journalistic style of James McLeod in his story headlined "Nalcor audit won’t be done before retirement: AG".
Today let's look at some of the other information we can take from this interview.
The AG Terry Paddon is retiring at months end. He leaves behind an unfinished audit of specific operations of Nalcor.
The story does not tell us some important things.
How far along is the audit?
When did Paddon expect to finish it when it began?
Did he run into unforeseen difficulties in attaining the information he needed?
Was it Paddon's intent to finish the audit before he retired?
What does Paddon think the cost will be to finish it?
Is it more costly under a new Auditor General than if he completed it before he retired?
Did he find anything worth noting now?
Terry Paddon is one of those nice people. Not much - I've ever seen in his personality that would put people off. He is a professional by designation and as best I could tell - took his role seriously.
Paddon - however - missed a couple of key areas in his tenure with the Department of Finance and as Auditor General. He missed some real activity regarding the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (Equalization) - despite being alerted to it.
Equalization - as the program is normally referred to - primarily has been to the benefit of Quebec. The program which Stephen Harper promised he would change but then did not - I assume was kept whole for Quebec.
Harper's promise to remove royalties from non-renewable resources from the formula - would have meant that our oil revenues could have served to improve the lives of future generations so much more. That was a digression. (still angry at CPC for deliberately conning Newfoundland and Labrador and "Seantor" Manning's standing at Harper's side as he did it)
BREAKING NEWS
Many people may not have noticed - but Hydro-Quebec does a significant
amount of public program spending. They have been doing that for
decades. Why is the question....
ANSWER
Back in 2000 Stephane Dion then President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appeared on Bill Rowe's Open-Line. I asked questions the Minister could not answer on line - so he did as he promised - wrote me the answers to my questions.
Below is the response:
"On the question of the treatment of Churchill Falls under the Equalization program, it should be noted that an adjustment has been made in the calculation of Equalization payments since 1982 which takes into account how Churchill Falls hydro is priced. Equalization payments are based on the relative ability of each province to raise taxes; and the Churchill Falls adjustment shifts some capacity to tax hydro sites from Newfoundland to Quebec. The net effect is to reduce Quebec's annual Equalization payments while raising Newfoundland's. Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's Equalization."
Right from the get-go we were being further penalized on the Upper Churchill - while Quebec reaped even more benefits. Then the formula was changed to reflect the real contract (albeit not enough in my opinion).
Were we ever compensated for the past - NO.
The real kicker though was found accidentally in the last sentence of Dion's response. "Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls
translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec
government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's
Equalization."
That little remark was an eye opener for anybody watching Hydro-Quebec - as I certainly was.
The hundreds of News Releases coming out of Hydro-Quebec in those years were phenomenal. Now it made sense. Before profit - expenses come out. If Hydro-Quebec delivered or helped to deliver public programming on behalf of the Government of Quebec - they lowered their profits - while the province of Quebec saved equalization money - which gave the province even more to spend on public programs.
In short - Hydro-Quebec making billions off our resource - reduced their profits - lowered remitances to the government - in some years almost to zero - to avoid the loss of equalization. This in turn exponentially increased the value from Labrador resources for Quebec.
At the time Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was making money and was remitting profits to Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time we could have taken advantage of the same. Today Nalcor is not "profitable" - only by force of the PUB, our laws, and oil activity. Nalcor never did do the investment and development that Hydro-Quebec has successfully.
Terry Paddon was aware of this and we did nothing. We sat on our hands and did nothing.
The political and media spin in Newfoundland and Labrador became we MUST become a "have" province. The romantic - naive - irrelevant title of "have". The "have being based on a formula that could see a financially destitute province be "have" while a thriving growing super power province be "have not".
Let me be more clear: Quebec has an unemployment rate of 6% Newfoundland and Labrador is at almost 15%. The population in NL was 530,854 in 1971 and 528,817 in 2017 meanwhile the population in Quebec was 6,137,305 in 1971 and 8,394,034 in 2017. Provincial debt NL is $23,052 per person while in Quebec it is $22,104. This does not include the albatross of 13 Billion for Muskrat Falls. Then we take into account that Nalcor is not financing all it's own obligations - we put in a fair chunk and it is only barely profitable because of oil operations. When compared to Hydro-Quebec which has hundreds of millions in profits - without oil revenues.
Paddon failed by not describing what equalization truly is and how the system works. It's not all his fault - but political masters should not have had that much say.
The media - should really get its collective act together and do some real reporting. It should make itself knowledgeable about important issues and policies before it puts out fluff - this denying the people of balanced information on which they can make a decision.
It is no longer acceptable to have zero leadership in politics and zero accountability of the news media.
We are broke. We continue to repeat mistakes. We continue to dream without doing anything that remotely will help us achieve our dream of prosperous future.
By the way - are there any MHA's willing to wade in to this discussion or members of our "press corps"?
James McLeod presented a news story on October 7th in the Telegram.
It was headlined "Nalcor audit won’t be done before retirement: AG"
As usual - pose a question - get an answer - print answer. No follow-up, no definitions of terms used, and no independent thought respecting the answer.
I'll get into Auditor General in another post - but for now - let's watch this "journalistic" masterpiece unfold.
The conversation between the two must have wandered into the need for a forensic audit. McLeod reports as follows on that question:
Paddon
was cautious when talking about a potential forensic audit for Muskrat
Falls. He said he knows it wouldn’t be cheap though.
“I’m not quite sure that the word ‘forensic audit’ is
appropriate. I mean, I think really what people are looking for is for
somebody to go in and look at, perhaps, the decision-making process and
the execution process, and those sorts of things,” he said.
“It would take a lot of time and a lot of resources. The outcome? I have no idea what the outcome would be.”
IN MY OPINION HERE IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED:
1. Paddon was cautious but did say it wouldn't be cheap though. Question: what's cheap? why are you cautious?
2. Paddon was not quite sure that the word 'forensic audit' is appropriate.
Question: why is it not appropriate? what part of a forensic audit would be inappropriate?
3. Paddon believes he knows what critics are calling for - decision making and execution process Question: how does that fall out of the purview of a forensic audit? Why do you believe "people" are only looking at those components?
4. Paddon believes it would take a lot of time and a lot of resources. Questions: How much time would this forensic audit need? How much would it cost. Cost relative to what? What might be the cost of NOT doing it?
5. Paddon has no idea what the outcome would be. Question: is that perhaps why people want one done? Is the reason you can't speculate on the outcome because you do not know what perimeters would be set?
and of course: Based on the doubling of the costs, hidden documents, continued extension on time-table for completion, independent contractors information hidden from shareholder. Don't these things present a red-flag to an accountant?
AFTER THIS MCLEOD SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT ANOTHER ACCOUNTING SOURCE AND ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS.
Now let's do a bit of research ourselves and see if a forensic audit is exactly what we are asking for and know that we need.
Forensic auditing is a specialization within the field of accounting, and forensic auditors often provide expert testimony during trial proceedings. Most large accounting firms have a forensic auditing department.
The audit covers a wide range of investigative activities performed by accountants. The process may also include serving as an expert witness in a fraud trial.
The investigation process follows a similar path as a regular audit of financial statements. The steps can include planning, review and a report. If the investigation was undertaken to discover the presence of fraud, evidence is presented to uncover or disprove the fraud and determine the amount of the damages suffered. The findings are presented to the client — and possibly the court should the case go that far.
During the planning stage, the forensic auditing team establishes
objectives, such as identifying if fraud has been committed, how long it
has been going on, the parties involved, quantifying the financial loss
and providing fraud prevention measures. While gathering evidence, the
team collects evidence in the proper manner in order for it to be used
in a court case. There are various techniques used to gather evidence. A
report is produced for the client with the findings. Lastly, those
involved in the forensic audit may be asked to present their findings to
the court.
Forensic audits uncover several types of fraud. The most common involves
theft, including cash, inventory and fraudulent payments. Another type
of fraud is corruption, such as a conflict of interest, bribery and
extortion. The last major category is financial statement fraud. This
relates to misstatements of the financials of a company.
There are many other sites - but this should suffice to ensure that what we are asking for is exactly what we want and need.
This blog has already posted the RED FLAGS post on the need for a forensic audit.
McLeod should have put to a few known critics - the responses of the Auditor General and get another take on it.
This - let me find a source who has a title and a designation - and I can write a news piece is flawed and can lead to the readership relying too much value on the information presented.
This is the spin of spin and is yet another artificial deterrent to completing a forensic audit and attempting to curtail increased calls for a forensic audit.
It seems to me there are many people who just want this whole sordid mess to disappear. Unfortunately for them - social media is alive and growing.
Russell Wangersky should know better. He likes to wax poetic. He likes to believe that his columns are of intellectual value. His current column titled: 22 words with a very big bite is not intellectual but is naively romantic.
This is yet another example of Telegram employees giving a pass to politicians regarding Muskrat.
Since Dwight Ball orated - to an elite corporate community - that his government will conduct a public inquiry on the boondoggle - Telegram employees have been joining in an attempt to calm the seas of public dissent. When I say joining - I don't mean collaborating - I mean they are buying the government spin.
His piece begins with the sentence: "The single dirtiest trick played on electrical customers in this province hasn’t hit home yet. But it will."
Wangersky's assumption that the Muskrat disaster is a dirty trick played on consumers is downplaying the obvious gross negligence, the continued and often deliberate obfuscation, the real engineering concerns, the failure of equipment before the project is even finished, the doubling of the budget, the unending changes to project completion dates, and the number of red flags that demand a forensic audit. It also negates the real possibility of criminal negligence, fraud, and bribery.
When the World Bank blacklisted SNC Lavalin and its subsidiaries in 2013 from "bidding on its global projects under its fraud and corruption policy" - while Wangersky proclaims "..dirtiest trick.." - is irresponsible.
Muskrat Falls stinks to the high heavens - it must be stopped. How do we know that documents are not being shredded as we speak?
There remains a number of executives at Nalcor who have been there since sanctioning. How is this even possible? How is it possible that we paid a king's ransom for Ed Martin?
So when Wangersky describes this fiasco as a dirty trick - he brings to mind events like fooling a candidates supporters into showing up at the wrong location. This is not a dirty trick.
The most offensive and irresponsible part of this column is his concluding thought: "It’s water over the dam. The money’s gone anyway. The best thing we can
do is to learn from the mistake, allow for independent oversight and not
step in a pile of crap like this again."
I can only conclude that this intelligent and thinking human being must be bored with Muskrat, be suffering writers block, or simply and inexplicably buying the Tobinesque spin delivered by Dwight Ball.
Learn from this mistake? How? By suffering bankruptcy? It's water over the dam? How does Russell know what we would be responsible for if illegal activities were found during a forensic audit? How does Russell know that the assets could not be used for another deal? He doesn't know.
The Upper Churchill is a fiasco because of the contractual and economic contracts. The Upper Churchill is significantly successful in it's construction. It was on time and on budget. It stands as one of the best hydro facilities in the world.
So here's what we learned. What we did right in development of the Upper Churchill - on time and on budget - we completely reversed for Muskrat Falls. The stinging and gross minimal return for Newfoundland and Labrador on the Upper Churchill - we repeat for Muskrat.
If you went back 20 years and said we are going to repeat the mistakes of Churchill Falls - politicians would have been politically lynched.
Now that the main stream media in Newfoundland and Labrador have been exposed for their unquestioning support of Danny Williams Muskrat fiasco - the line is "water over the dam"?
Let's watch the same media as they spin the lines of the current failed administration. Watch as they play dirty tricks and marginalize the critics of this continued boondoggle. Watch as they contort to explain that giving away Gull Island to Quebec is going to be a good thing.
Telegram employee James McLeod has come out with a challenge - wait no - more than a challenge - an ultimatum "..put up, or shut up".
Yes the "reporter" who appears to have a similar love-hate relationship with Tweeters to that of one Mr. Trump - has determined what our real problem is.
All "serious, credible.." people need to step up and run for political office. They need to give up their "...paycheque, your own reputation, your own comfortable lifestyle" and throw their hat in the ring. If they do not - McLeod demands they be honest and go away out of it.
First of all the "people" James talks about as credible - are as determined by him. They are people who have a paycheck apparently a comfortable one and a "reputation" - supposedly good. There are many of them according to our newspaper sleuth - he's talked to dozens.
Then there is this jewel: "There are other reasons to stay on the sidelines, too: the demands of an
unsympathetic press corps, ..."
1. the demands of an unsympathetic press corps
There was a break in my writing here - my belly was hurting from laughter.
Which definition of unsympathetic is James using?
a) not feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy
Can't be that one. I would suggest that rightly most express sympathy when a politician has a family or life event of tragedy.
b) not showing approval or favor toward an idea or action
Maybe that one - in which case I would say the majority of media have been very sympathetic both of Muskrat Falls and the current fiasco of a Public Inquiry - as the project continues to motor on.
c) not friendly or cooperative; unlikable
Maybe this one - but again the opposite is true. Many of our "reporters" "journalists" "columnists" and "announcers" are very cooperative and friendly to politicians. They have actually fawned over many of them - like Danny, Tom, Danny, the other Brian, Danny.
The "unsympathetic press corps" he speaks of does not exist in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well no - that's not true - they are a very unsympathetic press corps to critics of the government - critics of Muskrat Falls. Many of them have tried in every way to marginalize such critics and have used words such as partisans, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists. How nasty....
I can assure Mr. McLeod - that many good private citizens - who have given freely of their time, effort, and intelligence to try and persuade a fawning media and public to beware of things like our current Muskrat boondoggle have risked their reputations, their paycheques, their "comfortable" lives and that of their families. The political parties, their trolls, their indoctrinated, their minions have on many occasions joined with or used the media to disparage "good" people.
He concludes this meandering thought by saying "politics is hard". Hard? Hard how? Hard to go to BBQ's in the rain? Hard to pound your hands in the House of Assembly? Hard to vote ignorantly on legislation? Hard to file for your allowances? Hard to keep up with Twitter or to block people from their Twitter accounts? Hard? Hard to make changes to your own pension plans? Hard to walk the streets once every 4 years? Really James - is that what you call hard? Hard is - an announcement like: I have ordered the shutdown of Muskrat Falls until a forensic audit and a review of project engineering is complete. It is really really easy to say - got to finish it now - cause it's almost done.
If you want to do a journalistic piece - I can recommend several.
1. Research and compare the various proposals to develop the Lower Churchill or any part thereof.
2. Research and compare the various hydro projects completed in Newfoundland and Labrador - their costs, engineering, contracts, the generation and associated transmission.
3. How did Danny Williams and Ed Martin pull the wool over media eyes regarding the many excuses for Muskrat Falls.
4. Do a complete expose of political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador and how they control the pool of MHA's and keep good people out.
5. Investigate and report on the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and how Quebec has used/uses Hydro to their advantage while our province watches on the sidelines.
I can ascertain from your articles that you know very little about the real history of Hydro and are therefore unable to ask the questions necessary to get information the public needs. This is true of the majority of your colleagues in the "press corps".
I challenge you and your colleagues to research your topic or stop writing.
I believe having a robust, knowledgeable, and fearless media would go a long way to improving the lot of our province. It might help "good" people feel more comfortable about running.
As for "good" people running. The media of Newfoundland and Labrador chased Danny Williams year after year until he ran. He was promoted without test, he was glorified by the media before "past the overpass" had ever laid eyes on him. He was touted by the media - he was put on a pedestal by the media - before he ever ran. I get the feeling you're gearing up to promote another messiah as perhaps leaked to you by the Liberal Party. The media in Newfoundland and Labrador are famous for creating messiahs and the childlike rumour mills for one millionaire after another.
The media has virtually controlled the sound bites,
the desired quotes, and the forum in which "good" people could
communicate. The good news is that Twitter, Blogs, and Facebook make
communication among citizens much more accessible.
Hook line and sinker comes to mind with the flurry of media reporting positively on the announcement of a Public Inquiry into the Muskrat Falls debacle.
Ironically - they too are taken off the hook for the disastrous, corrupt, misleading, inefficient, and incompetent boondoggle.
Most media here in the province acted as a facilitator for all the Muskrat spin of the Tories and now that the "naysayers", "partisans", and "conspiracy theorists" have been proven right - the media - like the politicians just want it to go away.
The media are wearing a bit of this fiasco and it would be very convenient for them - to have those memories fade.
Was Tobin in for the dinner? Did he help out with this media spin farce? After all the 3 amigos are known for this type of thing.
In either case let's take a review. Pam Frampton's article ends with this sentence: "All I can figure is that the 29 per cent who support Davis are the same
misguided lot still waiting for Danny Williams to return as our one true
messiah." This follows Frampton's own headline, "Hallelujah — Muskrat Falls inquiry’s a go".
Handel would be proud.
Frampton could have and should have mused about the venue for the announcement and the audience it was personally delivered to.
The Muskrat frenzy continued in earnest - while chowing down the meal the latest Messiah had prepared for them. For them religion is money - the Messiah is the facilitator of the money - and the Hallelujah is the message that the money will continue.
Frampton stayed away from the obvious - that is - this type of announcement on a situation that has all the potential of bankrupting the province should have been done in a public forum.
Frampton then waded into the latest polls on the politico and marched right up on the pulpit and decreed that 29% of people who support Paul Davis must be the same "misguided" ones who supported Danny Williams.
That is laughable - the "misguided" ones? Is that the percentage who supported Danny Williams - or was there a tremendous number of more "misguided" people at the time? You are making fun of them?
I'd say it's a tad likely that the media were as enthralled with that Messiah as the "misguided" ones you speak of.
Frampton's jubilation regarding the reactionary - too little to late - non-detailed - Tobinesque announcement that happened to be given to an elite Muskrat skinned audience - is naive. It is not an acceptable response of a journalist, a political commentator, or a columnist.
There were so many questions that needed - no begged - to be asked.
1. Why is it too late to stop the project? - details please
2. Why not begin with a forensic audit? - details please
3. How does any of this protect the indigenous people? - details please
4. Why is the Premier using a political fundraiser to announce a Public Inquiry?
5. Why did the Premier change his mind on the timing of the Inquiry? details please
6. What are the plans with Gull Island and Quebec? details please
7. Why are you not stopping the project until Inquiry is complete - considering the continued and serious questions regarding the North Spur - and the potential to uncover corruption or fraudulent activity? details please
and so many more...
The fact that a significant number of Newfoundland and Labrador media fall in the category that Frampton calls "the misguided lot still waiting for Danny Williams to return as our one true
messiah" - albeit more focused on the Galway messiah and Costco's second coming - demonstrates one reason as to why we are in this mess now.
Ball needed an exit, Frampton needed to believe that in some way her much too late need to question the Muskrat boondoggle - played some role in getting an Inquiry called, the Muskrat elite needed reassurance, and the media generally just want the past to go away.
Next up - James McLeod and his call to so-called naysayers, partisans, and conspiracy theorists to prove their love of Newfoundland and Labrador - followed by Wangersky's learn from our mistakes lecture.
The political signs in the news were and are a demonstration of expression by people who feel the Premier is not serving them well. This is a legitimate form of protest in our democracy. Considering the most recent CRA poll - the signs and their owners reflect the feelings of a significant number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Rather than attempt to deal with those legitimate feelings toward a newbie Premier and Cabinet - the government decided that removing the sight of a protest was far more important than dealing with it.
Many people in the province have been struggling to determine if the Premier and his government are deceptive, grossly incompetent or both.
What we do know is that:
1. Ed Martin was given a very questionable and costly severance package,
2. the Nalcor Board went rogue and government did nothing to protect us,
3. The Muskrat Falls debacle continues,
4. The Government missed significant contract deadlines to begin negotiations with two significant Unions,
5. Delivered a budget completely contrary to the election promises (claiming ignorance of the scale of the financial mess left by the PC's).
Each of these topics deserve their own attention and I will - as one citizen - do my part and post separately on each one.
For now I will focus on the sign issue.
What makes this so relevant is the attempt by government to cover-up involvement by a staffer in the Premier's Office to thwart democratic expression and what is a growing pattern of deception, incompetence or both.
The CBC uncovered the fact that the Communications Director for the Premier, Nancy O'Connor, emailed the Memorial University for 3 reasons:
1. She wanted to know who owned poles on the parkway,
2. If the University owned the poles did they have a policy about posters on them, and
3 If the policy was no posters allowed - would they take them down.
Nancy O'Connor was clearly looking for a way to remove the signs calling for the Premier's resignation.
Nancy O'Connor was not seeking to police MU on its policies on campus.
Nancy O'Connor does not know the most basic information about our electrical supply system.
Nancy O'Connor is either incompetent or dismissive regarding the very basics of democracy.
Nancy O'Connor placed a priority on this minor albeit politically annoying issue when compared with the issues that generated the poster campaign.
The priority to protect her boss from having to see his political mugshot on the way to work is not the action of a competent communications "expert". This in part (albeit a hidden one until yesterday) is what in part caused the sign scandal.
O'Connor's email was clear and it was an attempt to have political expression quashed.
The Minister of Transportation and Works is on the record as saying it was not his decision to remove the signs and if it were it may very well have been a different decision.
So while the Minister is concerned about the actions of a worker conducting unacceptable "operational" tasks - the Premier's Director of Communication was out attempting to achieve the same result.
The Premier in a scrum yesterday on this issue answered the first question by stating the actions of Nancy O'Connor "...it really wasn't about taking the posters down."
The public are left again asking the question incompetence or deception?
O'Connor's email was clear - she was seeking a way to have the posters removed.
Then the Premier said the call (email) of O'Connor "that would be expected of someone working in the Premier's Office or a Director of Communications simply to get some clarification on what the policy was around those posters." Here - once again - the public are left to ask incompetence or lies? In a government where the overriding belief is supposed to be supportive of free political expression as part of democracy - a Communications Director for the Premier would not be asking the University about it's poster policies.
The next question and answer is telling. The Premier was asked why he did not tell the public about this when asked about it three weeks ago. The Premier responded, "The question was about taking down those posters. There was no direction given from the Premier's Office in any way shape or form in taking down those policies (not a typo) ."
This is - at best - obfuscation. Let's review the actual body of the email from Nancy O'Connor to the University "Telling DB to resign ... Are these poles belonging to MUN or Power?
And are ppl allowed to put posters on them? If not can someone take them
down?"
The request was made by Nancy O'Connor to "take them down". The fact that she was unsuccessful as she was barking up the wrong pole owner and trivializing free expression only demonstrates her ignorance not her intent. The fact that she was unsuccessful does not remove the Premier's Office from the same thinking and actions used by somebody working for the Department of Transportation and Works.
Lastly the Telegram's James McLeod asked the logical question after the Premier stated earlier that O'Conner's call (email) "...it really wasn't about taking the posters down". He asked "but she did ask to take these posters down?" The Premier responded "if indeed the policy was that they were allowed to be there - the answer came back and said this was not a contradiction or indeed there was no policy around this they were allowed to be there."
It clearly was about taking the posters down if O'Connor could get another party to do it. To say it was not about taking the posters down is a deceptive comment. The fact that O'Connor spent time on a Sunday to find someway to take the posters down and was unsuccessful leads the mind to ask about the coincidence that an unknown person in the Department of Transportation and works was thinking the same political way on that Sunday.
This is what makes this story go far beyond posters or signs. It adds to a pattern of incompetence or deception or both. This is what is driving the polls for the Liberals and the Premier off a cliff.
I would need to hear the response from the University to determine if Nancy O'Connor found out from them that not only did they not own the poles but that the real owner allows posters. If the response did not state this as a fact - how did O'Connor ever determine that posters were allowed on the poles. Did O'Conner ever ask the city? Newfoundland Power? Nalcor? Ministers?
Let's imagine for a moment that MU owned the poles and had a policy of no posters - is it really the job of the Premier's Office to police MU to ensure it's following its poster rules? Is that the priority? Of course not - instead it looks like the work of a rookie zealous party partisan.
If a manager in the Department of Works and Services got word that the Premier's Office were trying to find a way to remove posters from utility poles - perhaps they decided they were assisting the Premier's Office in achieving its objective.
I repeat from yesterday, if Nancy O'Connor - who has stated experience in communications regarding Nalcor and Muskrat Falls - does not know who owns utility poles and has no resources to find out other than a University colleague - she should be fired. In a Telegram story this morning one of the people involved in the poster campaign said “We didn’t go out and do this willy nilly. We actually read the
municipal guidelines and made sure what we were doing was not illegal,” (emphasis added) Instead we watch a Premier protecting a senior staffer in the same way he protected Ed Martin and the former Board until the contract and severance package became public.
One more line of questions: why did this reportedly seasoned communications professional concentrate on these posters on a Sunday? Did the Chief of Staff give her a call? Did anybody encourage her to take on this useless waste of time? Perhaps I am being harsh and somebody else should be fired. Perhaps this pattern of behavior is not coming from the Director of Communications - maybe it's higher up.
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.
Get your pencils out and mark down how many times Murphy says Newfoundland or Newfoundlanders without any reference to Labrador. Despite the CBC's caption below the video: The National's Rex Murphy looks at Kathy Dunderdale's exit from the top
post of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. In case you missed
his latest essay, click on the video above to watch. Murphy refuses to say Labrador.
If Mr. Murphy has a problem with the constitutional name change precipitated by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - maybe he should tell us.
Now let's get to the content of his opinion on Premier Dunderdale's resignation. At least we know his is an opinion and not news - as Mr. McLeod of the Telegram likes to do.
He makes the following points:
1. Kathy Dunderdale following her own script on leaving
2. There was no political or personal scandal or turbulence to make her step aside
3. The "heavy recent storm" caused her problems - with a blackout
4. Sane response to political difficulties
For Rex to believe that rushing back from a vacation in Florida - with rumours abound on potential defections and caucus dissatisfaction - to quit - a few months after a convention wherein there was "solid support" - was a person following their own script is detached.
To believe that Dunderdale was not experiencing extreme turbulence following downed polls not poles - is detached.
To say that part of her misfortune was rolling blackouts from a "heavy recent storm" is detached and just out-in-out incorrect.
To say that the Premier's was a sane response to political difficulties - must mean she was daft. The easier way to deal with it was to listen to the loud voices of the people of Newfoundland AND Labrador telling her they did not like her direction. Only a less than sane person keeps banging their head of the same wall of resistance over and over again while expecting a different outcome.
Perhaps Rex Murphy should seek the PC leadership:
1. He displays arrogance
2. He likes to spin
3. He could care less what the people think - it's Newfoundland - not Newfoundland and Labrador
4. His dismissal of Labrador for the benefit of the Island of Newfoundland
Really Mr. Murphy if this is the best you can do - perhaps you should follow Ms. Dunderdale.
The story begins by outlining rumours about who may seek the leadership of the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party.
It quickly turns into another Liberal bashing through the bias pen of the reporter.
The subheading reads: "Throwing stones" In this paragraph McLeod talks about tweets by Liberals regarding the Tory delegate style convention. What it does not say - is there have been Tory tweets as well taking smacks at the Liberal convention style.
McLeod then adds that it is unclear what glass ceiling the Liberal party broke as they elected a middle-aged man. If McLeod is using a strict interpretation of glass ceiling - with feminist meaning - then I would suggest - the open leadership of the Liberal party allowed many thousands of women to vote for the next leader - without restriction of finance to attend a convention, without restriction of geography, and without restriction of conflicting commitments to job and family. If one were to use a more broad interpretation of glass ceiling - where men and women could be included in the advancement - then obviously over 20,000 people voting in a leadership election for any party in our province - not only broke it but shattered it.
McLeod then says "it was the PC Party that first put a woman in the role of Premier". If James were actually producing news not spin - he might have opined that there were rumours of backroom deals to keep men interested in the role from running. It is also interesting that McLeod finds that anybody putting a woman anywhere is somehow breaking a glass ceiling.
The next subheading reads: "Delegates decide" - and in that paragraph McLeod paraphrases something allegedly said by PC Party President Sheahan. He said the Liberals were so thoroughly decimated — without active
district associations, donors or membership lists — that they needed to
use their leadership race to rebuild the mangled party.
Right of the top - this is an example of Tories once again taking smacks at the Liberal process and further ignores the obvious balance to that statement.
The Tories are probably using the delegate style convention because they have been decimated in the polls and must raise some excitement to rebuild the battered party. The rumours of so many people running may simply be a set-up by the PC's in an attempt to show artificial interest in the publicly admonished party. Names like Ottenheimer, Skinner, Manning, and Oram - Tory stalwarts not new blood - and a bunch of Cabinet Ministers positioning themselves to be a king/queen maker.
The other obvious thing here is that the PC's that McLeod says put the female Premier in office - are the same group that so obviously threw her out and the same bunch that are acting now like it was all Dunderdale's fault.
There are some real problems with much that McLeod reports on - but this one is Duffyesque and shows a real bias.
For a Party that has avoided a real leadership contest in almost two decades - 19 years - the choice of a delegate style event seems underwhelming.
In a country where provincial and federal parties are opening up the leadership process to all but children - the Newfoundland and Labrador Tories are determined to keep this in their controlled house.
The question is why?
When the Party was at its height - in popularity - somewhere holding on to the coattails of Danny Williams - people were kept at bay from challenging the "I don't want this job" interim Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
At first there were rumors that several caucus members would throw their hats in - then some speculation on outside interests. Brad Cabana paid his money - but was blocked from even a challenge - to what the party interests wanted. In the end - no takers.
So now the field has become wide open (so to speak) for any select individuals to step forward. As mentioned in an earlier post - I believe this process is taking on such flurry now because particular corporate interests wee unsuccessful in getting their chosen Liberal leader.
Such as all this is - why shut the people of the province out? Why not allow all to vote who want to vote? Why use delegates on a floor instead of the more progressive and open approach of letting everybody cast their own votes?
Instead of over 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians casting individual votes - as was the way with the Liberal Party - late last year - we are going to see about 500 district delegates and some ex-officio's engage in some good old backroom politics and deals.
For a party that says it wants to listen to people more, engage them more, and be more open and accountable - their first act of contrition - is to control the party once again from within.
The slight of hand thing has already been set in place with wannabe - really wannabe - Cabinet Minister - Sandy Collins - referring to the Liberal Convention this way "we should strive to repeat your process. I really liked the sounds of crickets in the half filled room. Tumble weed nice touch."
Sandy has taken over from Minister Kent who used to do the useless hacking until he was placed in Cabinet. Of course like children - if they see another child being rewarded for bad behavior - similar behavior may follow.
In either case - what the Liberal process did was allow everybody to cast their own private vote and to choose a second third and fourth choice. The fact is over 20,000 people participated directly in that democratic process.
Collin's instructed position is that we would rather stuff 500 in a room via delegate selection - so the optics would be better. He likes the sounds of cheers and wants to be taken to a room and be smoozed into voting for one or another.
The 500 or so who attend may well represent only 1000 or less people. You and I will never know unless we attend each and every district association meeting.
In our democracy you don't get a separate vote for the Premier - so a leadership contest is the only inclusion there is. When you strip that to a delegate convention - you may party hardy and hoop and holler - but you are doing nothing to directly involve tens thousands of people.
So here we go again - the method of communications - is key - not the message. That's why they say Dunderdale was dumped. Pile people in a room - they are delegates - therefore they should have their expenses paid. Pile people in a room - looks like the party is growing in its enthusiasm. Pile people into a room and feed the media cameras.
Let's not forget - not that long ago people piled into a room for now former Premier Kathy Dunderdale. The media reported that all was happy in Toryland. In fact Telegram reporter James McLeod headlined "Support for Premier rock solid at convention". This was September - just 4 months ago.
Now after 19 years of no leadership contest - after appointing and anointing the chosen - the Tories are going to the backrooms to pick a leader.
The message has not changed - the Tories are putting more lipstick on a pig.
I'm starting to wonder what the inside scoop is on future employers for certain of our public figures. Take for instance the Newfoundland and Labrador lost son Tim Powers - the Ontarian in him has certainly taken hold with his "ehs" and Ed Martin and Dawn Dalley of Nalcor - they are turning right into Haligonians (not a flower) with their "folks" this and "folks" that.
Hows (notice my change here) about some fun not funny speculation eh?
Tim the Conservative Voice Powers might be lining up to take on a federal seat - or even Dunderdale's job - after all - Upper Canada - needs some "trained" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to carry the Ottawa torch. Maybe he is back to "burn all the boats" particularly with his Crosbie heritage.
Then there's Ed and Dawn perhaps not in Orlando (not a singing group) preparing for a change of employer as Halifax based Emera continues its privatization march throughout our land - hauling natural resource wealth from the health and education budgets of our province and into the outstretched and "well connected" arms of the elite offshore.
If Kathy is listening to Ed and Ed marches to Williams Symphony No. 5 - then the fluid movement of redundancies will continue to mount for the 3 amigos.
Quite the state we have here - fibre optical illusions - power/s ball jackpot - and one continuing joke on us the people.
The next couple of years are going to be dandy. I wonder what's in the offing for us "gull"ible people.
Wonder what the New Dawn's Agreement 2014 will look like. I should look toward the Mc"Cleods" where James and Cathy MacBennett may be talking.
Perhaps James McLeod of the Telegram can let us know if he got anywhere with the Premier as she continued to attack critics and psychoanalyse them.
In Dunderdale's discussion with the reporter, she managed to focus more on her critics than on anything of substance.
First off the mark is Ms. Dunderdale's assessment that the year has been good once you get past the "political noise". She is in politics right?
Next our Premier "wished people could set aside political posturing and gamesmanship".
Followed up with this assessment regarding the fishery, Dunderdale dismissed a lot of the rhetoric as “foolishness” and said,
“I would like to cut through all of these agendas and positions and so
on.”
Muskrat Falls? Well Dunderdale says the constant drumbeat of criticism from the Liberal Opposition
was mostly picking away at tiny “snapshots” of the project, instead of
considering the larger picture.
As for the House of Assembly our great leader said The criticism for leaving the House closed was driven mostly by the NDP and a handful of pundits online.
And how does our Premier know this? “I’ve got a Twitter account; I know who’s making the noise. It’s the
same people who are making the noise about everything else, and it’s
politically driven,”
And this from the partisan of the year - “I think it’s really important to discriminate between what’s political noise driven within the machine of a party.”
Then the most telling line of the article by McLeod: Dunderdale argued that leaving the legislature closed doesn’t really matter to ordinary people.
Then the leader of the Progressive Conservatives demonstrated her math skills by saying: “We’ve got more political representatives on the ground than any other
political party; we have more volunteers than any other political party
in this province, and we have more supporters of a dozen different
ilks,” she said. “We’re not out of touch with what people are saying,
and this is not an issue.”
Let's end this "enlightening" piece of fluff with this: The thing about politics, Dunderdale said, is that when you fail, you fail publicly.
“There’s a lot of risk involved in it,” she said, but added that in
the past year, she can’t think of any time when she’s faced that sort of
public failure.
If McLeod was any more successful in asking the Premier to answer specifically who and what she is talking about - he's not letting on. Just another day of media allowing the Premier to throw out innuendo in an attempt to warn her critics that she has them psychoanalysed and is watching them.
Sue's Blog will take each of the Premier's comments and blog individually on them.
Below is a tweet from Mr. McLeod - a reporter with the Telegram.
This is offensive, intrusive, and unnecessary. James the two MHA's were sworn in.
I will repeat that journalists in this province are going to have to buck up. There are many things I want to know about both MHA's but they are relative to the job they will be doing for us the people.
As you read the tweet - just think of other things that could have been inserted.
