Why Judy Manning?

Why Judy Manning?

That certainly is a reasonable question considering she has never been elected.

Why Judy Manning?

Why not John Ottenheimer who garnered half the support of the delegates at the convention?

Why not John Ottenheimer as he has considerable experience?

Why Judy Manning?

How does the Premier know her?

What does he know about her career and experience - considering the job ahead?

Why Judy Manning?

Apparently this really has nothing to do with the Attorney General having to be a lawyer because the Premier did not stop there. Davis added Status of Women, Fire and Emergency Services and the entire portfolio of Public Safety (which now includes Justice).

Why Judy Manning?

Is she a long time Tory or have significant Tory connections outside Senator Fabian Manning?

If you really felt that despite having a lawyer who IS elected take the position of Attorney General - then why Judy Manning?

What puts her above other choices in the legal community?

Was anybody else asked?

Did Felix decline? If so is he planning to resign?

Did Ottenheimer say no? Was he even asked?

Why Judy Manning?

It is particularly interesting since she claims she won't run in any upcoming by-elections but in the general election only.

This certainly demonstrates bad judgement. She could have accepted under the condition she will seek opportunity to be elected at the earliest opportunity. That would have shown respect for the people - but no - she accepts a mandate Paul Davis and Paul Davis alone bestowed upon her.

Why Judy Manning?

Yes - why indeed.

Davis arrests democracy and cuffs the electorate

It is certainly clear that I for one expect a judicial inquiry into the HVP affair and I will be posting something dedicated to that stench ridden file in the near future.

Today - however - I will deal with the immediate display of arrogance coming from our newly minted "unelected" Premier.

I tweeted my suspicions a week or so ago - that I expected Davis might go outside the caucus and appoint an "unelected" Cabinet member. Davis has not let me down - and by that I mean I am not disappointed with the predictable actions of an "unelected" Premier with born again arrogance in the ministry that is politics for this PC lot.

Steve Kent - in fine predictable form - becomes the Deputy Premier - as a direct result of his play in the leadership convention. Pre-printed scarves - an unwelcome sermon from the convention podium - and a feeling of self importance has placed Kent right where he wanted to be. Nothing to do with us - just to do with the "ambitions" of a former and long-tenured Constable who decided to hire his former boss to run his shop.

Then comes the bombshell - of such magnitude - that the Richter scale rumble from the Auditor Generals report - grew a little stronger and more dangerous to our democracy.

We awake today with an Attorney General and Minister of Public Safety who is unelected.

The Premier's release calls Judy Manning a "newcomer". A newcomer to what? This person is unelected and therefore has no place in our Cabinet and is not permitted to sit and be questioned in the House of Assembly. The Department of Justice is no more and is now the Department for Public Safety? What a mess we are in.

The instant word on the street is that the Attorney General must be a lawyer. Let's take that at face value and agree( I do not). Felix Collins is a lawyer and the member for Placentia - St. Mary's. He is apparently staying until the next election. Therefore - if Paul Davis wants a lawyer for Attorney General he has one. Further Manning is apparently going to seek the nomination for Placentia - St. Mary's and if successful run in the next election. Well should Ms. Manning win the nomination and go on to win the seat and if the PC's win the election - then she could be considered for Cabinet. This play with the electorate of Placentia - St. Mary's is complete with arrogance on behalf of the Premier and a blatant disrespect for the people of the district and the province. Additionally Ms. Manning should run in one of the upcoming by-elections - unless she too already feels entitled. And considering Paul Davis believes that 300 or so people can make him a legitimate Premier - perhaps he should have chosen John Ottenheimer as Attorney General - at least somebody voted for him.

Davis is flexing his power and we are being tasered for wanting to keep our democracy in tact. This driving ambition suits Davis like it suits a repeat offender finding God.

Recidivism - apparently - should not be reserved for re-offenders - but rather extended to a former police officer extending his new found power.

This is a slap in the face for the electorate and a demonstration of how Paul Davis plans to govern. The promise to hold early elections in the event a Premier resigns early will be ignored. The promise to listen to people - has already been shattered in a million pieces as Davis goes outside the electorate's choice of MHA's and appoints his own Minister. Paul Davis will keep his commitment to transparency by ignoring the stench of the undocumented information regarding the Humber Valley Paving scandal?

It seems the fellow who headed up Child Youth and Family Services - children died while under care of the Department and then the fellow who headed up Transportation and Works in the middle of the ill-fated HVP contract - is just going to carry on as if he is fully entitled.

This is not the making of a people's leader - this is the making of a zealot who has gained power. Short-lived - I predict.

Paul Davis should have gone to government house this morning and asked that the writ be dropped. He clearly does not have the confidence that people - the electorate will give him the power - that he instead has been handed by a few hundred Tories.

Paul Davis has arrested democracy and cuffed the electorate.

PC boots are made for walking - away from NL

Just about 6 years ago - the master negotiator who hated "loopholes you can drive a mack truck through" passed over 8 million dollars in the form of an interest-free loan to Terra Nova Shoes a subsidiary of Kodiak Group Holdings. The loan was to be paid over 10 years - bringing us to 2018.

Okay let's get to the basics - did we have a clause stating the business could not be relocated outside the province for 10 years? Did we have a clause that interest would be added to the loan amount if the company left Newfoundland and Labrador? Did we have a clause that all amounts owing would be immediately payable if the company left the province? So Minister Sullivan tells us to stay calm "these loans are very well secured". So Minister you gave the interest-free 8 million dollar loan in 2008 to be paid by 2018 it is now 2014 6 of 10 years already gone by yet you have only collected 1/4of the money back?

At the time of the loan announcement in 2008 the company said the following:



After considering options for consolidation, the company chose to base its Canadian operations in Harbour Grace because of Terra Nova’s strong track record, commitment to quality assurance and customer satisfaction, and productive and dedicated workforce. The expansion will realize the addition of approximately 50 new positions at Harbour Grace, as well as the retention of the over 170 existing staff. To increase capacity, a 30,000 square-foot extension to the existing 70,000 square-foot facility has been completed.
"We are very excited to be expanding Kodiak’s strong business model and culture in this region," said Kevin Huckle, President of Kodiak Group Holdings. "The expansion to this fine facility is a result of the hard work and dedication of the men and women who work in our Harbour Grace footwear plant. This activity reveals our strong commitment to this organization and supports future growth. Kodiak’s investment demonstrates that manufacturing still plays a crucial role in Canada’s economy."


At the time of the loan announcement in 2008 - Paul Oram Minister responsible at the time said the following:

"The company’s decision to base its Canadian operations in Newfoundland and Labrador will strengthen its competitiveness internationally,"  (emphasis added)

Here's what the company is saying now:

The company said it has become too expensive to manufacture the footwear in Newfoundland and then ship them to Ontario for distribution. The plant in Harbour Grace was built in 1971.
"The reality is the high costs to continue operating the Harbour Grace plant have become unsustainable over the past several years," Kodiak president Kevin Huckle said in a statement. (emphasis added)

Here's what Susan Sullivan - Minister responsible is saying now:

"It's very disappointing for us," she said. "We've been working with the company over the last few days to try to see if there's anything that we can do to encourage them to stay, but it seems they've made up their minds, that this is not a place they are able to do business."


So how long has the government known about this?
What did they do to "entice" the company to stay on?

Importantly: Is it possible that there will be people working in a plant in Ontario that is using interest-free money from Newfoundland and Labrador?

What happened to all that savvy in attracting and retaining business?

Once again a long-standing manufacturer/processor - has decided this is not a cost-effective place to do business for them.

Paper mills, fish plants, tech firms, oil refiners, and manufacturers head to the land of the have-not. Any chance to use power to attract industry is being squandered so we can help Canada become "green" and Nova Scotians to get cheaper power. Our proud heritage on the sea - yet where does ship-building go to? Billions in contracts - oh yeah - Nova Scotia.

Perhaps John, Steve, and Paul can create thousands of person-hours of work to tear the facility down. Wait now - we just tore down Stephenville, and we got Grand Falls-Windsor in the wings - that should keep us busy till we have to dismantle Bull Arm.

So should we expect the following slogans?

John - all Nalcor employees to wear Kodiaks
Paul - all Police to wear Kodiaks
Steve - all boy scouts to wear Kodiaks

and you guys had the audacity to crucify Grimes over the only contract without loopholes?

no wait I forgot there is one more contract without loopholes - the Upper Churchill contract.

Former Premier Roger Grimes - Perspective on Policies and Politics

 Talk with Sue - Special Guest next week - Former Premier Roger Grimes


Many things have happened over the past year - not the least of which is the resignation of the first woman to be elected Premier of our Province. She resigned last week - suddenly and without much notice - and hers was a majority government.

Muskrat Falls debate rages on.

Bill 29

The Liberal and Tory leadership races.

New Premier Tom Marshall.

The resignation of Jerome Kennedy.

Natural resource development.

Budgetary issues. Debt and deficits and the unfunded pension liabilities

Health Care

Auditor General's Report

The massive change in political polling results.

The defection of sitting MHA's.

The state of the NDP and ruling Tories.

The changing tide for the Liberals.

The new Liberal leader.

As we get settled in to 2014 - what's in store for us?

Roger Grimes has agreed to talk about it all - a perspective from a man who once held the top job and the responsibility of the office.

This will be two hours of fascinating discussion that you won't want to miss.

Tuesday -  February 4th from 6-8 on the Island and from 5:30 to 7:30 in most of Labrador the former Premier will be my special guest - live on Talk with Sue.

You can join the show live and enter the chat room - where you can pose some questions.

Government by Remote Control - Can't Turn the Channel

How many Premiers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

and yet - the light bulb still did not work.

The title suggests many things - but I will start here.

How is it that Kathy Dunderdale resigned before Ed Martin?

How is it  she was essentially fired by a caucus that did not insist on the removal of Ed Martin.

Who do permanent interim everything Marshall and incompetent Energy guru Martin work for? Is he still there?

"Carry on Government" - the title of a feature tragic comedy - where a resource wealthy jurisdiction is controlled by a megalomaniac - through puppets of convenience. NOTE: Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. It is at times like these that I miss the artistic works of Jerome Kennedy. Surely he can do at least a Limerick on this - of course in collaboration with one of the Loyola's.

Kathy Dunderdale's resignation will be the subject of the next post. I promise!!! Sounds like I'm considering political office.

Muskrat: Example of Dunderdale's "new" Communication

Beneficiaries of the Muskrat deal:
Emera shareholders
Industry Nova Scotia
People of Nova Scotia
Company owners - engineering, construction, project management
Hydro-Quebec
Losers of the Muskrat deal:
The people and next 4 generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians


So the Premier was on a tear yesterday, Muskrat Love - here and there - Muskrat Love everywhere. Kathy Dunderdale has officially done us in. This deal is the worst deal we could have made on such a resource. It not only is a giveaway - it is also a concrete block tied to the feet of our childrens' future.

The polls - the by-election loss - the loss of Jerome Kennedy - and of Tom Osborne - will not stop this Premier from burying us with this fiasco. Kathy Dunderdale said that her government needs to communicate better - so she has started.

So here we go:

Quotes by the Premier yesterday - thanks to the Telegram story

1. “This is a project with tremendous vision. Our province will be practically 100 per cent renewable, powered by clean, emissions free energy, and our electricity customers can bank on stable electricity rates,”

2. “We are shouldering our unshrinkable responsibility to leave no stone unturned, no resource untapped and to ground Newfoundland and Labrador’s future firmly and securely in the solid bedrock of sustainable and renewable prosperity.”

3. “When the greatest moments of our history are recollected long generations from now, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will remember the choice that Prime Minister Harper made  — the choice to stand beside our people in advancing Muskrat Falls.”

So the deal is - it's great - it's perfect - best it could be -  and you all are gonna like it. The new communication strategy has begun. Sounds exactly like the last communication strategy - tell everybody is good and therefore it will be.

So the first quote tells us that we can bank on stable electricity rates. Okay stable - but how high?

The second - the no resource untapped beauty - sure we will tap all our resources but not for our benefit - that's the problem and she certainly has placed our future in bedrock - buried, stuck, sinking.

And as for the third one - the "long generations from now" yeah that is going to be a long ways out alright - and by the time we remember Harper for "stand beside our people" our grandchildren will condemn both the Premier and the Prime Minister for this mess. Our Premier took us to the edge of the cliff and the Prime Minister pushed us. Down we went hand in hand. But wait - the Prime Minister had a safety line connected.

Meanwhile Dunderdale sits up on the hill she so abruptly shut down - while still under a cloak - and bellows to the people beneath her, "this is really good for you, it is really really good for you, it's good really, look at the really really good work we are doing."

New Communication? No - just the drive to ram this project through at whatever cost.

As for the Opposition parties - they have been left to watch our people suffer - without a dime to do anything about it. Gee it sure will be great to become the government a decade from now. Dunderdale, Williams, and Martin long gone - and our revenues with them.

It turns my stomach to even watch the news - the discussion of this project makes me physically ill. The lengths to which the hidden masters will go to own everything and when not owning control the development of everything - is really unmatched in mature democracies.

As for the Federal Government - sure it's a great deal they gave us right? Just like the rest of the things they have done for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Problem Premier is Muskrat Falls

Our Premier can look to the stars, reflect to eternity, and wonder her heart out - the problem she has is Muskrat.

The loss of support for her leadership and her government is because people do not want the Muskrat deal with Emera. That is further amplified by the secrecy afforded by Bill 29.

1. We do NOT believe we need the power on the Island.
2. Residential customers in certain areas of Labrador are NOT going to be connected.
3. We do NOT trust this government or Nalcor on costs, estimates, and other data.
4. Develop it for industry in Labrador -  we DON'T need of line to Nova Scotia or the Island.
5. Muskrat jobs are construction only - and do NOT generate long term jobs in smelters or refineries.
6. We do NOT want to give Nova Scotia an advantage over us for industrial growth.
7. We do NOT want Emera to have ANY ownership of lines for our use.
8. We do NOT want our children and grandchildren to pay for this fiasco.
9. If we develop hydro we WANT to make money from somebody other than ourselves.
10. We believe it is the WORST possible deal for that resource.

You no longer have the moral authority to govern - and certainly NOT to undertake such a massive expenditure and project.

Stop the Muskrat deal with Emera - or your party will be wiped off the political map in 2015.

You do NOT know what you are doing.

This is the problem - this is why the polls have collapsed and you have lost a by-election. There is no secret formula to bring you out of this political disaster. Ross Reid cannot make this go away. This is the biggest giveaway in our history.

The ten or fifteen corporations that you are serving do not represent enough voters to get you re-elected.

Jerome Kennedy - Wrongfully elected?

Goodbye Jerome? - you have left your mark on the political landscape of our province.

Yours was a reign of arrogance, belligerence, intolerance, and prejudice.

Prior to becoming a "politician" - Mr. Kennedy was a defense lawyer of note - fighting against injustices, protecting the wrongfully accused. The lion of of a lawyer standing between them and the zealous prosecution, them and sloppy police work and more between them and the judges. Don't forget how Kennedy once described the judiciary: "It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing" and "Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is as a result of intentional or unintentional biases."

Well what has Kennedy become?

I can certainly say that he acted on some policy issues where he did not know what he was doing and part of that was because of political influence. He certainly has biases whether intentional or unintentional.

He has punished people or threatened to punish people without any fair hearing or process.

With respect to those who have plead guilty of violence - who are sexual offenders - I say that Minister Kennedy had no problem celebrating such a criminal because he was successful in a hockey game. he stood in the House of Assembly, our Legislature and said: "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."

So when Jerome Kennedy was fortunate enough to be elected and sit as an MHA and as a Minister - how did he handle his new found power?

Did he try to bring what he learned as a lawyer fighting for the innocent and challenging how the judges handled the power they had?

No he became what he complained about and fought against. His power was so intoxicating he lost sight of all the little people. He condemned without ever meeting. He issued threats to small business owners and professionals to get his way. He was vindictive toward critics of his government. He was a bully. Then hockey prowess trumped the rights of women who were violated by a person - he chose to celebrate.

Poetic justice is probably more suited to our Mr. Kennedy.

Was he able to take constructive criticism? No.
Was he able to use his power wisely, justly, and with humility? Yes - however he chose not to.
Did he practice what he preached when given the opportunity? No
Did he treat all citizens fairly and without prejudice? No
Did he become a political hack? Yes

All that was done in his previous career has been greatly diminished by his approach when holding a powerful position.

Is it time for him to go? It was - for me - the day after his first appointment to Cabinet.

How he looked up into the galleries of the House of Assembly and mocked ordinary citizens who were there to fight for what was right. That's the last memory I have of Jerome Kennedy - for after that - there was no need to listen to anything else he said.

I leave the allegedly departing - student of poetry - Minister with the following:

Wrongfully Elected

His potential was great, his ability - exceptional, his timing ideal 

He however squandered, underperformed, abused political power.

Contempt became his noun, as he sentenced others without

trial, representation, or financial clout to fight him.

His act of despising defined him, clouded him, 

ruled him.

Injustice he bemoaned became justice he delivered,

power he protested became the legislative hammer he wielded.

Society should hold no favorites; therefore society was unnecessary.

Brave when times were celebraTORY when actions could be retaliaTORY words deprecaTORY - cowardice abound when polls are in the lavaTORY, or a rogaTory process was replaced with the number 29; a bill of ill repute. 

So great was his opportunity that his deeds seem so feeble.

This adieu is doubly sad; that when there he retreated and when retreating is irrelevant.

The mark left is big - broad - bold - but bush-league. An oxymoron? No - for when so much was possible yet so little realized - the resulting scar can be profound.

Festival of Spite? O'Brien reflects typical PC Tribalism

It's not a joke anymore. It's time that people in this province put an end to the spiteful, tribalistic, immoral and intimidating behavior demonstrated by many PC Cabinet Ministers and the Premier.

The latest - in a CBC story- an allegation that Minister Kevin O'Brien got a young Chamber of Commerce scholarship winner uninvited as a server for a community breakfast. Why? because he's not a Tory?

How many town councillors and mayors have been politically threatened by this PC government? We have all heard the stories - community leaders are frightened to death to speak out against ANY government action - lest funding for critical infrastructure may not come.

This government has asked organizations to remove their senior staff - if the organization wants to have any "hope" with government.

How many businesses were threatened with repercussion of some sort if they put a Liberal or NDP sign on their building - or supported a local candidate who was not PC?

This started with Danny in 2003 and has carried on with a gusto since Kathy took over. Intimidation of bloggers, open-line callers, and people with government jobs.

I don't know how many Cable Atlantic/Rogers former employees are now within the government rank and file - but somebody should really have a look.

This government behaves like a two bit mafia - enforcers and all. Why? Because they lack a leader, they lack integrity, and they lack confidence.

Instead of being a "cool hip" province - we are serfs forced to support our 5 or 6 lord's estate. Backward, backward, backward. 

Don't see us going from one Kathy to another Cathy - do you?

Is Muskrat Falls development safe? Ask Minister Davis

A few days ago - Minister of Transportation and Works - Paul Davis - compared engineers to lawyers - put ten of them in a room and you get 10 different opinions. This was in response to a question by the talk-show host basically asking what or when we can determine if work needs to be done on infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

That's a scary and misguided thought and it makes me wonder what Paul Davis really knows about his portfolio and if his knowledge is that weak - what exactly his "officials" can get away with.

If engineers - particularly Civil Engineers - are likely to fail on structures at the same frequency as lawyers lose in Court - I recommend we all stay off the roads and bridges.

Whether a road or bridge is need of immediate repair is not a hit and miss sort of thing. How about water resources engineering? Should we expect the engineers doing hydro dams or predicting water flow to tell us we have a 50-50 chance of being successful?

How about structures like hospitals and schools? Should we expect our engineers to tell us - if it falls down - no worry - we can appeal?

Using engineers "opinions" as an excuse for ignoring old and failing infrastructure is ridiculous - using engineers "opinions" as an excuse for replacing infrastructure that is being stressed by increased usage the structure was not designed to take is outrageous. If Minister Davis was telling the truth - please provide the numerous and differing opinions on any one infrastructure in the province.

If we listen to Minister Davis - we have to believe that 10 engineers went out to look at a road or culvert or bridge - and 10 of them came back with different opinions on the safety of the structure.

An engineer - if asked professionally - whether or not a road or bridge is safe - must be as accurate as a brain surgeon.

Are there incompetent surgeons and engineers? Yes. Have there been instances of catastrophic failure in engineering? Yes. Have there been instances where an engineer was paid to falsify a report? Yes. Have there been instances where an engineer feels pressure by an employer to deliver information the employer wants to hear - accurate or not? Yes. Thankfully these engineers represent a very small percentage within the profession and although catastrophes have occurred - for the most part we live, work, and traverse over very safe structures.

What I want to know from Minister Davis is what road and bridge structures his departmental engineers studies and how many of them came back with differing opinions and whether or not engineers we employ fall among the examples listed above? 

The Dunderdale government has proven that it keeps getting reports done until it gets the report it likes. While unethical and despicable - up until now - it has not caused me great concern regarding safety - but rather more concern about debt, deficits, and wasting taxpayer dollars.

I am deeply concerned about the comment made by Minister Davis. Is he implying by ignorance that we have engineers employed that are more interested in serving their political masters than serving their profession and through that public safety? Is he implying that engineering work on Muskrat Falls may be in question - as the engineers might be giving the go ahead on dams and structures simply because the politicians want it to proceed?

Lawyers and Engineers are expected to give expert opinions - however the guarantees on the opinions are very different. Convincing a judge or jury of your client's position is one thing - guaranteeing the safety of infrastructure is another. Proving or not proving a defendant guilty is one thing - but guaranteeing that a hospital won't collapse is another.

Question for Minister Davis and the rest of Cabinet: Is there any engineer questioning any part of the Muskrat Falls development? Is there any engineer offering an opinion that the dam or other hydro structures may be unsafe? If so - release that information. Based on what Minister Davis said on roads and bridges; we may have other opinions on whether or not Muskrat Falls can be developed as currently engineered.

Is this the case - or did Minister Davis utter nonsense when faced with a basic question that he had no ability to answer?

What did Hydro-Quebec want? What did we agree to?

I'm sure we can all agree on one thing - Hydro-Quebec does not give up a thing unless something greater of value is there for it.

In 1999 when CFLCo was threatened with going broke - our province sought ways to generate more revenue into the Corporation. This of course was another disastrous consequence of the Upper Churchill deal wherein under certain circumstances HQ could invest money in CFLCo in return for common shares.

It is of course arguable that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could keep CFLCo afloat with tax dollars - thus avoiding a complete HQ takeover of the Upper Churchill - however Brian and Deano went for a "new" deal.

The Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract (GWAC) was born and with that "new" rights for Hydro-Quebec.

The way CFLCo functioned was a 2/3 (NL) 1/3 (HQ) ownership/management situation wherein we had majority shareholder rights. The new agreement changed that to requiring an approval from HQ on all important business/contract/management issues.

Let's get one thing clear - HQ did not have to accept GWAC - they had rights to power anyway and had them cheap. The GWAC gave us the better deal on the power sales at market value. Therefore it is certain that HQ got something out of the deal.

Despite HQ's winning protest and position that the Upper Churchill Contract could not be changed - leaving us the poor owners of an extremely lucrative resource; HQ got a change and it was definitely in their favour.

So what then was HQ after? Why did they "give" us a deal for power at market value?

Even the current government is out touting HQ as the devil - opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador. So in that case what did we give up in 1999?

Here's the wording in part;

Part of the Shareholders Agreement among NL Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and CFLCo June 18th 1999

Article 3 Board of Directors

3.4 Special Majority Decisions of the Board of Directors

The following decisions will require the approval of a majority of the directors on the Board of Directors, including at least one director nominated by NL Hydro and one director nominated by Hydro-Quebec on the Board of Directors:

3.4.6

...the entering into, amendment or termination of any Material Contract to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo is a party or to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo may become a party, unless such entering into, amendment or termination has been previously approved in a budget approved under Section 3.4.2 or 3.4.3;

Material Contract defined: "Material Contract" means (i) any contract involving a monetary commitment of CFLCo or having a value to CFLCo of $10 million or more in the aggregate and (ii) any contract which restricts CFLCo from carrying on its Business, including the contracts listed on Schedule E;

Business defined: "Business" means the business of CFLCo which shall be limited to the following purposes and objects:
(a) to produce or otherwise acquire and to transmit and to sell electricity;
(b) to harness or otherwise make use of water for the purpose of producing hydroelectric and hydraulic power and for any other purpose;

Our politicians need to all come clean. Why did HQ want the change above? - and now that they have it - what did they want it for?

Dunderdale and Co. going going...gone

Cathy Bennett, Dean MacDonald, Paul Antle - all coming from the woodwork. The Establishment has determined the PC's are not winning the next election.

If the backbench Tories do not see this yet - well - they might not. They seem to just nod their heads.

The media is picking up the frenzy on possible candidates for the Liberal leadership and in so doing hyping up the race. Dunderdale is already passe and a new guard is forming in front of her face. The lady got her job done - she has delivered Danny's Muskrat child.

The problem now is that - is it really done? What about the other assets left to snatch by the elite investors?

The money is getting a fever and is starting to realize that power might land in the hands of somebody who will work - first and foremost for the people.

They are sweating the fact that Ball is a worthy candidate who can deliver competent and forward direction for the people.

They underestimated the people and overestimated Kathy, Jerome, and Darin.

Let's give the old boys club a royal boot and take back our province.

I would like the next leader to show the people all papers relating to the Muskrat deal to date. All contracts, all discussions, all written material. That's what they are really afraid of.

SNC Lavalin right here at home.

Dunderdale Spin does not add up!

Nothing worse than waking up in the morning - and hearing Premier Dunderdale on the CBC Morning Show discussing how we - the people - will thank her in time.

The Premier and Co. really believe we are ignorant - almost beyond hope - and she like any concerned parent will guide us through the haze.

This patronizing drone is worse than annoying and condescending - it is dangerous.

If Dunderdale believes she must parent us versus serve us - then she is delusional.

The latest spin from DJ Reid is the low polling has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls. The Premier - as the "point" person of the party - claims the absolute collapse of the polls has to do with laying off 1000 people.

First - the destruction of faith in this government began long before this budget. Second - it absolutely has to do with Muskrat Falls as more and more information has been coming out by opponents to the deal. Finally the fact that Don Mills of CRA and the Premier are protesting too much - that it is absolutely NOT Muskrat Falls.

I say that it absolutely is Muskrat Falls and the damage to the party fortunes initiated shortly after the last election - when the deal was discussed in greater detail.

The Dunderdale government has spent a fortune getting study after study produced to verify that Nalcor and government are right on the development. Unfortunately it is becoming more and more obvious that the "independent" reports paid for by Nalcor and Government (us) were restricted and essentially mathematical recalculations of the sums already provided.

The government and/or PC Party did an untold number of polls (unreleased) on the subject and only released one when they eked over a majority of the population. The poll itself could be challenged - but that's a waste of time - as historical data on weak support exists - else the exercise of advertised brainwashing would have been a waste of money.

In my opinion - the greatest fear of Kathy and her handlers is that Muskrat dissent will become more vociferous in light of the disastrous poll results - and they might actually be politically forced to stop it.

The 5 or 6 people/corporations standing to actually make a tonne of money here will do anything to prevent that from happening.

There is no way a government polling this low can justify spending $24,000 for every child - woman - man in Newfoundland and Labrador - on one project - during one term in office. 240  - hundred dollar bills for us all - not a chance.

Spending at one time an equivalent of more than our debt - accumulated since 1949. Over 60 years - of spending and debt - Dunderdale wants to do for one project.

Considering the Premier and her government are clearly in third place of three - and considering that she and her Ministers and Backbenchers believe the poll has nothing to do with Muskrat - why not hold a referendum on Muskrat? What does the Premier and her government have to lose?

The people deserve a clear and specific say on the expenditure of this much money and particularly because it's a hydro resource.

The truth is plain to see - the people of this province are afraid of this deal - afraid of the impacts - afraid of the future ramifications.

Imagine the polling results if Dunderdale and Co. had done the honourable thing and funded opponents of the deal to present equally funded research and associated public relations and advertising for the findings.

The Muskrat Falls development must be stopped.

Poll results demand a Referendum on Muskrat

So the polls are reflecting the REAL feelings on Muskrat Falls, deficits, cuts, social policy on health and education.

Jerome Kennedy is says "they are taking the poll seriously" - really?

Kennedy adds that they will stand by the decisions they have made on cuts and Muskrat Falls - really?

Kennedy, Dunderdale, and Co. reflected not long ago that the most recent election victory was a ringing endorsement of the Muskrat development deal. Despite the millions in brainwashing attempts and hiding results of earlier polls on the issue - they celebrated not long ago that a majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians finally agree with the deal. Really?

The poll results are low enough now that the Tories are not governing with any moral authority. The poll results are a reflection of people beginning to understand the Muskrat giveaway will cost their children, great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren a fortune. The polls are a reflection of the peoples utter disgust with policy and laws of secrecy. The polls are a reflection that people despise the incompetence and false arrogance of this regime.

So Minister Kennedy is really saying to hell with the people - we will do as we want - when we want. The real strength of the backbench is now being displayed as they sit idly by - not really knowing what to do.

Minister Kennedy is acting as if - we - the people are opposing counsel and he will fight us with the best he's got. Unfortunately Minister - you don't have the right stuff - to win this battle. The Court of Public Opinion has spoken - you have lost the case. Appeal if you dare - my guess is - you will lose that also. When the Supreme Court of Public Opinion speaks - the precedent will be set. Dunderdale, Kennedy and Co. will probably achieve a feat of Mulroney proportions - they will have wiped out the PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. Perhaps Ross Wiseman can pull a Peter MacKay.

A conclusion should be made by the people that NOW is the time to stop this government from proceeding further with the Muskrat fiasco. Stop it now while only 10% has been spent. This project can be halted in its tracks and the only ones who''ll be crying are the 5 or 6 people/corporations that are actually going to make serious money on this sell-out.

We have not passed the point of no return on Muskrat - but the PC's have passed the point of no return with the people.

Try to be honourable ladies and gents and call a referendum on whether the project should proceed.

The stench which is SNC Lavalin is pleasantly perfumy when compared with the smell of sewer gas spewing from the decomposition from within.

There is no reason for any administration to continue a project like Muskrat when they have lost the confidence of the people. If the government continues with this now - it's not for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Has SNC Lavalin got Muskrat by the Tail?

On the heels of more bribery and corruption allegations against SNC-Lavalin and particularly as related to design and management of "mega projects" - it is unconscionable and frankly stupid not to get complete information on the Muskrat Falls project.

I no longer care about "proprietary information" - I care as a shareholder and as a ratepayer.

The project should be stopped - and each and every component of the deal between Emera and Nalcor needs to be examined. Further SNC Lavalin's role in the project should be audited completely.

We need to know if the code "PCC" or "CC" exist as it relates to the Muskrat deal.

This Quebec company - is rotting from the outside in - and we do not need additional history of rot in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Kathy Dunderdale and Co. have shown they can be inept in matters of law and contracts and we must not let another 3 generations of our people suffer the consequences of either corruption or incompetence.

I need to know that public officials cannot and have not been bribed. I need to know who specifically is becoming rich on this project. I need to know who is driving it.

As yet another set of polls (the British Columbia election) goes up in smoke - nothing has convinced me that people in our province want or believe in this project.

Has the ambidextrous octopus swallowed the Cabinet?

Minister Shea wears the shame of her Colleague?

The House of Assembly Hypocrisy

We can all agree that violence against girls, young women, and women must be stopped - and therefore any actions of governments to move that agenda foward is positive. 

The problem is Minister Shea - and it's a big problem - you cannot expect anybody to believe that this effort is sincere - when your colleague the Minister of Finance - stood recently in the House of Assembly and praised a sexual offender - because he happened to win a hockey game. 

You must deal with that issue frankly - this person praised by your colleague was at the time of the praise already convicted of raping two young women and subsequently plead guilty to raping another young woman in her sleep. 

You can't as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women - refuse to address this unacceptable behavior (congratulating Mark Yetman Goalie CeeBees - Sexual Offender) by your colleague. If you do not apologize for these statements in the House of Assembly and apologize to the young women who were victims of Yetman - then your Ministerial Statement today rings hollow. 

I can't single Minister Shea out here - as many others in the House from all sides - sit silently. Shame. 


Here is the Hansard of a Ministerial Statement today by Joan Shea:

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to provide an update on the progress of Atlantic Canada’s CyberSafe Girl Initiative. 

In August 2010, the Atlantic Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women held their first annual meeting and at this time they shared concerns on cyber-violence. 

Cyber-violence is the use of the Internet to harm or intimidate another person and includes name calling, teasing, threatening, starting rumours, posting embarrassing or degrading pictures, or encouraging violence. Acts of cyber-violence take place through e-mail, social media Web sites such as Facebook or Twitter, blogs and on-line games. 

To address this disturbing issue, the Atlantic ministers committed to creating an initiative that provides educational tools to youth, parents and educators. 

From this commitment, the CyberSafe Girl Initiative was developed. This initiative focuses on creating awareness and preventing cyber-violence being perpetrated against young girls on-line. The Atlantic Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women were pleased to officially launch the CyberSafe Girl Initiative campaign in St. John’s on October 11, 2012 – International Day of the Girl.
Through the CyberSafe Girl Initiative, a Web site and three fact sheets were developed to promote safe Internet usage for young girls. These fact sheets, entitled 10 Tips for Girls, 10 Tips for Parents, and What Everybody Needs to Know, are available throughout Atlantic Canada. In our Province, the Department of Education assisted with the distribution of the CyberSafe Girl fact sheets earlier this month to Newfoundland and Labrador schools with students in Grades 7 to 9. 

The CyberSafe Girl Initiative was also recently showcased during the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York on March 6. During this international event, two of the Atlantic Canadian Status of Women Ministers presented background information on the initiative and highlighted interactive components, including the fact sheets and Web site, to emphasize that ending cyber-violence against girls is a global effort; one that our Province is proud to be part of. 

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Ministers will continue to make progress and spread the word with this initiative in the collective effort to end cyber-violence. I encourage all families in Newfoundland and Labrador to join this effort by reviewing these fact sheets and visiting cybersafegirl.ca to learn more about cyber safety. 

___________________________________________



 

Dunderdale Govt. believes Opposition is Communications Savvy?

So the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador needs a lesson in communication - a $150,000 tutor - so to speak.

How many communications experts do we employ full time?

What do all these people do?

How much do we pay them?

Unfortunately the findings of the report including advice remain secret to the Government. The Fleishman-Hillard Group is an international firm with an advisory Board that includes Leon Panetta - former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). I guess Premier Dunderdale and Co. are really concerned about secrecy.

So this sweeping review of government communications - using $150,000 of our money - will only benefit one political party - not our province overall. This is unacceptable and is an abuse of taxpayer dollars.

It has been pointed out by government that Communications Directors are no longer political staff but rather members of the Public Service. If this is the case - the information delivered to government by Fleishman-Hillard - should be available to all MHA's on all sides of the House. In this way communications advice - that is information being distributed to the people of the province - can be "enhanced" for all elected officials.

The "strong united caucus" that Premier Dunderdale talks about should have no problem communicating messages and should not be in need of help from the outside.

The Premier says if they were trying to be secret - they would not table things in the House. Please then Premier table the report completed by Fleishman-Hillard on communications and further explain why the government had to go outside the province to learn how to communicate with the people of the province.

Further if the Premier does not make the report public - then I assume the Premier and her Cabinet have determined that neither party in Opposition could learn anything from the report - thereby admitting the problem in communications is theirs and theirs alone.

The timing of the review certainly points back to Muskrat Falls.

How many polls were completed on Muskrat Falls by the government?
What were the results of all those polls?
Will the Premier confirm that all communications staff has been duly trained and or replaced to meet the findings and recommendations of Fleishman-Hillard?

As for Fleishman-Hillard - they confuse me - communications experts who themselves can't decide whether to use "FleishmanHillard" or "Fleishman-Hillard" on their own website and communications.

Deceptions of the Dunderdale Government - an Example

As complicated as the pharmaceutical business is - there are some very simple concepts.

Unlike Doctors who have a billing code a pharmacist does not.

The pharmacy - the business - has the billing code for community pharmacy services.

The government is one of many insurers that offers its clients a card to use at a pharmacy.

A pharmacy can choose to accept or reject any insurance card.

The pharmacist does not decide that administrative and business decision.

CICPO is a duly incorporated not-for-profit trade organization that represents its member companies.

As such the CICPO negotiates on behalf of its businesses with insurance companies.

When a tentative agreement has been reached - the members of the CICPO vote on the agreement.

If a majority of members vote in favour of the tentative deal - then each corporation must separately sign an agreement with the insurer. This is a tariff agreement which outlines the amounts that will be paid to the pharmacy for acceptance of that particular drug card. Amounts include a dispensing fee, any specialty fees, mark-ups etc.

At all times the agreement reached is between the insurer and corporation - not a pharmacist.

In Newfoundland and Labrador you DO NOT have to be a pharmacist to own a pharmacy. Wal-Mart, Lawton's, Shoppers, and independent pharmacies can be owned by shareholders who are not pharmacists.

A pharmacy must employ a pharmacist as part of a staff in order that the pharmacy can conduct business.

A Pharmacy has the following expenditures:

1. salaries; CPP - EI - Workers Compensation - Benefits Package,
2. mortgage, lease payments, building maintenance,
3. light and power, Oil, or other energy,
4. taxation - federal, provincial, municipal,
5. security systems,
6. refrigeration,
7.specialized computers - software,
8. consumables such as pill bottles, special packaging, paper,
9. communications, telephone, facsimile, and other,
10. shipping - delivery costs,
11. inventory - medications - both prescription and over the counter drugs,
12. accounting - legal - professional services,
13. snow clearing, paving, property external maintenance,
14. carrying costs (significant when you accept an insurance card and wait up to two weeks for payment),
15. working capital,
16. operating licences,
17. garbage storage and removal,
18. delivery - vehicle maintenance - gas,
19. banking fees,
20. and other normal expenditures of businesses in the service and retail sector.

Not one of the above is the responsibility of a pharmacist.
The pharmacist is an employee of the pharmacy.
If a pharmacist is not working in a pharmacy, they work for Universities, Governments, Hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The pharmacist is an employee.

The government of Newfoundland and Labrador wants pharmacies in the province to administer the provincial drug card. It like all other insurers is asking that their clients have the convenience of simply presenting an insurance card for payment of prescriptions drugs.

The pharmacy has the right to accept that card for payment or to reject it - in preference to immediate payment by the customer. This is the same for all businesses - including other essential goods such as groceries, furnace oil, light and power, or telephone.

The government of Newfoundland and Labrador chooses to negotiate with the Pharmacists Association of Newfoundland and Labrador - an organization that is responsible to represent all pharmacists - regardless of where they are employed. The organization is NOT a trade body and pharmacists not pharmacies are the only entities eligible to vote.

Therefore the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is negotiating with employees not the corporations it wishes to conduct trade with.

The CICPO members - all corporate - are not willing to have employee pharmacists negotiate a corporate contract on behalf of the company. The CEO's of the corporations represent the business interests - not the pharmacists - not the employees.

Making matters worse the vast majority of pharmacists in PANL do not have a shareholder interest in private sector pharmacies be they publicly traded or private.

The vast majority of voting members of PANL are employees and have nothing whatsoever to do with running a business or any responsibility for paying the bills of a corporation.

Pharmacists receive a paycheck and benefits from their employer - the pharmacy.

How can this professional organization (PANL) that has the mandate to represent pharmacists as employees also represent the employer - the corporation? How can this same organization claim to represent business when the business has not given express written permission to negotiate anything on the companys' behalf?

Is PANL going to go to the bank for these corporations and seek an interest rate for borrowing? Are they going to negotiate with wholesalers and manufacturers on their behalf? No they cannot and do not. Why then does this organization continue to claim to represent business? That is ethically wrong. It is materially wrong. PANL can say that government is negotiating with them - but PANL cannot claim to be negotiating for any business without the express written permission from the corporation.

The Government chooses to negotiate with PANL - when they have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the business. PANL does not bind a corporation.

Even under the farcical negotiation process with PANL - a "deal" was reached with government which is not binding on pharmacy - and not one corporation was asked to ratify such a "deal".

The CICPO pharmacies were not satisfied with a process which could bankrupt them - without a say - without any control - so they sent a formal notice to the Minister of Health that they would no longer accept the drug card for payment. This is a normal right of all businesses.

The notice was filed in accordance with the Provider Agreement between each pharmacy and government. All insurance companies and pharmacies operate under a "provider agreement" which outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

The provider agreement between government and pharmacies required a 30 day notice for withdrawal of acceptance of the "card" as payment.

Upon that proper notification which was signed and delivered by over 60 individual corporations - the government decided to change the rules. The Government unilaterally changed the 30 day notice to 120 days and also added a condition that all patients that have been in the pharmacy within the past year were to be notified in writing - individually.

Further our members were threatened with disciplinary action and summary convictions if the "new" "immediate" changes to law were not followed.

We remain in the courts with that issue.

Now let's take the absurdity a step further - PANL which is supposed to represent pharmacists as a profession regardless of where they are employed do not actually negotiate any contracts for pharmacists!

The hospital pharmacists are represented by their union.
The University pharmacists are represented by MUNFA.
The government pharmacists are represented by their union.
Private sector pharmacists negotiate with their employer - the private pharmacy, drug manufacturer, insurance company etc.

All of the above pharmacists are voting members of PANL who are then trying to negotiate on behalf of private sector corporations!

We have a total conflict of interest. We have employees through PANL negotiating on behalf of businesses - most of whom have no risk whatsoever.

If a pharmacist has a problem with their working conditions or scope of practice or workplace health and safety - PANL is their representative. How then does PANL represent the employer?

There are no examples of this in any other sector.

The government is simply trying to force business to administer their social program at whatever they deem fit to pay for that administration. They can in fact put the business out of business without the private corporation having any control of their investment.

The government uses PANL as the path of least resistance knowing full well this is not would not be acceptable to any other corporation the government does business with.

When the government used Danny's old law firm to participate in the lawsuit against tobacco companies - the law society did not determine what the firm had to do the work for. Legal aid lawyers do not decide what hourly rate is charged by the law firm Minister Jerome Kennedy used to be a partner in. Tom Marshall did not allow government or a professional association to set his private legal rates.

Their law firms are not FORCED to do legal work for government at whatever rate of pay the government deems fit.

This is a pure deception - and the larger chain drugstores and mass retailers who have the individual ear of government when they employ lobbyists are happy enough to let their competition be slaughtered by government policy - when they publicly state they will be there to pick up the scripts when the more "vulnerable" independents fail. As for rural areas? They would be happy enough to mail the drugs if the local pharmacy disappears. Who cares about urgency, snowstorms, equal access, and rural communities? Good question.

The bottom line is government chooses it's people to sit at a table and then proceeds to dictate who sits on the other side. This is deception. This is dealing in bad faith with the corporations they want to do business with. Most importantly they are placing in jeopardy the equitable delivery of necessary medications to the most vulnerable in our society.

Muskrat Falls - Roger Grimes - Kathy Dunderdale - PUB

Roger Grimes made a public statement yesterday in a Letter to the Editor; the Telegram's Weekend Edition.

With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.

The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.

The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.

Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our  politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.

So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.

Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?

Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.

When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.

The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.

Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.

Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.

The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:

1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.

The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.

There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.

If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.

The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.

Dunderdale and Co. - Redundant?

If you listen clearly to this government and it's reasoning for most every decision it makes - a pattern will become obvious.

They blame experts including judges, engineers, health care boards, school boards, municipalities, consultants (both from NL and other provinces), doctors, nurses, pharmacists, economists, CEO's, and "stakeholders".

When they are not citing the above - they say the responsibility lies with the feds or better yet the Liberal Government from a decade ago.

Think for a moment - that makes the politicians redundant. This includes all their staff and entourage.

What's worse is that they appear not to understand themselves exactly why the decisions are being made. In other words - if they are getting incomplete, inaccurate, or nonsensical advice - they wouldn't know it anyway.

Add to that the tribal level of partisanship preventing them from listening to any expert who might disagree with something they are doing.

All in all - it appears they have made themselves redundant and have this province in a state of economic disrepair.

I await with both amusement and  deep concern - what expert they will place in front of themselves next. Unfortunately there will be no surprise coming from the backbenches; head bobbers became redundant decades ago.