Commissioner of Lobbyists reviewing HVP activities?

Based on what Minister McGrath has been saying relative to discussions with Gene Coleman and other officials of Humber Valley Paving one would expect the Lobbyists Registration Act to be in play here.

Do the "negotiations" "discussions" talked about by Minister McGrath pertaining to Humber Valley Paving and the release of bonds constitute lobbying?

Subparagraph 2(1)(c)(xvi) of the Lobbyist Registration Act:

Based on what the Minister has said - I would consider the activities lobbying.



 (c)  "lobby " means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence

 (xvi)  public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract...




Based on the importance to the company over the three month period wherein discussions - negotiations were taking place - one might need to review whether or not Gene Coleman was an in-house lobbyist for that period.

In-house lobbyist

        6. (1)  In this section,

             (a)  "employee " includes an officer who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties;

             (b)  "in-house lobbyist" means a person who is employed by an organization

                      (i)  20% of whose duties as an employee, as assessed in a 3 month period, are to lobby on behalf of that organization, or

                     (ii)  a part of whose duties as an employee is to lobby on behalf of that organization if the employee's duties to lobby together with the duties of other employees to lobby would constitute 20 % of time at work of one full time employee, assessed in a 3 month period, were those duties to lobby to be performed by only one employee; and

             (c)  "senior officer" means the most senior officer of the organization who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties.

             (2)  The senior officer of an organization which employs an in-house lobbyist shall file a return with the registrar

             (a)  within 10 days after the day on which that person becomes an in-house lobbyist; and

             (b)  within 30 days after the expiration of each 6 month period after the date of filing the previous return.

I see no such registration under the registry - so has the Commissioner of Lobbyists been asked to review this situation? 

 

Spinmeister Powers Come Clean

Tim Powers is reaching new levels of arrogance as he pontificates on the courage of Tweeters who are opposed to the Muskrat Falls deal.

He questions the courage of the convictions of many Newfoundland and Labrador bloggers and tweeters - because he says they will not go on his open-line show and talk to him directly.

He calls Twitter the cheap seats and tin-foil sales the activity.

Tim Powers you control the mic on your show - therefore one would have to be sufficiently confident that you will use it equitably to allow a contrary Nalcor opinion.

I have every reason to believe this is not the case. I would host your show on alternating dates and would invite people to call - the same way you do - but perhaps different people. In this way you do not control the mic at all times and therefore a thorough debate and discussion could be had.

The criticism's and altering positions that many of us hold and express through twitter and blogs are free from your prejudice interference and control. You can have a 3-4 minute conversation with me - then hang up and spin away for 2 hours. In a real debate this would not occur.

Today you were being challenged rightly on your contractual obligations as a lobbyist for Nalcor - to which predictably you answered in the affirmative - but only after the challenge occurred and also because that information is public - therefore readily available to all. You did however say that your company did work for Nalcor - not that you were the lobbyist.

So for the record:

 

Client name: Nalcor Energy

Lobbyist name: Timothy Powers, Consultant

Initial registration start date: 2006-09-18

Registration status: Active

Registration Number: 777504-14002

Client name: Alderon Iron Ore Corporation

Lobbyist name: Timothy Powers, Consultant

Initial registration start date: 2013-02-01

Registration status: Active

Registration Number: 777504-308605

 

So Mr. Powers you've got a bit of skin in this game and those seeking their positions in mining and energy are using your services to advance their case. 

 

I do have to ask though if you are not in violation of the lobbyist acts either federally or provincially by not adjusting your lobbyist registration activity to include allowing your clients preferential access to a talk show that operates in the jurisdiction where the clients do business.  When your clients come on your show and you carefully guide them through a series of questions - that will permit the advancement of their projects - is this not a lobbyist activity. 

 

For certain however - you are not an independent host of a program - totally arms length from the significant and costly projects being discussed. 

 

You then have the gall to question the courage of those people who choose not to participate in this lobby. Just think for a minute Tim - I or others could go on and do our stint - then you could allow other guests invited or otherwise to come on and spin their tale. In this way you are having the critics dealt with for your clients. Do you get it yet? 

 

Then there's always this:

 

Client name: Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation

Lobbyist name: Timothy Powers, Consultant

Initial registration start date: 2013-08-21

Registration status: Active

Registration Number: 777504-319585

 

Lobby in March - Deal by April - Electronics Recycling Fee

So the Government and the MMSB are showing that EPRA the Electronics Products Recycling Association were listed under the Province's Lobbyist Registry in March of 2013 - and by April of 2013 - they had a deal.

So in the Department of Environment's News Release in April of this year - one quote:

“We have been working with electronics manufacturers to help them take a leadership role in handling the treatment of their products after their useful life,” said Mike Samson, Chief Executive Officer of the MMSB. “By having manufacturers take responsibility for their products – from development to disposal – they will increasingly think of ways to redesign their products to be more environmentally friendly, more cost efficient and easier to recycle.”

The approved plan was submitted by Electronic Products Recycling Association (EPRA), an electronics industry organization that currently is operational in six provinces across Canada.

When was the Plan submitted? Where's the approved Plan? Did anybody else submit a plan? Was anybody else asked? What did the Plan call for? How much would it cost consumers? Who monitors the fee? How many drop-off locations were promised and where? How would EPRA choose the drop-off locations and the consolidation location? How would they work to see some recycling done in this province?

We need some answers now.

We have 60 year old Newfoundland and Labrador companies that can't get a meeting with any Minister in government yet - this company in and out in a month with a deal.
 

Lobbyists and Dunderdale - Who Pays the Price?

What the Generic Giveth the Brand Taketh Away 

On the heels of the Dunderdale's government decision to lower prices of generic drugs - two brand houses are reaching in and taking that money back.

As of April 02-12 Pfizer (Brand Company) has raised the prices of 40 some drugs.

As of April 01-12 Merck Canada (Brand Company) has done the same with about the same number.

Joining them in price increases on April 01-12 are: Brand Companies - Novartis, Purdue, Abbott, Axcan, NovoNordisk, Jannsen-Ortho and Astra.

Many of the Pfizer drugs that will go up in price next week are drugs commonly needed by seniors and others with chronic illness.

With money to spare in the provinces treasury anticipated by changes to generic pricing - the Brand Drugs are taking advantage and getting more cash.

Unfortunately the Brand Houses do not fund independent pharmacies through rebates so now we lose money and have nothing going back into community health services.

The brand drug companies are the strongest lobbyists in the country and yes they lobby our government.

This is a direct attack on local independent companies by our government and a gift for Shoppers Drug Mart and Brand companies. 

Watch out for the NDP on Muskrat Falls - Here's Why

The United Steel Workers of America - Toronto - $20,000 to the NDP NL - the largest single donation to any party in 2010.

The United Steel Workers Union - Etobicoke - $20,000 to the NDP NL - the largest single donation to any party in 2009.

The UFCW International Union CLC - Washington DC - $10,000 - tied for the largest single donation to any political party 2008.

I will say this - to give away Muskrat Falls for short term jobs and no long term industrial jobs in Labrador is not acceptable. This certainly calls into question - how the NDP will position themselves on the Muskrat Falls issue - when these unions want construction and service work.

Maybe that's why most of us are confused on where the NDP stands on the issue. We do know that the NDP in Nova Scotia is for it and we do know that the federal NDP support it - so Lorraine Michael is going to have to state her position clearly.

What makes matters worse is that in 2007 the burden of labour contributions to the NDP NL fell to local unions - however that has since moved to the national and international unions.

What a fun year we will have leading to the election - truth - truth - and more truth - and then some more again

Below you will find an interesting comment to Sue's Blog and then you see my Response! Who is who - and what is what? The expose starts today. I would like to thank the reader for starting off the conversation. 

Sue, the how to do so presents a conundrum, since I know you were quite vociferous on the Open Line shows over the years on the corruption that was being perpetrated on our electorate, but those who wanted to shut you up, won the day. I find even the News Media outlets were complicit in perpetrating the devious act of having you shut down. They would bring you on for the entertainment factor and then they would set out to denigrate you.

As far as I am concerned all the Media, Newsprint - both commercial and free-print, Radio and T.V. seem to be reliant on both levels of government for advertising monies, or whatever it is they get from them that helps keep them going. And in order to get those advertising dollars they, no doubt, have to keep people like you, who hold so much information, silenced so as to keep the rest of us ignorant.

I can only suggest that you run as an Independent in the political arena. I am sure not one of the 3 political parties would want you to represent them, as they are all tarred with the one brush and none of them want the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador to know the truth of why their province has languished for the past 61 years with very little economy established, despite being part of supposedly the best country in the world and being endowed with a coveted supply of natural resources and a great geographic location. You are too smart a lady for any of them and that's a liability for any of the political parties.

Sue, really running as an Independent is the only suggestion I can give you unless you can get someone to Fund one of these free newsprints that I see hanging around in the coffee shops, but I doubt that you will have someone come on side with the funds needed to do so because your rason d'etre is to inform your fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of what has been perpetrated on them in the past by our political system; and to have done in our province, in the future, what is right and honest for its people. That is not what both levels of government want, they want our people (Newfoundlanders and Labradorians) to remain ignorant, it is much easier to tow away our resources when gravity isn't present. Unless you can get a philanthropist to come forward with no agenda of his/her own on what truth you will print in the newsprint that he/she will fund, you might be out of luck in getting the very informative stuff you have in your memory files on what has transpired in our province out there to the general public. Good Luck to you my dear, the factual stuff needs to be presented so that everyone can hear and read it for themselves.

I am sick of being looked down upon by my fellow Canadians, who have no idea what we have contributed to their country and their provinces at the expense of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The politicians who have aided and abetted in the deviant acts are not looked down upon, they are wealthy and they don't give a hoot. They can afford all the necessities in life, including expensive Medicare if they need it. They all suffer from the "Me Syndrome".

Response from me...

Most of your commentary is accurate. I am shut-up or shut-down is inaccurate. As I have been doing this sort of thing for over 20 years - the "establishment" - has tried everything - stopping short of having me "disappear". None of that has worked. Don't get me wrong - it is not that they have not affected me - they have - made my life very difficult and still do. But as you are witnessing now – I never really go away.

At some point this year I will be outlining specific cases of interference in both my personal and professional life. No doubt many people will find the information disturbing - but enlightening.

I suspect as I blog about particular examples - the blogosphere will light up just to see who is who.

The reason I stopped blogging just before the election in 2007 was that people had made their minds up with respect to Danny and the people were certainly entitled to elect Danny and live with his actions.

Notwithstanding that I needed a break - despite the ridiculing media - which I don't mind (easier to pick on me than a powerful politician) - people generally agree with the promotion of good policy for the province. The media and others are responsible for establishing a "saviour" mentality which drives the propaganda through the roof.

All three parties have players and they are driven - tories - liberals by the same establishment. They look at the political wind and just place their person in to lead their charge.

Right now that is being driven by the dollars to be made on the Lower Churchill. There are billions of dollars at stake and they will buy or coerce any way they can to protect their windfalls.

For some people it’s a matter of somebody like a Danny Williams giving them a nod or takes a picture of them together and so on. For others it is a perk or job that keeps them on side - then others it's an acknowledgement of some sort to a Board or an award.

Then there is the money machine (establishment) same for both parties who we never see or hear from - they are just the boys or girls that collect the cash from the deals.

Some of our politicians know exactly what's up - others just sit there and make a pension - or be quiet because they might get a Cabinet post - or just don't have the guts to speak.

Danny necessarily surrounded himself with people who were and are weak. It suits his dictatorial leadership style. It also allows him to batter individuals or media persons. There are not too many people who will stand up to that. They are more likely to just back-off and make their lives easier.

The media is so quiet on the Lower Churchill deal that it is disconcerting. I assume that is what happened during the Joey days of the Upper Churchill. Even Rowe and Crosbie did nothing to stop that - although there is no shortage of opinion on that deal now.

I have posted Danny's own words on resource developments particularly the Lower Churchill and not one media outlet is taking him or the rest of them to task on it.

You look at the psychology of our current Premier Kathy Dunderdale - who one day is out encouraging and congratulating women and in the same time-frame is bashing this woman for having an opinion.What would make one woman do this to another woman? I am articulating problems I have with a deal on the Churchill - that will harm the future potential of our province. She takes smacks at me professionally - albeit not to my face and without merit. It is strange sometimes to watch a woman who is elevated by a man - in part for smacking another woman for having an opinion and a point of view.

There are MHA's in there that could make a difference - but they just do not have the courage to speak. I experienced that during the attempt to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They knew it was wrong - but the thought of taking on Wells or their party was too daunting.

In that instance the people won the day - but if this deal goes through on the lower churchill - it will all have been for nought.

Just think about Kathy taking smacks at me for my opinions on the lower churchill when she is unable to debate the project with me - she is unable to debate the history of the resource with me - and she is working with Nalcor as a crown corp - that I along with others prevented from being privatized. That's a joke. She must understand that the people were right in that fight - as she is using the saved asset to do a new deal - yet she thinks we all don't know what we are talking about now? She and her colleagues - if the deal goes through will become responsible for the next greatest giveaway in our history. Will it bother her? Who knows?

Do they ever stop and think - what possible reason could Sue Kelland-Dyer be doing this for? Can they come up with a reason? No - other than she loves her province. The Libs can't point to me being Tory or the Pc's point to me being Liberal - as I take policy smacks at them both. I certainly do not do it for my own financial benefit - none exists. In fact it harms that in every way you can think.

I realize now that the only way I can protect people and this province from this type of politics and deal making is to tell them all the things that have happened. Right from the days of Ed Roberts becoming an unelected Minister to taking over a Labrador seat - to now.

I believe that it might be therapeutic to people - just reading why I am cynical about governments. It might be the only thing that shakes people enough - to understand they have to wrestle their government and politics back from the establishment. It might very well interest people enough to read - the entire goings on - a real tell all scenario - not the type found in a Bill Rowe book.

The blog is going to do a department by department breakdown and the monies wasted and the monies that are leaving the province through multinationals instead of staying in province to support reinvestment in essential services. My time is silence has not been wasted.

Then we need to go through the lobbying activities. These are very interesting. It is time people knew who is who and what is what.

Everybody who writes me like you - remains anonymous - I am assuming therefore that you are concerned about what might happen to you?Maybe it's time we all took the plunge so that a few people willing to put their names out are not slaughtered for speaking up in a democracy.

I trust that people will be interested enough to spread the word via social media – and there is an option to go to the traditional media when it becomes necessary. 

How much longer before the election? There is no retreat in the world that changes what can happen to politics in just a day. 

Marshmallow Report from the AG

The latest special Report of the Auditor General on the fibre-optic deal is a marshmallow.

I am frankly surprised that the man who likes to dig deep has barely scratched the surface on this particular task.

It does nothing to convince me that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians got the "best" deal for its investment - and is particularly weak when it comes to the Lobbyist Act.

First of all the project or "investment" of 15 million was not tendered and there was no request for proposals to achieve the government's stated objectives. On that basis alone we cannot determine if we got the "best" deal our money could buy.

Secondly - the financial assessment of whether or not our 15 million was needed was based on the cost of construction and did not include potential markets and revenues which could be generated for the companies involved. That is not acceptable.

Third - the Auditor General has a radio and a television and presumably keeps up with current affairs - he would then have known that this project was sold to the people as a "consortium" of companies - that did not have a name - as the party that needed the 15 million not Persona alone. In fact when the Electronic Warfare Associates report was - in part - made public - people questioned why Persona's finances could not be investigated - the response was that Rogers was a public company while Persona was private. This supposed consortium did not really exist as Persona is the owner of the system.

Fourthly - the AG determined that officials of Persona were not in violation of the Lobbyist Act as the Act states that 20% of the individuals time had to be spent lobbying. Clearly MacDonald could argue as the President of Persona - he did not spend 20% of his time lobbying for this project. However the Act provides for 2 types of lobbyists - in house - and consultant - The AG and according to him the office responsible for the lobbyist registry - found therefore there was no violation. They apparently ignored the possibility that MacDonald was acting as a consultant lobbyist which has no % of time associated with it.

MacDonald claimed he met with government officials on behalf of the consortium - Rogers - Persona - and MTS. This clearly makes MacDonald a consultant lobbyist as he was not only representing Persona - but a consortium. I therefore continue to believe the Act was violated.

Finally while there has been much fanfare from the AG office over the past year or so concerning the "spending scandal" and while the AG has been quite available for the camera - holding his own News Conferences - this report was floated out following the constituency allowance report on appropriateness of spending which had all taxpayers losing their stomachs and as such went under our radar.

This was a marshmallow report - which in the end did not provide taxpayers value for their money. In fact an imaginary News Release from the so called "consortium" probably would have looked very similar.

No recommendations - no concern about the lobbyist act - and no concern about the "best" value for our dollar.

Between the election call - the constituency spending - and conferences - and regular news events - the media did not have time to blink. I hope when the dust settles this report gets more scrutiny and more questions are asked.

Remember now - one of the key reasons government gave was that one partner of the "consortium" was a local company. Well Persona just as Cable Atlantic before it has been flipped to out-of-province interests.

For further background material on the Lobbyist Act refer to these previous posts:

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Summary

Of Lobbyists and Accountability

As Sue's Blog talked about last month - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has engaged a lobbyist out of Ottawa to deal with the feds on the Lower Churchill development. Timothy Powers VP Summa Strategies and a Stephen Harper Conservative strategist and talking head has been employed by NLH to lobby:

The Prime Minister's Office, Environment Canada, Finance Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, National Energy Board, Natural Resources Canada

lobbying for:

Assistance related to the Lower Churchill Project. Development of National East-West energy grid

using the following techniques:

Arrange one or more meetings, Meetings, Written communications, whether in hard copy or electronic format, Telephone calls, Informal communications

Danny still refuses to tell us why this is happening and why he needs an Ottawa and Conservative flunky to deal with the PMO and fed departments to talk about the Lower Churchill. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not released how much we are paying this individual and how much progress he has made.

No openness and no accountability!

From a government perspective John Fitzgerald our "non-talking head" in Ottawa should be able to set up meetings - have informal chats etc. regarding the Lower Churchill development - we pay him to do such things. Secondly we have a Minister of Natural Resources who is employed to do that. Thirdly we have the CEO of Hydro Ed Martin who is employed to do that. On top of all this we have Danny appointee Dean MacDonald who could and should do this - especially considering his close relationship with Tobin - the corporate and federal golden boy. If all that is not enough the Premier can talk to the Prime Minister. In light of all this "talent" - who needs a Tim Powers to have informal chats. The boys and girls I have mentioned above can swing a golf club right?

From Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's perspective - it is an energy company with a membership in the Canadian Hydropower Association.This Association employs both in-house and external federal lobbyists to promote the development of hydropower for the members.

Example:

Pierre Fortin is the president of the CHA and is a registered federal lobbyist. Under his documentation is the following:

THE CANADIAN HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE THE LEADERSHIP FOR THE RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND PROSPERITY OF THE CANADIAN HYDROPOWER INDUSTRY. THE PRINCIPAL VOICE OF CANADA'S HYDROPOWER INDUSTRY, THE CHA TAKES AN ACTIVE ROLE IN FORMULATING AND SHAPING PUBLIC POLICIES RESPONSIVE TO THE INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS. THE PRINCIPAL MANDATE OF THE CHA IS TO PROMOTE HYDROPOWER NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY AS A SOURCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, TO MAKE THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES OF HYDROPOWER BETTER KNOWN AND TO PUBLICIZE THE BENEFITS OF HYDROPOWER IN THE SEARCH FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS. THE CHA MEMBERS REPRESENT 95% OF THE HYDRO GENERATING CAPACITY IN CANADA

Any results from this yet Ed? Have you engaged the Association you are a member of to forward our policies? What about the Lower Churchill? How about the east-west grid?

Why is NLH employing Summa and Timothy Powers?

How much are they paying the company?

What results have they achieved?

What meetings have been arranged?

Who attended the meetings?

What informal discussions have taken place?

What was discussed?

Has Summa or Timothy Powers submitted a written progress report for NLH?

What has Ed Martin directed him to do?

Why was a federal Conservative strategist and defender of Stephen Harper been hired to forward our position on the Lower Churchill?

Let's see how accountable the Premier wants to be...

Is this a Pork Barrel?

A pork barrel,The term is commonly used as a political metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents or campaign contributors.


Let's look at the situation in its very basic form.

According to government - they wanted to own strands on a fibre optic network.

According to Dean MacDonald a consortium of Persona - MTS Allstream - and Rogers wanted to build a second fibre optic infrastructure in the province.

Aliant currently operates one fibre optic facility.

If government wants to own strands - then issue a Request for Proposals outlining specifically what government wants - for how long - including what additional services and maintenance may be required.

No - not here - not in Newfoundland and Labrador - the place of Kings - where our piece of geography is essentially owned and controlled by various families.

There is no consortium! There is an owner of the new fibre-optic infrastructure (Persona) and clients purchasing/renting/leasing strands.

It was pointed out originally by government that the consortium of MTS Allstream - Rogers - and Persona required government investment. It was later learned - that was based on a consultant's (Electronic Warfare Associates - Canada Ltd.) report which stated in part:

"Persona has declined to disclose its financial statements for the reason that they are privately held company and that they are involved in many other projects in other parts of the country which are not of concern to this project."

I guess Bragg Communications had no problem having a look before they agreed to buy them right?

This is it in a nutshell - Dean MacDonald wanted Persona to build and own a fibre optic network in Newfoundland and Labrador. He found two parties who would buy/rent/lease strands from the new infrastructure - he then wanted the government to invest 15 million in the deal - thereby gaining another client for the strands and additional value for Persona. That does not include the maintenance management fee and risk for catastrophic failure + renegotiated positions in 20 years.

Dean asked his buddy's government for the investment and got it. Now Persona is being sold having just reached the legal deal with government for the initial investment and other services. Dean will gain personally from his buddy's government investment.

The government should not have travelled this route and should have issued an RFP. There is more than a potential conflict here - there is an ethical conflict.

Dean MacDonald having brokered the deal with his buddy's government - is now involved in the sale of that same company to a wholly owned subsidiary of Bragg Communications in Nova Scotia.

The best part is - they only just signed the legal papers - yet the network is almost built. The Auditor General is "reviewing" the deal - but the legal papers are signed.

Regardless of the advantages Williams or Taylor espouse regarding cost savings - there was no reason for an RFP not to be issued - and there is no proof that an RFP would not have netted a better deal.

We were clearly told that all parties who could be in this "consortium" were. First of all it is not a consortium - secondly - the entirety of Persona is being sold to Bragg Communications - why couldn't they be involved in the so-called original consortium.

This was a flipper for MacDonald who had just come off the sale of Cable Atlantic to Rogers - shortly after invested in the purchase of Persona - and is now flipping it in 2007 - with increased value partially paid for by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What a crock - people - what a crock.

We have not seen the complete deal with Persona and there are many serious questions that need to be asked - regarding maintenance and equipment to convert the dark fibres to lit fibres - and the risks associated with catastrophic failure. Also - how much of the network (strands) percentage-wise will we but/rent/lease? Will the complete contract be released?

And Trev is on open-line trying to commend the deal.

What happened to Bob? The tale of two values!

Bob Mills - MP for Red Deer Alberta - who came from the Reform Party - then to the Alliance Party - and finally to the Conservative Party of Canada - followed thew same path as his leader Stephen Harper. The same views on democracy - transparency - and apparently political lobbyists.

Back in 1997 Mills had his knickers in a knot when 2 ex-Liberal MP's Paul Zed and Doug Young formed a company called Summa Strategies - an Ottawa lobby group. He was speaking in the House of Commons - as recorded by Hansard - about foreign policy.

Conservative MP Mills had this to say:

Basically this shows a real lack of foreign affairs initiative and policy by this government. It makes you wonder who is in charge of the foreign affairs department when a company, Summa Strategies, directed by ex-Liberal MPs Doug Young and Paul Zed, can in fact put forward a deal like this at such a critical time.

Shortly after the 1997 election these two gentlemen set up Summa Strategies as an Ottawa lobbying group. Obviously they are now taking great advantage of their contacts within the government. Mr. Young is acting for Canadian National Railways, a crown corporation he helped to privatize when he was minister of transport. No wonder Canadians are so skeptical of government and ex-ministers when they are involved in this sort of lobbying activities.

We need to tighten up these arrangements dramatically. Just imagine proposing to deal with a government like that of Saddam Hussein. While all the time arguing that this was a humanitarian deal for trucks and a number of items which were not listed, they went further to invite the foreign affairs minister, Tariq Aziz, to visit Canada, to visit the Prime Minister of New Brunswick, for which he claimed he had an invitation.

We in this House get tired of the government standing up, beating its chest and saying how wonderful it is. It talks about standing up to Saddam Hussein, yet we let this billion dollar deal to go ahead. Maybe the UN will scuttle it. We talk about how great we are in saving the world with land mines, meanwhile we are selling nuclear plants to India, Romania, China, Turkey and Korea, to name a few.

We talk about how we have solved all the financial problems, when in reality we have a $600 billion debt. We talk about a Zaire mission which we championed because the Prime Minister saw it on television. Then we found out that the day before the President of the United States called and suggested that that is what Canada should do.

We get tired of this sort of double standard and double talk. I question who is in charge over there? Doug Young, Paul Zed and Summa Strategies or the foreign affairs minister.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let me ask the same question of Bob Mills today. Who is in charge over there the Prime Minister - the government - or Summa Strategies - now that conservative strategist Tim Powers is a VP of the company?

Where is all your concern now? Isn't it ironic that Tim who comes from the Alliance ilk (Grant Hill's Campaign for Alliance leadership) is now not only agreeing with the lobbyist mentality but has become one - and for Summa no less.

Punishment by Premier - Select and Inconsistent

This anything but conservative (ABC) campaign by Premier Danny Williams is apparently limited and a matter of convenience.

It apparently applies to votes but not money.

You see while Danny says we must punish Loyola Hearn - Norman Doyle - and Fabain Manning - he turns his head and ignores our province paying a lobbyist who feels the Prime Minister keeps his promises to Canadians.

Here's an example - as we already know - Conservative strategist and Summa VP Tim Powers has been hired as a lobbyist for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the Lower Churchill development and an east-west energy grid. CLICK HERE

Tim Powers was commenting to a CTV reporter in March - after the federal budget - on a poll showing Harper was making gains in Quebec. That is the budget which seen our province take a big hit on equalization based on the pre-election promises by Harper.

The CTV Story included the following:

Conservative party strategist Tim Powers says that while Quebecers, like many other Canadians, might not be enthralled with Harper personally, they appreciate what he's accomplished.

"You're seeing that reflected in the polls," Powers said. "They see that Harper's kept his promises to them."

Tell me something Danny - why is it we have hired this fellow to lobby for us on such a significant file - the Lower Churchill?

Why is Danny punishing our Conservative MP's but not the strategists that spin their message?

Why is your punishment select and inconsistent?

Why does your ABC strategy not extend to Conservative Lobbyists?

Closer to home - Fish Lobbyist

Newly minted Conservative MHA Keith Hutchings - he was just a provincial lobbyist for the Association of Seafood Producers - ending 2007-01-12. He was lobbying on behalf of these employers to the Workplace Health and Safety Commission. Do voters know this? Does Trish Dodd and the Injured Workers Association know this?

When on with Randy Simms - Simms asked tell us a bit about yourself - he did not say -I am or was just a paid lobbyist for the Association of Seafood Producers. In that wonderful fishing district of our province - and Keith who claimed that the fisheries collapse is tough but you know aquaculture is the way of the future. Gee - where did he get that theory from?

Does the fact that he lobbied for the Seafood Producers Association have any bearing on his opinions round the caucus table?

Why not ask people we elect or who want to be elected - who were they working for. Why not ask those people we pay?

You see the red-herring of a blogger not identifying who they work for - is just that - raise the invalid - to hide the valid.

You see Keith worked for Loyola Sullivan when he was PC leader - did he ever work for the WHSC? Loyola - whose brothers are involved with Seafood Producers!

I guess Keith had great contacts within government.

Once again - I ask - what are the MHA's for or the MP's - get a lobbyist.

Maybe the Independent and Ryan Cleary could do some research on what a lobbyist is - who they work for - how much they are paid - and what they are lobbying for.

Who needs MP's or MHA's - Get a Lobbyist

Despite the ignorance of Ryan Cleary and those who continue to quote him - lobbyists have to be registered in Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.

Danny wanted to get rid of the Gary Ansteys of the world so he said we will have the legislature enact "lobbyist" legislation. Apparently that fell short when Dean MacDonald was lobbying for provincial funds for the fibre optic deal nevertheless there is a registry for everybody else.

In either case - seeing how Ryan and flunkies want to lay cards on the table let's see who has been and who is a lobbyist. Working the front-rooms in the back-room trying to get their clients some leverage with governments one way or the other. These are the people who have government's ear.

Who are they? Well many of them are politico's who have sucked up to some leader or party and are deemed to have a "close" relationship with a PM or Premier. Others are just our politicians - retired - who can do more for people after they get out.

For instance back in the Liberal days:

Gary Anstey was federally registered as a lobbyist for:

Kruger
Voisey's Bay
Petro-Canada
FPI
Husky Oil
Hibernia Management and Development
Iron Ore Company
North Atlantic Refiningand the list goes on...

Based on what was accomplished and all the perks and giveaways the people say the Liberals did under Tobin/Grimes et al. he basically wrote the Liberal Policy Book.
And these guys want a chance to do that again. Remember there was no provincial lobbyist registry at that time.

Winston Baker (remember him?)

He was registered as a lobbyist because some company wanted to buy the Newfoundland Dockyard Corporation.

Or how about Ed Roberts ( you know our Lieutenant Governor)
Well he has lobbied on behalf of the St. John's Port Corporation and in the registry was listed as a lobbyist for Mel Woodward's company (Coastal Shipping) from 1997 - 2005.

Then there's our Brian (Tobin) who is up there now lobbying for Rogers. He also lobbied on behalf of SeaRay dealers (boats and yachts) to avoid any retaliation from the US during the softwood lumber dispute. Of course he was also the lobbyist for the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association. (Dean were you ever the head of that?)Brian - the so called Liberal with the really good Tory connections.

And John Crosbie - he lobbied for Texada land Corporation a real estate developer in BC. They bought up thousands of acres of land in an environmentally important area. Residents of the area were in the process of trying to preserve it when the purchase occurred. So I guess Texada needed a hand to sell the property to government - federal or provincial.

And this is just the tip of that iceberg. Where is John Fitzgerald - the fellow we pay to get things done in Ottawa. You know set up meetings etc. - what is he doing? dodging lobbyists?

This is how it works people - your MP's are useless - get a lobbyist. Apparently Tim Powers an unelected spin doctor is seen to have more influence with the Prime Minister than Loyola Hearn our Minister? What about our Minister of Energy - what about Kathy Dunderdale? Can you get a meeting or what? Any chance Dean MacDonald or Ed Martin can get in there?

And what is Tim exactly lobbying for? Does he know what the yet unreleased energy plan says?

This is just the federal scene. Let's really look at who is being paid to influence politicians.

When you try to take the feet out from under a citizen lobbying on behalf of people -unpaid - and in public - you should really remember who the real lobbyists are. You live in really big houses but they are made of glass.

Is Cleary Independent?

Ryan Cleary has written a couple of stories in the paper he works for - over the past couple of weeks. Stories? No! Trash? Yes!

Here's the deal - Ryan asked me if I would do a column in the paper on June 07-06. I said I would - and mt first one appeared June 18-06. They ran weekly after that until Ryan sent me the following request on August 07-06:

Morning Sue,

Hope your weekend was a good one.


We have a meeting scheduled for 1 p.m. Tuesday.


Before we meet, however, I need to bring a few things up.

One point that's been raised with me is the fact you work as a
consultant/lobbyiest —or at least you have in the recent past.
I've been asked who you're working for besides The Independent.

I cannot answer the question because I do not know myself.

Considering you have worked as a consultant — I need a list of all
companies/individuals/parties —essentially anybody you've worked for
over the past three years.

ryan

This request was made for employment purposes. My answer to the question should have remained confidential - as it was not asked by a journalist for a story. In fact Ryan could have telephoned me and should have telephoned me to ask the same question for a story almost a year later. He did not.

Having said that - I told Ryan I was not working for anyone or any company that I was writing about. Ryan could have supplied a list of industries and organizations that may have placed me in conflict - he did not. Further he only asked the question three months in. The truth is Ryan found the whole thing amusing - and that's not surprising. In my opinion Ryan knew what my answer would be before he asked the question.

I was working on a fairly expansive piece on charities in Canada and problems within the Canada Revenue Agency. This story was hard hitting and included interviews with MP's of the NDP and Liberal Parties (Critics for the portfolio). It also included information supplied by employees which demonstrated the problems within the department. The research for both the national and local stories was commissioned by Ryan and his paper. I had completed over 3 weeks of research and the story was about to be published. Then there was a hitch! The story focused on the following:

Charities that had lost their charitable status because they had failed to file their tax returns for 2 years and a problem with bogus charities being set up and operating for over 5 years before they were caught.

As I mentioned there was a local and national component of this research. Many charities in Newfoundland and Labrador had lost their status for failure to file returns. Part of the problem with the smaller ones - like a local museum in a small community was they did not have the people resources. The other problem however was the negligence of some Boards to stay on top of the charity they were serving on. These people were university professors - some within the business faculty. In one case like this receipts were being issued - after the charitable status had been revoked.

In one of these cases - a particular individual kept calling me at home asking that I not publish their information - despite the fact that they had only learned of the revocation because I told them. They went on to correct the problems - that they had not discovered themselves. This individual called me two or three times a day for over a week. Then the calls stopped - and Ryan sent me the email found above.

It's all about who you know - not what is true.

Sue's Blog will publish the information and results of the research over the coming weeks. Then you the reader can decide why Ryan requested the information from me.

While Ryan approved all the interviews and the research - the paper did not pay for the story they did not publish.

Here's the irony - The Privacy Laws both federal and provincial do not protect an employer from releasing employee information (without permission). Even though common sense and ethics prevent most employers from making employment information public - this person decided he would. Further had I released information on my clients - I would have been in violation of the federal law.

On that note - I have contacted the Minister for Employment and a couple of government MHA's regarding this loophole in the legislation regarding privacy for employee information. Alberta - Quebec - and BC have already passed legislation correcting this problem and other provinces were asked to have the same done by 2004 - else the federal law would apply. I trust our government will correct this problem in the near future. If not employers without common sense or integrity can release employee information as Ryan Cleary did.

One further point - Ryan's in depth questions for bloggers - should be applied to let's say Dean MacDonald - who received or is receiving 15 million dollars of the taxpayer dollars for Persona. Ask Dean the tough questions:

Who have you had dealings with over the past three years.
Tell me every social or business contact you have had with the Premier for three years.
This person who has garnered significant government dollars for the company he represents - somehow got through the Lobbyist Act - the deal is currently under review of the Auditor General - who sits on the Premier's committees and is the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - does not get the same question from Ryan - the "journalist"?

And while we are at it - did Ryan ask for a three year list of clients from other columnists? John Crosbie? Randy Simms? Ray Guy? Noreen Golfman? Why me Ryan and why when you did? You need to answer those questions if anybody should consider taking you or your paper seriously.

Ryan Cleary: Do not publish this response in the Independent. You do not have my permission.