Real BREAKING NEWS

Yesterday Sue's Blog focused on the journalistic style of James McLeod in his story headlined "Nalcor audit won’t be done before retirement: AG".

Today let's look at some of the other information we can take from this interview.

The AG Terry Paddon is retiring at months end. He leaves behind an unfinished audit of specific operations of Nalcor.

The story does not tell us some important things.

How far along is the audit?
When did Paddon expect to finish it when it began?
Did he run into unforeseen difficulties in attaining the information he needed?
Was it Paddon's intent to finish the audit before he retired?
What does Paddon think the cost will be to finish it?
Is it more costly under a new Auditor General than if he completed it before he retired?
Did he find anything worth noting now?

Terry Paddon is one of those nice people. Not much - I've ever seen in his personality that would put people off. He is a professional by designation and as best I could tell - took his role seriously.

Paddon - however - missed a couple of key areas in his tenure with the Department of Finance and as Auditor General. He missed some real activity regarding the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (Equalization) - despite being alerted to it.

Equalization - as the program is normally referred to - primarily has been to the benefit of Quebec. The program which Stephen Harper promised he would change but then did not - I assume was kept whole for Quebec.

Harper's promise to remove royalties from non-renewable resources from the formula - would have meant that our oil revenues could have served to improve the lives of future generations so much more. That was a digression. (still angry at CPC for deliberately conning Newfoundland and Labrador and "Seantor" Manning's standing at Harper's side as he did it)



BREAKING NEWS

Many people may not have noticed - but Hydro-Quebec does a significant amount of public program spending. They have been doing that for decades.  Why is the question....

ANSWER

Back in 2000 Stephane Dion then President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appeared on Bill Rowe's Open-Line. I asked questions the Minister could not answer on line - so he did as he promised - wrote me the answers to my questions.

Below is the response: 





"On the question of the treatment of Churchill Falls under the Equalization program, it should be noted that an adjustment has been made in the calculation of Equalization payments since 1982 which takes into account how Churchill Falls hydro is priced. Equalization payments are based on the relative ability of each province to raise taxes; and the Churchill Falls adjustment shifts some capacity to tax hydro sites from Newfoundland to Quebec. The net effect is to reduce Quebec's annual Equalization payments while raising Newfoundland's. Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's Equalization."

Right from the get-go we were being further penalized on the Upper Churchill - while Quebec reaped even more benefits. Then the formula was changed to reflect the real contract (albeit not enough in my opinion).

Were we ever compensated for the past - NO.

The real kicker though was found accidentally in the last sentence of Dion's response.  "Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's Equalization."

That little remark was an eye opener for anybody watching Hydro-Quebec - as I certainly was.

The hundreds of News Releases coming out of Hydro-Quebec in those years were phenomenal. Now it made sense. Before profit - expenses come out. If Hydro-Quebec delivered or helped to deliver public programming on behalf of the Government of Quebec - they lowered their profits - while the province of Quebec saved equalization money - which gave the province even more to spend on public programs.

In short - Hydro-Quebec making billions off our resource - reduced their profits - lowered remitances to the government - in some years almost to zero - to avoid the loss of equalization. This in turn exponentially increased the value from Labrador resources for Quebec.

At the time Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was making money and was remitting profits to Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time we could have taken advantage of the same. Today Nalcor is not "profitable" - only by force of the PUB, our laws, and oil activity. Nalcor never did do the investment and development that Hydro-Quebec has successfully. 

Terry Paddon was aware of this and we did nothing. We sat on our hands and did nothing.

The political and media spin in Newfoundland and Labrador became we MUST become a "have" province. The romantic - naive - irrelevant title of "have". The "have being based on a formula that could see a financially destitute province be "have" while a thriving growing super power province be "have not".

Let me be more clear: Quebec has an unemployment rate of 6% Newfoundland and Labrador is at almost 15%. The population in NL was 530,854 in 1971 and 528,817 in 2017 meanwhile the population in Quebec was 6,137,305  in 1971 and 8,394,034 in 2017.  Provincial debt NL is $23,052 per person while in Quebec it is $22,104. This does not include the albatross of 13 Billion for Muskrat Falls. Then we take into account that Nalcor is not financing all it's own obligations - we put in a fair chunk and it is only barely profitable because of oil operations. When compared to Hydro-Quebec which has hundreds of millions in profits - without oil revenues.

Paddon failed by not describing what equalization truly is and how the system works. It's not all his fault - but political masters should not have had that much say.

The media - should really get its collective act together and do some real reporting. It should make itself knowledgeable about important issues and policies before it puts out fluff - this denying the people of balanced information on which they can make a decision.

It is no longer acceptable to have zero leadership in politics and zero accountability of the news media.

We are broke. We continue to repeat mistakes. We continue to dream without doing anything that remotely will help us achieve our dream of prosperous future. 

By the way - are there any MHA's willing to wade in to this discussion or members of our "press corps"?















 

Apathy and disorganization - a politician's dream

So much is known now about the Muskrat Falls fiasco - that even with the information we do not have - we know we've been had.

The perplexing question is how do we stop it?

Dwight Ball, Danny Williams, and those making fortunes on our bankrupt backs are counting on 2 things.

The first is apathy and the second is disorganization.

Let's talk about apathy. In the last CRA Poll of "decided" voters the Liberals held 40%, the PC's held 33%, the NDP held 24%, the Labrador Party 2% and the Greens (not a provincial party) held 1%.

Now the reality is that the undecided/refused was 43%,  therefore the Liberals have support of 22.8% the PC's have support of 18.8%, the NDP have support of 13.6%, the Labrador Party have support of 1.1% and the Greens have support of .57%.

Part of this can be attributed to apathy and that suits the politicians just fine. Despite their protestations that voter participation should be higher - they are doing nothing really to entice those who either are sick of politicians or those who could care less.

Next we get to disorganization - a large chunk of that 43% undecided/refused are people who want to participate - but are so fed up with the big three choices that they can't commit to anything. They are also discouraged by the improbability that any new or marginal party would stand a chance.

There are twitter and blog trolls whose job it is to discourage active democratic movement - by simply saying things like "that won't work" "can't be done" "extremists and naysayers" etc.

Politicians are currently comfortable that this is all it will take to keep a real democratic movement from going forward. Why are they comfortable? Because the opposition to them is disorganized.

We have talented bloggers, intelligent tweeters, backroom experts, and call show gurus. They come from varied backgrounds and have personalities that are as diverse as you can get. They certainly have enough wherewithal to begin a new political movement. They could form a Cabinet that would make the current crew and the PC's before them look like rank amateurs.

For the most part - these people - many of whom have had political affiliations in the past - do not put Party in front of Province. They will take aim at the real issues and let rip.

The government (regardless of which one) will attempt to take some of them out with political appointments or engage them in another way to diminish the pool of articulate opposition.

In Quebec and other provinces - political movements are seen as advantageous and are encouraged. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have oodles of political minions who will take great pleasure in knocking them down. They don't have the capability to take them down on wits - so they get involved in name calling like "naysayer", "partisan", and/or "conspiracy theorists".

The other favourite pastime in Newfoundland and Labrador is to turn one of these people who oppose government against another who opposes government. This is done subtly - someone who knows someone says this about someone. You know - I'm sure you've all heard it. Then there is the politicians go-to,  try and negatively impact the life of one of their antagonists. Yes - they do this - all the time.

The not-so-subtle approach is to just have a number of minions go beyond the normal types of insults and question a person's sanity - publicly. They also bring out "experts" to try and downplay the findings of a blogger - regardless of the validity.  This public approach is also designed to deter others from becoming involved.

This is what we are dealing with. This is real.

Until the bloggers, the Tweeters, the backroom experts, and the call-show gurus (unofficial opposition) get together and plan some real action under real leadership - Muskrat and every other fiasco will continue.

We won't have a province left - but thanks to social media we'll have an historical account of the opposition.

An email or manifesto?

Mr. Dunphy's funeral service is over. The family is left to mourn his tragic death and find a way forward.

The leaked "email" from the yet unidentified officer involved in the shooting death of Don Dunphy - was reportedly sent to the officer's colleagues at the RNC.

Let's reflect first on what RNC Chief Janes said about the officer when answering  questions from the media. Listen and watch HERE

Question from Fred Hutton VOCM news:

Have you spoken with the officer who fired the shot? 

Answer from Chief Janes: Yes I have

Question from Fred Hutton: and How's he doing?

Answer from Chief Janes:

umm I think ah how he feels will change over time and em part of our response is the....

I now ask Chief Janes if the "email" reflects how the officer felt when he first spoke to him? Or does the "email" by the officer represent a change in how the officer felt when he first spoke to him?

In my opinion the alleged "email" from an unnamed individual to an unconfirmed list of people - leaked or given to the CBC is hardly a communication that would lessen the concerns of a troubled society.

If this "email" was written by the officer and sent to his colleagues - he/she has managed to increase the level of confusion, take a wide swipe at the intelligence of the population, cause even more questions that need to be vetted by a judicial inquiry, and continues to ignore the actions and behavior of some of his police colleagues.

Unlike the tweets of Mr. Dunphy - which were separated and referenced without context in the initial released information of the "perceived" threat, the CBC in this instance released all of the "email" so we could read it in context. Further the CBC unlike the immediate identification of Mr. Dunphy has yet to release the name of the officer.

Without at the very least the CBC telling us - the officers rank - years of service - educational background - professional areas of expertise - before or in conjunction with the release of the "email" - in my opinion is irresponsible. It appears the CBC is being controlled by somebody outside of it's own organization.

Over the past number of years and as recently as the days immediately after the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - the public has been served up with very questionable and some criminal activity of RNC officers.

We have been subject to wrongful convictions, failure to act on the Mount Cashel complaints, convictions under the criminal code, investigations of officers who did not act professionally during investigations, evidence being thrown out in court as the result of improper collection of said evidence. This coupled with events both in other provinces in Canada and and states in the USA involving questionable or criminal activity of police officers - provide educated reason for the public to be skeptical, concerned, troubled and vocal when an instance such as the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy happens.

The alleged "email" from the officer pointed many fingers at social media participants, callers to talk shows, and the "prolific ignorance prevailing in our society" - but failed however to point one finger at the behavior of some of his police colleagues as a significant reason for distrust and concern.

While this "email" appears to take some issue with social media and callers to talk shows speaking freely and asking questions that they feel need answers - there are many in society and authority who give thanks for such openness of communication and scrutiny of authorities. It has resulted in many instances where events that may never have seen the light of day - being fully vetted through independent inquiry.

The "email" has made its way to the public and presents a one-sided view of an event that took the life of the only other witness.

The positive components of the "email" revolve around identifying the need to help a person in crisis. If one reads the "email" and accepts as truth the entire contents then they are left with serious questions about WHSCC, sitting politicians, the RCMP and family members. The "email" allegedly written  by the officer who shot Mr. Dunphy certainly questions how Mr. Dunphy would have reached this state without receiving some sort of help.

It questions any other officer who has visited Dunphy prior to this event. It questions the response of government, commission employees, and politicians to Mr. Dunphy over a significant period of time. It even questions the role of his family and their response to his needs. What the "email" does state by the author is "For Mr. Dunphy we were certainly too late - " and "I unequivocally wish I could have visited Mr. Dunphy at a point in his life where another level of intervention may have been possible". So what was everybody else doing during that time? The statement and judgement issued by the officer in the alleged "email" can certainly appear to be damning to others who were in communication with Mr. Dunphy regarding his grievances. It certainly should be enough to warrant a judicial inquiry into the entire event that led to the death of Mr. Dunphy.

The "email" contains the following statement: "We live in a time where opinion is ubiquitous, while facts seemingly take a back seat to what is titillating." My response to that is when did we live in a time when opinion was not ubiquitous? My understanding is that the great wars were fought to protect that. With regard to the "titillating" comment - I take issue with the word used - however if we are to use it - arguably the most "titillating" information comes from this "email" by an anonymous author - leaked to the CBC and the select use of one tweet by Mr. Dunphy in isolation of the entire thread.

I would respectfully suggest the author of the "email" read a report entitled Police Involved Deaths - The Need for Reform found here and the Judicial Inquiry headed by Justice Donald Luther found here and the McDonald Commission of Inquiry found here and the Lamer Commission of Inquiry found here (University of Manitoba site - unbelievably it has been removed from the NL Dept. of Justice Link) and many others readily available thanks to the internet and social media. Perhaps the author of the "email" could provide some insight into the transcript between Sgt. Buckle and Const. Kelly found here currently under review of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice. Perhaps the author can suggest what the appropriate response from the public should be upon reading that transcript.

Oddly the "email" suggests failures but does not insist on a judicial inquiry. Why not? These inquiries have resulted in policy and educational changes in police forces - have found deficiencies in Mental Health programs and responses to individuals needing that help.

The "email" states "The vocal minority engaged in social media and open line talk shows appear to want an immediate cyber-trial in a veritable town square, instead of a professional and detailed investigation involving interviews and scientific analysis." It did not say some of the vocal minority or some participants in social media and open line talk shows - it painted all of such participants to appear to want...

To the contrary - most people involved on social media and open line talk shows want a judicial inquiry. We want an inquiry independent of the police forces involved in the events leading to the death of Mr. Dunphy. I do note that the author of the "email" does not even suggest that potential appearances of conflict with police investigating police should be addressed.

The "email" bordering on a manifesto states: "Some will tell you that our Premier should be, or is an ordinary person; the reality however is that while they may have once been an "ordinary person" (if such a thing exists), they are now our Premier, and there is nothing ordinary about that Office. Society has eroded many of the comforts and standard amenities that should come with being an elected official - all in the name of politics."  

Surely this statement should cause all in a democracy to be concerned. The basic premise of democracy is the participation of all citizens in their governance - and does not include providing amenities and comforts for political office. It is a position of public service and the indisputable evidence that that person is "ordinary" is found in the arguable position that many Premiers and Cabinet Ministers are not educated sufficiently in the portfolio they hold. Perhaps the author of the "email" might tell us how to change our democracy to suit his/her beliefs on this political system. The "email" blames a society - he serves and is paid by - for eroding comforts and amenities of politicians. This appears to be an individual who believes in the entitlement of elected officials. It also ignores the conviction and incarceration of many politicians who felt they were entitled to more. It was his/her force that participated in the investigation of many of these politicians. Once an elected person ceases to be an ordinary person - they should quit or join in a political system where the public serves the politicians and not the other way around.

I also note the "email" is addressed to friends and colleagues - I was of the understanding by the media that it was addressed to colleagues. Has the email been sent to any person other than currently active duty RNC officers or has it been sent to others as well - if so - what is the complete list? Considering the CBC got a copy - how far did the original email go?

The email certainly goes a long way in describing the judgement of the officer on the event, on the mental health of Don Dunphy, on the behavior of participants in social media, on the behavior of open line talk show participants, how society treats politicians, and the general ignorance of people.

The "email" states the following: "Protective Policing — is predicated on intelligence led investigations.  Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive.  ie.  Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly.  Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs.   Use the Ottawa shooting as an inverse comparison;  society was quick in this case to ask where the police were in identifying red flags.  Erroneous misleading statistics associated to the depth of work police carry out is difficult to explain in a media sound-bite, but people need to understand that a singular police file number does not capture what we do in its totality."

One of the key questions from the vocal portion of the public has been why did the officer attend Mr. Dunphy on his/her own without another officer. Was the risk assessment that led to this decision accurate? Many people I have spoken to have grave concerns about this and are concerned about circumstances such as this where there are no other witnesses to the outcome. Clearly the concern is warranted - as one individual has lost their life. This is what the majority of people in our society want to avoid. Further the question remains on whether or not the officer was under orders to attend the residence of Mr. Dunphy and if so by whom. On the issue of using an "inverse comparison" - we might also ask ourselves what would be the reaction if it was a police officer shot and killed by an individual - without witnesses. Would that individual be sending out emails to friends and colleagues suggesting the state of the officer at the time of the event? Would the individual be taken into custody? Would the CBC be publishing leaks? Have a look in South Carolina and ask - what would be the story if a video-tape had not been produced by a private citizen?

This "email" reinforces not reduces the need for a judicial inquiry on this matter.

I am the daughter and granddaughter of retired uniformed officers. 

Bas Jamieson and the Mystery Lady

Three of the Jamieson boys were kind of the same - but Bas was a great combo of Don and Colin's memorable personalities.

I grew up hearing about Don - his intelligence, his diplomacy and politics. Colin was my boss at my real first job at Q-Radio - later to become part of the CHUM group.

Bas - however - was Don and Colin rolled into one. He had a wonderful mind and a great broadcasting presence. I got to experience both - and that is what I recall today.

When former Premier ClydeWells and his government were going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - I along with a few others became incensed. We knew that Clyde had planned some privatizations due to the economic times of the day - but until he uttered it from his mouth - after the election - did we know it would include Hydro.

So - we had to make a noise - we had to be heard. We needed to let people know how shortsighted this was and that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was a Crown Jewel.

I began really listening to open-line programs then to see if anybody was going to speak up. Clearly this was not going to happen unless somebody (outside politicians) raised the issue publicly.

I remember picking up the phone and calling VOCM - not sure if it was open-line or the night line - big gulp - then a producer picked up the phone. He asked what my name was and I chose to remain anonymous. I was frightened to death. I knew what I wanted to say - sort-of - but I was shaking. Sweat on the brow - Bas announced that line #1 was up - and that was me. We had a good chat - and he made me feel comfortable. He told me I did alright as a first time caller and to call back again to talk about the Hydro issue.

At that time the VOCM talk shows were really the voice of the common man. There was no inundation of politicians and people lined up on the phone in the order they called and Bas got through the list.

I called several times over the following weeks - remained anonymous - but as Bas was - he had to give me some sort of nickname. I became the "mystery lady". Well the mystery lady and Bas had some pretty significant chats about Hydro and politicians started to perk their ears up. As a host Bas was fantastic - he challenged then listened - with patience - to hear a reply. He took the information in almost moment by moment and within short order - Bas - demonstrated a knowledge of Hydro that the majority of PC Ministers don't have yet.

Bas's memory and analytical thinking were crisp and his broadcast personality and diplomacy took the fear out of people who might otherwise not have weighed in. He was challenging - but with great restraint - as he tested the theories on Hydro that were now coming from all directions. He made me think - every time I finished a call. I would check my facts - review more material - and be eager to share it with him - and through him have a wonderful conversation with thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I was joined on the line after a few months by Greg Malone, Cy Abery, and Hydro workers (who remained anonymous). Everybody was getting engaged - we even managed to drag in the Opposition Party - at that time Len Simms and LynnVerge - were at the forefront. As more and more people became involved Bas treated them all with respect and patience as the debate on Hydro waged on. The more heated it became the more diplomatic Bas became and because of that others felt comfortable weighing in. He was the best host of a talk show we had ever seen and likely to see. His job was to get the information out - and challenge rhetoric - so the people - his audience - could make an educated decision on the issue.

Bas did not hold back when he needed to get through the nonsense and he did not distinguish between a Cabinet Minister or a caller from the Big Land. Everybody felt their opinions and positions on the Hydro debate held value - that's because Bas made sure it was that way.

The real difference between Bas and others who came before and after his hosting was his driven desire to let everybody get involved - he loved it when the population used their democracy as it should be used. He loved it when the politicians got bees in their bonnets and reminded them that they serve the people - and the people have the right to speak and be heard.

Eventually myself and Greg Malone got together and formed Power of the People and gathered other like minded individuals together to fight the privatization full-on. I knew Greg - as most did - from the Wonderful Grand Band and his artistic accomplishments - but I came to know more as we met on the Hydro issue. Bas in his usual way - encouraged Greg to call and bring his passion and knowledge to the debate. I think Bas knew he had two feisty ones on his hands - but managed to bring the best out of us both. Greg had a more calm demeanor - while I (the younger Sue) was filled with impatience and somewhat intolerant of the politicians and their spin. Bas however - got the best out of Sue - and eventually I became Sue - after I needed to identify myself as we - the Power of the People - were granted an meeting with Premier Wells to have our say directly.

The decision not to privatize the Crown utility was the right one and has netted the people billions of dollars both in value and lower utility rates than would have been in the years that followed. Bas Jamieson was the social catalyst that allowed the full debate to occur. Bas Jamieson was the reason  the people - not the politicians - won the day. His intelligent, kind, diplomatic, and patient and social persona allowed democracy to work at its best.

The decision was left to the people because Bas was the consummate professional - and we - the people - were the winners.

Obviously Bas had a long distinguished career that entailed many more broadcasting feats and his voice is one I will not forget. I wonder what he would have done if Twitter was the rage when he was doing the show? My guess is we might have heard "there's more brains in a can of rabbit" more than a few times - as partisan backbench Tories put out the fluff.

Thank you Bas and thanks to his family for sharing this gentleman - who truly made a difference in all of our lives.

Danny Dumaresque Live and Unfettered

Next Monday - January 13th - from 6 to 8 pm join me on Talk with Sue "For the Record" Series 2 After the Sanction with special guest Danny Dumaresque.

Danny is also featured in Talk with Sue For the Record in 2013 Pre-Sanction.

After the energy crisis of the last couple of weeks - left over a hundred thousand people without power - rolling blackouts - school and college closures - and worse several of our people sick and one citizen dead from carbon monoxide - many people are asking how and why.

We have heard from government, Nalcor, and Muskrat supporters over and over on talk shows - social media - and through news conferences and news releases. Now we need to hear from people with a different message - a different point of view - and those who are not afraid to speak openly and frankly about this situation.

Danny Dumaresque is a former member of the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador - a candidate for the provincial Liberal leadership - a former MHA - a businessman - father and a strong advocate for all things Labrador.

Dumaresque has spoken openly over many years regarding Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Nalcor and has spent countless hours reviewing Nalcor material on Muskrat Falls, researching tunnels across water for transport and energy, energy choices, energy for industrial development, and achieving true energy independence.

The show will feature Danny Dumaresque live and unfettered. He will have 2 hours to talk about what we've all been talking about.

If you have any questions you would like me to ask Danny - please leave them in the comments section.

Please join the show on Monday by CLICKING HERE

The previous 10 episodes have garnered over 25,000 listens and downloads.

Love to have you join us.

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

 

Cool Hand Luke meets Premier Dunderdale

Premier Dunderdale was faced with yet another bad polling result yesterday - in the latest quarterly CRA poll.

The polls are telling them that people do not support their government, it's direction, it's approach or her leadership.

The change in party support is virtually within the margin of error.

The Premier has decided that it has nothing to do with the policies or direction of government - rather it's how they brag about their achievements.

In this respect there are a few problems with the Dunderdale assessment.

1. Essentially it means the voting public must be stupid - we just don't get it. We are unable to see all the great things around us - unless of course the right marketing agency or personnel tell us in simpler - more understandable terms.

2. The Dunderdale government has spent untold fortunes advertising and a use of tremendous human resources to "message us".

3. The Dunderdale government has filled all social media and dominated talk shows to "message us".

4. The Premier feels that more fuzzy "home heating" like promotion may warm the cockles of our feeling cold Tory hearts.

5. Refusal to accept that certainly some - if not all - of the public dissatisfaction is because we do understand what they are doing.

We all should be very wary of what this government may do next. They may go on a spending spree filling our homes with flyers, surveys, and broadcast and print media advertising.

So - based on what the Premier said we should expect the following:

1. No change whatsoever in policy.

2. An elimination of participating in talk shows.

3. All members of the PC caucus will be off Twitter and Facebook.

4. Inundation of advertising and promotional material to brainwash us into seeing the light.

5. Re announcing funding initiatives 6 times over instead of 3.

The little (margin of error) bump in the polls is what she needed to satisfy her docile caucus and hang on to her job for another 3 months.

Her advisor (Ross Reid) must of helped to come up with an excuse for their continued failure in the polls. (communication)

The Premier's message to us is; what we've got here is a failure to communicate. 

No - Warden Dunderdale - I will not get used to wearing the PC Chains of resource giveaways and failed policy - not to mention arrogance.

Lorraine Michael is 100% Right - Here's Why

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

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

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

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

How serious is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here are the Links to Relevant Material

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

VOCM apology to Innu people - Sincere? or...

The headline in the Telegram says it all - or does it?

Steele Communications apologizes on air for behavior of radio host

VOCM - it's parent company, Steele Communications, Randy Simms, and general manager Mike Murphy have all publicly apologized to Simeon Tshakapesh and the Innu people for remarks made by Openline Host Randy Simms.

Obviously an apology was deserved and the man behind the mic should be watched carefully - however was the apology sincere?

Randy Simms and Paddy Daley have oft in the past allowed or made comments on air that were false, misleading, offensive, and personally damaging - yet they continued on - no apology - no retraction. In fact - they usually justify by saying that some private citizens are not private because they call a talk show. This apparently justification for using their power behind the mic for whatever reason they choose.

The difference is they will not apologize to women, particularly to a woman they have always felt comfortable attacking - probably with the government's blessing.

Refresh your memory click HERE  or  HERE  or  HERE

I am not the only one that VOCM, Steele Communications, Newfoundland Capital Corporation, Randy and Paddy allow to be slandered - there are many more.

The difference right now is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the multi-millionaires, and certain business interests need the Innu people to work with them. This I'm sure VOCM will assist in when they can. The government does not need me or many other citizens of this province and would prefer if we would just go away. The public attack on people such as myself assists the government in their efforts to avoid critique, tough questions, and opposition to ill-fated policy positions.

In my opinion this apology to the Innu people was necessary not sincere. The truth is always in the facts somewhere - we just have to open our eyes and look.

The Cashin - Cochrane Files Will the Media act like Government?

In March of this year I posted the following:

Cochrane and Simms do not control Muskrat Debate

It is not only Cashin who has a problem here and if we do not strengthen the investigative research of our local media the Upper Churchill will be repeated. The final paragraph and it's assumption may well have been proved to be wrong.


Over the past couple of weeks some members of the media - commentators, reporters, and pundits appeared to have been dissuading people and politicians alike - from continued opposition to Muskrat Falls.

I have heard statements like - "nothing new" - which of course was the spin being promoted by Dunderdale and company.

I have a question for David Cochrane who carries himself like the head honcho of Newfoundland and Labrador "journalism". Have all the previously noted concerns been resolved?

The problem is that if a question - the same question - goes unanswered (satisfactorily) should one just stop asking?

From where I sit many questions asked from day one - have never been answered. The fact that Kennedy or Dunderdale open mouths and spew rhetoric does not mean an issue is resolved.

We are talking about 6-8 billion dollars of our money, the money of our children and grandchildren; we need to know if this project is the right one.

Some of the Unanswered Concerns:

1. What happens in 2041 and does this project have the potential to harm us in future dealings?

2. The need for power.

3. Alternatives.

4. Lowest Cost Alternative.

5. Labrador benefits.

6. Cheaper power for Nova Scotia.

7. Subsidization by Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers.

8. The need of a partner.

9. Long-term jobs.

10. Potential for alternative industrial development.

The problem - as I see it - is the media who are demonstrably frustrated by the ongoing debate are those individuals who are not educated enough on the issue to ask the right questions or lack the guts to take on the governing PC's.

I have watched most of Cochrane's material and in my opinion - he lacks information or the desire to really challenge the "facts" the government puts forth.

Randy Simms - in my opinion does not have the knowledge to determine if something regarding the project has been answered satisfactorily.

If they are going to use the media power available to them - they must also appreciate the responsibility that goes with that. I do not see that concern in them - and therefore - in my opinion they are doing the province and its people a disservice.

Now of course I am assuming here that the media will not act like Dunderdale and Kennedy and condemn somebody for speaking up. I do know better however.

What's behind the VOCM Attack?

Here's the problem. VOCM boasts about the size of its listening audience - particularly their talk-shows.

If this is true then Randy Simms and VOCM allowed out and out lies to be broadcast - about a private citizen - to thousands of people.

Is this the role of a commercial radio station? Clearly it is not. So why then did VOCM allow it and to date not address it?

And yes it continues - over the air - on twitter - anywhere Paddy can get a smack in.

The difference is - he has a mic - and he controls a commercial radio program. Each and every time he comments it goes to thousands of people. What is the purpose?

The following is a sample of Paddy Daly's tirades :

At least you're not at home "crooked" like Sue - Paddy Daly states today on the airwaves.

or this today on Twitter

@hydroqueen let's get the rules straight? you are flying solo with your ramblings. call or be quiet. gutless. hypocrite.

I have not been on his or Randy's show for a long time now and did nothing to precipitate the commentary about me by callers like "Bob".

So VOCM will do this: They will allow slander and lies about a private person - and then provide that person the opportunity to call in and talk about it. As you can see by the "rules" Paddy has set above - I am being told I am to be quiet - unless I am calling him.

Again I ask - why is all this going on? It certainly is not in the interest of public discourse on issues of societal concern.

The term gutless is interesting. He has a program on a commercial broadcast station and continues to take pot-shots - harassing me to call his show.

After reading a post on my blog last weekend - Paddy tweeted the following:

@hydroqueen you poor woman.

This is also a very revealing comment. A very interesting choice of words - indeed.

There is something behind all of this and perhaps VOCM, Paddy, and Randy can let us know exactly what that is.

Until then - VOCM, Paddy and Randy do not control my blog or my twitter - so I will carry on.

Again people take note: it's me today - it may be you tomorrow.

My interest is Newfoundland and Labrador and the future generations. If that means speaking up and asking questions - then that's what I will do. If that means I challenge government on very bad resource deals, regressive legislation, or positions of potential conflict - then I will. If that causes unfair attacks and harassment - so be it. I have been doing it for 25 years - still here.

Think Twice about calling VOCM Talk Shows - Slander

 VOCM continues to ignore the slander allowed by them during Open-Line last week.

Then let's get the rules straight. You can without any concern broadcast absolute and defamatory lies about a private citizen on VOCM.

As their talk-show hosts encourage you to call their programs to voice opinion on issues of public importance - please understand that this may subject you to defamatory statements and lies.

You therefore should advise your family that by agreeing to participate in these programs you understand that you may be may harmed both personally and professionally - as VOCM will not prohibit outright lies and slander.

If you think you are immune to this - wait until you express an opinion that goes against the current political authority. Partisan zealots will stop at nothing to attack you - whatever way they can - and truth does not matter. VOCM for its part will not prevent such occurrences.

The statement below was made by caller "Bob" to open-line last week.
 

"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."

This statement is an absolute lie. It also states that I was given something by a politician for loyalty. This is most defamatory and damaging.


These shows say they rely on callers to make the broadcast. I would suggest if callers are going to be subject to this - eventually the calls will stop.


Do you stand up for people when they are being bullied?

Do you believe people have the right to publicly broadcast lies about an individual? Will you support such activity?

Open season on Sue? I wonder if those rules would apply to all people.

VOCM - Open-Line - Slander 101

On Monday caller "Bob" to VOCM openline - hosted by Randy Simms - decided it was perfectly acceptable to make false statements about me.

"Bob" had called - as he usually does - to defend the Tories on one issue or another.

"Bob" also discussed - as he usually does - how he is unique and how his whole life he was made to feel abnormal.

That's what makes his continued attack on me so bizarre. It's as if he will punish me by doing to me what he claims was done to him.

In either case - on Monday - "Bob" once again crossed the line and as usual VOCM allowed it to be broadcast. VOCM failed to use the technology they employ to prevent such occurrences (delayed broadcast).

Audio of the Call can be found at the end of this post.

I will let the reader of this blog determine how or why I became relevant to what "Bob" was talking about. For now let's look at what "Bob" said about me.

"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."

I was not hired by Roger Grimes to defend any proposed deal regarding the development of the Lower Churchill. When I was hired it was Voisey's Bay that was the contentious issue and is a project that the Tories have benefited from politically ever since. The second part regarding Roger Grimes giving me a pharmacy for my loyalty is not a matter for interpretation. I do not and have never owned any part of a pharmacy.

Further my involvement in pharmacy began in 2008 as the Executive Director of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners. Roger Grimes has not been Premier since 2003. To suggest that I was given a pharmacy for my loyalty is a slanderous statement. It - one - is not in any way factual and - two - suggests that I was rewarded in some unethical way for loyalty to a politician or a political party.

What did Randy do? Well he laughed and then through an employee of VOCM on twitter suggested I call in.

This equally was despicable.

I am not employed by government and am not an elected official. I am a private citizen who engages in public discourse on matters of public interest.

I deal with policy and political issues and when I state somebody owns one asset or another - they do. When I state they hold a particular Board position or another - they do.

This blatant attempt to disparage me - based on completely false statements - by "Bob" and then allowed to be broadcast by Randy Simms and VOCM - will only serve to make other people afraid to make any public comments. This will make others feel they have no right to criticize the policies created and promoted by elected officials - for fear that partisans may call and make false statements about them.

Is this the point? If not I fail to see why this type of behavior continues to be allowed by a publicly traded company.

Audio Clip PRESS HERE

PUB did not do its Job? Marshall's take on Democracy!

Excuse me what?

Government is disappointed with what was predictable.

PUB said we need more time and information - and we want to do more public consultation.

Answer by Dunderdale government? NO!

The Public Utilities Board works for the people as our politicians are supposed to.

The PUB wants to do more public consultation and the government says no. Obvious problems and predictable outcome.

Minister Marshall - this morning on a talk-show "The Opposition has its say - the Government gets its way." That's democracy he says.

The government gets its way? What kind of statement is that? Democracy - Minister - means that each MHA - regardless of party affiliation represents their people not you - not Kathy Dunderdale.

How can the Minster predict the outcome of the House of Assembly? How indeed!

Yet another demonstration that democracy is freefalling under Dunderdale's leadership.

We are now reduced to a "democracy" like one would find in quasi-dictatorships. You know the type where they throw in a couple of opposition members to demonstrate that they are an emerging democratic state.

Stop spending money on this project - go into proper public consultation through the PUB.

Stop spending money and start delivering ALL the information.

Stop spending money and release polling results on this project.


 

Why YOU should care about the Fishery!

Please click HERE - to listen to the latest episode of Talk with Sue and Shannon - Newfoundland and Labrador's newest Talk Show.

This discussion on the fishery was feisty and demonstrates why YOU should care about this industry and valuable renewable resource.

Join us again next Sunday for the next show.

Listen to NEW episode of Talk with Sue - Hear what the callers had to Say

Listen to my new episode Talk with Sue Electoral Reform PRESS HERE

Interesting chat with a lady from Trinity North, Andrew Parsons MHA Burgeo-La Poile, and an observer of our election from New Brunswick.

Talk with Sue Second Show - Electoral Reform - the Sleeping Democracy - Dunderdale's arrogance!

Join us tonight at 8 pm - Talk with Sue - Second Show deals with electoral reform.

Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?

42% of people did not vote. Why?

The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?

Why type of electoral system would you like to see?

Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?

What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.

I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.

We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.

Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!

Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.

"Talk with Sue" tackles electoral reform this Sunday. Tune in and Participate

Hi all - the second show "Talk with Sue" will be on air at 8 pm this Sunday, November 6th.

To listen in please go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/talkwithsue

This program talks openly about issues important to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let's see what happens when commercial and political party interests are not at play.

This week electoral reform is on the agenda. Have your say. Tune in - and participate.

Thanks to everybody who listened to the first show - your feedback was great.

Election Day Questions - Try them out! They might be very revealing!

1. Did Danny Williams vote? Where did he vote? Will he say who he voted for?

2. Do you think the media coverage of the election was slanted in any way?

3. What do you think of polling during the election? Should they be limited to random sampling or should they be allowed to do opt-in - self directed polls that do not have a margin of error?

4. Do you believe the media provided balanced coverage of platforms and did they do any research on what was provided by the parties or did they simply report?

5. Do you believe there is an urban/rural divide?

6. Do you believe that all PC supporters agree with the Muskrat Falls deal?

7. Do you believe the public service pensioners will vote Liberal as per their pledge "no increase - no vote"?

8. Do you know if the NDP lead by Lorraine Michael supports the Muskrat Falls deal?

9. Do you think there should be public funding of elections - that is a party receives an amount per vote they receive from the provincial treasury?

10. Do you believe that corporations, unions, municipalities, and other organizations should be prohibited from donating to a political party?

No big Deal Muskrat! So Cochrane and Dunderdale keep telling is.

The "journalists" are having a field day - downplaying the importance of Muskrat Falls to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The panel contestants are saying it's not even on the radar.

Funny thing that - it has been a constant issue on the talk shows, a continuing paper seller for the Telegram, and something Dunderdale insists is not an issue.

If health, education, and deficits are key - I don't know why the Telegram has been inundated with letters to the editor on Muskrat Falls.

These letters coming from people with affiliation to all party stripes and those without a vested interest in its failure as a deal.

Yes we have seen health issues raised but they are by professional organizations representing health care workers.

We have heard education raised by students and teachers organizations.

The public - at least those who care about the future of this place - have been raising Muskrat Falls. Look at the weekend and tell me what the top issue is - in the minds of those who wish to write. Ed Martin CEO Nalcor has been busier than the Cabinet Ministers answering questions about Muskrat Falls. Randy had Shawn Skinner on for a show, followed by Aylward and Michael on what? Muskrat Falls.

Despite Dunderdales protestations - Muskrat has been coming up at the door for most candidates.

Most importantly - what issue will still be around after the election? Muskrat Falls!

This is why Dave Cochrane can groan on like a boy with a belly-ache over Muskrat Falls not being an issue. Yet day after day all the "journalists" and Dunderdale keep telling us it's not an issue.