Politicians are elected by us to represent us.
No doubt for some of us - from the inception of the Muskrat fiasco deal - politicians have not been doing that.
Now the majority of us do not want Muskrat Falls.
The majority of us want a forensic audit now.
The majority of us want a public inquiry now.
The majority of us want Muskrat stopped until we can examine all of our options.
So why are politicians - most of whom want to be re-elected - continuing to ignore the wishes of the majority of people - without any substantiated reasoning?
The majority of politicians who want to be re-elected are wannabe career politicians. It's the best gig they can get. They are gutless and either deliberately ignorant or unable or unwilling to learn.
Some politicians do not want or expect to be elected again and their masters for whatever reason are not the people of the province.
Some politicians make decisions in their own best interests and that many times conflicts with what's in the best interests of the people.
The vast majority of politicians are me first, party second, and people third.
Now we need to figure out what classification each of our politicians fall into.
Let's start with the Muskrat leaders: Dwight Ball, Paul Davis, Tom Marshall, Kathy Dunderdale, and Danny Williams.
Showing posts with label tom marshall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom marshall. Show all posts
Saturday, September 09, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
So you thought Tom Marshall was one of the good guys?
In May of 2012 Tom Marshall (Minister of Finance) called Open Line - on that day hosted by Pete Soucy.
During the course of that discussion - which was about prescription drug costs - he waded into Muskrat Falls and their reasoning for it.
For a couple of reasons - I purchased a text copy of that call - and now it will serve as good reminder for us all.
TOM MARSHALL: So we're putting money in to ensure that our seniors, the people on the 65 plus program are protected and of course the big one of all is going to be Muskrat where we're trying to regulate electricity costs. So, and we'll continue with you know, with things like that to ensure that people on fixed incomes and lower income people are protected.
In this response to a drug program related question - he began to wander into Muskrat Falls. You can see he is addressing seniors and protecting them from higher cost electricity?
TOM MARSHALL: Well you go to remember that Muskrat Falls is for us. It's for the people of the province. Muskrat Falls does not exist primarily. The reason for Muskrat Falls is not to export power, that's why Churchill Falls, the Upper Churchill came into existence. You know, it was done by a profit seeking corporation and their objective was to make money. Muskrat Falls is for the people of the province, it's being done by Nalcor which is owned by the people and it's being done to provide electricity - to meet the electricity needs of the people of the province primarily. We're going to need power here on the island, we also want to shut down Holyrood because that's the most expensive power we have that goes into the grid. And you know, at peak production they're burning 18,000 barrels a day. When they started, I think a barrel of oil was $3. Now it is $103. So - and our experts tells that the price of oil is going to continue to rise and Holyrood produces electricity by burning thousands of barrels of oil. So that's what's been driving up peoples electricity costs. That's why Newfoundland & Labrador Hydro has gone looking for rate increases, it's all because of - or mainly because of the increases in the price of oil. So we need more power and we need to get off Holyrood. In addition, Labrador is going to need a lot of power. There's all these mining companies that want to open up mines in Labrador you know, in the iron ore.
I hope you read each and every word of his next response. Try and get your head around this fiction from just 5 years ago.
Then he adds:
TOM MARSHALL: And uranium -they're going to need a lot of power. So when we first talked about doing Muskrat, the idea is that the extra power we'd say, well rather than let the water flow down to the sea, we can at least take that extra power, that surplus to our needs and through this maritime link that Nova Scotia is going to build, at least we can sell that extra power, that surplus power to the US market or NB or NS or PEI. But now what we think is that won't happen for very long because ultimately the power is going to be needed in Labrador.
I truly hope the people of Labrador are reviewing this.
There is no doubt I had an interest in this and could not believe the words I was hearing.
I was not the only one who wanted a copy of this that day. You'll probably be surprised when you find out - given the current day affairs.
During the course of that discussion - which was about prescription drug costs - he waded into Muskrat Falls and their reasoning for it.
For a couple of reasons - I purchased a text copy of that call - and now it will serve as good reminder for us all.
TOM MARSHALL: So we're putting money in to ensure that our seniors, the people on the 65 plus program are protected and of course the big one of all is going to be Muskrat where we're trying to regulate electricity costs. So, and we'll continue with you know, with things like that to ensure that people on fixed incomes and lower income people are protected.
In this response to a drug program related question - he began to wander into Muskrat Falls. You can see he is addressing seniors and protecting them from higher cost electricity?
TOM MARSHALL: Well you go to remember that Muskrat Falls is for us. It's for the people of the province. Muskrat Falls does not exist primarily. The reason for Muskrat Falls is not to export power, that's why Churchill Falls, the Upper Churchill came into existence. You know, it was done by a profit seeking corporation and their objective was to make money. Muskrat Falls is for the people of the province, it's being done by Nalcor which is owned by the people and it's being done to provide electricity - to meet the electricity needs of the people of the province primarily. We're going to need power here on the island, we also want to shut down Holyrood because that's the most expensive power we have that goes into the grid. And you know, at peak production they're burning 18,000 barrels a day. When they started, I think a barrel of oil was $3. Now it is $103. So - and our experts tells that the price of oil is going to continue to rise and Holyrood produces electricity by burning thousands of barrels of oil. So that's what's been driving up peoples electricity costs. That's why Newfoundland & Labrador Hydro has gone looking for rate increases, it's all because of - or mainly because of the increases in the price of oil. So we need more power and we need to get off Holyrood. In addition, Labrador is going to need a lot of power. There's all these mining companies that want to open up mines in Labrador you know, in the iron ore.
I hope you read each and every word of his next response. Try and get your head around this fiction from just 5 years ago.
Then he adds:
TOM MARSHALL: And uranium -they're going to need a lot of power. So when we first talked about doing Muskrat, the idea is that the extra power we'd say, well rather than let the water flow down to the sea, we can at least take that extra power, that surplus to our needs and through this maritime link that Nova Scotia is going to build, at least we can sell that extra power, that surplus power to the US market or NB or NS or PEI. But now what we think is that won't happen for very long because ultimately the power is going to be needed in Labrador.
I truly hope the people of Labrador are reviewing this.
There is no doubt I had an interest in this and could not believe the words I was hearing.
I was not the only one who wanted a copy of this that day. You'll probably be surprised when you find out - given the current day affairs.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Somewhere Over the Budget
"Somewhere Over The Budget" "What a Wasted World"
a Newfoundland and Labrador Lament
I hear babies cry and I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more than we'll know
And I think to myself
What do they think of their world
Someday I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above the Holyrood chimney top
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget way up high
And the dream that you dare to, what oh what did they do?
a Newfoundland and Labrador Lament
Somewhere over the budget
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
now will go Bye Bye
Somewhere over the budget
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
now will go Bye Bye
Somewhere over the budget
Blue backbenchers fly
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Dreams really don't come true ooh oh
Someday I'll wish upon a star
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above Holyrood chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget backbenchers fly
And the dream that you dare to,
Oh why, oh why can't I?
Well I see trees of debt and red ink too,
I'll watch them saddle me and you
And I think to myself
What a wasted world
Well I see skies of blue
And I see clouds of blue
And the light during the day
I like the dark
And I think to myself
What a darknl world
The colors of the Muskrat so clear in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passing by
I see friends clasping hands
Saying, "What did they do?"
They're really saying, oh we're screwed.
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Dreams really don't come true ooh oh
Someday I'll wish upon a star
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above Holyrood chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget backbenchers fly
And the dream that you dare to,
Oh why, oh why can't I?
Well I see trees of debt and red ink too,
I'll watch them saddle me and you
And I think to myself
What a wasted world
Well I see skies of blue
And I see clouds of blue
And the light during the day
I like the dark
And I think to myself
What a darknl world
The colors of the Muskrat so clear in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passing by
I see friends clasping hands
Saying, "What did they do?"
They're really saying, oh we're screwed.
I hear babies cry and I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more than we'll know
And I think to myself
What do they think of their world
Someday I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above the Holyrood chimney top
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget way up high
And the dream that you dare to, what oh what did they do?
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Premier Davis is in denial or worse ...
Premier Paul Davis wants to know what the problem is. He wants to know why people are not supporting his government.
I think these musings by our Premier are misleading and I don't believe him.
He has to know by now that the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador want an election. They want an election before the spring. If he does not know this - he is unfit to be Premier. Why? Any person watching and listening to anything political in our province over the past few months who does not recognize the people want to vote - is in denial or in a cave without electronics.
I believe Paul Davis and the entire Tory caucus know that - therefore the problem is denial (if not something worse) - not knowledge. Why deny? Well power and benefits affect some people in a way that hanging on by the fingernails is almost an involuntary behavior. Unfortunately - many of them are politicians.
Here are the problems Premier Davis:
1. The people want an election and you won't call one,
2. People are extremely worried about Muskrat Falls and you appear not to care,
3. People do not trust their energy/power system anymore and you keep sending out Smiley Martin,
4. The price of oil and your budgetary guesstimates,
5. Rural population/employment decimation,
6. Giveaway policy for our natural resources,
7. Everything is under review, reassessment and analysis,
8. We have liabilities where the amount of those liabilities are not known,
9. You continue to spend like drunken sailors with no clue how we will pay for it,
10. Your caucus and Cabinet are arrogant,
11. Bill 29,
12. Lay-offs and then rehiring (don't know what you're doing)
13. You get rid of family violence prevention court but contract PC connected lawyers,
14. Debt, deficit, unemployment, population loss and aging,
15. Patronage,
16. Extreme partisanship,
17. Loss of manufacturing and processing industries,
18. Appointment of unelected Minister,
19. Your attack on small local business,
20. Your continued attempt to blame the people for not understanding the good you do - instead of wondering whether the people just don't like your policies and decisions.
21. Allowing the federal government to erode their presence in our province,
22. Burton Winters enquiry,
23. Focusing on the Avalon economy instead of the entire province,
24. Continuing to pillage Labrador without growing Labrador
25. Lack of transparency and accountability.
This is a short list - and I'm sure many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have more to add.
The only way to deal with this is call an election and put out your own platform - not just a continuation of the Williams platform. This also would demonstrate integrity instead of preservation of self (Party). Most importantly this would prove you are a man of your word - when you claimed - "I will listen to the people".
I think these musings by our Premier are misleading and I don't believe him.
He has to know by now that the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador want an election. They want an election before the spring. If he does not know this - he is unfit to be Premier. Why? Any person watching and listening to anything political in our province over the past few months who does not recognize the people want to vote - is in denial or in a cave without electronics.
I believe Paul Davis and the entire Tory caucus know that - therefore the problem is denial (if not something worse) - not knowledge. Why deny? Well power and benefits affect some people in a way that hanging on by the fingernails is almost an involuntary behavior. Unfortunately - many of them are politicians.
Here are the problems Premier Davis:
1. The people want an election and you won't call one,
2. People are extremely worried about Muskrat Falls and you appear not to care,
3. People do not trust their energy/power system anymore and you keep sending out Smiley Martin,
4. The price of oil and your budgetary guesstimates,
5. Rural population/employment decimation,
6. Giveaway policy for our natural resources,
7. Everything is under review, reassessment and analysis,
8. We have liabilities where the amount of those liabilities are not known,
9. You continue to spend like drunken sailors with no clue how we will pay for it,
10. Your caucus and Cabinet are arrogant,
11. Bill 29,
12. Lay-offs and then rehiring (don't know what you're doing)
13. You get rid of family violence prevention court but contract PC connected lawyers,
14. Debt, deficit, unemployment, population loss and aging,
15. Patronage,
16. Extreme partisanship,
17. Loss of manufacturing and processing industries,
18. Appointment of unelected Minister,
19. Your attack on small local business,
20. Your continued attempt to blame the people for not understanding the good you do - instead of wondering whether the people just don't like your policies and decisions.
21. Allowing the federal government to erode their presence in our province,
22. Burton Winters enquiry,
23. Focusing on the Avalon economy instead of the entire province,
24. Continuing to pillage Labrador without growing Labrador
25. Lack of transparency and accountability.
This is a short list - and I'm sure many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have more to add.
The only way to deal with this is call an election and put out your own platform - not just a continuation of the Williams platform. This also would demonstrate integrity instead of preservation of self (Party). Most importantly this would prove you are a man of your word - when you claimed - "I will listen to the people".
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Kent reveals Tory problem
After seven by-election losses in a row - the Tories are on their way out. Many of them understand what the people are saying and are planning their retirements in one way or another.
What happened to the PC's?
Media and some pundits credit the loss of public support to Danny Williams departure. I don't accept that reasoning rather I credit the downfall to Danny Williams leadership style and policies.
In my opinion - Williams enjoyed being surrounded by weak people (those who would not dare defy him) and eliminating those who might. (Beth Marshall, Paul Shelley, Tom Osborne and Fabian Manning) Danny did not build a strong leadership pool nor did he take the time to consult or include grass-roots Tories. I believe it was after all - all about him.
Danny's policy choices - most importantly - Muskrat Falls - have not been embraced by the people. Williams pot of money for governing was huge - oil revenues galore and let's not forget the benefits of Voisey's. These were Liberal deals and timing made it his administrations money.
How he spent that money - on behalf of the people - did not equate into anything more than quick wealth on the Avalon and a wonderful market to build houses in.
We are in debt trouble, we are in deficit trouble, we are in demographic trouble, and we are in free fall. Highly doubtful that his Galway community is going to be the golden touch project he thought it might be.
People are very concerned about Muskrat Falls - the cost - the purpose - and most importantly the giveaway. Our resources should be used to grow our population - create long-term well paying jobs. It was Danny who was champion of this concept while in Opposition. Then how do we explain his fisheries, forestry, mining, and hydro policies? We can't because - once Premier - the giveaways were okay.
In what I refer to as Danny's decade - the province has not enjoyed growth in any real way. They all pump up the GDP - but who cares if that indicator is in isolation from other meaningful indicators such as population growth and age. Growth on the Avalon is attributed to shrinking in rural populations.
The former Premier got out before the crap hit the fan - but before he did - he groomed weak people to continue his path. His first was Kathy Dunderdale. The joy and pride of being Danny's chosen one was evident from day one. She would carry the Muskrat torch to the end - while he would carry on with his business interests - power to the Avalon and mining in Labrador.
His other political weaklings included Kennedy, Marshall, Kent, Johnson, Sullivan, Shea, and King (essentially the Cabinet base) were somehow of the belief somehow that they had a crack at the top job now.
When the day came however for a leadership race - they ran away - hid under Danny's coattails once again and allowed an "interim" Premier who did not want the job (supposedly) to actually win - uncontested. The beginning of the end.
As all political weaklings do - as party fortunes were changing - they pointed a finger at somebody else - not them - no not them. A bunch of children standing in front of a broken window.
Eventually their finger pointing and whispers caught on with an uninspired media and we were advised that Kathy Dunderdale had problems communicating the "really good" things they were doing.
As with gutless bullies in packs - they worked on Dunderdale until she left. There they sighed - all must be good now right?
Onward to a leadership election - while nice man Tom kept the Williams adoration embers burning. Minus their political guru Danny - the guys and gals did not know which way was up - they did not know which way to go. We had speculation on a dozen or so within the PC caucus who were thinking about it. One by one they dropped off - as the collective wisdom determined they needed a fresh face - somebody from outside. So Wayne Bennett and Bill Barry stepped forward while Danny's Cabinet flourished being followers. Barry came out bold - aggressive - unpolished while Bennett annoyed the Party brass.
As might be expected when the weak did not know what to do - Danny stepped in and proclaimed Barry unfit for leadership and indirectly pushed for a fellow named Frank Coleman. As with all good sheep the caucus followed and proceeded to prepare for a Frank coronation despite the presence of a formidable opponent (Barry).
We heard excuse after excuse from former wannabe leaders within the sitting rank and file - ranging from "not my time" to "health" to "family priorities".
Meanwhile Barry was fighting a losing battle in a delegated convention wherein his commentary to the people of the province really did not matter if the Party brass was orchestrating a winner.
Many people asked why Coleman - a political neophyte - by reports private family and business man would throw himself under the bright lights of politics. This was quickly followed by awkward appearances of a man who appeared quite friendly but out of his comfort zone.
Barry following the condemnation by the great one and in true gritty business style - weighed his odds and determined the risk was unfitting the unlikely reward. Barry quit leaving Coleman as an unwilling political deer in headlights. What followed was not able to be scripted. Coleman became Premier in waiting - even starting to put together staff for his 8th floor domain. Then like an unpredicted failure of a detonation test - HVP - came to the fore. I think it's fair to say the Coleman will be remembered in Newfoundland and Labrador for performance bonds related to a paving contract not for almost becoming Premier. As quick as you could say "cheese" for a photograph - we had the sad picture of Coleman's back as he walked away from his indescribably short political stint.
Now what? Well the wannabes who all had excuses they wanted us to believe just a month or two before - shed those reasons and came flying back to the leadership race. Once again we had the speculation of who was running - who was supporting - who had a chance. In the end - and after another stint with the nice man - there was Ottenheimer, Davis, and Kent. The once held idea of a new fresh face was replaced with the need for experience. Ironically the same weaklings who just a month before were willing to accept a fellow who had never sought political office before were now questioning the option of Ottenheimer because he did not have a seat in the legislature.
When Steve Kent started his political climb - I remember a young man tenting on the corner of streets with a sign - asking the people of Mount Pearl to support him for Council. It must have been a real power rush - some years later - to find himself a political traffic cop on the corner directing leadership. Here he was - a new man - at the heart of political power in the province - a kingmaker. Kent relished it - played it up - played coy - loved the attention and could not believe he was actually in a position to broker his own political pinnacle.
Ottenheimer claimed the fix was in - Davis and Kent denied it and then in a joyous coming-out paraded it on the convention floor. Shortly thereafter he became Deputy Premier. Did this new power go to his head? Unfortunately yes - culminating in Tweets last night after his party's loss of two more by-elections. Here they are:
1. What's next? You're going to see bold, progressive leadership from@PaulDavisNL and the @PCPartyNL. We've got big plans for this province.
2. There was no honeymoon period for our new Premier. That's life. A lot can change over the next year. Things change fast in politics.#NLpoli
3. Our Party still has a clear majority. We still plan to bring in a Throne Speech and a Budget. We will govern. We will lead.
4. The transformation in NL over the last decade has been nothing short of extraordinary. We're still the best party to govern.#PCNL #NLpoli
Unfortunately his words represent what IS wrong with the Tories. The real problem. He in essence has concluded the following: we don't care what the people think - we are right, we don't care what the people say we will lead anyway, we own the province and we are going to do what we want - what we think is best, and in spite of the people we are in power and plan to keep it that way.
Unfortunately the tweets also have a ring of desperation in them. That is because Kent believes that politics is a career rather than a period of public service. Career politicians are not helpful - not insightful - not life experienced - and not leaders. They expect a leader to perform for them - to ensure the longevity of the benefits both financial and social that politics and the people have provided.
Kent personifies the Tory problem - imagine if he is the only Tory seat left after the next general election. He does not like the prospect and it shows.
I believe the real strings of the Tory machine are well above Kent's power level. While he might be seen as a pliable one of those strings the puppeteers simply want to keep power for other more tangible business reasons. That's a sphere than Kent will never be allowed to enter - but he can certainly man the coat-check for those entering the real corridors of power.
What happened to the PC's?
Media and some pundits credit the loss of public support to Danny Williams departure. I don't accept that reasoning rather I credit the downfall to Danny Williams leadership style and policies.
In my opinion - Williams enjoyed being surrounded by weak people (those who would not dare defy him) and eliminating those who might. (Beth Marshall, Paul Shelley, Tom Osborne and Fabian Manning) Danny did not build a strong leadership pool nor did he take the time to consult or include grass-roots Tories. I believe it was after all - all about him.
Danny's policy choices - most importantly - Muskrat Falls - have not been embraced by the people. Williams pot of money for governing was huge - oil revenues galore and let's not forget the benefits of Voisey's. These were Liberal deals and timing made it his administrations money.
How he spent that money - on behalf of the people - did not equate into anything more than quick wealth on the Avalon and a wonderful market to build houses in.
We are in debt trouble, we are in deficit trouble, we are in demographic trouble, and we are in free fall. Highly doubtful that his Galway community is going to be the golden touch project he thought it might be.
People are very concerned about Muskrat Falls - the cost - the purpose - and most importantly the giveaway. Our resources should be used to grow our population - create long-term well paying jobs. It was Danny who was champion of this concept while in Opposition. Then how do we explain his fisheries, forestry, mining, and hydro policies? We can't because - once Premier - the giveaways were okay.
In what I refer to as Danny's decade - the province has not enjoyed growth in any real way. They all pump up the GDP - but who cares if that indicator is in isolation from other meaningful indicators such as population growth and age. Growth on the Avalon is attributed to shrinking in rural populations.
The former Premier got out before the crap hit the fan - but before he did - he groomed weak people to continue his path. His first was Kathy Dunderdale. The joy and pride of being Danny's chosen one was evident from day one. She would carry the Muskrat torch to the end - while he would carry on with his business interests - power to the Avalon and mining in Labrador.
His other political weaklings included Kennedy, Marshall, Kent, Johnson, Sullivan, Shea, and King (essentially the Cabinet base) were somehow of the belief somehow that they had a crack at the top job now.
When the day came however for a leadership race - they ran away - hid under Danny's coattails once again and allowed an "interim" Premier who did not want the job (supposedly) to actually win - uncontested. The beginning of the end.
As all political weaklings do - as party fortunes were changing - they pointed a finger at somebody else - not them - no not them. A bunch of children standing in front of a broken window.
Eventually their finger pointing and whispers caught on with an uninspired media and we were advised that Kathy Dunderdale had problems communicating the "really good" things they were doing.
As with gutless bullies in packs - they worked on Dunderdale until she left. There they sighed - all must be good now right?
Onward to a leadership election - while nice man Tom kept the Williams adoration embers burning. Minus their political guru Danny - the guys and gals did not know which way was up - they did not know which way to go. We had speculation on a dozen or so within the PC caucus who were thinking about it. One by one they dropped off - as the collective wisdom determined they needed a fresh face - somebody from outside. So Wayne Bennett and Bill Barry stepped forward while Danny's Cabinet flourished being followers. Barry came out bold - aggressive - unpolished while Bennett annoyed the Party brass.
As might be expected when the weak did not know what to do - Danny stepped in and proclaimed Barry unfit for leadership and indirectly pushed for a fellow named Frank Coleman. As with all good sheep the caucus followed and proceeded to prepare for a Frank coronation despite the presence of a formidable opponent (Barry).
We heard excuse after excuse from former wannabe leaders within the sitting rank and file - ranging from "not my time" to "health" to "family priorities".
Meanwhile Barry was fighting a losing battle in a delegated convention wherein his commentary to the people of the province really did not matter if the Party brass was orchestrating a winner.
Many people asked why Coleman - a political neophyte - by reports private family and business man would throw himself under the bright lights of politics. This was quickly followed by awkward appearances of a man who appeared quite friendly but out of his comfort zone.
Barry following the condemnation by the great one and in true gritty business style - weighed his odds and determined the risk was unfitting the unlikely reward. Barry quit leaving Coleman as an unwilling political deer in headlights. What followed was not able to be scripted. Coleman became Premier in waiting - even starting to put together staff for his 8th floor domain. Then like an unpredicted failure of a detonation test - HVP - came to the fore. I think it's fair to say the Coleman will be remembered in Newfoundland and Labrador for performance bonds related to a paving contract not for almost becoming Premier. As quick as you could say "cheese" for a photograph - we had the sad picture of Coleman's back as he walked away from his indescribably short political stint.
Now what? Well the wannabes who all had excuses they wanted us to believe just a month or two before - shed those reasons and came flying back to the leadership race. Once again we had the speculation of who was running - who was supporting - who had a chance. In the end - and after another stint with the nice man - there was Ottenheimer, Davis, and Kent. The once held idea of a new fresh face was replaced with the need for experience. Ironically the same weaklings who just a month before were willing to accept a fellow who had never sought political office before were now questioning the option of Ottenheimer because he did not have a seat in the legislature.
When Steve Kent started his political climb - I remember a young man tenting on the corner of streets with a sign - asking the people of Mount Pearl to support him for Council. It must have been a real power rush - some years later - to find himself a political traffic cop on the corner directing leadership. Here he was - a new man - at the heart of political power in the province - a kingmaker. Kent relished it - played it up - played coy - loved the attention and could not believe he was actually in a position to broker his own political pinnacle.
Ottenheimer claimed the fix was in - Davis and Kent denied it and then in a joyous coming-out paraded it on the convention floor. Shortly thereafter he became Deputy Premier. Did this new power go to his head? Unfortunately yes - culminating in Tweets last night after his party's loss of two more by-elections. Here they are:
1. What's next? You're going to see bold, progressive leadership from
2. There was no honeymoon period for our new Premier. That's life. A lot can change over the next year. Things change fast in politics.
3. Our Party still has a clear majority. We still plan to bring in a Throne Speech and a Budget. We will govern. We will lead.
4. The transformation in NL over the last decade has been nothing short of extraordinary. We're still the best party to govern.
Unfortunately his words represent what IS wrong with the Tories. The real problem. He in essence has concluded the following: we don't care what the people think - we are right, we don't care what the people say we will lead anyway, we own the province and we are going to do what we want - what we think is best, and in spite of the people we are in power and plan to keep it that way.
Unfortunately the tweets also have a ring of desperation in them. That is because Kent believes that politics is a career rather than a period of public service. Career politicians are not helpful - not insightful - not life experienced - and not leaders. They expect a leader to perform for them - to ensure the longevity of the benefits both financial and social that politics and the people have provided.
Kent personifies the Tory problem - imagine if he is the only Tory seat left after the next general election. He does not like the prospect and it shows.
I believe the real strings of the Tory machine are well above Kent's power level. While he might be seen as a pliable one of those strings the puppeteers simply want to keep power for other more tangible business reasons. That's a sphere than Kent will never be allowed to enter - but he can certainly man the coat-check for those entering the real corridors of power.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Danny's Coatails for by-election?
The political future for PC's in Newfoundland and Labrador is pretty grim. Now there's subtle and not so subtle moves by the Tories that demonstrate how bad the situation is.
Many of us were wondering why Tom Marshall - the fellow who did not want to stay around anymore - was taking so much time to leave. Timing in politics is everything - we often hear - and I guess this is a good example.
Make no mistake there are still some political strategists left in the diminished Tory house - and in my opinion - they made the call on Marshall's retirement.
Humber East is the one the PC's will throw everything at to hold and they appear to have dipped back into a familiar well. Tom Marshall announced his resignation Monday - November 3rd. Uncharacteristically - Premier Paul Davis announced the by-election for the district the same day. The government that usually takes its time (subject to legislation) in calling by-elections was swift in this case.
The Tories were definitely timing Marshall's departure and were ready when he did.
What happened next?
Well on November 12th with the by-election in full swing - the screening of "Danny" is at the Arts and Culture Centre in Corner Brook with an audience full of prospective voters.
The glorification of all that is "Danny" their former MHA and Premier was there - in the flesh - saying things like - “To come here tonight was like coming home”.
Better yet - an always fawning media willing to entertain a Q&A session with Williams - including political banter - and to "report" on his political comments. Here are a few excerpts from the Telegram
1. While saying he is staying out of today’s political scene, in true Williams style, he offered his support to Larry Wells, the Conservative candidate trying to hold on to the Humber East seat in an upcoming by-election.“Hello Larry, wherever you are out there,” he said.
2. However, he said he’s not ready to concede a Conservative defeat. “They all, like me, have a genuine love for this wonderful place in which we live,” he said of party candidates and leaders.
3. “I’m a big believer that it doesn’t have to be fracked in order to find it,” he announced to the crowd. “I am not advocating fracking. If there is petroleum there that we can access normally, and I do believe it is there on the west coast.”
4. “To come here tonight was like coming home,” he said. “To put (the film) in front of them and say, ‘you have been a big part of this.’”
5. Danny Williams says he has no real regrets from his political tenure, but he admits he would have liked to have seen more things to ignite the economy on the west coast of the province.
Here are my questions:
1. When was the booking made for the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre for the screening?
2. When did the Tories become aware of that date?
3. Was Tom Marshall's dragged out (despite the groaning) retirement - and by-election call - timed with the screening of the film during the campaign?
4. Did the PC's ask Danny Williams to do a bit of campaigning at the screening?
Outside of this observation - I note the careful footing around economic growth in the district during Danny's tenure. His on-again off-again "home" had to be gently almost with humility asked to believe in a PC resurrection.
What an insult to the people this was and is.
Another excerpt from the Telegram article:
He thanked the audience for that 2001 by-election win in Humber East, which he claimed launched his entire tenure.
Well - how nice - they launched his political career - so he went home and then did so again to launch his film.
Meanwhile the hospital - you know the hospital - yes that hospital - maybe changing hospital - need more design hospital - need to change the services hospital - is NOT built. On the bright side - they did get a Court House - what's it called again? Oh yes - I remember - the Danny Williams building.
So thanks for what you've done for me - but by the way can you do one more thing? Elect another PC.
He asked the people in former Premier Dunderdale's riding of Virginia Waters to do it. Now he wants the good people of Humber East to do it.
Never forget though - all this could not have happened right? - Cause Williams believes when Premiers leave office they should stay out of it - shut their mouths - right?
Many of us were wondering why Tom Marshall - the fellow who did not want to stay around anymore - was taking so much time to leave. Timing in politics is everything - we often hear - and I guess this is a good example.
Make no mistake there are still some political strategists left in the diminished Tory house - and in my opinion - they made the call on Marshall's retirement.
Humber East is the one the PC's will throw everything at to hold and they appear to have dipped back into a familiar well. Tom Marshall announced his resignation Monday - November 3rd. Uncharacteristically - Premier Paul Davis announced the by-election for the district the same day. The government that usually takes its time (subject to legislation) in calling by-elections was swift in this case.
The Tories were definitely timing Marshall's departure and were ready when he did.
What happened next?
Well on November 12th with the by-election in full swing - the screening of "Danny" is at the Arts and Culture Centre in Corner Brook with an audience full of prospective voters.
The glorification of all that is "Danny" their former MHA and Premier was there - in the flesh - saying things like - “To come here tonight was like coming home”.
Better yet - an always fawning media willing to entertain a Q&A session with Williams - including political banter - and to "report" on his political comments. Here are a few excerpts from the Telegram
1. While saying he is staying out of today’s political scene, in true Williams style, he offered his support to Larry Wells, the Conservative candidate trying to hold on to the Humber East seat in an upcoming by-election.“Hello Larry, wherever you are out there,” he said.
2. However, he said he’s not ready to concede a Conservative defeat. “They all, like me, have a genuine love for this wonderful place in which we live,” he said of party candidates and leaders.
3. “I’m a big believer that it doesn’t have to be fracked in order to find it,” he announced to the crowd. “I am not advocating fracking. If there is petroleum there that we can access normally, and I do believe it is there on the west coast.”
4. “To come here tonight was like coming home,” he said. “To put (the film) in front of them and say, ‘you have been a big part of this.’”
5. Danny Williams says he has no real regrets from his political tenure, but he admits he would have liked to have seen more things to ignite the economy on the west coast of the province.
Here are my questions:
1. When was the booking made for the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre for the screening?
2. When did the Tories become aware of that date?
3. Was Tom Marshall's dragged out (despite the groaning) retirement - and by-election call - timed with the screening of the film during the campaign?
4. Did the PC's ask Danny Williams to do a bit of campaigning at the screening?
Outside of this observation - I note the careful footing around economic growth in the district during Danny's tenure. His on-again off-again "home" had to be gently almost with humility asked to believe in a PC resurrection.
What an insult to the people this was and is.
Another excerpt from the Telegram article:
He thanked the audience for that 2001 by-election win in Humber East, which he claimed launched his entire tenure.
Well - how nice - they launched his political career - so he went home and then did so again to launch his film.
Meanwhile the hospital - you know the hospital - yes that hospital - maybe changing hospital - need more design hospital - need to change the services hospital - is NOT built. On the bright side - they did get a Court House - what's it called again? Oh yes - I remember - the Danny Williams building.
So thanks for what you've done for me - but by the way can you do one more thing? Elect another PC.
He asked the people in former Premier Dunderdale's riding of Virginia Waters to do it. Now he wants the good people of Humber East to do it.
Never forget though - all this could not have happened right? - Cause Williams believes when Premiers leave office they should stay out of it - shut their mouths - right?
Sunday, November 02, 2014
Manning Sound Bites 1
Manning Sound Bites
The unelected Minister Manning's entire interview with David Cochrane - On Point - is now online. This is not one you want to miss. This is a great opportunity to watch our Minister "shine" for the people of the province.
Over the next few days I will be posting parts of the interview - questions and answers. You decide if this person is capable to do the duties of her position.
We will start with what I now fondly refer to as Manningisms. These are where Ms. Manning blames somebody else for her actions or words or simply talks as if a question or point has not been made. In this particular example - the response could be considered incoherent.
Click HERE to watch the complete interview.
Cochrane: In your criticism and your characterization of it as character assassination - you said facts were omitted. Facts can only be omitted if they're known and shared but you didn't share.
Manning: The characterization of character assassination - that arose as a result of overall how I have been trying to advance facts and I note that unfortunately - first of all I'm very comfortable with the legal training and legal experience that I have to advance my position as a Minister and as Attorney General. I certainly could stand with to do with some more media training. Until our initial re our initial interaction our baptism by fire shall we say and you were part of that on the day that I was appointed and ah that was my initial interaction with the media and I respect you have a job to do. Where I could stand to improve perhaps - would be - in I guess - I guess it would be remiss to say - I'm not good at developing soundbites.
The unelected Minister Manning's entire interview with David Cochrane - On Point - is now online. This is not one you want to miss. This is a great opportunity to watch our Minister "shine" for the people of the province.
Over the next few days I will be posting parts of the interview - questions and answers. You decide if this person is capable to do the duties of her position.
We will start with what I now fondly refer to as Manningisms. These are where Ms. Manning blames somebody else for her actions or words or simply talks as if a question or point has not been made. In this particular example - the response could be considered incoherent.
Click HERE to watch the complete interview.
Cochrane: In your criticism and your characterization of it as character assassination - you said facts were omitted. Facts can only be omitted if they're known and shared but you didn't share.
Manning: The characterization of character assassination - that arose as a result of overall how I have been trying to advance facts and I note that unfortunately - first of all I'm very comfortable with the legal training and legal experience that I have to advance my position as a Minister and as Attorney General. I certainly could stand with to do with some more media training. Until our initial re our initial interaction our baptism by fire shall we say and you were part of that on the day that I was appointed and ah that was my initial interaction with the media and I respect you have a job to do. Where I could stand to improve perhaps - would be - in I guess - I guess it would be remiss to say - I'm not good at developing soundbites.
Thursday, October 02, 2014
Judy Manning and HVP Inquiry
Her experience in the Court of Appeal can be found here.
Albeit - Pennecon - her client - did not win the day and Metal World - not her client - was awarded party and party costs - the case had some connection to a Mechanics Lien and the construction industry.
So how about Ms. Manning quit as Attorney General and instead head-up the Judicial/Public Inquiry on the HVP affair.
In this way - we the public - get to see her act within her profession - and determine if partisanship can be overlooked for such a proceeding.
Now I know she does not have the legal experience of Clyde Wells - we can still test her metal as she reviews the mess which is the HVP fiasco.
Let's see if she's comfortable questioning the "unelected" Premier or the "unelected" Premier in waiting who quit or the "interim" "unelected" Premier or the once "unelected" then "elected" Premier and current Cabinet colleagues such as Kevin O'Brien.
After the Inquiry is finished - we may be up to a general election. Let's see if she still wants to run for the PC's then.
This would be a big feather in her CV - and also allows us - the electorate - to see her in action. We would like to see "vintage" Manning and see if we like the bouquet. As it sits now - the bouquet - resembles that of rotting herring.
Although Inquiries are headed up by a Commissioner - usually a judge - Cabinet posts are usually filled by elected people - so we can make an exception.
Albeit - Pennecon - her client - did not win the day and Metal World - not her client - was awarded party and party costs - the case had some connection to a Mechanics Lien and the construction industry.
So how about Ms. Manning quit as Attorney General and instead head-up the Judicial/Public Inquiry on the HVP affair.
In this way - we the public - get to see her act within her profession - and determine if partisanship can be overlooked for such a proceeding.
Now I know she does not have the legal experience of Clyde Wells - we can still test her metal as she reviews the mess which is the HVP fiasco.
Let's see if she's comfortable questioning the "unelected" Premier or the "unelected" Premier in waiting who quit or the "interim" "unelected" Premier or the once "unelected" then "elected" Premier and current Cabinet colleagues such as Kevin O'Brien.
After the Inquiry is finished - we may be up to a general election. Let's see if she still wants to run for the PC's then.
This would be a big feather in her CV - and also allows us - the electorate - to see her in action. We would like to see "vintage" Manning and see if we like the bouquet. As it sits now - the bouquet - resembles that of rotting herring.
Although Inquiries are headed up by a Commissioner - usually a judge - Cabinet posts are usually filled by elected people - so we can make an exception.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Why Judy Manning?
Why Judy Manning?
That certainly is a reasonable question considering she has never been elected.
Why Judy Manning?
Why not John Ottenheimer who garnered half the support of the delegates at the convention?
Why not John Ottenheimer as he has considerable experience?
Why Judy Manning?
How does the Premier know her?
What does he know about her career and experience - considering the job ahead?
Why Judy Manning?
Apparently this really has nothing to do with the Attorney General having to be a lawyer because the Premier did not stop there. Davis added Status of Women, Fire and Emergency Services and the entire portfolio of Public Safety (which now includes Justice).
Why Judy Manning?
Is she a long time Tory or have significant Tory connections outside Senator Fabian Manning?
If you really felt that despite having a lawyer who IS elected take the position of Attorney General - then why Judy Manning?
What puts her above other choices in the legal community?
Was anybody else asked?
Did Felix decline? If so is he planning to resign?
Did Ottenheimer say no? Was he even asked?
Why Judy Manning?
It is particularly interesting since she claims she won't run in any upcoming by-elections but in the general election only.
This certainly demonstrates bad judgement. She could have accepted under the condition she will seek opportunity to be elected at the earliest opportunity. That would have shown respect for the people - but no - she accepts a mandate Paul Davis and Paul Davis alone bestowed upon her.
Why Judy Manning?
Yes - why indeed.
That certainly is a reasonable question considering she has never been elected.
Why Judy Manning?
Why not John Ottenheimer who garnered half the support of the delegates at the convention?
Why not John Ottenheimer as he has considerable experience?
Why Judy Manning?
How does the Premier know her?
What does he know about her career and experience - considering the job ahead?
Why Judy Manning?
Apparently this really has nothing to do with the Attorney General having to be a lawyer because the Premier did not stop there. Davis added Status of Women, Fire and Emergency Services and the entire portfolio of Public Safety (which now includes Justice).
Why Judy Manning?
Is she a long time Tory or have significant Tory connections outside Senator Fabian Manning?
If you really felt that despite having a lawyer who IS elected take the position of Attorney General - then why Judy Manning?
What puts her above other choices in the legal community?
Was anybody else asked?
Did Felix decline? If so is he planning to resign?
Did Ottenheimer say no? Was he even asked?
Why Judy Manning?
It is particularly interesting since she claims she won't run in any upcoming by-elections but in the general election only.
This certainly demonstrates bad judgement. She could have accepted under the condition she will seek opportunity to be elected at the earliest opportunity. That would have shown respect for the people - but no - she accepts a mandate Paul Davis and Paul Davis alone bestowed upon her.
Why Judy Manning?
Yes - why indeed.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Muskrat avoided Stats Can?
Muskrat Muskrat and the people who will be left to pay for it.
Yesterday's National Post - read full story HERE
Of interest: "The shrinking East Most projection scenarios show Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all losing population over the next 25 years. This is because of their relatively older age structure, their small share of Canadian immigration and their tendency to lose people to other provinces. Newfoundland is projected to be the hardest hit, dropping to 455,600 under the medium-growth scenario from 526,700 in 2013. "
What will the debt loads be for that 455,000 people in 25 years? How many of our children today will stay - considering the debt burden placed on them? Will the population numbers then be worse?
We need a change now. We need to do some serious reflection - particularly on the Muskrat fiasco.
Yesterday's National Post - read full story HERE
Of interest: "The shrinking East Most projection scenarios show Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all losing population over the next 25 years. This is because of their relatively older age structure, their small share of Canadian immigration and their tendency to lose people to other provinces. Newfoundland is projected to be the hardest hit, dropping to 455,600 under the medium-growth scenario from 526,700 in 2013. "
What will the debt loads be for that 455,000 people in 25 years? How many of our children today will stay - considering the debt burden placed on them? Will the population numbers then be worse?
We need a change now. We need to do some serious reflection - particularly on the Muskrat fiasco.
What did the PC's Promise?
Please read below the promise from the PC Blue Book 2003
"The party in power always has an advantage in political fund raising, but it has an unfair advantage over other parties by being able to determine when elections are called, and by spending unlimited amounts of public money to buy pre-election advertising that does nothing but polish its political image."
So
"A Progressive Conservative Government will propose amendments... that will: Require that provincial elections are held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly, or within twelve months if the Premier resigns during the first three years of a four year term."(emphasis added)
There is no doubt that the election should be called by January and held in February of 2015. The fact that PC's are now behind in the poll is not the point. The fact that they have a new leader is not the point. The fact that they want more time to re-prove themselves is not the point.
Are the PC's now saying that the new laws are for anybody but a PC government?
If this is the new Premier's first act - that is to delay a general election because it's not opportune for his party - then he will have demonstrated their collective democratic worth. Zero!
"The party in power always has an advantage in political fund raising, but it has an unfair advantage over other parties by being able to determine when elections are called, and by spending unlimited amounts of public money to buy pre-election advertising that does nothing but polish its political image."
So
"A Progressive Conservative Government will propose amendments... that will: Require that provincial elections are held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly, or within twelve months if the Premier resigns during the first three years of a four year term."(emphasis added)
There is no doubt that the election should be called by January and held in February of 2015. The fact that PC's are now behind in the poll is not the point. The fact that they have a new leader is not the point. The fact that they want more time to re-prove themselves is not the point.
Are the PC's now saying that the new laws are for anybody but a PC government?
If this is the new Premier's first act - that is to delay a general election because it's not opportune for his party - then he will have demonstrated their collective democratic worth. Zero!
Monday, September 08, 2014
The Spite Act - biting back
Apparently the House of Assembly Act has been nicknamed the "Spite Act" by a Labradorian blogger. That's probably accurate - based on the PC's failure to accept their lot with respect to the upcoming election.
There is no doubt that Williams and company spent a significant amount of time referring to Roger Grimes as the unelected and illegitimate Premier when they were in Opposition. Williams was determined to fix what he saw as a weakness in our democracy. Almost as soon as they achieved government - he and his colleagues did just that. There was no way - in Williams mind (as he articulated it) that any Premier who was elected by the party but was not the leader under the last general election should be making any significant policy decisions and certainly not be signing contracts.
Many provinces have opted to go with a fixed election date - but only this province it appears has gone with a change in election dates based on an early resignation of the Premier. This further proves that Williams and his Tory caucus absolutely meant to shorten the time to an election should a Premier resign early.
Unfortunately for the Tories - the first test of this law has come under their administration and while the polls are horrific. This does not change the law.
The PC's would like us to swallow - and their doing a good job of that with most media outlets - that the 12 month election clock comes after the swearing in of their newly elected leader. So for a moment lets look at what that would have to mean. It would mean that the House of Assembly Act - a non-partisan legislation - has gone to the dark side. They would have us believe that the law was designed to allow a political party on its own time to pick/select/elect a leader and then recognize that the party needed time to re brand - so be lenient - and allow the party to get its act together (no pun intended). This is too silly to even consider as legitimate. Danny Williams used to pontificate that a bunch of Liberals got in a convention room and picked their leader - who was then thrust upon the people without their approval.
Now the Tories want us to believe their new leader is "legitimate" and "elected" totally contrary to their position in 2001-2003. They want their new leader to be able to make deals and sign contracts and spend billions before going to an election.
What is most ludicrous about this is there are media and politicians running around claiming and believing this is what the Act means.
If that's the case we might as well add another feature and allow the official opposition an additional 12 months before an election following the resignation of one leader and only after they elect and swear in a new Opposition leader. After all - the House of Assembly Act must be seen to be equal to all officers of the House and our government and democracy.
Why not throw a by-election into the mix. Allow the governing party to appoint an interim member to replace a resigned member until they choose to have a nomination and then allow the party to rebuild the party image in the district before going to the polls.
There is NO room in this act for political party anything - this is an act that deals with the House - all 48 members. If this Act was seriously worded to suggest that a political party can have time to call for nominations, have a convention, elect a leader, and that person swear in before a clock started sticking to an election - then I guess the Act would have prescribed a maximum amount of time to achieve a new leader. Otherwise it would be indefinite.
The election must be called by January with an election no later than February.
While the Tories are at it the "interim Premier" particularly - stop committing the taxpayers of this province to billions in spending over long periods of time. You arrogant hypocritical people.
If this Act was indeed a result of spite - I guess it's in spite of oneself. Perhaps you should table a new Bill entitled "An Act to revoke other Acts if we are down in the polls"
There is no doubt that Williams and company spent a significant amount of time referring to Roger Grimes as the unelected and illegitimate Premier when they were in Opposition. Williams was determined to fix what he saw as a weakness in our democracy. Almost as soon as they achieved government - he and his colleagues did just that. There was no way - in Williams mind (as he articulated it) that any Premier who was elected by the party but was not the leader under the last general election should be making any significant policy decisions and certainly not be signing contracts.
Many provinces have opted to go with a fixed election date - but only this province it appears has gone with a change in election dates based on an early resignation of the Premier. This further proves that Williams and his Tory caucus absolutely meant to shorten the time to an election should a Premier resign early.
Unfortunately for the Tories - the first test of this law has come under their administration and while the polls are horrific. This does not change the law.
The PC's would like us to swallow - and their doing a good job of that with most media outlets - that the 12 month election clock comes after the swearing in of their newly elected leader. So for a moment lets look at what that would have to mean. It would mean that the House of Assembly Act - a non-partisan legislation - has gone to the dark side. They would have us believe that the law was designed to allow a political party on its own time to pick/select/elect a leader and then recognize that the party needed time to re brand - so be lenient - and allow the party to get its act together (no pun intended). This is too silly to even consider as legitimate. Danny Williams used to pontificate that a bunch of Liberals got in a convention room and picked their leader - who was then thrust upon the people without their approval.
Now the Tories want us to believe their new leader is "legitimate" and "elected" totally contrary to their position in 2001-2003. They want their new leader to be able to make deals and sign contracts and spend billions before going to an election.
What is most ludicrous about this is there are media and politicians running around claiming and believing this is what the Act means.
If that's the case we might as well add another feature and allow the official opposition an additional 12 months before an election following the resignation of one leader and only after they elect and swear in a new Opposition leader. After all - the House of Assembly Act must be seen to be equal to all officers of the House and our government and democracy.
Why not throw a by-election into the mix. Allow the governing party to appoint an interim member to replace a resigned member until they choose to have a nomination and then allow the party to rebuild the party image in the district before going to the polls.
There is NO room in this act for political party anything - this is an act that deals with the House - all 48 members. If this Act was seriously worded to suggest that a political party can have time to call for nominations, have a convention, elect a leader, and that person swear in before a clock started sticking to an election - then I guess the Act would have prescribed a maximum amount of time to achieve a new leader. Otherwise it would be indefinite.
The election must be called by January with an election no later than February.
While the Tories are at it the "interim Premier" particularly - stop committing the taxpayers of this province to billions in spending over long periods of time. You arrogant hypocritical people.
If this Act was indeed a result of spite - I guess it's in spite of oneself. Perhaps you should table a new Bill entitled "An Act to revoke other Acts if we are down in the polls"
Sunday, September 07, 2014
Will lawmakers follow their own law?
Let me preface this post by stating that it is the right of a Lieutenant Governor or Governor General to cause an election to be called at any time. Secondly an election would follow a successful vote of non-confidence in a government. These are long-standing parliamentary practises.
Newfoundland and Labrador also has a fixed election date. It is to occur on the 2nd Tuesday of October in the 4th calendar year following the most recent general election. This because of a new law in 2004. The only exception to this is if a Premier resigns before the end of the third year of the term - also enacted in 2004.
This means the fixed election date is replaced with a date not to exceed 12 months following the actual resignation date of the Premier. Once that election is held - regardless of the month, week or day - the election following will revert back to the fixed election date.
Okay let's take the Tory interpretation of this exception.
The Tories would have us believe that they have until they decide to hold a leadership, elect a leader, and swear the person in as Premier before the 12 month clock starts ticking.
Let's say a Premier resigns on October the 5th of the third year of the term. If we take their current actions as a benchmark - it would take them 8 months to select a leader. That would bring us to June of the last year of the term. Then let's say they were quick and swore the new leader in as Premier in June. What they claim is they would have 12 months past June to call an election - in other words 8/9 months later than the fixed election date.
The Tories would have us believe that the law they fondly nicknamed the Roger Grimes law was meant to give an "unelected" Premier even more time in office? Of course not. The whole point the Williams lead government was making is that you can't let an "unelected" Premier run the show - an election must be called. They used the words "unelected" and "illegitimate" Premier to describe Roger Grimes - but at that time it was only political rhetoric. Once the Tories took office - they made it real, legal, and binding regardless of which party formed a government.
The only meaning for the word "afterward" in section 3.1 (the section wherein there is an early resignation of a Premier) could only be related to a fixed date. That date is the resignation date of the Premier. The House of Assembly Act deals with sitting members of the House and the administration of our legislature and government - it has no interest - nor should it - with a Party's business and administration. It deals with Government and is not partisan.
The Act says without debate 12 months - that is a fixed number of months. The Act was giving a time frame relative to another fixed point in time. As the call for nominations and a party leadership process is a movable and a partisan time-frame - it certainly cannot be used as the fixed time frame from which the 12 months follow.
They must call an election by January 24th of 2015 and from there the Elections Act provisions will guide the date options of the election and the rules of the election.
Seriously people - do the people who made the laws - our MHA's - understand the laws they made? They want your vote in order to make more laws - think about that.
Newfoundland and Labrador also has a fixed election date. It is to occur on the 2nd Tuesday of October in the 4th calendar year following the most recent general election. This because of a new law in 2004. The only exception to this is if a Premier resigns before the end of the third year of the term - also enacted in 2004.
This means the fixed election date is replaced with a date not to exceed 12 months following the actual resignation date of the Premier. Once that election is held - regardless of the month, week or day - the election following will revert back to the fixed election date.
Okay let's take the Tory interpretation of this exception.
The Tories would have us believe that they have until they decide to hold a leadership, elect a leader, and swear the person in as Premier before the 12 month clock starts ticking.
Let's say a Premier resigns on October the 5th of the third year of the term. If we take their current actions as a benchmark - it would take them 8 months to select a leader. That would bring us to June of the last year of the term. Then let's say they were quick and swore the new leader in as Premier in June. What they claim is they would have 12 months past June to call an election - in other words 8/9 months later than the fixed election date.
The Tories would have us believe that the law they fondly nicknamed the Roger Grimes law was meant to give an "unelected" Premier even more time in office? Of course not. The whole point the Williams lead government was making is that you can't let an "unelected" Premier run the show - an election must be called. They used the words "unelected" and "illegitimate" Premier to describe Roger Grimes - but at that time it was only political rhetoric. Once the Tories took office - they made it real, legal, and binding regardless of which party formed a government.
The only meaning for the word "afterward" in section 3.1 (the section wherein there is an early resignation of a Premier) could only be related to a fixed date. That date is the resignation date of the Premier. The House of Assembly Act deals with sitting members of the House and the administration of our legislature and government - it has no interest - nor should it - with a Party's business and administration. It deals with Government and is not partisan.
The Act says without debate 12 months - that is a fixed number of months. The Act was giving a time frame relative to another fixed point in time. As the call for nominations and a party leadership process is a movable and a partisan time-frame - it certainly cannot be used as the fixed time frame from which the 12 months follow.
They must call an election by January 24th of 2015 and from there the Elections Act provisions will guide the date options of the election and the rules of the election.
Seriously people - do the people who made the laws - our MHA's - understand the laws they made? They want your vote in order to make more laws - think about that.
Friday, September 05, 2014
Election must be called by January 2015
If the PC's go beyond January 24th to call an election - they are ignoring the law. The House of Assembly Act was amended in 2004. This is the first time since - provisions for election upon the early resignation of a Premier - 3.1 - apply.
Where are the experts? Where are the authoritative opinions or interpretations? Our democracy and laws are at stake.
Here are the relevant sections:
Duration of House of Assembly
The people of this province must demand that the law be upheld and demand a ruling on the legislation.
Let's look at the intent - the law provides the establishment of a fixed election date - to provide predictability and stability in the election process and to reduce political opportunism. Secondly the law provided for an exception - in that it anticipates that a Premier could resign early. The law defines early as before the end of the third year. Given this eventuality the law prescribes that the fixed election date provision is no longer applicable and establishes a new process with limits. The limit prescribed is- not later than 12 months afterward.
The reason the wording "before the end of the third year" is used in 3.1 to outline timing - is that by the end of the third year the election is already set by law in 3.
Therefore the only meaning one can attribute to the word "afterward" is relative to the resignation date NOT the date a new leader is chosen and sworn in. Otherwise an election would never have to be held as long as he/she is not sworn in as Premier. That is also the reason the words "in either case no later than provided for in 3" are not used to define a new time limit in the event of a resignation.
The election must be called by January 24th 2015 and we must demand the law be followed. If this means going to the Lieutenant Governor or to the courts for interpretation - then so be it.
The reason for my review of the language again - this time - taking off the "loophole" blinders and giving credit to the drafters (Justice Department officials) - is because what was taking place by the PC's appeared to be in direct conflict with the intent of the law.
Additionally if one reads section 3.1 minus the wording between comma's which defines a new leader - one can see the intent was the date referring to the resignation. The only reason the inserted wording was used was to differentiate the authority of a new leader versus an interim leader.
Where are the experts? Where are the authoritative opinions or interpretations? Our democracy and laws are at stake.
Here are the relevant sections:
Duration of House of Assembly
3.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by
proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of
Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.
(2)
A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday
in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the
fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held
general election.
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
The people of this province must demand that the law be upheld and demand a ruling on the legislation.
Let's look at the intent - the law provides the establishment of a fixed election date - to provide predictability and stability in the election process and to reduce political opportunism. Secondly the law provided for an exception - in that it anticipates that a Premier could resign early. The law defines early as before the end of the third year. Given this eventuality the law prescribes that the fixed election date provision is no longer applicable and establishes a new process with limits. The limit prescribed is- not later than 12 months afterward.
The reason the wording "before the end of the third year" is used in 3.1 to outline timing - is that by the end of the third year the election is already set by law in 3.
Therefore the only meaning one can attribute to the word "afterward" is relative to the resignation date NOT the date a new leader is chosen and sworn in. Otherwise an election would never have to be held as long as he/she is not sworn in as Premier. That is also the reason the words "in either case no later than provided for in 3" are not used to define a new time limit in the event of a resignation.
The election must be called by January 24th 2015 and we must demand the law be followed. If this means going to the Lieutenant Governor or to the courts for interpretation - then so be it.
The reason for my review of the language again - this time - taking off the "loophole" blinders and giving credit to the drafters (Justice Department officials) - is because what was taking place by the PC's appeared to be in direct conflict with the intent of the law.
Additionally if one reads section 3.1 minus the wording between comma's which defines a new leader - one can see the intent was the date referring to the resignation. The only reason the inserted wording was used was to differentiate the authority of a new leader versus an interim leader.
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Perversion of Democracy! Media complicit?
With the latest news regarding the futures of Charlene Johnson - Minister of Finance and Terry French - Minister of Justice - the electorate must demand the call of an election.
Where to start - that's the problem here. The ignorance of or deliberate avoidance of the intent of the House of Assembly Act - passed by the Tories. A very significant part of this law deals with the early departure of a Premier.
When one reads the House of Assembly debate regarding this law - one can only conclude that the latest an election call would be is February/March of 2015. The intent was clear. If the governing party - responsible for the introduction, tabling, then supporting the passage of the law were planning to abuse the Act - why make the change? Why indeed. The Act does not provide for the bungling of or deliberate manipulation of the provisions of 3.1 and it certainly does not say anything about bad polls.
Kathy Dunderdale resigned in January of this year - and the party should have immediately called nominations for leader and settled in on a 2 month process to (s)elect a new leader. Instead they have been prolonging the process in a manner that achieves a full unentitled term.
The media has been irresponsible in their ignorance or avoidance of this situation - and as a result this so-called pillar of democracy has been absent. It is their job - their profession - to report, review, research, and present these real issues to the public.
Adding to the perversion of our "democracy" is the continued spending of taxpayer dollars by a caretaker Premier/s. Tom Marshall - is spending like the leader of a newly elected and wildly popular governing party. None of this is real. His view on power and democracy is nothing short of arrogant. He is spending and committing billions of dollars for generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In my opinion - I think it's safe to say that the Tories under Marshall/Dunderdale/Williams will continue to govern for at least the next decade whether re-elected or not.
The spending on pensions, pay and benefits packages, infrastructure, education, health, and resource developments are commitments that will go on in some cases for years and in others for decades - long after their government is gone.
It can be argued that all governments must make some multi-year commitments - usually however it is under a legitimate term and legitimate leadership. This has been over since the New Year.
They will double our debt obligations in a province where they have not grown population and private sector industry. They will double our debt obligations in a province that is aging faster than any other.
Ironically as another 2 Ministers remove themselves from office - the biggest headline is Danny is going to give us an extra year of the Ice-Caps. Yay...
Note to "Journalists" - Get off your arses and provide the public with real information instead of the leaning drivel of another fellow in a bow-tie who appears thankful that the Tories will provide him with a delegated convention - so as to ward off the boredom of an open leadership process.
Where to start - that's the problem here. The ignorance of or deliberate avoidance of the intent of the House of Assembly Act - passed by the Tories. A very significant part of this law deals with the early departure of a Premier.
When one reads the House of Assembly debate regarding this law - one can only conclude that the latest an election call would be is February/March of 2015. The intent was clear. If the governing party - responsible for the introduction, tabling, then supporting the passage of the law were planning to abuse the Act - why make the change? Why indeed. The Act does not provide for the bungling of or deliberate manipulation of the provisions of 3.1 and it certainly does not say anything about bad polls.
Kathy Dunderdale resigned in January of this year - and the party should have immediately called nominations for leader and settled in on a 2 month process to (s)elect a new leader. Instead they have been prolonging the process in a manner that achieves a full unentitled term.
The media has been irresponsible in their ignorance or avoidance of this situation - and as a result this so-called pillar of democracy has been absent. It is their job - their profession - to report, review, research, and present these real issues to the public.
Adding to the perversion of our "democracy" is the continued spending of taxpayer dollars by a caretaker Premier/s. Tom Marshall - is spending like the leader of a newly elected and wildly popular governing party. None of this is real. His view on power and democracy is nothing short of arrogant. He is spending and committing billions of dollars for generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In my opinion - I think it's safe to say that the Tories under Marshall/Dunderdale/Williams will continue to govern for at least the next decade whether re-elected or not.
The spending on pensions, pay and benefits packages, infrastructure, education, health, and resource developments are commitments that will go on in some cases for years and in others for decades - long after their government is gone.
It can be argued that all governments must make some multi-year commitments - usually however it is under a legitimate term and legitimate leadership. This has been over since the New Year.
They will double our debt obligations in a province where they have not grown population and private sector industry. They will double our debt obligations in a province that is aging faster than any other.
Ironically as another 2 Ministers remove themselves from office - the biggest headline is Danny is going to give us an extra year of the Ice-Caps. Yay...
Note to "Journalists" - Get off your arses and provide the public with real information instead of the leaning drivel of another fellow in a bow-tie who appears thankful that the Tories will provide him with a delegated convention - so as to ward off the boredom of an open leadership process.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Wanted: Captain Obvious
I waited with interest to see what the headlines would be this morning on the definitive defeat of the PC's in St. George's - Stephenville East.
I was not surprised - which means I was disappointed in our media.
Last night the governing Tories were crushed with a wave of discontent - in the middle of their "exciting" leadership debacle. Last night the polls continued to send a strong message to the government that their time is done. Get out - we no longer support your policies or direction - the electorate seem to be saying.
The numbers in this by-election certainly put an exclamation mark on the feelings of dissatisfaction the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have with this government.
The numbers are as follows:
2011 General Election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7959
Votes Cast: 4287
Voter turnout 53.9 %
PC's 49.3%
Liberal 32.7%
NDP 16.5%
Kevin Aylward was the candidate and the Leader of the Liberal Party at the time. A experienced politician - from the district - who actually did a decent job in helping to keep the Liberals in an Opposition position.
2014 By-election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7274 (a significant reduction in voting population in three years)
Votes Cast: 3738
Voter turnout 51.4
PC's 25.4%
Liberal 59.1%
NDP 15.5%
A by-election in the last week of summer vacation almost matched the turnout of a fall general election - that's pretty remarkable. It is also remarkable that a Minister's seat was so soundly defeated.
The candidates were solid people in what appears to have been a clean race.
What does this mean for the three Premier wannabes?
1. It was not all Kathy's fault,
2. They are as to blame for the by-election defeat as Kathy and Tom would be,
3. As all are former Ministers of this failing government and have been directly involved in policy choices - that clearly the people do not approve of,
4. The leadership candidates are not making a difference in the mood of the electorate,
5. They should stop spending taxpayer dollars on deals or agreements and call an election.
They have clearly lost the support of the people as the by-elections in Virgina Waters, Carbonear-Harbour Grace and now St. George's - Stephenville East have demonstrated. In their arrogance they continue to spend billions on a project the people DO NOT want, continue to commit billions in multi-year schemes and plans, and continue to govern like they have the overwhelming support of the people.
Their desperation to hang on to every little benefit their elected office provides - and their desperation to get all the contracts nailed down on energy resources reflects a feeling of political entitlement that has nothing to do with the electorate. They are finished.
Whether the election is being delayed for reasons of gross incompetance or mass manipulation of their leadership circus - the people are being ignored. The much touted House of Assembly Act passed by the Tories that included a provision should a leader leave before the end of the third year in office is being blatently ignored. The media is ignoring this.
The headlines in the media this morning do not reflect the gravity of this situation. The headlines were as if the Liberals were a popular government and they won another by-election. The headlines should have been screaming as loud as the people. "It is time to call an election".
Perhaps our media outlets would be best served if they hired "Captain Obvious" as lead journalist.
I was not surprised - which means I was disappointed in our media.
Last night the governing Tories were crushed with a wave of discontent - in the middle of their "exciting" leadership debacle. Last night the polls continued to send a strong message to the government that their time is done. Get out - we no longer support your policies or direction - the electorate seem to be saying.
The numbers in this by-election certainly put an exclamation mark on the feelings of dissatisfaction the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have with this government.
The numbers are as follows:
2011 General Election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7959
Votes Cast: 4287
Voter turnout 53.9 %
PC's 49.3%
Liberal 32.7%
NDP 16.5%
Kevin Aylward was the candidate and the Leader of the Liberal Party at the time. A experienced politician - from the district - who actually did a decent job in helping to keep the Liberals in an Opposition position.
2014 By-election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7274 (a significant reduction in voting population in three years)
Votes Cast: 3738
Voter turnout 51.4
PC's 25.4%
Liberal 59.1%
NDP 15.5%
A by-election in the last week of summer vacation almost matched the turnout of a fall general election - that's pretty remarkable. It is also remarkable that a Minister's seat was so soundly defeated.
The candidates were solid people in what appears to have been a clean race.
What does this mean for the three Premier wannabes?
1. It was not all Kathy's fault,
2. They are as to blame for the by-election defeat as Kathy and Tom would be,
3. As all are former Ministers of this failing government and have been directly involved in policy choices - that clearly the people do not approve of,
4. The leadership candidates are not making a difference in the mood of the electorate,
5. They should stop spending taxpayer dollars on deals or agreements and call an election.
They have clearly lost the support of the people as the by-elections in Virgina Waters, Carbonear-Harbour Grace and now St. George's - Stephenville East have demonstrated. In their arrogance they continue to spend billions on a project the people DO NOT want, continue to commit billions in multi-year schemes and plans, and continue to govern like they have the overwhelming support of the people.
Their desperation to hang on to every little benefit their elected office provides - and their desperation to get all the contracts nailed down on energy resources reflects a feeling of political entitlement that has nothing to do with the electorate. They are finished.
Whether the election is being delayed for reasons of gross incompetance or mass manipulation of their leadership circus - the people are being ignored. The much touted House of Assembly Act passed by the Tories that included a provision should a leader leave before the end of the third year in office is being blatently ignored. The media is ignoring this.
The headlines in the media this morning do not reflect the gravity of this situation. The headlines were as if the Liberals were a popular government and they won another by-election. The headlines should have been screaming as loud as the people. "It is time to call an election".
Perhaps our media outlets would be best served if they hired "Captain Obvious" as lead journalist.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Minister Hutchings unwittingly questions Muskrat
In a VOCM story today Minister Hutchings is responding to Federal Minister Gail Shea regarding the shrimp quota disaster.
As is usually the case from this PC Government the Minister talks about how good we are doing and what good confederation children we are. In part he says:
...in 2007 there were 187 licensed fish plants; today there are 86, and at the peak in the '80s there were 250. He says the province has stepped in with the fisheries loan guarantee program and a host of others to give harvesters the ability to access capital or to buy out, all of which is consolidation and rationalization.
Yes there we have it. So in short - Look at us - we have downsized, cut, rationalized and sold out - so why can't we have more shrimp?
So this province has lost 164 fish plants, 2 pulp and paper mills, several mines and recently a shoe factory - we need more power? So this province has lost 50,000 people but we need more power? Our population has aged with many of our young families moving to other provinces and countries for work and we need more power for the seniors left behind? All of our houses are modern and energy efficient as are the appliances in them - so we need more power?
Better yet Hutchings alludes to even more rationalization meaning less fish plants - and we need more power?
Muskrat = somebody needs more money and they'll have the suckers of Newfoundland and Labrador pay for it.
Hutchings has no problem speaking confidently about rationalization - he just has a problem being rational. Kindly stop the BS - and while your at it - if you are seeking re-election you might want to tone down the - we are going to shut-down things to do better thing.
As is usually the case from this PC Government the Minister talks about how good we are doing and what good confederation children we are. In part he says:
...in 2007 there were 187 licensed fish plants; today there are 86, and at the peak in the '80s there were 250. He says the province has stepped in with the fisheries loan guarantee program and a host of others to give harvesters the ability to access capital or to buy out, all of which is consolidation and rationalization.
Yes there we have it. So in short - Look at us - we have downsized, cut, rationalized and sold out - so why can't we have more shrimp?
So this province has lost 164 fish plants, 2 pulp and paper mills, several mines and recently a shoe factory - we need more power? So this province has lost 50,000 people but we need more power? Our population has aged with many of our young families moving to other provinces and countries for work and we need more power for the seniors left behind? All of our houses are modern and energy efficient as are the appliances in them - so we need more power?
Better yet Hutchings alludes to even more rationalization meaning less fish plants - and we need more power?
Muskrat = somebody needs more money and they'll have the suckers of Newfoundland and Labrador pay for it.
Hutchings has no problem speaking confidently about rationalization - he just has a problem being rational. Kindly stop the BS - and while your at it - if you are seeking re-election you might want to tone down the - we are going to shut-down things to do better thing.
Monday, July 07, 2014
Tick-Tock the Muskrat and Election Clock
Tick-Tock Tick-Tock goes the Muskrat Clock. Tick-Tock Tick-Tock goes the Election Clock.
Is Hydro-Quebec sitting back and waiting for a bankrupt project? Is the company watching the mess carefully? You know they are.
The Tories and their continued clinging to power and power are ruining this province and her people. The project is over-budget and delayed. Sadly - it may not be delayed enough.
We need some information quickly.
1. What is the cost of getting out of the Emera contract?
2. What is the REAL supply situation on the Island and what is the REAL industrial demand in Labrador?
3. How much exactly have we spent both already expended and contractually expended?
4. If we stopped the project now - what would be the cost?
5. If we continue what is the cost over 50 years?
6. Are we able to interest industrial customers in the Big Land?
7. What are the PC "protectors of natural resources" doing shipping raw - unprocessed ore?
8. Why should we accept and expect huge cost overruns?
9. Will the Tories commit to not signing any more deals on resource development until the next election?
10. Why are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians willing to work on a project that will harm their children and grandchildren?
Who are the real people behind this deal? Please name those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are becoming multi-millionaires either directly or indirectly from the Muskrat deal?
Why are their so many Emera utility trucks on our highways?
Why is Emera servicing any of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Why is Emera getting a piece of the light bill you and I will pay on the Island.
Why are Ed Martin and Gilbert Bennett still on our payroll?
Wake-up everybody - we are being socially, economically, and voluntarily robbed of our natural wealth and the future wealth of our children.
Is Hydro-Quebec sitting back and waiting for a bankrupt project? Is the company watching the mess carefully? You know they are.
The Tories and their continued clinging to power and power are ruining this province and her people. The project is over-budget and delayed. Sadly - it may not be delayed enough.
We need some information quickly.
1. What is the cost of getting out of the Emera contract?
2. What is the REAL supply situation on the Island and what is the REAL industrial demand in Labrador?
3. How much exactly have we spent both already expended and contractually expended?
4. If we stopped the project now - what would be the cost?
5. If we continue what is the cost over 50 years?
6. Are we able to interest industrial customers in the Big Land?
7. What are the PC "protectors of natural resources" doing shipping raw - unprocessed ore?
8. Why should we accept and expect huge cost overruns?
9. Will the Tories commit to not signing any more deals on resource development until the next election?
10. Why are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians willing to work on a project that will harm their children and grandchildren?
Who are the real people behind this deal? Please name those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are becoming multi-millionaires either directly or indirectly from the Muskrat deal?
Why are their so many Emera utility trucks on our highways?
Why is Emera servicing any of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Why is Emera getting a piece of the light bill you and I will pay on the Island.
Why are Ed Martin and Gilbert Bennett still on our payroll?
Wake-up everybody - we are being socially, economically, and voluntarily robbed of our natural wealth and the future wealth of our children.
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Muskrat - Incompetence? Corruption? Deliberate lies?
Are you willing to read a paragraph to protect your children and grandchildren?
As Tory MHA's current and past line up to run for the Party leadership remember this: They were all part of the Muskrat fiasco.
Please read an excerpt from an article in the Business Excellence Magazine written late last year.
The most recent project to be completed was the $5 billion Eastmain 1A-Sarcelle-Rupert project, in the James Bay area. It was launched in 2007 with approval to build the Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle powerhouses and divert part of the Rupert River's flow. The diversion began in 2009, two of the three generating units at Eastmain-1-A powerhouse were commissioned in 2011, the third in January 2012. The first generating unit at Sarcelle powerhouse was commissioned in April 2013 and the two other units have now come on line. “From an environmental and logistic standpoint it was the most challenging project in the history of Hydro-Québec,” he says. “It covers an area the size of some European countries but we were able to bring it in on time and a little under budget so we are very proud of that result.”
We need an investigation to determine what caused the unacceptable overruns in the Muskrat Falls project. We need the senior management of Nalcor to resign. We need to hold this government accountable now.
Ed Martin steps to a mic - declares an 800 million overrun - therefore we the people will pay more - then walks back to his very lucrative job.
Fire Ed Martin and the senior management involved in this project.We don't pay them millions a year to be wrong.
Fire the Tories - insist that they call an election now.
Find out how the external expertise we used to confirm the bad numbers - are themselves in a mess with overruns.
Don't turn away from this robbing of the public purse. Look it square in the eyes. Tell Tom Marshall, John Ottenheimer, Paul Davis, and Steve Kent that we no longer wish to be bamboozled. Show them the door and then see if there is a reason for them to lose their pensionable benefits.
As Tory MHA's current and past line up to run for the Party leadership remember this: They were all part of the Muskrat fiasco.
Please read an excerpt from an article in the Business Excellence Magazine written late last year.
The most recent project to be completed was the $5 billion Eastmain 1A-Sarcelle-Rupert project, in the James Bay area. It was launched in 2007 with approval to build the Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle powerhouses and divert part of the Rupert River's flow. The diversion began in 2009, two of the three generating units at Eastmain-1-A powerhouse were commissioned in 2011, the third in January 2012. The first generating unit at Sarcelle powerhouse was commissioned in April 2013 and the two other units have now come on line. “From an environmental and logistic standpoint it was the most challenging project in the history of Hydro-Québec,” he says. “It covers an area the size of some European countries but we were able to bring it in on time and a little under budget so we are very proud of that result.”
We need an investigation to determine what caused the unacceptable overruns in the Muskrat Falls project. We need the senior management of Nalcor to resign. We need to hold this government accountable now.
Ed Martin steps to a mic - declares an 800 million overrun - therefore we the people will pay more - then walks back to his very lucrative job.
Fire Ed Martin and the senior management involved in this project.We don't pay them millions a year to be wrong.
Fire the Tories - insist that they call an election now.
Find out how the external expertise we used to confirm the bad numbers - are themselves in a mess with overruns.
Don't turn away from this robbing of the public purse. Look it square in the eyes. Tell Tom Marshall, John Ottenheimer, Paul Davis, and Steve Kent that we no longer wish to be bamboozled. Show them the door and then see if there is a reason for them to lose their pensionable benefits.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Incompetence of Premier, Govt., Martin and Nalcor Executive
In
1971, _________ created __________ which is a subsidiary of ___________.
With over 30 years' experience in large-scale projects, ____________ offers a
complete range
of services in generation and transmission plant engineering, project
management and construction.
Over the years, _______ has also developed particular expertise
in remote areas and multicultural environments, as evidenced by its role as prime contractor for one of the largest
hydroelectric developments in the world— ___________ of northern ____________—which supplies over
50% of the electricity generated by ___________. This was further demonstrated in the _______________, where ___________ personnel constructed a 220-kV transmission line at altitudes of 4,000 metres or more. Every project
presents major challenges, and ____________ has the qualified people to meet them.
Part of the considerable know-how __________ has accumulated over
the years rests on the solid relationships it has forged with the people affected by its projects. Developing business
partnerships and working in close cooperation with the ________, __________, and ________ communities, for example, as well as
working to maximize regional economic spinoffs all attest to __________ expertise in this area.
As master builders, __________ personnel are high-calibre
professionals. A multidisciplinary team oversees the completion of every phase of a project, from draft-design,
detail engineering, procurement and construction management to environmental monitoring and follow-up.
For ________ clients, the benefits are clear—30
years of experience in managing and completing large-scale construction projects in the energy industry,
on schedule and within budget.Can you fill in the blanks? Answers HERE
If the answers included Nalcor - then we might be okay. If Ed Martin was Thierry Vandal and Gilbert Bennett was Real Laporte then overruns would not be considered "normal" and "expected".
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve competence to be "normal" and "expected". To make matters worse - the nit-wits responsible for mismanagement are not replaced - fired.
You see if Nalcor and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador had sought the advice of Hydro Quebec we might have expected the project to be on-time and on-budget; we might have expected that real customers would be found; we would have expected our energy rates to be stable; we would have expected major industry to consume power and create LONG-term jobs.
Danny - Kathy - and the Tories played the Hydro-Quebec fear and hate card and as a result we have a mess - and our children will have a worse mess. We had "experts" remember - the best "experts" remember?
If an 800 million overrun has become "normal" and "expected" it's time to change our attitudes and our government.
Fire the Nalcor Executive and call an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)