"Sources told the CBC"

It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.

This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.

Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.

Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.

I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.

Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good,  that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.

There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.

Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.

The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.

In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?

1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication


This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.

I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?

We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.

Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.

A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family.  Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.

We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.

We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.

It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.

On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.

Charlene's finest hour?

Sometimes it takes the worst of times to reveal the character of a person.

Please take the time to watch the interview with former Finance Minister Charlene Johnson at the CBCNL website click here.

Charlene should have used the results last night as a time to reflect. She should have immediately respected the people's choice - but that did not happen.

As you watch the video clip note some of the commentary:

1. I am completely dumbfounded.

I am sure she is - that is because they were not listening to the people as they claimed they were. That is because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not see the progress the Tories claimed was happening.

2. There's mayors here in this room tonight cause this government did so much for these communities.

I am sure Charlene forgets or never did listen to people saying that mayors and councillors in many communities felt intimidated by the Tory stranglehold and feared that bucking this government in any way might hurt chances for a fire-truck or pavement. Johnson will not recognize the partisanship of her government. Fortunately mayors - councillors - and residents have a secret ballot.

and then this beauty


3. There’s mayors here can’t believe it that we did so much for them and this is what happens in return ... And I can say all of this now because I’m not a politician anymore.

We did so much for them? Excuse me what? Charlene was very fortunate to be chosen by the people and paid by the people for public service. The former Minister forgets - she and they were spending our money - our tax dollars. She nor they did anything for us. They did not create the wealth nor did the put the oil in the ground or control the markets. In return she was paid generously and has a pension from us - the people. Instead of being humbled by past election victories she says:

4. Councillors and mayors here can’t believe that this is how people voted for all we’ve done for their town – it says a lot. 

Yes Charlene it sure does - you were the government - using our money and our resources. What did you expect in return for that? You have a pension - you received wonderful pay-cheques - and benefits. Loyalty to what Charlene? Should the people have kissed your feet - or perhaps they should have curtsied or bowed. 

And then in response to a question of the discrepancy in what Charlene said was support at the doors versus what the vote count was the "retired" politician said 

5. I wish they would have told us that...

Johnson is upset that people withheld information from them. Imagine that! I suspect they invoked Bill 29 and decided to keep that proprietary knowledge to themselves. 

In final exasperation of the situation - she talks about visiting Beaumont Hamel and understanding that the voter is always right. 

Charlene's finest hour? or Charlene unscripted and sooky? 

But wait Charlene is going to give some thought to running again. You do that Charlene - thanks for the pavement and fire-trucks.

 

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.

Manning playing gender card

If Judy Manning is trying to impress the public with her skills - she is failing.

To date we have a "superior work ethic" that has been alleged by the Premier but not proven.

We have "extensive legal experience" that has not been backed up by demonstrated work.

Now Ms. Manning is playing the gender card. That is not a card that one should use so cavalierly. There are real situations where women are discriminated against - this is not one of them.

She is a lawyer - yet she is doing her profession a disservice if what she calls responsible public scrutiny - "character assassination". There is zero evidence that this is the case.What has been reported has been accurate and if that information causes Ms. Manning to believe that she is seen in an unfavourable light - then she should take time and reflect herself.

The latest interview with Ms. Manning by David Cochrane highlights what appears to be a pattern for the unelected Minister. According to the CBC On Point story - Ms. Manning contends "that she was surprised by the focus of the interview, thinking it would be about general delays in the system and not her role as review commissioner." However the story goes on to say: the Oct. 24 email from CBC asking for the interview stated this: “I am working on a story about Minister Manning's previous role with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division (WHSCRD). My specific areas of inquiry are the number of cases she handled in that role, the number of reports she filed, and what happens to cases she did not complete.”

Then there is this quote in the story: “Did I break the system in the three months that I heard hearings? No. I have great empathy for the people that are going through this process, and I understand the frustration that’s emerged with the delays, but am I the author of those delays? Absolutely not”

Notwithstanding Ms. Manning's misrepresentation of the focus of the interview - she goes on to say she has great empathy for the people going through the process. Empathy defined as the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings. This itself is questionable as it was Ms. Manning who walked away from the files to take an unelected position in the Davis Cabinet. It was Ms. Manning's resignation from the WHSCRD that has caused the delay for these people.

Here we are today - and Ms.Manning is going to haul out the gender card and seek empathy for herself from women who truly face discrimination in the workplace. The questions that are asked of Ms. Manning is appropriate scrutiny of any person who is an unelected Minister. It is unusual for Ministers to be unelected and as such these exceptional circumstances require exceptional scrutiny - replacing what would normally be electoral scrutiny. Further as Ms.Manning refuses to run in any of the three by-elections called or anticipated - she demonstrates a sense of entitlement and arrogance - hardly a just comparison with the injured workers left to wait for decisions on basic human needs.

I now have to look at why Ms. Manning has chosen to throw out an unsubstantiated claim of possible gender discrimination. My take is that Ms. Manning may be playing the card now in an effort to thwart off what will be a continued and justified volley of criticism in the House of Assembly - as Question Period proceeds without her. Perhaps Ms. Manning is putting it out there so people will relate probing in the House of Assembly as the Opposition members - picking on a woman.

None of Ms. Manning's protestations to date are becoming of a Minister of Justice and Attorney General - it has nothing to do with being a woman.

It is time for Ms. Manning to resign - or in the alternative run in one of the three upcoming by-elections.

Perhaps the greatest criticism of the Manning appointment should fall at the desk of Premier Paul Davis. Ms. Manning was chosen by Mr. Davis - to date he has not successfully justified his choice - his call - his decision. 

Ottenheimer fumbles out of gate

The PC CAMP Condescending - Arrogant - Manipulative - Peremp(tory) is desperate to cling to power.

Sue's Blog has already raised the issue of the Tory Party abusing the intent of a law - the Tory government introduced in 2004. Now ten years later and the first time this part of the law is being utilized - they are showing us how they really operate.

There is no doubt that popular Tories of 2004 - are no so hot to trot with their new law - when they are behind in the polls.

Minister Terry French said this on December 07-2004

"Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that."

Right now Mr. French and all his PC colleagues are using a loophole Sue's Blog pointed out months ago after Dunderdale resigned. They are using their leadership process to drag on the time frame in which they must call an election. It was not the intent of this law to have political parties abuse and use it for political gain - in fact it was supposed to minimize political interference.

Enter Ottenhiemer     Cochrane's Failure

John Ottenheimer is now an official entrant in the PC leadership race. His debut on CBC'c On Point with David Cochrane was less than stellar and gave us some insight as to how he may use his office - if elected by the Party.

Ottenheimer is an experienced lawyer and parliamentarian - yet he chose these words:

"It's well perhaps 14 or 15 months before the next general election - which is in keeping with what the mandate allows the party anyway - in terms of when we were first elected or more recently elected in 2011."

Ottenheimer talks of a mandate as if there were no premature resignation of the Premier. He knows - he was there - he knows that a law - his party - the party he wants to lead - promoted and as majority government passed - says the original mandate no longer exists. Therefore Mr. Ottenheimer has decided to mislead instead of dealing with the subject truthfully.

For David Cochrane's part - it was a miss - he ignored the much touted and self praised initiative of the Tories - to remove pure politics from the calling of an election.

For Ottenheimer there remains many questions regarding his time as Minister of Health and this latest foray into a convenient memory does not bode well - if such is a demonstration of his leadership.

The PC's of late have been adopting Liberal policy almost as quick as they hear it - bankrupt clearly of anything progressive on the policy development side.

Next up - The Crosbie Monarchy

Williams - Barry... Same ting

Bill Barry wants to be Premier. That's nice for him - but what of for us?

The first interview you should watch is On Point with David Cochrance CBC - Press HERE

Let's start with "if everyone in the province wants the same old same old - I can tell 48 people to vote for".

With that one statement Bill Barry eliminated all elected MHA's - from all sides of the House. He does not agree with one of them? Certainly it was a smack at the Party he wants to lead - and maybe that's not a bad thing - but smacking everybody that any of us elected is more than a little scary.

Cochrane did a good job probing some of the obvious questions and therefore the people get a chance to listen to unedited answers. A response to one of the questions regarding political ideology - Barry stated "I am running for the Conservative Party". That statement was very clear and certainly distances Barry from the Progressive Conservatives in this province - who Barry feels are not conservative. "I am a fiscal Conservative" Barry said. Another indicator that his leanings are very/extreme right is when he says only, "I don't consider myself a callous person", he does not say I'm a social Liberal.

Sue's Blog made an initial call on Barry - likening him to Bill Gates - in that both gentlemen appear to love consolidation in their favour and the elimination of competition. They both also like to be in control of who is worthy to receive money and under what circumstances. This comes through again and again in his interview with Cochrane.

As for his comment "most of the crowd in government today - if it's a bucket of shit - most of them wouldn't know it if you hauled it down over their head" - Barry danced like a wounded butterfly to escape what he calls "Billisms".

Barry has his own language - and an ego to match. If Barry was that concerned about governance of the Province since Clyde Wells - then he certainly did not rally the people - speak out - do something to stop all the wastage's.

One of Cochrane's questions netted the following comment, "My life experience and business experience is quite different than would be the norm in the House of Assembly"... On this one I want Barry to elaborate. More particularly his life experience. The idea that Bill's life is quite different than most in the HOA means it is different than the norm of the people who elected them. What in Bill's life is different and not the norm? This particularly - as he has toyed with changing the health and education systems.

We already know Barry blew it on the "Newfoundland Inc." comment - no mention of Labrador - which he corrected in the interview to say Newfoundland and Labrador Inc. Once again it was obvious where Barry would go fiscally - and is one of the real indicators where he would go socially. Businesses - such as the ones he operates are not operated with a social agenda - they are operated to be profitable. The government and it's whole reason for existence may be escaping Barry.

Barry does talk about increasing revenues though royalties and increased activity in offshore exploration - but says nothing about the secondary processing piece - where we use our resources to attract industry with maximum processing output. That is the only way we sustain an economy and grow population. Barry's route would see a continued stripping of natural resources - mostly in the Labrador Inc. part of the equation - for a one time royalty. He sees royalties not industrial development and growth in the secondary processing sector as the way to sustain expenditures. Barry does not get that because it works in his business does not mean it will work to develop and grow a society. If Barry finds a better price for "his" fish - processing or otherwise - elsewhere - then it's gone. Stripping out ores and straight-lining energy out - instead of using the naturally occurring resource to expand industrial processing - seems to be his tune. Ironically this is no different than the government he abhors.

On the political savvy side of the equation - he does not get it. Barry states to Cochrane "I'm not politically smart" - and wears it like a badge of honour. I certainly cannot be accused of wanting politics as usual - but there is no need to deny yourself knowledge - and this appears to be what Barry has done. He says of delegates going to the Tory leadership convention - to go there with an open mind - listen to everybody then decide. Barry clearly does not even understand why most of the delegates would be there. If Barry wanted to do something different - he should be up bellowing for an open voting process - and attract 10,000 people to vote for him.

Bill Barry woke up one morning - the same way Danny Williams did - today I'm gonna become Premier - I'm gonna shake things up - I'm gonna do it my way. Let me take my prowess at making a fortune in the private sector and let me run your government that way. Our unemployment is still way up - we are losing population - we are growing debt and producing deficits - we are making bad deals for the people but great deals for the private elite.

Business as usual - Williams and Barry - same ting....

The two boys are feeling competitive - that's all. That want to use us as their playhouse.

Kudos to Antle and Cochrane - Exercise in Accountability

Rob Antle and Dave Cochrane - two CBC journalists - are to be commended for scratching the surface of PC hypocrisy. Their story today deals with promises made by the Tories in 2003 regarding electoral reform - and the promises broken regarding same. You can read their story HERE.

The bravado and chest-thumping of Danny Williams in 2002-2003 - came with it - promises to do many things differently than the Liberals.

Party leadership contests and the financing of same was absent in legislation and Williams promised to fix it. It did not get fixed.

This is a serious matter - no doubt - but pales in comparison to other promises of change made by then Opposition leader Danny Williams.

These two journalists have begun the process - I hope they continue the probe by reviewing promises on - energy, mining, forestry, and fishery. The people deserve to know - if not by the Tories or Opposition - then by the media - what exactly was promised on natural resource developments.

The information is all there - the only thing missing - the direct questions to the government on why they did not live up to the promises they made.

The commentary on the fishery, the paper mills, the mining sector, and energy was very aggressive and designed to make people believe that we would get more benefits under natural resource development than we would have under the Liberals.

The continued pouncing on the governing Liberals by Williams and rat-pack was specific and aimed toward the ear of the voter.

What should we have expected over the decade that followed 2003? How many long-term jobs from industrial development? How many projects where "construction" was not the objective - but permanent well paying trades positions was the objective?

The Tories have stripped away at the value of resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they have ushered in closures of many industrial operations, failed to improve our place in Canada, and squandered billions of our oil revenues.

So hats off to Cochrane and Antle - let's keep the accountability coming.

I do have one small critique - you state that, "This is the party’s first contested leadership race in nearly two decades, and the first chance for the Tories to play by the rules they promised to implement while in opposition." 

It's not a contested race yet.

O'Brien and Sullivan Communications 101

Last week David Cochrane interviewed Ministers Sullivan and O'Brien regarding - in part - the resignation of Kathy Dunderdale and what went wrong.

First off they both admitted that Kathy Dunderdale told them that she would resign before the next election. To the contrary Kathy Dunderdale told the people of the province and hundreds of PC delegates just a few months ago that she was staying put for the next election.

DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?

Yes she told certain people she was going and others she was staying.

Second - Sullivan indicated that Kathy resigned mostly for the good of the party - to allow them to reorganize - regroup - and refresh. From what? Your party is not governed by polls is it? That's what you claim.

DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?

Yes she said one thing one day and then did something contrary to that which was said the next. Further Sullivan's thought on refreshing - hardly seems likely when she and O'Brien remain. Why didn't they leave for the good of the party? They were as responsible for decisions - as Cabinet Ministers - as the Premier was. David referred to both O'Brien and Sullivan as strong supporters of the Premier - perhaps because they put forth just that. If you watch the interview however - if they are her friends - she doesn't need enemies.

Third - Kevin O'Brien claims that she was the first Premier who encountered social media. Really? I remember a significant load of it on former Premier Danny Williams. Be that as it may O'Brien exclaimed that it (social media) was used entirely against her.

DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?

Yes - it is false and misleading. Actually it's a lie. It's doubtful Kent, Lane, and Collins have fingerprints left from Twitter presence - notwithstanding loyal Tories tweeting with vigor and venom.

Fourth - Then Kevin O'Brien adds that part of her problem was the "hostile media". Cochrane challenged him on that and then said "no not really".

DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?

Guess that one's pretty simple. Propaganda - called on it - then withdrew.

Fifth - and Susan Sullivan should have plead the fifth instead of carrying on. Twitter and Facebook she said has been taken hostage by a "mob mentality". She compared it to a child's game whisper - where one child whispers to another down a chain of people and then they hear what comes out on the other side. She exclaimed that people under the cloak of anonymity made a statement which was partially untrue - and then others added to it and spread it - all the while changing the original point.

DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?

The anonymous ones the Minister speaks of contain as many Tory hacks as those from any party. The most vocal opposition to this government's policy on Twitter - Facebook - and Blogs are not anonymous. The use of the words "mob mentality" is similar to other words they use to describe engaged citizens - such as "conspiracy theorists" and "naysayers". These words have been communicated so well - that even some media outlets use them.

So if the purpose of O'Brien and Sullivan was to reorganize - regroup - and refresh - they did nothing of the sort. I guess they should resign now as they also cannot communicate a message. If they did communicate what they meant - then we are in more trouble than we think.

Now just imagine having a conversation with them on Muskrat Falls?


The On Point interview can be found by CLICKING HERE