Warm and Fuzzy lobbies

Today the CBC ran a story titled

They work, they own homes, they pay taxes, but permanent residents can't vote for city council

That story resulted in some twitter commentary, opposition and support - including Maggie Burton - a candidate for St. John's City Council.

Ms. Burton appears to favour a change that would allow non-citizens to vote. 

I tweeted back and forth with Ms. Burton - and found that her agreement with allowing such a change to law was more wrapped up in the warm and fuzzy - not the law, the intent of citizenship, and without polling the citizens she wants support from. 

One of her first responses to me is that other cities are looking at it - and referenced the CBC story. 

Followed my "it's not fair"

Followed by "it's not a radical idea"

So I got down to it. I asked some questions, put out my own opinion and why I held that opinion - and outside an interlude with a Permanent Resident of Canada - living in Newfoundland and Labrador - the tweets back and forth between myself and Ms. Burton ran on.

The self-identified Permanent Resident attempted to depict me as somebody who was opposed to him having and voicing an opinion. A Permanent Resident in Canada is protected by the Charter and laws - they just can't vote or stand for election. He knew this when he signed up for that status. 

The conversation with Ms. Burton raised some serious concerns for me as a citizen - regarding the ability of a warm and fuzzy lobby to make politicians jump on a bandwagon of ignorance. That is to say the implications of such a change were not examined thoroughly - and in spite of this - a person running for office was willing to go to battle for such a concept. 

The CBC for their part should have broadened the story to get opinions and feelings of citizens who are opposed to such a change and outline their reasons for that stance. 

Here's the real deal:

What permanent residents can do

As a permanent resident, you have the right to:

• get most social benefits that Canadian citizens receive, including health care coverage,
• live, work or study anywhere in Canada,
• apply for Canadian citizenship,
• protection under Canadian law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You must pay taxes and respect all Canadian laws at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

What permanent residents cannot do

You are not allowed to:

• vote or run for political office,
• hold some jobs that need a high-level security clearance. 

This is pretty straight-forward and is known by those who choose a Permanent Resident status. The Government of Canada encourages PR's to apply for Canadian Citizenship.

Why is this important?

The act of incorporating creates a new legal entity called a corporation, commonly referred to as a “company”. Your corporation will have the same rights and obligations under Canadian law as a natural person.

Corporations are a person under the law - but like Permanent residents are not citizens therefore cannot vote or run for office. 

Corporations have for years complained using the same arguments as a Permanent Resident - they reside in the municipality, contribute to the municipality and pay tax in the municipality. They too want the right to vote. 

Once you take away the citizenship requirement for voting and standing for election - you open up significant issues and ones that will be challenged. 

In the CBC story one such Permanent Resident - Philippa Jones - claims she is not a citizen of Canada but she lives in St. John's so therefore a citizen of St. John's. Patently false and wrong. She resides in St. John's. She is a resident not a citizen of St. John's. You are either a Canadian citizen or not. This does not break down to to a provincial or municipal level. It is one or the other. 

I'd like to be a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador - skip the Canada part - however this would take a referendum with defined boundaries and rules. That's the way it is. 

Further - this lobby wants the right to vote but not the right to seek electoral office. This is absurd - and once again - open the can of worms and see what happens next. 

As a Permanent Resident - there are numerous benefits and rights - but the right to vote and seek electoral office is reserved for citizens. 

One pays tax because they are employed and they pay property tax because they own property. These are choices. If one wants to vote - however - they must be a citizen. If they want to have or achieve a high level security clearance they must be a citizen. 

I can guarantee that corporations with the same claims of paying tax - residing in - contributing to a municipality will attempt again to get the right to vote. 

If we change the status of a Permanent Resident to allow them to vote - all kinds of challenges to include other "persons" will begin. 

The CBC should have been more thorough, Maggie Burton should have polled the citizens on their thoughts, and Permanent Residents should apply for citizenship - and in the event they already have wait until they take the Oath of Citizenship. 

There are reasons for these rules and law - and we should not forget them for a warm and fuzzy lobby. 

I have read Maggie Burton's campaign material - and she has some wonderful ideas for the City. As with all elected politicians and those seeking to be elected - the quick jump on the warm and fuzzy lobby demonstrates a little bit of naiveté - that should be kept in check. Or sometimes we end up with something we don't want - like Muskrat Falls.  

Chase the Muskrat - postponed

You must be kidding me!!! Chase the Ace Postponed???

Below is what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador SHOULD be saying to the media and the citizens:

Gov. NL
 
July 19, 2017

Public Advisory: Chase the Muskrat Postponed
The public is advised that Chase The Muskrat scheduled forever at Hydro Place in St. John's has been postponed, pending the outcome of an investigation by Gov. NL to ensure the integrity of the accounting, project management, safety, and time-frames for the project. Further it has a fiduciary duty to ensure that 13 billion tax dollars are spent in the best possible manner for needed services and infrastructure.
The decision to postpone Muskrat was made after evidence of outrageous overspending, unacceptable time delays, significant safety concerns, and misleading information was brought to the attention of the Govt. NL.
Nalcor will be permitted to continue until 8 p.m.
Contracts for the project should be retained by the contractors until an audit is complete.
Govt. NL is working with the citizens of NL while the forensic auditors can verify whether all conditions of all contracts have been met and that no false or misleading information was or continues to be given to the people.
The Province has the authority to regulate, audit, and cease operations of the Muskrat Falls project and has a primary responsibility to ensure that the safety, integrity, and need for the Muskrat project  is maintained.
For more information about this call your MHA.

- 30 -

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.

Imagine that Newfoundland and Labrador

Is it Scotland's Oil and Gas offshore?

Answer: The vast majority of oil and gas in the UK comes from the Scottish Continental Shelf and will be in Scotland after independence.

Analysis by academics at Aberdeen University tells us that in excess of 90 per cent of the oil and gas revenues are from fields in Scottish waters (based on well-established principles of international law).

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.

Minister Marshall is a Genius right?

Economic Update:

It's not as bad as we thought.

Projected deficit only half billion dollars.

Budgetary projections based on overestimating deficit and then re-estimating less of a deficit.

How about this Minister Marshall - look into your Muskrat Ball and project the following - based on your policies today:

In 20 years the debt will be ___
In 20 years the deficit will be ___
In 20 years the cost of residential power will be ___
In 20 years our population will be ___
In 20 years our unemployment rate will be ___
In 20 years the public pensions will be a) bankrupt b) underfunded c) healthy
In 20 years the percentage of our population over 65 will be ___
In 20 years how many more communities will be lost ___
In 20 years the fishery will be controlled by ___  people
In 20 years we will have ___ paper mills
In 20 years we will have ___ communities in Labrador still without power from Labrador hydro resources
In 20 years will we have an oil or gas refinery - using our own resources?
In 20 years will it be determined that you and the PC Dunderdale Government have done more to advance Nova Scotia than for Newfoundland and Labrador? 
In 20 years will we have a shipyard?

There are no consequences to you if you are wrong - but the consequences to the next three generations can be profound.

I watch you and your colleagues banter and play in the House of Assembly like you are having a private poker game - playing with your own money. I watch the partisan tripe and manipulation of facts. I watch you and your colleagues answer from script and ignore the real situation. It looks like a game of monopoly wherein the consequences are a bruised ego - not the failure of a province.

I watch the backbenchers do whatever is necessary to get a crack at a Cabinet post. A giant carrot wielded by the Premier to keep herself in power.

When you were elected to govern in 2003 - do you believe that all governments that came before you did a great job? Did Tory governments before you leave us in a better place? Guess not - you continue to complain about it today. They were all telling the truth like you - right? They were all doing what was in our best interest like you - right? They were all building a bright future like you - right? Or do you believe that you and your colleagues have been the only competent, unselfish, and successful public servants?

The problem is Minister Marshall - if you - the Premier and the other PC's think you have the market on brains and integrity cornered - you are doing us a disservice and you should really pack it in and move on.

This situation becomes worse when you continue to be the only potential to even carry the portfolio (based on Premier's appointments) - what does that say about your colleagues?

Davis - One good choice in Cabinet shuffle

I am very pleased at the appointment of Paul Davis as Minister of Child Youth and Family Services. There is so much wrong with this Cabinet make-up that having one bright light is a relief.

Understanding the challenges posed for many in our society, the vulnerability of children, the problems in a family with violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and problems related to young offenders; is half the battle. Davis has the background and experience to tackle these issues competently and compassionately. He can make a difference.

No doubt the complete erosion of support for the government is going to impede all caucus members in performing their duties - however I believe despite this Davis can accept his appointment as a serious one and do the job that needs to be done. His sense of public service was developed long before politics and therefore this type of portfolio puts him right in the real mix of it.

If Davis can do what needs to be done here - he may very well be a real contender to replace Dunderdale. He would be seen in much better a light than most of his colleagues.

I hope Davis stays true to himself - puts his nose to the grindstone - and accomplishes to his full potential. Good Luck Minister Davis. 

The next post will be much longer as it deals with all the Cabinet failures.

RIP | Ray Guy | and Write Home Often

Wow,
Is it really true? Ray is gone and you know what - it hurts.

I'm going to miss a person I have never met - because in many ways it was a comfort he was there.
Everyday - listening to the news or watching the House of Assembly - can cause a person to think they are strange.

Knowing that at least one other mortal was having a hard time swallowing the crap fed to us each and every day by governments - was somewhat a relief.

Ray also allowed me to understand that this stuff has been going on for a long while - and we the people were following a grand tradition of "living down to that estimation".

Sometimes I'd be mad at him - I'd ask where are you? Step to the plate - and put that voice in the House of Assembly. I'd say come on by - you can do more than moan - albeit a very talented moan.
I can't say I understood or knew - because I didn't.

I really believe Ray was tormented by the mess we are in and have been in for a while - and his out was to write the sworded release. Well regardless of why - we were fortunate that Ray exhaled and sent his words to us.

My favorite line of Guy's came during his address at his convocation for the degree of doctor of letters, honoris causa:

"This is a fair piece of geography we've got hold of here. One day we may straighten out the hideous kinks in the Canadian federation, one day we may stop electing fools and crooks."

So Dr. Raymond Guy - you'll not be forgotten - and write home often. 

Dunderdale Govt. believes Opposition is Communications Savvy?

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

How many communications experts do we employ full time?

What do all these people do?

How much do we pay them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deceptions of the Dunderdale Government - an Example

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

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

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

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

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

The pharmacist does not decide that administrative and business decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Pharmacy has the following expenditures:

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

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

The pharmacist is an employee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We remain in the courts with that issue.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no examples of this in any other sector.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secrecy and the Consequences - Dunderdale vs. Stiglitz

I will over the next couple of days take excerpts from a lecture given by Joseph E. Stiglitz- Economist.

Below you will find some information about this professional followed by Exerpt 1 of the lecture. 

As a public - the current "secrecy" bill before our House of Assembly - should be frightening. You and I need to be very afraid of what the Dunderdale government is doing and why.

Appointments:

University Professor. Teaching at the Columbia Business School, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics) and the School of International and Public Affairs

Co-founder and Co-President of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD)

Co-Chair of Columbia University's Committee on Global Thought

Chair of the Management Board, Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester

Member, CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues

President of the International Economic Association, 2011-2014

A Modest Proposal for International Monetary Reform, paper presented at the June 

2008 meeting of the International Economic Association, Istanbul.

Sharing the Burden of Saving the Planet: Global Social Justice for Sustainable Development, Keynote speech at the June 2008 meeting of the International Economic Association, Istanbul (see the powerpoint here).

Co-Chair of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

GDP Fetishism, Project Syndicate, September 2009.

GSP Seen as Inadequate Measure of Economic Health, by David Jolly, New York Times, September 14, 2009.

Towards A Better Measure of Well-Being, Financial Times, September 13, 2009.

Chair of the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System

One Small Step Forward, The Guardian (UK), June 28, 2009.

Recommendations for Immediate Action, a statement from the first meeting of the Comission of Experts, January 4-6, 2009, New York.

West urged to increase aid to poor nations, article about the Commission by Heather 

Stewart, The Guardian (UK), January 11, 2009.

UN Panel Calls for Council to Replace G20, by Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 22, 2009.

Dollar Reserve Reform Urged, by Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 27, 2009.

Final Report of the UN Commission of Experts, released September 21, 2009

Excerpt 1

To me, the most compelling argument for openness is the positive Madisonian one: meaningful participation in democratic processes requires informed participants. Secrecy reduces the information available to the citizenry, hobbling their ability to participate meaningfully. Any of us who has participated in a board of directors knows that the power of a board to exercise direction and discipline is limited by the information at its disposal. 

Management knows this, and often attempts to control the flow of information. We often speak of government being accountable, accountable to the people. But if effective democratic oversight is to be achieved, then the voters have to be informed: they have to know what alternative actions were available, and what the results might have been. Those in government typically have far more information relevant to the decisions being made than do those outside government, just as management of a firm typically has far more information about the firm’s markets, prospects, and technology than do shareholders, let alone other outsiders. Indeed, managers are paid to gather this information.

The question is, given that the public has paid for the gathering of government information, who owns the information? Is it the private province of the government official, or does it belong to the public at large? I would argue that information gathered by public officials at public expense is owned by the public— just as the chairs and buildings and other physical assets used by government belong to the public. We have come to emphasize the importance of intellectual property. The information produced, gathered, and processed by public officials is intellectual property, no less than a patentable innovation would be. To use that intellectual property for private is just as serious an offense against the public as any other appropriation of public property for private purposes.

Government Drug Policy will cost Seniors and Families

Please READ HERE for latest news on government's plan to lower prices of generic drugs.

Will NOT save money - will save on one line item in the budget while increasing other line items in health.

Government actions will affect service delivery and costs for rural and inner-city seniors and families.

READ HERE

More $$$$ lost from Health Care - Secret Committee

Another half million dollars down the tube as Newfoundland and Labrador takes 40 days longer to list new generic.

In this case Lipitor - a brand drug to help control cholesterol - came off patent protection in May 2010 - and should have been on our formulary by July 1 of 2010. Atorvastatin the generic version did not make our formulary until August 11 2010. This 41 day delay cost us close to half a million dollars.

More interesting in this case - it may very well have been delayed until December of 2010 - if the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners did not directly advise the Department of Finance of this problem.

That would have cost close to 2 million dollars.

Since that time the situation has not been corrected and we continue to lose millions of dollars.

This is the second example of wastage.

Where are the questions?

Where is the media?

These numbers can be independently verified.

Why are drugs available in our hospitals but not available at the retail pharmacy?

Here is another half million for surgeries to remove excess skin or quicker MRI's. 

Goodbye Canada and Corruption - Hello Iceland

A lesson from Iceland - I have added bolding to areas of the Story.
You must love the People First approach.
Iceland with half our population and less natural resources - they are doing fine.

Icelandic Economy Bounces Back From Brink

Debt relief put people’s needs ahead of markets

By Marlene Y. Satter

February 20, 2012 •

Iceland’s economy suffered a meltdown in 2008, with its banks defaulting on $85 billion. In 2009 its citizens took to the streets and demanded action from the government against those they saw as responsible for the crisis. The government responded, putting people before markets, and now Iceland’s economy is outgrowing the euro one and, on average, the developed world.

Bloomberg reported that after it was determined in October 2008 that the banks could not be saved, the government intervened. It ring-fenced domestic accounts and shut out international creditors. Iceland’s central bank prevented the sell off of krona through capital controls, and new banks were created that were controlled by the state. Then the government and the state-controlled banks agreed that amounts in excess of 110% of home values would be forgiven on mortgages.

The country’s supreme court also ruled in 2010 that debts indexed to foreign currencies were illegal, which saved households from having to cover losses resulting from drops in the value of the krona.
An Icelandic Financial Services Association report cited by Bloomberg pointed out that the country’s banks have forgiven loans amounting to 13% of Iceland’s GDP. That lessened the debt load of the population.

In addition, the government is investigating, and prosecuting, numerous prominent figures from the meltdown. Currently more than 200 face criminal charges and a special prosecutor has said as many as 90 may be indicted.

Lars Christensen, chief emerging markets economist at Danske Bank in Copenhagen, was quoted saying, “You could safely say that Iceland holds the world record in household debt relief. Iceland followed the textbook example of what is required in a crisis. Any economist would agree with that.”

The result? According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Iceland’s economy is in line to expand 2.4% both this year and next, after growth of 2.9% last year and in the wake of shrinkage of 6.7% in 2009. In contrast, the OECD estimated in November that the euro area will only expand by 0.2% and the OECD area by 1.6% in 2012.

Not only that, but the cost to insure against an Icelandic default is about the same as to insure against a credit event in Belgium. And Icelanders are no longer eager to join the eurozone. Most would rather stay solo. Housing as an element of the consumer price index is only down about 3% from what it was in September 2008, just prior to the collapse.

Fitch Ratings just last week also conceded that Iceland’s approach has worked, raising the country’s rating to investment grade with a stable outlook. At the time it said that Iceland’s “unorthodox crisis policy response has succeeded.”

Thorolfur Matthiasson, an economics professor at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, was quoted saying, “The lesson to be learned from Iceland’s crisis is that if other countries think it’s necessary to write down debts, they should look at how successful the 110% agreement was here. It’s the broadest agreement that’s been undertaken.”

According to Christensen at Danske Bank, “the bottom line is that if households are insolvent, then the banks just have to go along with it, regardless of the interests of the banks.”

Fact versus Conspiracy - The Gary Norris Appointment

A few days ago - Sue's Blog wrote a piece on Danny's appointment to Alderon. In that blog I also mentioned others who also ended up under the employ of that mining company.

One of the individuals was Gary Norris former Public Servant - and most recently he held the post of Clerk of the Executive Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.

From there came a call from Polemic and Paradox - Peter Whittle - that this was a conspiracy piece and challenged the integrity of one Gary Norris.

What my blog did do was list a series of facts. What one draws from the facts is entirely up to the reader.

Gary Norris is now a VP of a publicly traded company operating in Newfoundland and Labrador. His resume is listed under the companies website.

The questions that come to mind for me are the following:

1. Did Gary Norris at any time during his public employ meet with any representative/s of Alderon?

2. Did Gary Norris at any time during his public employ advise the Cabinet or then Premier Danny Williams on matters of mining or energy legislation.

3. Did Gary Norris ever recommend and legislative or public policy initiative that would have been beneficial to a private sector company involved in natural resource development? (that does not assume the legislation would have been inappropriate)

4. Did Gary Norris apply for the job with Alderon - or otherwise did Alderon come looking for Gary Norris? If the latter - how would Alderon been familiar with Gary Norris?

5. Did former Premier Danny Williams ever talk to Alderon executives about Gary Norris for possible employment?

The following questions are also applicable for Todd Burlingame who also ended up at Alderon after a stint with Nalcor as part of the negotiating team for Muskrat Falls.

These are reasonable questions and may or may not be answered as the private sector sees fit. I guess we should also look at rules surrounding former executive level bureaucrats and their entry into the private sector.

When so much power is in the hands of one - rules must certainly be the equalizer.

More INFO regarding MQO poll coming soon

I have received a further response from Ms. Carolyn O'Keefe - President MQO Research.
I will post this and commentary over the weekend. Stay tuned.

More on the Poll by the M5 subsidiary! Oh there is a real problem here!

Further to my previous post on the latest political poll conducted by a subsidiary of M5 are the following details.

First M5 contributed $13,400 to the PC's since 2007 and we have NO idea what they have contributed in 2011 - until 2012.

Then there is the statement, "a survey with a probability sample of this size has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 per cent." Not necessarily this poll - but a like poll - right?

Then there is the kicker - this poll...involved 413 adults, who were contacted over the phone or online.
How does one confirm - that the person on the end of a computer is an adult? How can they be sure? How many were done online?

This is junk! If this is how this election is going to proceed with the media dutifully reporting - the information going to the public is not acceptable.

Let me predict that these polls will be coming fast and furious so that PC's can claim that you need to vote for their candidate - in order to be on the government side. This is a bastardization of democracy and we deserve better. In order to be sure we get better - we must be responsible for our decisions and ask questions that are valid and ensure that information we are getting is not tainted.
 
I will have further info on what happens when online polling is used and what happens to the scientific validity - in a future post. Stay tuned.

Why Kathy Dunderdale and the government must be stopped this October

Why the Emera deal will not work and will leave us bankrupt. What the politicians and "experts" will not tell you. Press Here

Minister ignoring Seniors being used as Pawns by Chain Drugstores

How Minister Kennedy is ignoring Seniors being used as pawns by Chain Drugstores read this expose HERE

Ministerial Decree

Stay off the airways - so says he.

That works.