Protect our children - Stop the predators

A story in the Telegram this week reminds us all - once again - that predators continue to threaten our children and that the current system of punishment fails to deter them.

In this particular case a former Tim Horton's franchisee was in court "for the first part of his sentencing hearing on charges of possession of child pornography and unlawfully luring a child (under 18) by means of a computer system."

The former District Governor for the Lions Club is hardly a model choice when the Lions Quest Program is to "Inform and Strengthen our Youth".

This "man" (deviant) plead guilty to possessing child pornography and luring a child under 18 - in this case an 11 year old girl.

He asked for and received sexually explicit photos of the child and sent pictures of an adult male penis to her. They also had online conversations with many sexual references.

The Crown lawyer asked for a sentence of 18-24 months that "his name be placed on the National Sex Offender Registry for life, that he be subject to a firearms prohibition for five years, be placed on probation for three years and a Section 161 order imposed that would place limits on him having contact with anyone under 16."

The lawyer for the child predator suggested a "lighter sentence" of 15 months,  "a two-year period of probation and that a general no-contact order with youth is not needed. If it is ordered, he asked that it include an exception to allow contact with his grandchildren.He also disagreed with the firearms prohibition and the length of time on the sex offender designation."

Oral Clarke's (predator) actions apparently had "already cost him greatly". He lost his Tim Horton's relationship, was booted from the Lions and people are "treating him different". This his lawyer suggested would "help achieve the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation."

Let's look at this suggestion and determine the reality of the situation.

Oral Clarke was a successful business person with significant social standing in the community at large. Despite this Oral Clarke decided to lure an 11 year old girl via the internet. He decided his desire to see an 11 year old girl's vagina and breasts and his desire to show an 11 year old girl an adult male penis was okay.

Oral Clarke knew full well what he was doing was criminal and extremely harmful to a child, he knew his actions would be extremely harmful to his family, business, and social organizations he was involved in. 

Oral Clarke knew if he was caught - his material world would take a hit and his family would also be victims. Oral Clarke knew he was deliberately and knowingly harming a child. His sick perverted desires outweighed all else. He satisfied his deviant need to violate an innocent child.

Clarke said he "realized the foolishness of his actions". The fact that he made such a statement demonstrates how trivial he finds his behavior. Foolishness is  "lack of good sense or judgment; stupidity". We are reminded by the definition how all of us may have behaved foolishly in the past or in our youth. Clarke's behavior was not "foolishness" it was deviant, criminal, predatory, and beyond the comprehension of most human beings. 

In order to protect our children - we must force ourselves to look seriously at how Oral Clarke and other child predators think. Despite the disgusting nature of the crime - we must force ourselves to talk about it and deal with our legislators with regard to punishment and deterrence. 

If knowing you would lose your business, your social standing, and perhaps all of your family was not a deterrent for Oral Clarke - then 15-24 months in jail won't deter him. 

The problem is that thinking about such crimes is so abhorrent  - most of us try to erase the fact we've  ever read it. 

It is important to note that Clarke's lawyer also suggested "that a general no-contact order with youth is not needed. If it is ordered, he asked that it include an exception to allow contact with his grandchildren."

If the Court were to except the order as it relates to his grandchildren - it might be knowingly placing children in harms way. If the parents of the children were actually willing to give Oral Clarke access to them - they need to be protected from themselves and the court should ensure that.

Oral Clarke has no doubt victimized many people whom he claims to love and care about - but Oral Clarke was only ever interested in himself and satisfying his twisted need to sexually exploit a child. 

The police did their work and now society (lawyers, judges, legislators, and citizens) need to do ours. We need to do whatever we must to truly punish and deter these predators. This means our MHA's and MP's must be guided to adjust sentencing to truly reflect the crime and to more assuredly deter the predator.

Think of it this way. One morning Oral Clarke woke up and decided what he needed was to lure an 11 year old girl to satisfy his deviant and criminal mind. He then proceeded to find one, lure one, and exploit one. Wrap your head around those thoughts - it's not possible. The children need to be permanently protected from Oral Clarke and other predators. Make sure the sentence protects children and has nothing to do with Oral Clarke's personal or business losses. If it were your child what would you want the sentence to be?

This is Oral Clarke (Telegram Photo)

George of the people

George Murphy is leaving politics - our loss - and hopefully his gain.

When I think of our democratic system and the kind of people it should attract - George is the kind of person that comes to mind.

George spent years advising the people on gas and oil prices - for free. He felt it was something that he could do to assist people to reduce or control their living expenses.

George would also participate in talk shows and showed a genuine interest in public service through the political process.

The family guy who loves his kids sat in the House and fought for many things common to most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He was and is of the people and for the people. He was humble in his service to the public and felt real privilege at the opportunity to serve.

I found George to be a respectful and considerate individual who also worked well with others and enjoyed listening and learning. He would make a great student should he decide to reach for new academic goals.

Although a Townie - George had no problem relating to rural communities and the beautiful Labrador. I did not agree with all decisions - most particularly support of the Muskrat Falls deal. He did however on balance provide good service to the people and was honourable during his tenure.

George leaves without a pension - and in many ways that's too bad. Some of the nodding head career politicians in the House of Assembly who will receive a pension - deserve it far less than Mr. Murphy.

I don't want to diminish this post on George - but I would be remiss if I didn't add that - George is not the one who should be retiring. Lorraine Michael -"me and my party"- continues to come across as entitled. I do wonder why she chose not to discuss with George the new district and encourage him to take the torch and carry forward.

I believe the provincial NDP momentum just took a hit for two reasons. One is that George is leaving - the other is that Lorraine is staying.

Being able to relate to the majority of people you represent  while willing to learn to relate to the rest is a characteristic of George Murphy. In my opinion the exact opposite is true of Lorraine Michael.

I hope to see George back in some public capacity - but in the meantime - I wish him all happiness and success in private life.

See you sometime - out and about. 

George's Gas and Oil Blog site PRESS HERE

The CRA Poll will be 2015 Result

The latest CRA poll - I believe - will end up representing the election result in 2015.

The Tories have come in the same as last poll when you allow for percentage of error.

The NDP have collapsed and those left of centre swing Liberal/NDP have moved back to their Liberal base.

This is all of course premised on the Liberal Opposition not doing anything so outrageous (as happened with the NDP) as to eliminate themselves. As I have posted before - Dwight Ball's style of leadership is build not burn bridges and his thoughtful approach to policy is inclusive and open not exclusive and secret.

Back to the numbers:

1. The Liberals 52% is representative of the 30% or so solid Liberal support. 15% recaptured from the left leaning Liberals who had parked themselves tentatively with the NDP and 7% of centre Tories who swing based on the mood of the electorate and the current leadership of the Liberal Party.

2. The Tories are currently sitting with their solid PC base and not much else.

3. The NDP are likely to drop a couple of more points yet as they return to their solid base only - with that support going to the Liberals.

4. The Tories have shown they are unable to spend their way out this time and despite exorbitant amounts of warm and fuzzy Muskrat advertising - the population is not convinced that this project is good for Newfoundland and Labrador.

5. There will be a couple of more points coming to the Liberals as the sports fan like undecided - go out and vote for the winning team.

The Liberals chose the best leader at the best time. Dwight Ball will reinvigorate the party, rebuild party coffers, gain business support, promote district association development, unite right and left with solid economic planning, respect and include government employees, engage and involve the municipalities, be proactive on housing, health, education, and seniors issues, attract new industrial interests while maintaining and growing local small business. Ball will also be able to attract quality candidates including some of his leadership rivals. He is a quintessential Liberal.

This does not mean there will not be challenges over the coming 18 months. Ross Reid will try to direct a comeback for the Tories through outrageous spending, brainwashing levels of Tory self-promotion and advertising, and sometime in the New Year present a new potential leader. If the PC's cannot gain significantly by the next CRA poll result - the Tories will be in rebuild for 2019 mode.

Now let's talk about district predictions.

Here is my list of retirees (either before or at the dropping of the 2015 writ):

Felix Collins, Paul Davis, Kathy Dunderdale, Clayton Forsey, Tom Hedderson, Ray Hunter, Clyde Jackman, Charlene Johnson, Tom Marshall, Kevin O'Brien, Joan Shea, Susan Sullivan, Ross Wiseman.

Here is my list of potential floor crossers:

Dave Brazil, Sandy Collins, Tony Cornect, and Keith Russell

Those remaining may run again but only the following has a chance of retaining their seats:

Terry French, Keith Hutchings, Steve Kent, and John Dinn

This is what makes the next prediction very interesting.

I believe that Darin King thinks he is a leader in waiting and I believe that Hutchings and French will be his team of support. The problem is - I believe that - Darin King will lose his seat.

Dwight Ball has made it this far without the team of 10 establishment interests from both the Liberal and PC parties - if he keeps this approach - he will be a people's leader able to do the real job of a Premier. 

As for the 2 independents - Mitchelmore and Kirby - I can see Kirby being comfortable under a Dwight Ball Liberal Opposition and Government - however Mitchelmore presents more as an opportunist who is a Tory one day and an NDPer the next. If he does not go Liberal he will - I predict - lose his seat.

Jerome Kennedy - Wrongfully elected?

Goodbye Jerome? - you have left your mark on the political landscape of our province.

Yours was a reign of arrogance, belligerence, intolerance, and prejudice.

Prior to becoming a "politician" - Mr. Kennedy was a defense lawyer of note - fighting against injustices, protecting the wrongfully accused. The lion of of a lawyer standing between them and the zealous prosecution, them and sloppy police work and more between them and the judges. Don't forget how Kennedy once described the judiciary: "It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing" and "Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is as a result of intentional or unintentional biases."

Well what has Kennedy become?

I can certainly say that he acted on some policy issues where he did not know what he was doing and part of that was because of political influence. He certainly has biases whether intentional or unintentional.

He has punished people or threatened to punish people without any fair hearing or process.

With respect to those who have plead guilty of violence - who are sexual offenders - I say that Minister Kennedy had no problem celebrating such a criminal because he was successful in a hockey game. he stood in the House of Assembly, our Legislature and said: "The CeeBees rode stellar goaltending by Mark Yetman and were led on and off the ice by their captain, veteran Keith Delaney, and assistant captains, Mike Dyke, Donnie Gosse, and Robert Slaney."

So when Jerome Kennedy was fortunate enough to be elected and sit as an MHA and as a Minister - how did he handle his new found power?

Did he try to bring what he learned as a lawyer fighting for the innocent and challenging how the judges handled the power they had?

No he became what he complained about and fought against. His power was so intoxicating he lost sight of all the little people. He condemned without ever meeting. He issued threats to small business owners and professionals to get his way. He was vindictive toward critics of his government. He was a bully. Then hockey prowess trumped the rights of women who were violated by a person - he chose to celebrate.

Poetic justice is probably more suited to our Mr. Kennedy.

Was he able to take constructive criticism? No.
Was he able to use his power wisely, justly, and with humility? Yes - however he chose not to.
Did he practice what he preached when given the opportunity? No
Did he treat all citizens fairly and without prejudice? No
Did he become a political hack? Yes

All that was done in his previous career has been greatly diminished by his approach when holding a powerful position.

Is it time for him to go? It was - for me - the day after his first appointment to Cabinet.

How he looked up into the galleries of the House of Assembly and mocked ordinary citizens who were there to fight for what was right. That's the last memory I have of Jerome Kennedy - for after that - there was no need to listen to anything else he said.

I leave the allegedly departing - student of poetry - Minister with the following:

Wrongfully Elected

His potential was great, his ability - exceptional, his timing ideal 

He however squandered, underperformed, abused political power.

Contempt became his noun, as he sentenced others without

trial, representation, or financial clout to fight him.

His act of despising defined him, clouded him, 

ruled him.

Injustice he bemoaned became justice he delivered,

power he protested became the legislative hammer he wielded.

Society should hold no favorites; therefore society was unnecessary.

Brave when times were celebraTORY when actions could be retaliaTORY words deprecaTORY - cowardice abound when polls are in the lavaTORY, or a rogaTory process was replaced with the number 29; a bill of ill repute. 

So great was his opportunity that his deeds seem so feeble.

This adieu is doubly sad; that when there he retreated and when retreating is irrelevant.

The mark left is big - broad - bold - but bush-league. An oxymoron? No - for when so much was possible yet so little realized - the resulting scar can be profound.

Lorraine Michael is 100% Right - Here's Why

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

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

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

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

How serious is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here are the Links to Relevant Material

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

MHA Brazil's Oversight - another Red Flag

Tory oversights of which Dave Brazil owns the most recent must cause all people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pause.

In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.

Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".

Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.

And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight

So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.

So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.

Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?

And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight. 

Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.

Who will be the next Premier? Do or Die Time!

There is little doubt that Dunderdale and Co. are on their way out - albeit a very long swan song. People across all walks are fed up with secrecy, arrogance, tribalism, and mismanagement. They are equally sick of the inept backbench and bumbling Ministers.

The costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be astronomical and potentially crippling within a decade. Those responsible - of course - will be long gone and pensioned. Probably Florida golfing in the winter - or taking residency in another Province - for many of them dreaming of the great Senate seat to come.

They know they are leaving a mess that they will not have to deal with. They know there will be no cash and mounting debt. They know there will be an aged population - with no ability to finance the basic social needs of health and housing. They know education will suffer as fewer and fewer schools remain viable - particularly in rural communities. They also know that urban cities and regional centres will be challenged even more with the lack of affordable housing filled aging seniors homes, and crime. They know the population will continue to decline and numbers of children will be way down as we lose our brightest from this and the next generation to jurisdictions with vision. They count on the inevitable province of Atlantica to ease the mourning Newfoundlanders - shattered by the loss of their beloved Island. They know that Labrador - the resource mecca - will either partner with their geographical mate Quebec or sit as a new Territory. They also believe it will not grow much unless that partnership is with Quebec - and thereby ensuring some resource wealth will actually be used in the Big Land.

I say "they" and I mean those with the real political power - the puppeteers - the ones who are not overly evident in day to day commentary, news, or the House of Assembly. They are the ones who pull "saviours" out of their hat - for the weary voters to "believe" in. They are the corporate elite who find democracy to be a hindrance however more civil than the dictatorship they long for. They are the ones with no political ideology rather an ideology based on finance - their own to be exact - and control of crown asset wealth. They are the ones who can trigger responses in politicians by having a cup of coffee with them, or a round of golf, or in most cases patting them on the head and telling them they are doing well. They are the ones who creep their way into the bureaucracy of governments - so they can guide their intellectually lazy political masters - in a direction that suits their real agendas. Every now and then one of "they" gets caught and some end up in jail - despite the throngs of underlings willing to cover or do time for them.

So what are we left with? Well unless something very drastic happens to our political system or somebody - who is not able to be bought or manipulated - accidentally wins a leadership and then government - we are stuck with the misfortune above.

Getting Newfoundland and Labrador back on the right track is going to take a lot of doing and the decisions are tough. It is going to take a backbone of steel to take the necessary actions. The next Premier would have to be able to say no to fish pirates, Ottawa, mining wannabes, oil companies, and individuals like Danny Williams, Ches Penney, Brian Tobin, Dean MacDonald and their ilk. The new Premier would have to use his/her vision to represent the electorate and have Mandela like integrity - to save this place.

The new Premier has to smarten-up the population and be exhilarated by public education and intelligent debate. The new Premier has to believe that smart people don't only reside in one Party but reside across the political spectrum. The new Premier must be confident enough that others may duly criticize and from that grow a more enlightened understanding. The new Premier must serve the people and Newfoundland and Labrador - not the multitudes of outstretched Party hands seeking their interests above all others.

The new Premier must return the ownership of information back to the people and believe that by doing that may bring opposition but in the end lead to right choices. The new Premier must lead by taking knowledge by the horns and understand when the bureaucracy has been infiltrated by special interests "they". The new Premier must encourage knowledge and understanding of policies, legislation, and contracts.

The new Premier must believe in and practice true democracy. The doors of his/her office are as open to one ordinary citizen as they are to the corporate elite (they) and Party players. The new Premier must insure integrity within our systems of advocacy and not seek the unnecessary protection of their office. The new Premier must believe in the freedom of the press, access to information, and the shareholders rights in a Crown Corporation. The new Premier should seek to uphold all democratic procedures both in the House of Assembly and the Elections process.

The new Premier must be willing to serve his/her Province first - not seek to make nice with a federal Party or other Provinces. The new Premier must be willing to turn his/her back on issues of save Canada, Ontario, Nova Scotia etc. - there is already a federal system for that. If by chance a development in our province benefits others as well - fair enough but the new Premier must seek the best deal for us.

The new Premier must respect the people and believe that he/she is working for them not the other way around. The new Premier must understand that he/she is spending our money and bartering our resources and not use these both as if he/she is doing us a favour. The new Premier must celebrate successes with the people - all the people - and be willing to take significant responsibility for costly errors made with the peoples money or resources.

Many people in politics come in for all the right reasons and before long succumb to partisanship, party brass, one political party whip or another. Many politicians start by feeling humble and end up hiding behind the sullied apron of an arrogant "leader". Many people get into politics because it's the best gig they will ever have and the time is right under a guaranteed win. These individuals will do and say whatever is necessary to keep such an undeserved windfall and chase the Cabinet carrot around the room until dizzy. There are others who get into politics through encouragement of Party brass - praising them as necessary to place another puppet onto their stage of manipulation.

If you really have it - if you really can serve, lead, and are out of manipulative reach - you should apply. Will the rest of you please leave?

1. Do you have the strength to stop this Muskrat deal?
2. Do you have the strength to employ the brightest of the bright without partisan filters?
3. Will you truly seek to strengthen the lives of our most vulnerable?
4. Will you conduct yourself through independent education, investigation, and thought?
5. Will you strip the bureaucracy of industrial insiders, resume distributors, and partisan nitwits?
6. Will you release information to the people without nonsense of "proprietary" interest?
7. Will you recognize all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as shareholders of our crown assets?
8. Will you be the designer not copier of legislative templates?
9. Will you really maximize value of resource development for the people?
10. Will you recognize that native resources such as water, energy, forests, and minerals are stationary and therefore - those wanting to exploit them will pay maximum value?
11. Will you really be the CEO of our wealth and maximize profits for the shareholders - regardless that the shareholders are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
12. Will you promise to deliver services from our revenues that are reflective of what the people want to spend their money on?
13. Will you seek to employ the best candidates for any position regardless of their perceived political leanings?
14. Will you truly consult with the people before making budgetary choices?
15. Will you protect democracy from those who wish to dismantle it?
16. Will you protect the integrity of our electoral system?
17. Will you take charge of the fishery and do what in necessary to offset the failure of Confederation regarding this wild resource?
18. Will you develop rural Newfoundland and Labrador through tourism, infrastructure, industry, and population?
19. Will you - in good faith - deal with pensioners, the public service, health professionals, educators, police, firefighters, correctional officers, safety officials, sheriffs and judicial staff, and Newfoundland and Labrador businesses?
20. Will you seek advice within your province when at all possible and not rely on "experts" who will deliver your desired outcome?
21. Will you give every Newfoundland and Labrador family an acre of Crown Land?
22. Will you give taxation breaks, grants, loans, and infrastructure to small local companies in the same manner you will to outside large corporate interests?
23. Will you end poverty for children and families? Will you protect children from abuse?
24. Will you seek to strengthen our democracy by passing whistle blower legislation, recall legislation, and legislation banning corporate and union donations?
25. Will you protect the environment for future generations?
26. Will you protect the people through the establishment of necessary search and rescue assets?
27. Will you do what is necessary to protect our province from Ottawa and refuse to give up anything else?
28. Will you demand a proper equalization system and demand inclusion in all federal government trade deals?
29. Will you demand compensation for mismanagement of the fishery and demand that Canada take custodial control  of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap? Are you willing to do what comes next if they refuse?
30. Will you allow the media proper access to information? Will you tell the truth?

If you are not willing to do these things - what do you want? A job? We're not hiring!
If you are not willing to do these things - move over for those who will.
We are collapsing - right now we need a leader not a saviour.

Province's MHAs pale in Comparison to Business Leaders

As we review the performance of the people involved, impacted by and/or responsible for the proposed Muskrat Falls development - big business shines.

If we as people had MHA's who performed close to the level of big business in representing their shareholders interests - we would not be considering this Muskrat Falls fiasco.

If a business has any opportunity to get it on an 8 billion dollar spend - the decsion gate is clear.

Let's look at what it considers:

1. Can the business make any money on this venture?
2. How much money can the business make on this venture?
3. How many years can the business profit from working on or for this project?
4. What will the business cost be to deliver product, service, manufacture or consulting to the project?
5. What will be the increase in the value of a share and therefore the value of the business?

Let's look at what it does not consider:

1.  Who is paying the bill? (other than if the party was not creditworthy)
2. How will it impact this community or that community?
3. Are the owners of the natural resource getting value from the proposed deal?
4. How will this proposed project affect the province's debt?
5. How many long-term jobs will be created for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

This is why I am not concerned or surprised that businesses around the province and the country are supporting the proposed development.

I am concerned about the mindset of our MHA's who are there to represent us - the people.

Let's look at what they should consider:

1. Who is paying the bill?
2. How will it impact the ratepayer, taxpayer, and shareholder of the resource?
3. How many long-term jobs will be created for billions of dollars?
4. How much value can we add to shareholder?
5. Is this development needed for domestic supply?
6. Is this the only alternative?
7. Can we sell this power competitively in the export market?
8. Will the shareholder subsidize cheap power for business, another province, or American Export?
9. How will the increased price of power to domestic consumers affect our seniors, low/middle income families, and local small business (recessionary impact)?
10. Have I achieved support from the people I represent as an MHA?

As for Nova Scotia - they are playing it coy:

1. The proposed project will go to the PUB there - while Newfoundland and Labrador MHA's are preventing the same process here.

2. They do not have to buy in before the project starts.

3. They can play one energy competitor off against another for the best price - thereby eliminating Muskrat supply or reducing the price wherein the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay more for their power so Nova Scotians get cheaper power.

4. Currently the NDP government in Nova Scotia is in political trouble as it relates to Emera - where people are suffering the impacts of energy privatization that occurred at the same time as we prevented it.

5. Nova Scotia is presenting itself as the energy hub as it continues to attract industry away from Newfoundland and Labrador and to themselves.

As for the Mining exporters in Labrador - they are waiting like the wolf - we are the prey:

1. They are quickly becoming the raison du jour for the proposed development.

2. They have already threatened that without this type of infrastructure they may cancel or downsize development.

3. As other reasons for Muskrat development are destroyed - domestic island supply and export - their hands are wringing for cheaper subsidized power.

4. If they become the only reason for Muskrat - their demand for cheap prices will increase as other competitors (Hydro-Quebec) offer a cheaper price. All the while of course - Quebec gets secondary infrastructure to ship out our raw resources.

5. They have government's ear.

As for performance of CEO's - dead last in my opinion - Ed Martin

Good morning Democracy

The polympics Sue's Blog talked about not to long ago is in full swing.

Make no mistake the loss of Tom Osborne is probably one of the most significant hits the Dunderdale administration could have taken. Tom was raised PC and should be considered as the real grassroots of the party. Tom is also adored by his constituents and is one of the very few Tory MHA's that was elected on his own merit. He did not win because Danny or Kathy were at the helm and would have won if the Tory's faced a wipeout last October.

The comments he made about the leadership of the PC's should be taken seriously and reflect many others who complain quietly to each other in the kitchen. I "suspect" it's going to become significantly more boisterous over the next few weeks.

Mr. Osborne has children and he knows this administration is promoting policies that may be very harmful for generations to come. Good for him that he took a stand for them not just himself and his immediate ambitions. It does take much more for someone like Tom to cross the floor than others who have done so in the past for political and personal expedience.

Tom however is not alone with many former Tory Cabinet Ministers sounding alarm bells over the Muskrat Falls fiasco. He is as they say in good company.

In conclusion - if Tom left his party it must be pretty rough inside and those splinters rubbing up against the Premier are going to deliver real political pain...and yes he can deliver extremely good organization for either opposition party and can deliver the St. John's Metro area too.