UPDATED - The Killing of Don Dunphy

Make no mistake about the killing of Don Dunphy - he was wrongly killed. We don't have all the evidence yet, but we will. What we do know points to a state sponsored killing of one of its own citizens. A citizen that was an active critic of the government on social media. The evidence we do have points solely to that interpretation.

What we do know:

1.  Don Dunphy fired off a set of 5 tweets (forming one statement) to former Premier Paul Davis and Minister Sandy Collins. The tweets criticized the two for enjoying a nice drive on a sunny day while people with work place related injuries suffered without the proper financial and/or medical care;

2.  Someone from the Premier's Office, likely someone who was responsible for monitoring his Twitter account, informed the Premier's body guard of the tweets. That part is not in question - Paul Davis admitted as much here . (OF NOTE - the 12 minute taped interview of Davis on this story is unplayable now...)

3.  In the same CBC story, Paul Davis claims that he was concerned by the tweets of Don Dunphy, and took them as a threat - he even showed concern for his Grandmother. This is after he spoke personally with Sgt Joe Smyth, and offered him his personal best wishes in the matter. There is absolutely no question that Davis, and his political staff, took Don Dunph's tweet as a threat - or at least that is what they said to the provincial media at the time.

Smyth, for his part, issued an email to his colleagues that was leaked to the media shortly after the shooting. The full text of the email is found here . In the email, Smyth refers to "proactive policing":

"Protective policing - is predicated on intelligence led investigations. Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive. ie. Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly. Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs."

That's an interesting concept, and a mouthful for sure, but has no basis in the Act that governs the RNC ( see the Act here ). The only thing that comes close to justifying that course of thinking and acting are the parts that refer to "keeping the peace" and "preventing crimes and offences". Just one problem with that: there was no crime about to be committed. Despite the fact that Davis told the media that a member of his staff identified a threat from Dunphy's tweet, and despite the fact that Davis told the public the tweet was a threat to him and his family, the officer who pulled the trigger said he never took the tweet as a threat. In the most shocking revelation about Don's death Smyth admits he never took any threat from Dunphy's tweet:

"At no point did I or members of the RNC interpret any of Mr. Dunphy's social media commentary as threats - as has been indicated time and time again by both traditional and social media platforms"

First off, it was then Premier Davis himself who divulged that he and his political staff took the tweets as a threat to the Premier and his family - that's where social and regular media got the story from. Secondly, and far more importantly, Smyth admits that he never considered the tweets, and by association Don Dunphy, as threats. So that begs the question why did he go to Don Dunphy's home? Retired Justice Riche, charged with independent oversight of the investigation, had a similar thought in a CBC interview:

"I find it hard to understand how this happened. ... Then I said to myself, 'Well maybe it shouldn't have happened at all." (read full story here )

Smyth then went on to explain why, as an officer on duty, he attended Dunphy's home at all on that Easter Sunday:

" The goal of the meeting was to build a rapport with Dunphy, and to identify if there was a reasonable solution to his grievance."

This by far is the most bizarre statement of the entire Dunphy tragedy. At this point it's worth noting another one of Justice Riche's observations on the matter:

"There's a lot of contradictions. Like in front of Dunphy's house, there were signs, 'No government people, nobody allowed in', and that kind of stuff. And yet Smyth says he came to the door."

So, despite the fact that Don Dunphy had posted signs outside his home stating he didn't want government people in his home, Smyth decided to enter the home to build a "rapport" with him. There is nothing in the RNC Act that authorizes police forces to enter on private property to build "rapports" with people. There is also nothing in the RNC Act authorizing an officer to "identify if there is a reasonable solution to the grievance." In fact, Don Dunphy's grievance was clearly with the Worker's Compensation Board, a board of government, a board dealing with governmental policy on injured workers, and therefore a political body. Dunphy's "grievance" was purely political in nature. A grievance of this type is statutorily the responsibility of politicians to investigate, and to develop a rapport if necessary to resolve. As such, Smyth is definitely in violation of the RNC Act:

" Restrictions

      15. (1) A police officer shall not engage in political activity, except as the regulations permit."

By Smyth's own damning admission, he was acting as a political fixer, at the behest of the Premier's Office (which has already been admitted). A very serious violation of his duties, and one that, in my opinion, should result in him being charged for Criminal Negligence Causing Death as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada:

" 219.  Criminal negligence
           (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
                (a)  in doing anything

           shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
          Definition of "duty"
          (2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law."

In my opinion, Smyth is at least guilty of this offence. He acted to resolve a political matter at the behest of the Premier's Office. That is strictly banned under the RNC Act. He understood by his own words that there was no threat, and therefore no offence for him to investigate. He ignored an offer from the RCMP for backup, and he chose to ignore signs posted clearly on Dunphy's premises banning government people. In other words, he showed wanton and reckless disregard for the situation - which resulted in the death of Don Dunphy. These are the facts admitted to by Smyth - not made up on social media as he is fond of saying.

4.  We now know, thanks solely to the interviews with Justice Riche that:

   (i)  Smyth intended to kill Don Dunphy;

   (ii) Smyth fired the fatal shots from no further than 3 to 4 feet from Dunphy;

  (iii) Smyth fired 4 shots into Dunphy (one to the head) while none were fired by Dunphy; and

  (iv) The rifle found next to Dunphy's body was not placed in a way that would be consistent with someone shot in the way Dunphy was.

Justice Riche also stated that a Holyrood RCMP officer offered to accompany Smyth to the Dunphy residence, but was turned down by Smyth, and that Smyth had a history of being "aggressive". You can listen to the interviews with Justice Riche here . There is no question my mind, after watching the interviews, that Justice Riche doubts Smyth - to put it mildly.

As a former military officer myself, and having dealt with all types of weapons from pistols to as large as anti-tank weapons, that Smyth's story doesn't hold water. First of all there are the wounds. Three to the upper chest, and then the last to the right side of Dunphy's head. The last wound is the most damning, and you could see it impacted Justice Riche as well. A side shot to the head indicates Dunphy was starting to spin to the side after being struck by three bullets to the chest. That is finishing off a kill, or as Justice Riche said: "an intention to kill". There is no question about that. It also shows excessive force given the man was already spinning away from the three shots and no longer a threat.

However, and I've always found this to be totally unbelievable from my training and experience, there is no way that Dunphy could have pointed a rifle at Smyth first and Smyth just responded. First of all, and importantly, Smyth's pistol would have been holstered, uncocked, and perhaps not even having a bullet in the chamber. It takes time to unholster, cock, and aim a weapon. If Dunphy had a rifle pointed at Smyth before Smyth reacted, well Smyth would have no chance. Instead, we are left to believe that Smyth simply reacted. That is almost impossible. Especially considering not one round was fired off by Dunphy first. The timing of this draw for weapons makes absolutely no sense, and really belongs in some kind of western movie. It's not reality.

Then there is the issue of the shots coming from 3 to 4 feet from Dunphy. An average .22 caliber rifle is about 3 feet long, perhaps longer. That means that Smyth would have had to shoot Dunphy at almost the exact same distance the rifle would be pointed at him. In other words muzzle to muzzle. That means there wouldn't be three separate wounds all over Dunphy's upper chest, but more than likely three wounds grouped closely together in one spot on his chest. If Dunphy was aiming the weapon, as is alleged, only the side of his body would be exposed - not his entire chest. See Justice Riche's video and note where he shows Don Dunphy was hit.

All in all, the Smyth account of what happened quite frankly can't be true. It is as if he made the story up from some western or cop movie. You can quite easily see that Justice Riche doesn't believe it either. It is because it is not believable by anyone that either has the courtroom experience to know it, or the professional (military/police) experience to know it. What this new evidence does do is lay out the grounds for criminal charges against Smyth. In an ironic twist, Smyth's own words that there was never a perceived threat are the most damning to him of all.

New Facts on the death of Don Dunphy

The tragic death of Don Dunphy has haunted me now for seven months. Don was a close friend on social media, and his plight at the hands of the Workers Compensation Board hit close to home. As a disabled veteran I could have faced the same life-long struggle if it were not for the fact that my injuries were sustained while serving the country in the army. But for the Grace of God... as the saying goes. Many of you will know that I've campaigned long and hard to get the truth out about Don's death - whatever that may be.

To show support for Meghan, Don's daughter, and to serve the memory of Don, my wife and I recently attended the March for Don Dunphy in Mount Carmel - his hometown. Afterwards Meghan and family invited us in for some coffee and biscuits. We had a good talk about Don, and the circumstances surrounding his death that night. The words were spoken in confidence as the details were not yet public. However, national columnist Michael Harris just released a story on Don where some of those details were exposed (here), so silence on those points no longer serves any purpose.

Fact #1

Sgt Joe Smyth, the Premier's personal friend and bodyguard, and officer in charge of internet surveillance for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) at the time, was the officer that shot Don Dunphy to death.

Fact #2

Smyth was alone at the scene for one half hour before other police forces arrived, and found wondering aimlessly around the scene.

Fact #3

Smyth did not write a statement on the shooting until two days after the fact.

Fact #4

Meghan was not allowed to view her father's body until two days after his death.

Fact #5

Premier Paul Davis spoke with Smyth BEFORE the officer had written his statement on the events surround Don's death.

Fact #6

Don was shot numerous times, including at least one shot to the forehead. He died at the scene and his body was not removed until 4:00 a.m. the next day - or roughly 14 hours after he was killed.

These are some shocking, absolutely shocking details of Don's death and the subsequent process. The fact that Paul Davis, the Premier of the Province, and former serving RNC officer with Smyth, would speak to him on the phone prior to Smyth writing his statement is beyond the pale. Given the recent revelation that RNC Sgt Buckle counselled a fellow officer to lie (here) the question becomes: Is the RNC corrupted? Whether it is or not, and whether Davis counselled Smyth or not, the bottom line is he spoke to an officer who killed a man before his statement was written, and that is an outrageous breach. One that should cause his immediate resignation as Premier.

Also, and extremely disturbing, is the fact the officer had two days to give a written statement. Aside from the fact that many details can be forgotten in two days, which is why a statement is normally done immediately, the time lapse gives the officer time to create a story to match the events should he be so inclined.

On a human side, it was very disturbing to learn that Don's daughter could not see her father's body for two days. According to her, the police said she could not see the body due to the Coroner's instructions. When Megan finally contacted the Coroner he stated there was nothing holding her back from seeing her father's body. Anyone who has lost a loved one knows that seeing the person's body is a critical part of the process of coming to terms with their death. This basic right was denied to Meghan for days, which I can only imagine must have been pure hell for her.

Of course it is now semi-public knowledge that Sgt Smyth, after writing his statement, and then sending an email that he had "no regrets" to his fellow officers (which was subsequently leaked to the media) hustled off to Florida for a vacation. As disturbing as Don's death was, and remains, to us all, the details thus far released are nearly as disturbing. One thing is for certain though, Premier Paul Davis must immediately resign as Premier, PC leader, and MHA. He has committed an inexcusable act by speaking with his personal friend and officer on the killing of a man without that officer first writing a statement on the events. That is how the truth looks so far in the death of our friend Don Dunphy.

RCMP bring in Ontario Investigator in Don Dunphy killing

There are two tragedies in the story of the killing of Don Dunphy by the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador's personal bodyguard - one is personal and one is societal. The personal tragedy is that of the Dunphy family, and especially that of his daughter Meghan. The second tragedy is the conduct of the government in this province regarding the investigation and of course the police conduct of the investigation.

Meghan's tragedy is of course the loss of her father. She didn't expect him to be gunned down in his own home just hours after having brunch with him on Easter Sunday. She didn't expect her Dad to be killed for tweeting. But it happened here. After the death of Donny Dunphy, Meghan turned to a cousin who is a practicing lawyer for advice on retaining a lawyer. Her cousin recommended Erin Breen - a lawyer in St. John's. The story takes a bit of a turn here, because Erin Breen had a conflict or two herself in representing Meghan. Firstly, and most obviously, Erin Breen was sitting on the Board of Directors of Nalcor Energy - the highly political crown energy corporation for the Province. It is an established fact that a person does not get named to Nalcor's Board unless they are a political partisan of the PC Party. Then there is the fact the law firm she belongs to, as a partner no less, is an established Tory law firm. In fact, the partisan nature of the firm caused a scandal over this . Beyond those facts, Erin Breen has donated to the PC Party every year since 2008 (check it out here) .

Now I spoke to Erin Breen on these matters and she claims the donations were  not made by her, but rather her law firm in her name. Does that really make any difference? Obviously her firm could not make those donations without her consent.  Then she informed me she had tendered her resignation from the Nalcor board as of April 15, 2015. However, by that time she had been the Dunphy's lawyer for well over a week. So, in my opinion, Erin Breen should not be representing the Dunphy family. That opinion jumped out at me when she made the statement that the tweets that brought about Don Dunphy's death were a "red herring". In fact, those tweets carried a direct link to the premier's office in the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy. A fact that carries potential legal recourse for the family to attain damages in a court of law. So, that was a red flag to me.

Now, the dueling controversies of the RCMP investigation and a public inquiry continue to dominate the story. The Minister of Justice in this province, Darrin King, insists he has no role to play in who investigates the Don Dunphy killing. He also insists that a judicial inquiry cannot be called until the investigation is over, and only then if he deems there are "unresolved issues". In other words, he's leaving the door open to not calling a judicial inquiry even though every person killed by the police in this province has resulted in a judicial inquiry. Of course, none of those had direct and public links to the premier's office. However, his story has a major hole in it on both fronts. Firstly, he can call a judicial inquiry, appoint a judge, and await the results of the investigation before allowing it to begin. And secondly, the RCMP is breaking its own policy by investigating the Dunphy killing.

The RCMP have a policy that it will not play any part in an investigation into a police-caused death it is involved with unless no other agency or force is available to conduct such an investigation. That's a fact - read the link. It seems obvious that any number of police forces or agencies, separate and apart from the RCMP and the RNC would be available to conduct a homicide investigation into the Dunphy killing. However, the RCMP is following the back up policy that "should no other force" be available, it can conduct the investigation under these conditions:

   "Where there is no such agency, cases will be referred to external police services,                   who can enlist independent observers to assess and report on the impartiality and                     independence of investigations. As a last resort, where neither a special agency nor                 an external police service are available, the RCMP will undertake investigations.                       However, an investigation will only be conducted by the RCMP after extensive                        screening of investigating officers for conflict of interest and an independent observer                will be appointed and a final review of the investigation will be conducted by an                        independent police service."

Given that the RCMP are involved in the special protection unit that guards the premier, and other VIPs, and given the fact they were involved in the visit to Don Dunphy's home (the extent of which is not firmed up yet), it would appear an extensive screening would have been needed for conflict of interest. Yet, they began the investigation of the shooting immediately - which would logically have provided no time for "screening". Also, an "independent observer" was not named to the investigation until days into the affair - contrary to RCMP policy. In effect, the RCMP is now compromising its good name by refusing to follow its own policy requirements.

That brings me to the latest news - not yet reported by media in the province. The family was contacted yesterday by the RCMP to advise it that an "Ontario private investigator" had been assigned to the Dunphy investigation. No public release of this information has happened yet. All in all, the Don Dunphy tragedy keeps getting more tragic, and more infuriating by the day. It is getting more and more clear every day that not only did the Premier's office contribute to the death of Don Dunphy by falsely accusing him of making threats via Twitter, but that some sort of white wash campaign is being conducted to make sure that those sins don't end up back on the Premier's door step. All in all, this entire situation is on the one hand an embarrassment of incompetence, and on the other hand a dark commentary on the state of justice in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Newfoundland Government refuses call for Judicial Inquiry into Don Dunphy's Death

The Premier of this province refuses to call, at this time at least, a judicial inquiry into the shooting death of Don Dunphy at the hands of his personal body guard. A disgraceful, arrogant, and out of touch position that angers the people here to the core. Yet, the ruling PC cabinet refuses to call an inquiry.

The reasoning goes something like this: "There is an ongoing investigation...there maybe criminal charges as a result...the investigation may leave no questions left to answer...those calling for it are playing politics." This is the kind of foolishness that often passes for governance here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Here's some background for those that don't know the province, or those in the province that don't scrutinize the government's actions on a daily basis like a few of us do...:

1. The RNCA (the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association) is a union-like association representing the RNC officers in this province. Since 1999 it has donated thousands of dollars each year to the ruling PC Party - almost exclusively. It donated $10,000.00 to Paul Davis for his successful leadership campaign. All of this in violation of the RNC Act, which makes it illegal.

2. The RNC forms the premier's personal protection force - ie: bodyguards. The RCMP are also involved in this function.

3. The premier is a retired RNC officer. He appointed a retired RNC Chief as his Chief of Staff.

4. On Easter Friday a member of the premier's office flagged a tweet from Don Dunphy, which was not a threat, but sent it to the personal body guard of the premier anyway.

5. On Saturday, the next day, the premier attended a hockey game with his family without any security what so ever.

6. On Easter Sunday a member of the premier's bodyguard, dressed in plain clothes, driving the premier's personal black SUV, arrived at Don Dunphy's, was invited into his home, and 15 minutes later the officer shot Don Dunphy dead. Apparently the conversation took a turn for the worse, for "whatever reason", and Don pulled a weapon on the officer. Or so the officer says.

So, we have a police force, politically linked to the governing party, whose officer, the premier's bodyguard, shot and killed an injured worker and vocal opponent of the governing party in his own home - without witnesses. Pardon the hell out of me, but if that isn't the most bizarre set of circumstances in a so-called democracy, then I don't know what would be. The problem here is that nobody in our society wants to be held accountable. It's the culture of "unaccountability". Wasn't me. Wasn't my fault. Wasn't his fault. It was nobody's fault. Shit happens. Oh well.  This is what passes for democracy in Newfoundland.

Then, in a further bizarre twist, we have the opposition Liberals, who are meant to clean up the mess left by the PC's after the next election, refusing to call for a public inquiry. Ironically, they are spouting the same buzzwords and talking points the discredited PC's are. It's like politics submersed in complete slime. Andrew Parsons, the Liberal justice critic, had the actual nerve to state people calling for a public inquiry were playing politics. Apparently, Parsons and the Liberals, along with the PCs are unable to to tell the difference between "holding people to account" and "playing politics". A completely disgraceful position. A despicable attempt to marginalize people outraged and seeking accountability over an innocent man's death at the hands of a premier's bodyguard in 21rst century Canada by framing it as "playing politics". It turns my stomach. The NDP, to their credit, came out yesterday calling for such an inquiry.

The biggest question right now is why won't the government call an inquiry? Why are the Liberals backing that position, rather than seeking the truth, and listening to the public? Obviously the Judicial Inquiry could not commence until after the investigation is finished, but it can be called to commence immediately after the investigation. The judge can be appointed. The terms of reference can be crafted. All the administrative issues could be resolved. We called it "concurrent activity" in the army. Civilians call it "multitasking". Bottom line is there is no reason to not announce there will be an inquiry after the investigation. Instead, Minister King said yesterday that a judicial inquiry won't be called unless he feels the investigation comes up short. So, the political people, who accepted illegal political donations from members of the RNC, are going to decide whether an officer of the RNC (who was the premier's personal bodyguard), and the office of the premier will be subjected to a judicial review over the killing of an opponent of the government - not witnessed.

Name me another jurisdiction in Canada where we would even be talking about this. That's how rotten to the core the political elite of this province are. That is just how badly things need to change here. Donny Dunphy did not die in vain. He's become the symbol of victims of an irresponsible, corrupted elite within our province.

Don Dunphy - Shoot the Messenger - Media vs Social Media

The shooting of Don Dunphy is the latest, and for us most tragic, example of the media attacking social media. It's not new, but it's becoming hyper-inflated.

When Don Dunphy was killed by the personal security detail of the premier of Newfoundland in his home on Easter Sunday the media got it all wrong. It jumped on one part of a five part tweet. It painted Donny as a half-crazed injured worker striking out threateningly at the premier of the province. But then social media intervened. The twitter message in its full context filled the airwaves. Suddenly the story that was being perpetuated in the media began to fall apart - embarrassingly so. To give David Cochrane of the CBC credit, which is painful, he did get those tweets out there and helped change the conversation. Yet, stations like VOCM continued with the one tweet, dangerous threat scenario.

Then of course there is the issue of what happened in the home. Again, David Cochrane led the story that "sources" said Don Dunphy pointed a gun and that's why he was shot. Then the RCMP came out the next day, and to settle the public down in their words, they released that indeed it was a fact that Don Dunphy pointed a gun at the officer after 15 minutes of conversation - that suddenly went bad. Their source for this information? The very officer that shot Don Dunphy multiple times in his home, killing him instantly. Now, if this were a person who was not a police officer that person would be in custody and have to prove self-defence to a judge. Not in this case. No, in this case the officer sits at home on paid leave while the family buries their loved one. Yet, the word of the man who fired the shots without witnesses is propagated like it was the undeniable truth, when any common sense, right thinking person might well think an officer in such a situation might have a reason to cover his arse. That's not to say that he did, it's just to say that he had plenty of reason to.


Then, despite a "we can't comment, it's under investigation" defence, the RCMP releases a bit more information. This time it was yes, indeed, the premier's bodyguard came and saw us, did a threat assessment, and saw Donny's brother before he went to the house. The media dutifully spills the news for all to lap up. Yet, in the detail it's let out that threat assessment is a computer search if there's a criminal record on the man. Not a detailed, comprehensive, he did all he could do type threat assessment. And so it goes. Selective news leaks, to selected news reporters, for the sole purpose of "calming the hordes".

Then the premier went on local and national television to tell all that it was Don Dunphy's fault, that his staff contacted his bodyguard about "threats" and the bodyguard did his job, and it was changed world out there, and that in a personal phone call after the shooting he gave the bodyguard a call and gave him his "personal support". On the national CBC news broadcast Davis repeated the same talking points he had said earlier to the provincial media. This time the national reporter looked at him incredulously and asked if the premier was comparing Donny Dunphy to Al Queda or ISIS. In other words, what the hell are you talking about. The question would seem obvious to most of us, but it slipped past our provincial media...

Just yesterday, the bodyguard under investigation became a non-bodyguard...according to David Cochrane...again...from a "source"...again... a selective leak to calm the hordes...again. The premier, the man whose office sent the now ex-bodyguard (apparently) to see Don Dunphy has announced he will make a decision on a judicial inquiry after the RCMP investigation. The man whose office is responsible for the events that led up to Don Dunphy's death is going to decide if Don's death warrants a judicial inquiry - after the RCMP, who were somewhat involved in the Dunphy shooting, finish the investigation of his death. Not to mention that both police forces serve as the premier's bodyguard. Yes, the same bodyguard whose member killed Don Dunphy. It's all good though, because the RCMP, who were involved somewhat in the shooting, have appointed a retired judge to watch over them. And so it goes, you can't make this shit up.

Where's the media on all of this? Now the tweet is no longer described as the "threat", but rather the "perceived threat". Even though anyone with less than high school English can clearly see the tweets had nothing to do with the premier, but referred to two already dead politicians. Facts be damned, we'll call it a perceived threat because the RCMP and the premier's office are apparently illiterate. On the rifle bit, yes, that's still out there as a fact, even though it has yet to be confirmed by forensics or anything else - other than by the shooter. The investigation? Nothing to see here folks. Not a single word or criticism that the RCMP were investigating a police killing that they were involved in. Nope. Not happening. All the rest is covered by:"we have to wait for the results of the investigation". Convenient when so many troubling questions already are quite factually evident.

However, it's becoming more and more obvious that in this province the media is not concerned by facts. It's concerned about keeping it's position as the filter of truth that feeds the public as it sees it, and when it feels like it. Despite being some of the most active on twitter, reporters and broadcasters here decry the "irresponsible" and "nut-bar" approach of social media. It's as if the media senses, in the free exchange of information and ideas on social media, it's own demise. And in that assumption there is truth. The media is quickly becoming the dinosaur of the information age. As the world becomes more plugged in, and the populations better educated, the media looks more and more like a vintage of yesteryear. Tired, worn out, and out of ideas. More concerned about keeping those subscription numbers and reporters salaries than asking the tough, but quite obvious questions. Instead, the Don Dunphy killing is just the latest example of the media shooting the messenger. Shooting the social media. The very people who they hope to influence with their "news".

A Letter to the Premier

It's not often I would give advice to a PC member of this Province's government. In fact, a big part of me would be happy to see them all gone. However, that may not be good for our democracy in the long run. With the NDP flailing like near dead fish in the back of the boat, the political choices here have become uncomfortably narrow. Not only is a small or non-existent Opposition bad for the democracy of our province, it's also bad for the winning party - as Brian Mulroney found out. It's one thing to have the bragging rights to the "largest majority government ever", and quite another to satisfy all the egos that get swept in with it. Not everyone can be a cabinet minister, or parliamentary assistant, yet they all think they should.

So, in the spirit of the season, and bipartisan concern, here's a few words of advice for our erstwhile premier:

1. Drop Muskrat Falls like the dead dog it is. Use whatever excuse you want. It could be the court cases going through the system now with their impending damnation of the foolish actions of the Williams' administration. Be the bigger man. Own up to what every one else is already thinking. Put the people before your own ego. It's the ego that's killing you. Not yours specifically, but the ego hangover from the Williams' regime, the nagging egos of some of your long-time ministers, and back benchers. Be humble. Be contrite. Be honest. Stop the development for at least five years to get the Province's nightmarish financial and demographic position as righted as it can be. Do not govern with malice. Blaming Hydro-Quebec for everything is old. Everyone knows they're bastards, but nobody wants to sacrifice the Province or themselves on that alter. Stopping Muskrat Falls immediately is your only prayer.

2. Repeal Bill 29. It has come to symbolize that ego we spoke of above. The secrecy. The deception. The breach of trust. It is all the things that your government has been convicted of by the people, and for which you await sentencing. Even the press hate it, and that's never good for your business.

3. Ban corporate and union political donations. Restrict individual donations to $50.00 per person. The route of your entrapment is the dollars you take in and div out. So much so that one MLA, with uncommon courage in the legislature, commented publicly about a "stench of corruption". It's not news to us, but you could show leadership by addressing it.

4. Differentiate yourself from the past. Every time you say "our government has" you add another nail in the coffin. Guilt by association. People don't need to wonder if you are the same as the old crowd, because you tell them you are. While that kind of talk may get you a few slaps on the back by party hacks, those same hands, from those same people, will be thrusting that steel blade in your back the moment the party goes down in flames.

5. Know your limitations. You aren't super man, and there is nothing special about you. You aren't a visionary, and you don't inspire with your words. You are a retired cop who worked himself into the leadership, during an unprecedented party blood bath, and entering the kind of political hell that is not often realized by even the most deserving governments - which your's is of course. And you look that part. The glasses intended to portray a "smart premier" impression aren't going to do it for you, although it's a nice touch.

The only, and I mean the only, hope you have of saving ANY PC seats in the next election is to follow these simple words of advice. Are they difficult? Yes. But so is leadership. When Churchill's England was being bombed into oblivion, leadership was difficult. Freeing slaves in the US was difficult for Lincoln. Staring down Quebec separatists was difficult for Chretien. By way of example, the above steps are pretty tame. So, to save your party to the extent of opposition status, or perhaps even minority status, you need to show leadership on the things that matter. Not bike helmet legislation. Not this- that-or-the-other day proclamations. None of that. That only reinforces the idea that you've just "quit and stayed on". For what it's worth, in the spirit of democracy and bipartisanship, there it is. A few words of advice.

The Death of the PC Empire in Newfoundland and Labrador

Seven by-elections later, without success, the ruling Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador resemble the old Iraq war slogan "shock and awe". Last night it was clearly visible on the faces of the defeated candidates and the cabinet ministers that campaigned on their behalf. It's not that they don't understand what's happening to them, it's just that they don't understand what happened to them.

For the PCs all roads lead to Muskrat Falls. After previously sacred Danny Williams got his Muskrat Falls deal he resigned - mere weeks later. That shattered the "God" image so carefully crafted. The population was left unstable as if it had lost its father, and its foundation had been shaken. Such is the danger of iron man rule - all men are mortal.

Then there was the viscous battle on the airwaves and in the social media over the wisdom and value of the project. The PCs hired expensive communication firms, and stalled requests for information on the project. When that strategy appeared to crack the Tories turned to their normal practice: legislation. They created Bill 29 to amend the Access to Information Act.  Typically that would be shuffled off as no big deal. It's not as if the public are filing access requests. However, the press, smelling a rat, went ballistic. Muskrat Falls opponents and the opposition parties grabbed onto the issue, backed by the press, and even forced a multi-day filibuster. More importantly the image was sealed. The PCs couldn't sell the bill as just normal legislation, and the public began seeing it as an act to cover-up Muskrat Falls dealings. That was when the trust was violated.

Thereafter the PCs, generally speaking, lost public trust in their word, but not necessarily in the project. Newly appointed leader Dunderdale and her team, which included Williams' brother, decided to attack the Muskrat Falls opponents rather than address the core public trust issue. She termed opponents as "nay-sayers, known critics of the government" etc... Her arrogance, and that of her colleagues, was so palpable the public became repulsed. When the PUB refused to give the project an unfettered endorsement, the PCs went crazy with indignation - including Williams who derided not just opponents, but also the PUB. It was war in a way. The problem for the PCs was their guns were focused in the wrong direction. As distrust grew, the people began taking opponents accusations seriously, and so an attack on the assertions of proponents began to be an attack on the people themselves.

It always was, and remained a battle for hearts and minds. The PCs refusal to alter their strategy of arrogantly attacking those opposed to their vision, and instead addressing the core issue of trust, resulted in a solidification of the view that "the PCs were out of touch". A natural result when a government can't see the core issue and instead shoots the messenger. So great was the vitriol that Dunderdale became almost detested by the public. The PC caucus decided their poll numbers were bad enough to fire Dunderdale, and they did just that. However, by this time, the public considered them, rightly so, as all infected by the same affliction - arrogance.

As if to emphasize the point the PCs, led on the outskirts by Williams, attacked leadership candidate Bill Barry (a reformist-type candidate) and coronated a pro-Muskrat Falls businessman - Frank Coleman. At one time an endorsement by Williams would have guaranteed a candidate acceptance among the public, but this time it back fired. The endorsement hung around Coleman's head like a guillotine, and in the end the blade came down. Coleman's company, HVP, was quietly released from a money losing government contract in Labrador, and the $18 million dollar performance bonds that were meant to guarantee it. After months of agony, and accusations "Danny's Man" was simply implementing "Danny's Will", Coleman resigned before he was even sworn in.

That led to another leadership race, after the first one was quietly swept under the carpet like it never happened, and Paul Davis was anointed the new PC leader. Davis immediately came under scrutiny for political ties to his old employer, the RNC provincial police. At the core of the issue were campaign donations that were banned by the RNC Act. (to this day the 2013 Political Contribution List has not been released publicly - although it has been ready for 7 months I'm aware of). Furthermore, an apparent political deal reached between himself and perennial political opportunist Steve Kent still hung in the air as Kent was appointed Deputy Premier. The public smelled the same-old Tory contempt for democracy that had its roots in the Muskrat Falls battles, and Davis was labelled. Then came consummation of another apparent political deal when Senator Manning's (a Davis leadership supporter)  niece was appointed to cabinet as an unelected Justice Minister.

Every action has a reaction. Every move the PCs made over the last four years did the exact opposite of what they intended. They reinforced the perception created by the Muskrat Falls battles that secrecy and power were the poison of choice for the PCs. They never adjusted from having a front man that could sell ice to Eskimos. They never saw the effect of the 5th column that battled them at every turn over Muskrat Falls. They never realized that the core issues with Muskrat Falls would stick and become the core issues against the government. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. So it went with the PCs. All their roads led to Muskrat Falls.

All the King's Men - Part 6 - Paul Davis and the RNCA

Paul Davis is running for the PC leadership race - the new one. The last one went off the rails like a train derailing at high speed. It was ugly, messy and well ... that about covers it. Davis was elected in the district of Topsail as a result of a by-election in 2010. A dashing, and well-spoken MHA (as opposed to any of the rest of the PC MHAs), Davis quickly made it through the ranks to the Cabinet table. He has held a number of cabinet positions in a very short period of time, mostly as a result of the political carnage at the top of the PCs over the last four years: Minster of  Transportation; Minister of Service NL; Minister of Child and Youth Services; and Minister of Health and Community Services. However, this post deals with the time just before Davis entered the provincial scene as an MHA.

Davis became best known in the province as the public voice for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC). He joined the force in 1985 and retired in 2010 - just as he entered elected political life at the provincial level. As part of his service i the RNC, Davis served on the Executive of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association (RNCA) - from 2005-2010. It is this period that casts a shadow over Davis's judgement and leadership qualities.

The RNCA is essentially the "union" for officers of the RNC. The RNCA lists, as its first objective as: "The goals and objectives of the RNCA are to improve benefits and working conditions for police officers." Nothing inherently wrong with that. Every union, or in this case "professional association" does the same thing. However, unlike other trades, or professions, the RNCA are restricted in how they can "improve benefits and working conditions." The primary restriction on that practice is a ban on political activity by RNC officers - ie: those that make up the RNCA:

From the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Regulations:

"Officer's Conduct:

       7. (1) (A) A police officer shall not:

           (d) wear the emblem, mark or insignia of a political party or in another way manifest political                               partisanship.

      (3)  A POLICE OFFICER WHO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH OR OTHERWISE CONTRAVENES A PROVISION OF THESE REGULATIONS IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE.

Seems straight forward enough. While officers have the right to advance their positions through the RNCA, the law of the Province requires they do so without "manifesting political partisanship". However, that is not what's been happening - and Davis had a hand in that.

The RNCA's entry into official political partisan activities first appears in 1999 with a $200.00 election contribution to PC candidate John Ottenheimer - yes the same John Ottenheimer that is now also running for the PC leadership (much more on him in another post). It made no other donations to any political party. In that same year, "Coppers" (the RNCA Mess) donated $200.00 to the PC Party. That's where the long relationship between the RNCA and the PC Party started. Also, in that same year, RNC officers were banned from staging protests by the provincial Liberal government - which caused fury in the ranks of the RNC. Whether or not the entry into political donations is tied to the dissatisfaction of a ruling against them is uncertain - although it pops up again in 2007.

In 2007, while Davis was an RNC officer, and a member of the Executive of the RNCA, the force became entangled with the then PC government in contract issues. Specifically, the PC government refused to grant the RNC the wage increases they were demanding, and the matter had to be settled by arbitration http://www.gov.nl.ca/lra/arbitration_awards/pdf/20070531_Provincial_Government_Public%20Services%20Secretariat_Executive_Council_and_RNCA_Arbitrator_Fagan_Christine.pdf 

It was the only year the RNCA refused to contribute to the PC Party, and instead made a donation of $500.00 to the opposition Liberals:

1999 - John Ottenheimer    - $  200.00 (election)

1999 - PC Party                - $  200.00

2001 - PC Party                 -$ 1250.00

2002 - PC Party                 -$ 1250.00

2003 - PC Party                 -$ 1000.00 (election)

2003 - PC Party                 -$ 1750.00

2004 - PC Party                 -$ 3000.00

2005 - PC Party                 -$ 1800.00

2007 - Liberal Party            -$  500.00

2008 - PC Party                 -$ 2000.00

2009 - PC Party                 -$ 2000.00

2010 - PC Party                 -$ 2000.00

2010 - Paul Davis               -$ 1000.00 (by-election)

2011 - PC Party                 -$ 2000.00

           Liberal Party            -$ 1200.00

2011 - Paul Davis               -$ 1000.00 (election)

2012 - PC Party                 -$ 2000.00

           Liberal Party            -$ 1650.00 

When the story was cast under light by the Telegram in Dec, 2011, they received this response from Tim Buckle - RNCA President:

"The RNC Association supports the political process... Fundraising by political parties is an aspect of politics, and we have supported both (the Tories and Liberals)"

Buckle admits that "fundraising" is "an aspect of politics". In other words, Buckle admits that the Association has broken the law by violating the prohibition on partisan politics incorporated in the "Regulations". 

Now, the stated goal of the Association is to "improve benefits and working conditions for police officers". In other words, get better pay, benefits, etc for its members - who are all RNC police officers. That is its primary role. Therefore, it can be easily argued the RNCA is making financial contributions to the governing party to influence its ability to get those increases and benefits. The problem with that is it violates the Criminal Code of Canada:

"(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration

         (a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class of party of candidates to                          Parliament or the legislature of a province; or

         (b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of                  electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province."

It seems clear that the RNCA, including by his participation Davis, withdrew financial support of the PC Party when contract negotiations were forced to arbitration in 2007. It also seems clear that the RNCA started contributing to the PC Party (and parties in general) after a conflict with the then Liberal government in 1999. The "implied" message being quite obviously that political donations will be held back if contracts are not negotiated to the RNCA's satisfaction. That would violate the Criminal Code, and its corruption provisions. It is also quite obvious that the RNCA intended to influence the result of an election, because it donated to Davis and the PC Party directly in election and by-election contributions. 

I personally had a similar type situation indirectly with Davis in 2010. He, along with Terry French, were presenting on election readiness to the PC Party convention. While sharing the stage with Davis, French advocated that delegates should approach paving contractors for donations - reminding them where their contracts came from. When that issue hit the press French did not deny he had said it. More importantly, for the purposes of his leadership integrity, Davis did not come forward and admit the comments were made. Coincidentally, French is now Davis's co-campaign manager for the leadership. 

The bottom line is that Davis was involved with making political donations from the RNCA to the PC Party from at least 2005-2010. He accepted personal political donations from the RNCA for his election to office. All of which appear to violate a number of laws. That raises the question in my mind: Is Paul Davis fit to be premier of this Province? The answer: He looks the part, but his actions say different.