Life, Liberty, and Covid

Covid19, the great pandemic of our generations - but is it really? For the last year and a half we have witnessed the closing of the world economy, the printing of money like no other time in our history prior to 1929, and most significantly the alienating of people from one another on a mass scale. Truly, we live in the times that Orwell warned us against in his monumental work 1984. People turning against each other, families torn apart by distance, and most significantly their differing perspectives on the "virus". However, is it really the lethality of Covid that is driving the hardened opinions on both sides, or is it something more?

When the virus first broke out in BC it was relatively innocuous. The first quarter of 2020 witnessed 780 cases which broke down as follows: 299 hospitalizations; 106 of those went into the ICU wards; and a total of 108 died (presumably a number who died did so before getting to the ICU). The numbers showed the virus almost non-existent in populations under sixty years old, and of those older than eighty years old men faired significantly worse for than women. To put that in perspective during 2020, 1716 people died from drug overdoses in British Columbia (BC), 11,100 died of cancer and double that number for heart and stroke deaths. In 2020 a total of 41,148 people died in BC. Another perspective: in the most recent heat wave in BC 719 people died in 5 days read here .

Those were the early days of the virus however, and the numbers now are more significant. From BC's population of 5.1 million people a total of 2.9 million tests have been administered, 147, 705 cases have been diagnosed, 145, 200 have recovered, and 1756 deaths have been reported. You can keep up to speed on the numbers here. So in reality, the total numbers of  Covid deaths in BC, for the last year and a half, numbered 50 more than the amount of people who overdosed on drugs in one year.

As all of us watched the evening news reports back in early 2020, and witnessed Chinese people falling dead in the streets, having the doors on their homes and apartment buildings wielded shut, and their streets sprayed with chemicals, we collectively broke a sigh of relief that it wasn't here in Canada. Then it came, and we panicked. Not everyone of course. In fact many people did not take it too seriously at all, and in the summer it vanished like the seasonal flu, in the fall it came back like the seasonal flu, and now again in the summer it is vanishing - like the seasonal flu. Yet, "waves" of pandemics have been common in our species history. 

Take the Spanish Flu for example. A total of 2 million Canadians, from a population of 8 million (20%) were struck with that virus. Of the 2 million that were infected 50 thousand died or 2.5%. Of the total Canadian population that percentage was .06 or less than 1%. No vaccination was ever created for the virus and it ran its course. Fast forward to today and the numbers are: Canada's population 37.74 million people; 1,417,330 Covid cases (.04% of the population); and 26362 Covid related deaths (.0007% of the population). 

The numbers are startling yet indisputable - the Spanish flu was much, much worse than Covid19. Yet, and this is the crux of this post, we have reacted to it as though it was one hundred times worse. Our governments have closed our economies, suspended our constitutional rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of mobility and also freedom of speech - to put it bluntly, they have suspended our freedoms. Here is another set of numbers for you. Sacred numbers. Numbers you are meant to remember and immortalize each year: 56,638 - the number of Canadian troops killed in World War I; 141,418 - the number of Canadian troops wounded in World War I; 189,224 - total Canadian casualties of World War I; 22,910 - the number of Canadian troops killed in World War II; 57,847 - the number of Canadian troops wounded in World War II; and 80,757 - the number of Canadian casualties of World War II. These numbers do not include the Korean War and other engagements like UN missions or Afghanistan. 

The Canadians that died in battle did so for our freedom. Never forget that. They fought against regimes like the Nazis, and their equally despotic ancestors in the first war. They died freeing people from the suffocating grip of the Taliban. They died protecting people from the Communist Chinese, and on it goes. Their sacrifice was the price for our freedom. However, as the old veterans die off so does their spirit. 

Today we have people that are willingly throwing those very freedoms on the funeral pyre with the promise that it will lead to better things for all. Today in Canada you cannot travel freely without hitting a military checkpoint-like border installation in New Brunswick, or requesting advanced permission to enter into one province from another. Today the government of Canada is openly advocating "vaccine passports" which will imprison people without them within Canada or even within their own province. We are at the place where you need internal travel documents just like Communist USSR and Nazi Germany. In a sense, the government of Canada, and its eager minions in the provincial governments, are sticking a star of David on each of us that won't take the vaccine. What's next? Vaccine ghettos where you must live if you won't take the vaccine. This may sound alarmist to you, but think about where we were as a society 2 years ago and where we are now.

Another eyry complication of  Covid 19 is the division of opinion on how it should be dealt, or whether it even constitutes a real threat in a pandemic sense. After all, it has never happened in history before that people had to be bribed to take the vaccine with entries into lotteries as a reward for rolling the old sleeve up. These are things that should give most rational people pause to think. Yet it doesn't. People, families, friends are divided, but what is the division? The real essence of the division appears to be the belief that the rights of the majority trample those of the minority. It's an ancient problem, and one that was meant to be dealt with by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, the Charter has simply been ignored throughout, and those that think they know best for others are cramming their opinions and policies down the throats of those that feel differently.

Let's follow their logic to its end: Eating fast food is causing an epidemic of  obesity, heart disease and death so we must ban all fast food and restaurants; driving your car could result in an accident that could injure or kill another; walking outside in the sun without sunscreen could cause skin cancer that requires hospital time, therefore denying another of hospital time, and so walking in the sun without sunscreen must be banned; and on it could go. We live in an era of unrivalled hatred, bigotry, judgement, self-righteousness, and complete disrespect for the opinion and freedom of others. These are the conditions that most totalitarian regimes came to power in throughout history. The well is being poisoned and that well represents the depth of the human kindness. 

Whether you believe Covid 19 is more dangerous than a run of the mill virus or not, whether you believe it's all part of an inter-governmental conspiracy or not, whatever your thoughts and feelings on the matter are, just remember the only thing that differentiates us from the animals is our ability to be spiritual beings. Once the values of freedom, compassion and understanding have been thrown in the trashcan of convenience there is but one direction to go, and that is down. Once freedom that was paid for by the blood of generations is lost it will take the blood of future generations to restore - if at all. At this moment in history I encourage you to be the person you are and not the scared shell of yourself that is being impressed upon you. 

                                                            BE THIS PERSON

   

Death of the PC Empire in Newfoundland and Labrador

In 2011, when I left the Newfoundland Conservatives, their reign was supreme. A well oiled, impenetrable machine. A dynasty in the making. There was no other, and no other was in sight. Their popularity in the polls was hovering around 75%. They controlled all but 4 seats in the House of Assembly. It was a closed shop, and they went to great pains to keep it that way.

Four years later things have changed - sort of. In 2011 the Province had the worst, most oppressive access to information law in the country. Serious dissent now runs like the wind. People have become engaged and are forcing the political agenda in many ways. The PC Party has not. It simply has become worse at the tactics it used to suppress opposition and change in the Province. The people's core values have shifted, while the Party's tools of control remained entrenched in lip-service and really bad acting.

Four years later the Province has gone through five, count them five PC Party leaders - that must be a Canadian political record. Nothing remains of their "all-star cast" of Ministers that dominated the headlines of the Province. All that remains are the "Omega and the Alpha" - the "End and the Beginning". Current Premier Davis is the "end', and Stephen Kent hopes to be the "beginning". That is to say that while those forces that hovered within the PC Party shuffle over to the Liberal Party ever so quietly, people like Kent remain to be the caretakers that rebuild the PC Party after its defeat.

Yet, throughout its death spiral, the PC Party has operated itself as it operated the government - without accountability. There have been no lessons learned, because there has been no accountability rendered. There is a reason for that. Avoiding accountability of any type for actions has dominated Newfoundland politics, and in some ways Newfoundland culture for some time. What remains obvious to anyone who has been anywhere else, but cloaked within the political culture on the Island, is the immature way politics plays itself out here. Some have referred to it as "high-school politics". Others have been less generous. Whatever the case, it is the nature of the politics here that allows for a party like the PCs to do what they have done.

Let's call it the "It wasn't Me" mentality. It is always some other person, or organization, or province, or country's fault - never our own. To even suggest it was our own is to invite calls of "traitor". That's why politics here is referred to as "high school" or "immature", because adults take responsibility for their actions. The accountability allows them to grow and not repeat the same mistakes over, and over, while blaming others for all their short comings. The failure to accept criticism and mature is the birthplace of systemic immaturity. That's what we have here. The PC Party wasn't some kind of one-off government of despots. It was merely the latest reincarnation of a political culture that has refused to grow. It lies in the face of this place's 500 year existence.

The PC Party has not been able to change, because it doesn't know any other game. PCs aren't stupid. They aren't unusually corrupt. They are a product of their environment. The latest example being Davis's blaming of future cuts on the Liberals impending political victory. Ditto for his warnings to the Province's business community. "They will cut your jobs" he tells the unions. "They will take your customers money, and cause you to fail" he tells the St. John's Board of Trade. The reality is the actions of the PCs in power has left any future government no choice but to cut spending and jobs. Yet, Davis is already playing the "it wasn't me" card, and the election isn't even started yet. He is in fact laying the ground work for the same immature politics to continue a new cycle.

What we have here is not a "failure to communicate". What we have is a failure to learn. A failure to accept that: with great power comes great responsibility; accountability and accepting responsibility are the key stones of personal and systemic growth; and that public office is a sacred trust on behalf of your citizens. We see these things played out on TV and the Province's three radio shows every day of the year. They take different forms, and they involve different issues, but they are all related to the problems outlined above. Many suggest the Liberals will repeat the cycle, and be no different in their approach than the PCs were. In fact I would say that is the dominant opinion among people. What people fail to realize is the accountability for that lays with them. If no accountability is demanded for failings as they happen, then none will be voluntarily accepted. Therein lies the key.

So, while the PC Party twists in its death throws, and the Liberals quietly organize to take their place at the helm of power, it remains to be seen if either the people or the politicians have learned anything from their four year trial of fire. Time will tell.

Liberal-ly speaking

I've been wanting to write this post for along time. How to say it? When to say it? The time seems right now. In 2011 I left the PC party as the government it represents was so corrupt I could no longer bare associating myself with it. Others will say it was poor sportsmanship. Some have suggested political opportunism, as if leaving a Party at 75% in the polls for a Party at 14% in the polls was opportunism. No, the real reason was as stated - principle. Then the poor old Liberals looked like a rag tag band of warriors at best. Fighting the good fight, but hopelessly outgunned by a PC machine flooded with corporate donations, and generally ridiculed by the provincial media. That was then and this is now.

Three years later, and five leaders later, the PC Party twists in its death throws as it desperately avoids the fate of all tyrants. Now, the Liberals are the top guns and the media ridicules the PC's. So is the circle of life I suppose. But, what does the Liberal Party hold for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador when the inevitable election day comes next year?

My father was a life-long Liberal - to be sure. He campaigned to Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent for a unique Canadian flag. He submitted his own design for the same under Liberal Lester Pearson. He loved Pierre Trudeau. My family was a truly Liberal family. However, I've often wondered what he would make of the "modern" Liberals.

Gone are the days of the "Just Society", or important constitutional matters and nationhood. Gone is the focus on individual rights and freedoms. Missing in action is Canada as the friendly broker between combatants. Hopelessly ignored are the right of the Aboriginal peoples. All these things that once defined being Liberal have been discarded for "being a better Tory than the Tories". There is no word of a just society, or respect of the individual. There is primarily one focus - out doing the Tories as "managers of government". ie: who can spend the least. In an onslaught of extreme right wing ideology, the Liberal Party is now suffering an identity crisis. It is no longer what makes the Party Liberal. It's now about what makes the Party not Conservative. It has allowed its own identity to be dictated by its foe.

The provincial Liberal Party appears to be no different. Three years since 2011, and three leaders later, the Liberal Party's identity here is hardly distinguishable from that of the ruling PCs. Gone are the days of just three years ago when the Liberals stood in their place to fight Muskrat Falls tooth an nail. Gone is the determination to stop the project, and protect the average person from the impending financial assault the project necessarily would bring. Now it is simply a matter of managing the assault apparently. Barely visible among the Liberal candidates are the determined group that fought so hard to bring real change for the people. Real change being a definitive change to the corrupt political culture in the province, and the resulting responsible government that would bring. Instead, we have Nalcor bred candidates like Cathy Bennett (who has been promoted to Finance critic), and Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Al Hawkins who the Tories appointed to Nalcor's Board only a short while ago. We have perennial establishment hangers on like Siobhan Coady ( big promoter of Alderon), formerly rabid PC and anti-Liberal Paul Lane, and so on and so on.

Instead of being the Party to transform Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal Party is looking much like the one it aims to replace. That may seem unduly harsh, and it may in fact be too harsh as the days are early, but the signs are not promising. It reminds me of the last election when, as a Liberal candidate, I found myself face to face with a salt of the earth man in the lower ends of Random Island. His main question to me: "Are you blue or red?". At the time I remember thinking surely their must be more on this man's mind than what colour my party is. Surely he must be concerned about the difference beyond the colour of our flags, but he wasn't. Perhaps therein was a pearl of wisdom.

With a now closing window before the next election, and by-election win tallies replacing serious vision, the question is are the Liberals to be any different than the Conservatives? Is it to be "Liberal Tory, same old story?" I don't know is the honest answer. My heart says no, but my brain is leaning yes. And, that really angers me. At a time in our history when we need a principled and visionary approach, the same old "pragmatism" appears to be reinventing itself. Where are the declarations on democratic reform by the Liberal Party? Where is the policy to eliminate the practice of corporate and union political donations that corrupt our democratic process? Where is the policy to determine how to halt Muskrat Falls until all the legalities are dealt with, not the least of which include: the Water Management Agreement; the Hydro-Quebec lawsuit; the Nunatsiavut lawsuits; and the Nunatukavut lawsuit. Where is the very real question of provincial debt and structural deficits? Where is the duty to our fishers. Where is a coherent, and humane approach to the fastest aging population in the western world - ours?

It's the silence that disturbs me. The silence and the familiarity of the actors entering the stage. Not many would expect the provincial Liberal Party to be "Trudeauesque". The federal Party isn't managing that yet. However, their should by now be a very clear vision toward the critical issues. The prevailing thought should not be: "silence is golden". The prevailing visual should not be a party consumed with winning, but rather a Party confident in winning based on its vision and principles - not on winning by default. Not winning, because we are not them. Not winning simply to replace one set of actors with another. The greatest betrayal of all is the Party that purports to be change, but simply carries on in the same manner - ie: Obama.

My hope and prayer is the Liberal Party defines itself, and commits itself, to being the agent of change that fundamentally improves the lives of its people - both politically and economically. Perhaps it is just that - a hope and a prayer.

Patriot Games: Ukraine,Venezuela and the like.

The Olympics are over, and so is the peace. During the games, two separate, but curiously related insurgencies erupted: one in the Ukraine and one in Venezuela. Separated from each other by geography, but linked to each other by the "national interests" of the United Sates. Venezuela being the pot that stirs the anti-american kettle in South America, and the Ukraine being the soft under belly of Russia's traditional buffer zone to the West.

They each erupted over civil issues: Ukraine-a loan agreement with Russia and the abandoning of the European Union approach; and Venezuela - a student protest over security on a campus. From there they both transformed into mass demonstrations, complete with violence and death. Each insurgency sought primarily one thing - the over throw of their government. A troubling trend.

If you believe that democracy is the rule of the majority, as expressed by election of representatives, then you have to be concerned about these events. Both Venezuela and the Ukraine are democracies that elect their own governments. We may not like the choices made, and the losers of the elections may not like to lose, but that is the natural result of democracy. There are those that win elections and those that lose. The key is to respect the result of the election. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of democracy, and unfortunately we've been seeing a lot of that recently.

A short while ago, the Egyptian military overthrew the elected President of Egypt. The reason? He wasn't governing on behalf of all Egyptians. Those that voted against him in the election protested and demanded he be overthrown, and after much bloodshed he was. Ditto for the Ukraine. Possibly the same coming for Venezuela. If any one reads this that believes these "revolts" are spontaneous cries for freedom, well, you're fooling yourself. These are quite obviously "revolts" that resulted from the destabilization of these governments, because they didn't serve the "national interest". The problem with this approach is that it takes us back, yet again, to the rule of the jungle.

We barely walked away from the American/European intervention in Syria without a world war. If you recall, while the Americans and French were threatening to turn the Syrian government into a parking lot by way of military strikes, the Chinese and Russians were sending war ships and troops to the area in response. Like the Ukraine, Syria involved key strategic allies of Russia - vital to its national interests. Now, we are headed back to a similar scenario. However, this time the stakes are far greater, and far more dangerous.

Up until now the Russians and the West were satisfied with trying to bribe the Ukraine government over to one side or the other. The Russians offering $15 billion in aid, and the West offering EU trade membership. When the Ukrainian government chose the Russian option over the Western option all hell broke loose. Demonstrations and then violence flooded the centre of Kiev. Then, when the government agreed to go with the Western option and abandon the Russian option, the crowds demanded a change of President. Finally, the Ukrainian President changed his mind again, and went with the Russian option. That resulted in an escalation of the violence, many deaths, and his overthrow.

Now, as I write this, Russian troops, ships and aircraft are being deployed all around Ukraine. At a minimum, it looks as though Russia is prepared to annex Eastern Ukraine, which is heavily influenced by Russia, and home to many Russian speaking people. It's also home to the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. That is a minimum. At a maximum, Russia could decide that its "national interests" require a buffer state the size of all of the Ukraine. Russia has always used countries around it as buffer states to foreign aggression. It is at the core of Russian strategic planning, and always has been. It is the reason why the US and Britain have already issued warnings to Russia not to militarily intervene. It's another game of chicken between the US and Russia - just like Syria.

What should trouble us in all this, besides the obvious dangers of war, is what I call "democracy of convenience". That is, yes we'll be democratic, but if we decide that our interests aren't being served, we will overthrow that democratically elected government. Having a "democracy of convenience" is like having "principles of convenience", neither of them mean anything. The problem with having "democracies of convenience", that don't mean anything, is that the entire order of our world is threatened. After all, our trade and integrity as countries in a global community requires rules, protocols, and order. Without it, the world becomes a free for all. We are at that point now. A free for all. We can't expect to disregard the very things that separate us from the animal kingdom, and remain apart from the jungle.

Perhaps, that is the way it's meant to go. Perhaps our society, and our freedoms such as they are, have become inconvenient. Perhaps this is all one step toward the collapse of our international order which might result in a world government of sorts. Perhaps that is the point. Maybe the only thing left to decide between the big powers of the US, China, Russia, and the West is who will dominate that world government. Just maybe that is what we are witnessing in our time. In any case one thing is for certain, the values of democracy are being rendered meaningless each and every day - to our certain detriment.

Paul Oram's Bed

Paul Oram is a Newfoundland businessman. He is also an ex minister of the PC Williams government. He has interests in Labrador, including the Home Hardware in Lab West. He's all in when it comes to business and politics in this province. You will know Paul Oram if you go to Glovertown, and see the only older guy with a year round tan there. That's him.

This week, Oram lost it on the social media site, Twitter, after his beloved PC party lost an important by-election. As Kathy Dunderdale put it in The Telegram today:

“I’ve had tremendous support from the caucus, particularly all through the campaign, again last night and this morning,” she said. “I’ve had wonderful messages from party members from right across the province — very positive, very supportive.”

Dunderdale pointed out that the goverernment has spent an a lot of money in that district since it came into the Tory fold in 2007.

“We’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in that district, so the demands of the district were met,” she said. “This was a district that was largely ignored when it had Liberal representation, so there was a great deficit in infrastructure.”

Oram saw things a little differently - especially on the whole "tremendous support thing.

Check out his tweet from the night the PCs lost the by-election:

paul oram ‏@pauloram126 Nov

Time for our party to take a hard look at the future. Enough is enough.

Expand

paul oram ‏@pauloram126 Nov

Better communications. Our message is just not resonating with the people of this great province.

@waynerbennett im saying that it's time that we do whatever it takes to make this right. The good message is not resonating.

Then there is this dandy conversation:

paul oram‏@pauloram1

@davemccarthy707 @pauloram1 that's the premiers decision to make. She had a 4 year mandate.

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 

9:47 PM - 27 Nov 13

Tweet text

Reply to @pauloram1 @davemccarthy707 

Image will appear as a link

1. Plane fixr ‏@davemccarthy70713h

   @pauloram1 Key word Paul is "Had".

   •  Reply 
   •  Retweet 
   •  Favorite 

   Details
2. paul oram ‏@pauloram112h

   @edhollett @pauloram1 @davemccarthy707 enough is enough.

   •  Reply 
   •  Retweet 
   •  Favorite 

   Details
3. W McLean ‏@mclabradore12h

   @pauloram1 @edhollett @davemccarthy707 Enough what is enough what? #NLpoli

   •  Reply 
   •  Retweet 
   •  Favorite 

   Details
4. paul oram ‏@pauloram112h

   @mclabradore @pauloram1 @edhollett @davemccarthy707 stay tuned folks!!!!

   •  Reply 
   •  Retweet 
   •  Favorite 

   Details

Now, in the most political jurisdictions in Canada this would pass without any real notice. In this province, however, the government/party message is strictly controlled and dissent is an offense punishable by shunning - financially and otherwise. A rant like this on social meia in this province is really akin to a call to arms, or perhaps better put - knives.

That is passing strange to me coming from Oram. You see, it wasn't long ago that Oram was a very devoted follower of Dunderdale. I was going to keep this diddy solely for my book, but what the heck, it fits now.

You have to go back to early 2011 - January to be exact. Williams had resigned, Dunderdale was appointed interim leader (and thereby Premier), and the leadership nomination process had just ended. As part of the process each candidate had to submit a list of 50 people who supported the party's policies and principles, and also supported your leadership bid. I had 70 odd just to be safe - wasn't safe enough though.

In any case, that list of people went to the Party leadership committee, and only the party leadership committee. It was not a public document. Imagine my surprise then when one of the main supporters of my quiet campaign to get nominated called me, rather panicked, because Paul Oram had phoned him from his holidays down south.

What most people in the province do now know is that members of Oram's family in the Glovertown area were my main organizers and supporters. We met, we planned, and we executed that plan. I could not have done it without them and a few others. Paul Oram didn't quite appreciate the niceties of democracy, and especially did not appreciate members of his family and church signing my nomination papers - he didn't know the full extent of their involvement then. My man in Glovertown, his family member, was upset that Oram had called him and threatened him if he didn't quit supporting my campaign immediately. Oram was bewidered why he would support anyone other than Dunderdale, and it was bad for business. His family member wasn't swayed however, and we carried on.

What Oram also didn't know is that his family members had brought along PC MHA Sandy Collins. Collins is the member of Oram's district. Collins was on board for the leadership challenge all the way, and even wanted to meet in St. John's the night before the nomination papers were going in - I called it off due to the late hour. If Oram had known that he would likely have seriously lost it. I remember thinking then, this Oram guy must be some kind of control freak that he would call and threaten his family members for supporting me in an entirely democratic leadership contest.

And now Oram is the one leading the charge to oust Dunderdale - or so it seems in my opinion. Such is the dark side of politics here. Such is the hypocrisy. Such is the pragmatic twisting of our democratic values. My advice to Oram, and the like, is scream all you like, but enjoy laying in the bed you made.

Referendum - Refer It

I always enjoy a good debate with the knowledgable and gregarious host of the VOCM Backtalk radio show - Paddy Daly. Paddy admits to reading this blog on a fairly regular basis, and I certainly listen to his show daily. Today the big debate was a referendum on the proposed Muskrat Falls project.
His first question to me via twitter today: " Was the last general election a referendum on MF (Muskrat Falls)?"
My answer to that was, quite frankly, no. You may recall during the election that the only dollar figures available on the Muskrat Falls project were the DG2 (decision gate 2 ) numbers provided by Nalcor. Unfortunately, DG2 numbers were based on a project definition of 5-10%. In other words, the $6.2 billion projected at the time was one hell of a ballpark figure. The public were confused, and the opposition, official and unofficial, ridiculed the numbers to the point the government was on the permanent defensive. As a result, the public chose not to make Muskrat Falls a re-election criteria, and instead it focused on the economy and a sudden influx of new fire trucks to small, rural communities. The media also chose to dismiss Muskrat Falls as a serious election issue, and instead focused primarily on the fall of the provincial Liberal Party in the polls and the race for second place. Under those circumstances, there was no chance to have the provincial election act as a referendum on Muskrat Falls.

Of course, the fact that the PC Party gained a majority, albeit reduced, certainly gives it the legal right to act unilaterally and force the project through - as it did with Bill 29. The problem is, as they found out with the political fallout from Bill 29, these things eat your political capital faster than a starved man feasting on a steak. The all important high ground, or moral high ground as some refer to it, falls just as quickly. Without the high ground the government loses the ability to legislate and certainly dooms its re-election. Normally given such a scenario the many backbenchers, and some ambitious cabinet ministers, would apply enough internal pressure to halt such a proposal. However, this is Muskrat Falls. Logic is not a word that one could apply to this government's approach. For instance, there is Natural Resource Minister Kennedy's comments on buying power from Hydro Quebec as an alternative to Muskrat Falls:

"So we could be buying power from Quebec that is generated in Labrador. There is something immoral about that, but unfortunately, as the current power contract currently exists, it is not illegal."

Minister Kennedy has a perverse definition of "immoral" considering most people would consider not purchasing power at say five cents a KW from Hydro Quebec in favour of power that will cost 20-30 a KW from Muskrat Falls as immoral if there is a cheaper alternative. The source of that power is really quite irrelevant to most people. This is just one of many examples of the lack of logic that is rampant in this government's approach.

Paddy then has this to say:
" I would be surprised if the majority of NLers wanted a referendum on MF."
Tough one to argue. On the one hand Paddy has no proof to back up his assertion, and on the other hand I have no evidence they do. That being said, what logical person could be upset at the prospect of being able to exercise their democratic right, on a clear question, regarding a serious financial matter that will single handedly shape the financial future for generations?

If elections were enough to give a government the right to do as it pleased we would have never witnessed a referendum in this country. We have had separatist governments in Quebec elected with the known sole goal of splitting the country up. Was their election a referendum on separatism, and their victory an instant endorsement of that goal? No. They held a referendum, and lost. The government of PEI held a referendum on the fixed link. The BC government held a referendum on the HST. The New Dawn Agreement had to be appoved by a majority of the aboriginal community in the one and only referendum on Muskrat Falls to date.

So Paddy ol b'y, an election is an election, but a referendum is the way we must go on Muskrat Falls.

The New Official Secrets Act - Bill 29

The House of Assembly just wrapped up a historic filibuster on Bill 29, AN ACT TO AMEND THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT http://tinyurl.com/75xa3sp . The four day, marathon session was covered nationally by every major press outlet, and of course locally in both the news and editorial pages province wide. The Centre for Law and Democracy, an internationally recognized organization on access to information, had this to say when asked for comment by the CBC:

"The new cabinet exception is, well, breathtaking in its scope... I think it’s one of the widest exceptions of that sort I’ve seen anywhere... The Newfoundland one, or the proposed cabinet exception, really takes it to another level... I don’t think I’ve ever seen one as broad as that. It really throws in the kitchen sink... What we see in other countries, and in Canada as well, is that governments often abuse those exceptions,and the way the thing is worded now, it’s really wide open to that kind of abuse.”

Very damning wording for any government to receive from an independent body, let alone on the issue of access to information - a basic right in a democratic society. Well, at least most of us view it that way, except, apparently, Justice Minister Collins who disagreed:

"Mr. Speaker, the right to information is an important one, one that we have to protect and guard," Justice Minister Felix Collins said during question period Tuesday. "But it is not absolute."

He then goes on to essentially tell it as it is with the changes to Section 18 of the new Act:

“The auditor general will have access only to those records that the clerk says he can have...
by expanding the list of cabinet records, it expands the list to which he does not have access.”

Worrisome as those words are, and they should concern any and every free thinking person, the really severe, and potentially dangerous words are found further down in the Act.

Section 24:

     24. (1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information which could reasonably be expected to disclose

(a) trade secrets of a public body or the government of the province;

(b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to a public body or to the government of the province and that has, or is reasonably likely to have, monetary value;

(c) plans that relate to the management of personnel of or the administration of a public body and that have not yet been implemented or made public;

(d) information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in the premature disclosure of a proposal or project or in significant loss or gain to a third party;

(e) scientific or technical information obtained through research by an employee of a public body, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to deprive the employee of priority of publication;

(f) positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions developed for the purpose of contractual or other negotiations by or on behalf of the government of the province or a public body, or considerations which relate to those negotiations;

(g) information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the financial or economic interest of the government of the province or a public body; or

(h) information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the ability of the government of the province to manage the economy of the province.

Essentially, this section gives the "head of the public body" complete authority to refuse any information that could relate to any economic, scientific, or techincal information. That would include any information on Muskrat Falls, mining, etc.

Section 27:

   27. (1) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal

(a) trade secrets of a third party;

(b) commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information of a third party, that is supplied, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence and is treated consistently as confidential information by the third party; or

(c) commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to

(i) harm the competitive position of a third party or interfere with the negotiating position of the third party,

(ii) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the public body when it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be supplied,

(iii) result in significant financial loss or gain to any person or organization, or

(iv) reveal information supplied to, or the report of, an arbitrator, mediator, labour relations officer or other person or body appointed to resolve or inquire into a labour relations dispute.

(2) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information that was obtained on a tax return, gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability or collecting a tax, or royalty information submitted on royalty returns, except where that information is non-identifying aggregate royalty information.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply where

 

(a) the third party consents to the disclosure; or

 

(b) the information is in a record that is in the custody or control of the Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador or the archives of a public body and that has been in existence for 50 years or more.

This section backs up Section 24, and specifically uses the wording: "shall not disclose". There is no maybe, no 'it's up to the discretion of the head of the public body'. It very interestingly refers directly to the issues of royalties. This is interesting in that royalties collected from offshore oil are already well documented publicly. They are not a secret. Does it refer to mining royalties? Does it refer to a potential Royalty Trust Agreement for the financing of Muskrat Falls? This section would cover those. So it would appear the government's intentions are to keep these agreements secret - otherwise why single them out specifically in the Act, and leave no room for a head of a public body to do otherwise? The timing of this legislation, prior to the DG3 numbers on Muskrat Falls and its financing, contracts is suspect at best and does nothing to quell the very real suspicions of ordinary, thinking people. Most would consider common sense.

Section 43.1:

43.1 (1) The head of a public body may disregard one or more requests under subsection 8(1) or 35(1) where

(a) because of their repetitive or systematic nature, the requests would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or amount to the abuse of the right to make those requests;

(b) one or more of the requests is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) one or more of the requests is made in bad faith or is trivial.

This section is arguably the most dangerous to the basic democratic rights we all enjoy - or thought we did. Essentially, it gives the head of any public body the right to deny any request they feel like. It reminds me of the "Conduct unbecoming a member of the Canadian Armed Forces" provision in Canadian military law. It's a catch-all charge. One that if no other charge sticks this will. That is Section 43.1 - a catch-all clause. It gives a Minister the right to dismiss media requests for any information. Same goes for the Official Opposition. Same for the ordinary citizen. It is as undemocratic as you can possibly be without saying you are dictatorial - in words anyway. 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarntees us:

Fundamental Freedoms

 

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

The question begs answering: How can one have the freedom of belief and opinion without the knowledge to form it? How can the media be free, and communicate truthfully when it is denied the information to form that truth? How can citizens form the beliefs and opinions that allow them to reason and judge the performance of their government without open and honest access to information that is neither censored nor filtered? This is not a case of martial law. This is not a case of internal insurrection. This is not a case of state secrets at a time of war. No, this is a case of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador being at war with its own citizens. A secret war. A war that requires an "Official Secrets Act" - Bill 29. 

Assualt on Democracy

The PC government of Newfoundland and Labrador has completely lost touch with what it means to be living in a democratic society. The Charter of Rights, which safeguards our rights as citizens in Canada, states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

That is everyone. Not just those that go along with the government's agenda, but those that disagree as well. The right to disagree, and oppose, is a fundamental right we all hold dearly, and for which our countrymen have fought to secure.

It seems that this idea of democracy is lost on the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party. Whether it be Danny Williams firing of a woman from a regional economic development committee for poking fun at the size of his manhood, or Premier Dunderdale's assault on bloggers as "naysayers" for their opposition to the Muskrat Falls project, the Newfoundland PC Party has been waging a war with its own citizens.

Now today we have a new case in point. Fisheries Minister King announced that the provincial government was immediately freezing any further funding to the FFAW (Fisherman's union) because, to quote him:

“And to be frank with you, as I see it in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, you’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem. And I see the FFAW right now as part of the problem...The union has received nearly $1.3 million in grant money from the province over the past five years for things like research, seafood marketing and fisheries technology programs.
That ends now...We’re putting a freeze on any further funding of projects for the FFAW until I’m convinced through a personal review that the projects that we support are of value and benefit to the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just to the FFAW...It’s very, very tough to build a working relationship with a group that continues to criticize...The FFAW can either work with us or stand by the side. We’re going to move forward, and we’re going to make changes that we feel are in the best interests of the industry. But we’re not going to spend much more time, frankly, having public debates every chance Mr. McCurdy gets to bash government because he doesn’t like something that’s happening in the industry."
The full CBC story is here: http://soc.li/AWdK5lb

The Newfoundland government has become the poster boy for undemocratic actions in Canada. Already the PC spin doctors in the social media are getting the message out that the fisheries union deserves to be cut off its research funds as it should have never had them in the first place. While some may agree with that, it does not address the issue of freedom of speech. What it does reinforce is the government's position that freedom of speech is only welcome when it is convenient. That people in Newfoundland only have the right to oppose when the government allows it. To do otherwise is to put yourself up for scorn and/or retribution. Just today the Telegram did an editorial on the very topic of speaking out at your own risk http://tinyurl.com/78v8kl3 .

In a country such as Canada, and in a province such as Newfoundland and Labrador, freedom from government retribution should not even be a topic of discussion. It should be, if anything, a thing of the past that our children study in school. Yet, it continues to be the prevalent attitude of a provincial government that is located in a country that builds institutes to promote democracy around the world. The Newfoundland PC government makes the case that what Canada really needs is a civil rights law, as is the case in the United States, that would allow criminal prosecution for the violation of civil rights. Clearly, this is one government that can not be trusted with the responsibility of exercising power in a mature way, and respecting the rights of its residents. It is a blight on Canada's democratic reputation.