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.
Showing posts with label pc party of NL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pc party of NL. Show all posts
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
All the King's Men - Part 6 - Paul Davis and the RNCA
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.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Frank Coleman and Lies of Omission
What to say on the Frank Coleman/Humber Valley paving story? It's a story of greed, politics and deal making. A tale that one might expect to read from yesteryear, but not in today's "transparent" world of politics. An agreement founded in such arrogance, and so contemptuous of the people of the Province, that you couldn't be blamed for having a hard time believing it could happen today - even given the murky waters of Newfoundland politics. Yet, here it is.
It starts with a sudden coup in the Premier's Office as Kathy Dunderdale is forced from office by a caucus revolt - that was January 22, 2014. The, on February 11, former premier Danny Williams stepped out of the shadows and smeared the position of PC leadership candidate Bill Barry:
"Bill Barry would definitely not have my support. Absolutely not... He indicates that he's interested in privatizing energy..Nalcor, Hydro, he has an interest in privatizing health care, and he has an interest in privatizing education. Well, he doesn't stand for anything that I support, so Bill Barry is off my list. That's probably the clearest thing I can tell you."
Barry's response was direct, but diplomatic:
"Unfortunately, he (Williams) talked about a letter I sent to caucus which, in my view, he totally mischarasterized (sic). I certainly didn't say Nalcor would be privatized and health and education would be privatized. That's not what I said at all."
Barry's response was tame, because he should have called Williams' comments outright lies, with the somewhat obvious purpose, given the context of the rest of his commentary, to destroy Barry as a PC leadership candidate. These were the first shots so to speak.
By sheer coincidence no doubt, two days later Frank Coleman is interviewed by the Telegram on "rumors" he may be running for the leadership. It's actually a most interesting and foreshadowing interview as it turns out. Coleman's comments then:
" It (running for leadership) depends on me having a fairly robust discussion with my partners in the businesses that I am involved in about if I do make a run at this.."
" I am heavily involved (in the business) and there is a bunch of things we are in the middle of, and we are trying to work our way through."
" There is a bunch of things I'm working through...if they transpire the way I hope they do, great. If they don't, it will be somebody else's mantle, not mine."
Cryptic, very cryptic words given the time and what was about to transpire. Coleman admits several things here: 1. That his running for leadership depends on "working things through" with his businesses; 2. That the conversation involves his business partners; and 3. That he is personally working these things through. A man very deeply involved. Now consider, at this very moment in time, his business Humber Valley Paving (HVP) is in trouble with its largest contract - the $19 million paving contract for the Trans Labrador highway. He is losing money, had to get a year extension to complete it, and had personally guaranteed the performance bonds to finish it. In other words, Coleman was a man in a serious bind. Can it possibly be that the words he says above do not refer to such a bind? A reasonable person would conclude they refer to the exact situation Coleman was facing with his government contract, the bonds and HVP.
Then, the very next day no less, Coleman contends he resigned as President and CEO of HVP. That's odd for a number of reasons, the least of which being: Why would the President and CEO of a company, that had just admitted he was "working things through" suddenly resign the next day? Is it reasonable to think that a man with his name on a $19 million bond, and with that company apparently unable to finish the job, would simply walk away from control of that situation on blind faith that something might come down the road to save him? Not only is that unreasonable, it simply defies imagination. The only logical conclusion is that he knew the issue would be resolved in his favour.
Then, on March 10, Coleman contends he resigned as a "director and shareholder". His words. To my knowledge, there is no way to resign as a shareholder. The only logical interpretation of that statement is he sold his shares in HVP. Considering his controlling interest in HVP, that can only mean he sold the company. That begs this question: Who would sell their control of a company if that company's performance of its work on a contract (in this case the Labrador highway) could mean being personally accountable for up to $19 million of your personal wealth? Not just that. Who would buy a controlling interest in a company that was about to default (possibly) on a $19 million contract? Then there are the issues that accompany any sale of a business like: negotiations; due diligence; legal work; and closing, etc. All of this would require much more than the month timeline that Coleman has put out there officially. Again, that defies any reasonable logic.
The obvious conclusion, of a reasonable person, would be that Coleman had full knowledge that his name would be removed from those bonds before he sold his shares - which would mean before March 10. In his words: "..if they transpire the way I hope they do." Apparently they did. Three days later, Coleman's son, apparently representing the new ownership, contacted Minister McGrath to have the contract cancelled, and thus remove the need for the bonds. Seven days later the contract was dissolved and Frank Coleman was released from his $19 million bonds.
Perhaps there is a hint of the truth when, during an interview with Fred Hutton at VOCM on May 9, 2014, Coleman made the following statement:
" I've been in this race for 6 months.."
Six months. That's an interesting statement considering at the time of the interview that would put Coleman's involvement at about the beginning of December, 2013 - or just before Dunderdale was forced to resign by her caucus. For Coleman, that means he would have had to been involved in the ouster of Dunderdale in some way. After all, how could he be involved in a leadership race that didn't exist at the time? There is only one answer for that - it was a backroom plot to dump Dunderdale, and that plot had to have involved Coleman in some way. His words, not mine - "I've been in this race for six months".
The CBC uncovered all this and broke the story. At first it was reported as a $9.5 million bond. Then it was discovered to be two $9.5 million bonds, equaling a total commitment of $19 million. Then it was discovered that Coleman had to sign for the bonds personally. All of this had to be dug up by the media. Coleman never proactively disclosed any of it, even when he knew the exposure was more than was being reported, and even though he new he had personally endorsed them.
Then, as the walls started to close in on him and McGrath, the stories started to trip themselves up. Coleman refused to be forthcoming with who the new owners were of HVP. He even refused to tell the media who he sold his own shares to. He began to trip himself up in his own lies. One such example:
" I don't believe that representatives of the company dealt directly with the Minister...My son, and other members of our company would have spoken directly to the officials. This would have been a decision by officials within the department to make the decision, and they would have made recommendations to the Minister."
As it happened, that wasn't true, and Coleman's media representative got back to the reporter:
"... (Coleman) did not intend to deny that his son, Gene, spoke to Minister McGrath."
Well, it wasn't just an intention to deny the meeting, it was a statement that there wasn't one. In fact, Coleman's son did the negotiating, and was still a director, if not a shareholder as well, of HVP.
Then, on April 30, McGrath made the following statement:
"We don't want to put a company out of business, because if you take their bonds away they would easily be put out of business for future work."
That was original excuse for dissolving the contract - to save the company and its employees. McGrath added that in order to have the job done on time and budget that it was necessary to cancel the contract as going after the bonds was unreliable. That lasted until the national association responsible for bonding agencies accused the Minister of misleading the public by giving false information regarding how bonds work. Yet McGrath still had his whole save the company and the jobs argument floating. Coleman remained silent on the issue of saving the company and the jobs. He never once said the company was in trouble. In fact, he called it "a great company". He bristled at the accusations that this "great company's" bonds were traded off for his agreement to run for leadership - May 6:
" No, I did not benefit personally from this whatsoever. It is incomprehensible to me that somebody would infer that I benefited personally from this."
That was until the media disclosed Coleman personally signed for the bonds, and would have been responsible for their having to be enforced. Then, despite not having mentioned one word of this before publicly, Coleman came out and said this:
" The option that the company would have had its bond pulled is not necessarily the right conclusion to reach. The company would have had other options, either to complete the work or to sell the work."
As usual in this saga, Coleman attempts to cover one lie with another twist. His problem though is his cover story only adds significantly to the drama. Consider his words. There was no urgency to cancel the bonds. The work could be finished or sold. Take him at his word on this for a moment. If those things are all true, then why did the Minister dissolve the contract and release Coleman from the bonds? That would only benefit one person, Frank Coleman. Not the employees. Not the company. Coleman's own defence to personally benefiting was there was no need to release him - so why did Coleman's son request it and why did McGrath do it? See, that's the problem with lies. We even tell our children this as they grow up. Lies only beget more lies, and eventually they all fall. I will leave you with this last Coleman quote, which I believe is the biggest lie of all:
"I can absolutely tell you there is nothing untoward here."
Friday, May 16, 2014
Part 3 All the King's Men - Shawn Skinner & Trevor Taylor
The Department of Innovation, Trade, and Innovation is essentially a department set up to dole out tax dollars to companies looking to expand or develop their businesses here in the province. Within the department is a program called the "Commercialization Program". The role of the program is:
The Commercialization Program bridges an identified funding and
investment gap between product research and product marketing. It
provides financial assistance to private sector enterprises for activities
leading to the development of innovative, market-ready products and
services, including support for technology transfer activities. The
program will assist companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that have
difficulty securing investment or loans to develop innovative products
or services.
In other words, it doles out taxpayers money to companies that can't get bank loans. It gives "qualified" companies up to 75% of the cost of developing their product to a maximum of $500,000.00.
In late December, 2007, Minister responsible Trevor Taylor approved a $500,000.00 loan for NewLab Clinical Research - the maximum amount allowed. The Minister allowed the funds released to the company using future profit projections as the equity investment required by the company under the program. In other words, the company didn't have to put a cent upfront for the loan. Then, in late 2008, new Minister Shawn Skinner approved another loan. This time to Newfound Genomics for $500,000.00. Instead of using possible future profits as it's down payment (equity) investment, the company transferred $200,000.00 of government money already lent to NewLab Clinical Reaearch into the account of Newfound Genomics. The result? Dr. Wayne Gulliver, the owner of both companies, received $1 million from the taxpayers without putting up a cent.
During this time, Mr. Gulliver and his company NewLab Clinical Research were donating to the PC Party. Their donations were as follows:
2007 - NewLab Clinical Research $1,450.00
2008 - Wayne Gulliver $2,000.00
NewLab Clinical Research $ 900.00
2009 - NewLab Clinical Research $4,500.00
2010 - NewLab Clinical Research $5,000.00
2011 - NewLab Clinical Research $4,500.00
2011 was the last year that Gulliver or his companies made political donations according to the records. Also happening in 2011 was an investigation by the Auditor General into the awarding of the $1 million worth of loans to these two companies. The Auditor General found a number of problems, including: No equity investment made by the companies as was required by the loan agreement; taking on additional debt in contravention of the loan agreement ( $460,000.00 bank mortgage - a total of $961,763.00); $33,200.00 paid out to a director of the companies, which contravened the loan agreement; and no remedies included in the loan contract if the company broke the terms of it. The Auditor General also found that additional monies were paid out to the two companies by the government: $21,000.00 in wage subsidies; and $5,000.00 in trade mission subsidies.
In fact, the Auditor General stated:
" The terms and conditions of funding indicated the applicant must use the funds for the items outlined in the Commercialization Program."
That essentially refers to wages, equipment, etc. So the question that comes to mind is how do political donations fit into that description? Almost $16,500.00 was paid out by the company to the PC Party during the period in political donations.Another, far more troubling question is how can the PC Party accept money from a company it is negotiating development loans with? As part of that loan agreement the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador also became a shareholder. That is a question for Taylor, Skinner and the PC Party to answer.
In April, 2011, Newfound Genomics sold its equipment an closed shop. Finance reports from the province indicate the full $500,000.00 from Newfound Genomics was still outstanding, and that money is still being recorded as a viable investment on the books. The same financial reports indicate that NewLab Clinical Research has paid back a gran total of $16,000.00 of its $500,000.00 loan since 2007 - that's slightly less than it contributed to the PC Party during the same time.
Meanwhile, then President and CEO of Newfound Genomics, Siobhan Coady, seems to have said little on the issue. Coady is currently listed as President of Bonaventure Capital (which doesn't exist according to provincial and federal corporate registries), and seeking the provincial Liberal nomination in St. John's West. Coady was also involved with Gulliver in The Clinical Trials Centre, which was involuntarily dissolved in 2013.
Just another incidence of the PC Party profiting off government business. In this case a company partly owned by the government paid off the PC Party rather than the taxpayer. It's also another case of the King's men taking care of business.
Related links to this story:
Telegram story 2011:
file:///C:/Users/Cabana/Desktop/NL%20%20AG%20investigating%20Newfound%20Genomics%20loan%20-%20Provincial%20News%20-%20Daily%20Business%20Buzz%20-%20Newfoundland%20&%20Labrador.htm
Ministry of Finance, Public Accounts, Volume 1, (page 63)
http://www.fin.gov.nl.ca/fin/publications/volumeI_2012-13.pdf
Report of Auditor General 2011 (Page 417)
http://www.ag.gov.nl.ca/ag/annualReports/2010AnnualReport/AR2010.pdf
Siobhan Coady makes play for provincial seat (CBC)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/siobhan-coady-makes-play-for-provincial-seat-1.2512216
Genomics lab quality questioned (CBC)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/genomics-lab-quality-questioned-1.1027319
Thursday, November 28, 2013
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:
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.
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.
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:
Time for our party to take a hard look at the future. Enough is enough.
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:
@davemccarthy707 @pauloram1 that's the premiers decision to make. She had a 4 year mandate.
- @pauloram1 Key word Paul is "Had".
- @edhollett @pauloram1 @davemccarthy707 enough is enough.
- @pauloram1 @edhollett @davemccarthy707 Enough what is enough what? #NLpoli
- @mclabradore @pauloram1 @edhollett @davemccarthy707 stay tuned folks!!!!
Plane fixr 
W McLean 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.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Columnist Latest Victim of Muskrat Falls Dam
" We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril risk and hazard"
Voltaire.
Michael Johansen is an excellent journalist. An award winning journalist. A published novelist. A columnist that is now without a column.
Johansen lives in Labrador, and loves it. He took three years to build his own cabin near the Churchill River in the rough backwoods of Labrador. It is his place to live and his place to love. The place is sacred to him. Michael Johansen is also an opponent of the Muskrat Falls hydro dam project, located ten miles from his cabin, and that made him dangerous.
What most people in Canada, and the world, do not understand about this province is its dark side. The side that is not the "friendly Newfoundlander and Labradorian". The side of the Merchants. In this province it is alive and well. Michael's story is the most recent of many similar stories.
Michael, up until this week, was a weekly contributing columnist to the Aurora and Labradorian newspapers in Labrador, and a frequent contributor to The Telegram in St. John's. All three papers, and all the papers in this province, are owned by Quebec based Transcontinental Media Inc.
Michael's columns varied, but often focused on the provincial government here, and its child Nalcor Energy - a provincial crown corporation. His columns were often not favourable to the two and in particularly the Muskrat Falls project. They also focused on the costs of the project like the hyper inflationary effect on the local rental market, which left people homeless and hopeless. In other words, he focused on the societal costs versus the fanatical march of Nalcor and the government to build the Muskrat Falls dam. In doing so, Michael reflected the concerns and feelings of many in our province. That was, apparently, his great sin.
In June of this year a new Editor was put in charge of the Aurora and Labradorian newspapers - one Bonnie Learning. Not a name really known among the province's people, but one certainly known in provincial government circles. Learning was the constituency assistant for John Hickey, the now retired Progressive Conservative Cabinet Minister from Labrador - Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Hickey was, and remains a vocal proponent of the Muskrat Falls dam project.
Given that constituency assistants to Ministers must be aligned with their employers political beliefs, and given that Learning filled that role for Hickey, Learning is in a potential conflict of interest in adjudicating her editorial functions when it comes to issues that involve the Muskrat Falls project. She took the position of Editor in the summer of 2013. Barely 5 months later, and after an ongoing war with Johansen over content regarding Muskrat Falls, Nalcor and the government, he finds himself without a column.
This is how it works in Newfoundland and Labrador. The politics of feudalism. Do as the master says or bury thyself. Michael is the latest victim of that cancerous mentality. A mentality that has left the province as the worst democratically functioning governments in Canada - if not North America. What surprises me is that Transcontinental Media, a Quebec based company would hire a person, so directly linked to the current government, for a position that requires neutrality. The position of Editor is critical in our democracy as it dictates what the public will see, learn, and know.
The censorship surrounding Michael has been dutifully ignored in the media by and large. The Independent gave a great story on the issue. VOCM ran a news article on it, and all three of its daily province-wide radio shows covered the issue. In particularly, Paddy Daley gave an inspirational talk on the issue, and lambasted the apparent censorship. However, stations like the CBC did not even give it a mention - as if somehow the firing of an award winning journalist and columnist over his stories on the government and Nalcor was a non-event. Something rotten in the State of Denmark to be sure.
Unfortunately, both the travesty delivered to Michael, and the reaction to it in the media here, illustrate an ongoing illness in Newfoundland and Labrador. An illness that keeps its people down, and without the taken for granted right to knowledge that most in the country enjoy. That illness is totalitarianism. The few dictate to the many. Newfoundland and Labrador is not a democracy. Instead, it is the playground of the small business elite in St. John's and to a lesser extent, those situate in Labrador. A marriage of financial interest that have nothing to do with the well being of our people. A ruthless, undemocratic approach to governing in modern times. An insult to our dead that rest in graves throughout Europe, and the people inside them who gave everything so that we could live in freedom. "Lest We Forget". Yes, lest we forget why they sacrificed. That sacrifice is ignored here. It is an unhelpful encumbrance to those that demand to impose their will upon us. Michael Johansen is the latest victim of this.
Voltaire.
Michael Johansen is an excellent journalist. An award winning journalist. A published novelist. A columnist that is now without a column.
Johansen lives in Labrador, and loves it. He took three years to build his own cabin near the Churchill River in the rough backwoods of Labrador. It is his place to live and his place to love. The place is sacred to him. Michael Johansen is also an opponent of the Muskrat Falls hydro dam project, located ten miles from his cabin, and that made him dangerous.
What most people in Canada, and the world, do not understand about this province is its dark side. The side that is not the "friendly Newfoundlander and Labradorian". The side of the Merchants. In this province it is alive and well. Michael's story is the most recent of many similar stories.
Michael, up until this week, was a weekly contributing columnist to the Aurora and Labradorian newspapers in Labrador, and a frequent contributor to The Telegram in St. John's. All three papers, and all the papers in this province, are owned by Quebec based Transcontinental Media Inc.
Michael's columns varied, but often focused on the provincial government here, and its child Nalcor Energy - a provincial crown corporation. His columns were often not favourable to the two and in particularly the Muskrat Falls project. They also focused on the costs of the project like the hyper inflationary effect on the local rental market, which left people homeless and hopeless. In other words, he focused on the societal costs versus the fanatical march of Nalcor and the government to build the Muskrat Falls dam. In doing so, Michael reflected the concerns and feelings of many in our province. That was, apparently, his great sin.
In June of this year a new Editor was put in charge of the Aurora and Labradorian newspapers - one Bonnie Learning. Not a name really known among the province's people, but one certainly known in provincial government circles. Learning was the constituency assistant for John Hickey, the now retired Progressive Conservative Cabinet Minister from Labrador - Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Hickey was, and remains a vocal proponent of the Muskrat Falls dam project.
Given that constituency assistants to Ministers must be aligned with their employers political beliefs, and given that Learning filled that role for Hickey, Learning is in a potential conflict of interest in adjudicating her editorial functions when it comes to issues that involve the Muskrat Falls project. She took the position of Editor in the summer of 2013. Barely 5 months later, and after an ongoing war with Johansen over content regarding Muskrat Falls, Nalcor and the government, he finds himself without a column.
This is how it works in Newfoundland and Labrador. The politics of feudalism. Do as the master says or bury thyself. Michael is the latest victim of that cancerous mentality. A mentality that has left the province as the worst democratically functioning governments in Canada - if not North America. What surprises me is that Transcontinental Media, a Quebec based company would hire a person, so directly linked to the current government, for a position that requires neutrality. The position of Editor is critical in our democracy as it dictates what the public will see, learn, and know.
The censorship surrounding Michael has been dutifully ignored in the media by and large. The Independent gave a great story on the issue. VOCM ran a news article on it, and all three of its daily province-wide radio shows covered the issue. In particularly, Paddy Daley gave an inspirational talk on the issue, and lambasted the apparent censorship. However, stations like the CBC did not even give it a mention - as if somehow the firing of an award winning journalist and columnist over his stories on the government and Nalcor was a non-event. Something rotten in the State of Denmark to be sure.
Unfortunately, both the travesty delivered to Michael, and the reaction to it in the media here, illustrate an ongoing illness in Newfoundland and Labrador. An illness that keeps its people down, and without the taken for granted right to knowledge that most in the country enjoy. That illness is totalitarianism. The few dictate to the many. Newfoundland and Labrador is not a democracy. Instead, it is the playground of the small business elite in St. John's and to a lesser extent, those situate in Labrador. A marriage of financial interest that have nothing to do with the well being of our people. A ruthless, undemocratic approach to governing in modern times. An insult to our dead that rest in graves throughout Europe, and the people inside them who gave everything so that we could live in freedom. "Lest We Forget". Yes, lest we forget why they sacrificed. That sacrifice is ignored here. It is an unhelpful encumbrance to those that demand to impose their will upon us. Michael Johansen is the latest victim of this.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Lies, Bribes, Harper and Dunderdale - the Evidence
On April 28, 2013, I wrote an article on whether or not the Innu people were bribed to vote for the New Dawn Agreement, which passage was necessary to allow the Muskrat Falls project to proceed. http://rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.ca/2013/04/were-innu-bribed-for-muskrat-falls-vote.html Since that time the information contained in that post was forwarded to the Prime Minister's Office, the Attorney General of Canada, the head of the RCMP, the Quebec Corruption Commission, the World Bank Corruption Commission, the Swiss federal Police, and both leaders of the federal opposition parties. Yet nothing. It appears very likely that the Innu people were given a financial reward for voting in favour of the New Dawn Agreement, which violates federal laws on corruption and the federal elections act. The local RCMP in Goose Bay were informed of these payments a year ago. Those forwarding the information want a full blown RCMP investigation and forensic audit of both bands, the Innu Nation, and the Innu trusts. Yet nothing has happened.
I have decided to publish the actual minutes of both meetings where the $5000 payment was authorized, and where the children's trust fund was accessed to forward those payments as soon as possible with repayment of the fund coming later from a bank loan.
THE JULY 6, 2011 MINUTES
You probably noticed it was the Innu Nation, the group responsible for conducting the New Dawn Agreement referendum, that mere days after the agreement was approved by referendum wrote a letter to the trust for the $12.5 million payout at $5000 per man, woman, and child. You will also note the Bank of Montreal insisted on being renewed til 2017 as corporate trustee of the children's trust. The motion for the loan was made by Paul Rich, brother-in-law of disgraced former Innu Nation leader and MP Peter Penashue. It's most interesting to note that all the details of the loan had been arranged in advance of the conference call, and would imply the payout had been planned days in advance.
THE JULY 19, 2011 MINUTES
You will notice the urgency of getting that $5000 per person payout to the Innu people. So much urgency that less than 3 weeks after the New Dawn vote the Innu trustees voted to dip into the children's trust fund to get those funds out. It is unclear if such a withdrawal, even on a temporary basis, is even legal and in keeping with the terms of the trust.
You now see the evidence. You see who was involved. You know the time lines. Just a reminder, the New Dawn Agreement vote was held June 30, 2011. This must at a minimum be fully investigated by the RCMP, Elections Canada, Aboriginal Affairs, and a forensic audit conducted by the federal government. Future generations of Innu, and the rest of us in this province, are at least do that minimum of respect.
I have decided to publish the actual minutes of both meetings where the $5000 payment was authorized, and where the children's trust fund was accessed to forward those payments as soon as possible with repayment of the fund coming later from a bank loan.
THE JULY 6, 2011 MINUTES
You probably noticed it was the Innu Nation, the group responsible for conducting the New Dawn Agreement referendum, that mere days after the agreement was approved by referendum wrote a letter to the trust for the $12.5 million payout at $5000 per man, woman, and child. You will also note the Bank of Montreal insisted on being renewed til 2017 as corporate trustee of the children's trust. The motion for the loan was made by Paul Rich, brother-in-law of disgraced former Innu Nation leader and MP Peter Penashue. It's most interesting to note that all the details of the loan had been arranged in advance of the conference call, and would imply the payout had been planned days in advance.
THE JULY 19, 2011 MINUTES
You now see the evidence. You see who was involved. You know the time lines. Just a reminder, the New Dawn Agreement vote was held June 30, 2011. This must at a minimum be fully investigated by the RCMP, Elections Canada, Aboriginal Affairs, and a forensic audit conducted by the federal government. Future generations of Innu, and the rest of us in this province, are at least do that minimum of respect.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Budget Fixing
I was taken back, like everyone else this week, when our local PC gang announced the projected deficit for 2013-14 had dropped from $1.6 billion to around $500 million. Just how was that possible in two months? Sure, they terminated 100's of civil servants, actually about 1200 in elimination of positions and layoffs of actual workers, but that would represent a mere drop in a large bucket when it came to a $1.6 billion deficit. So I had a good look.
And when I looked I was astonished. Going back to 2010, and moving forward each year til the present 2013 budget, I discovered fixing - budget fixing. I have attached copies of my analysis below so you can see year-by-year budget-to-actual comparisons. You can see where the government came in high on projections and where they came in low (the low has a negative sign in red). Going through this process a definite pattern evolved. A cynical pattern. One the government has not admitted to publicly, but would rather take a heap of abuse for. Another pattern for these folks. The more abuse they are willing to take publicly over something they could easily explain the more you should be concerned - such is the case here.
Below are the Budget vs Actual spread sheets for you to see, 2010 - 2013. Pay attention to the patterns you see, then move to my analysis below them.
So there you have it. The obvious, deliberate tool used is overstating ministerial budget, and then not using them fully. A good example is the $645 million that was scheduled to be transferred to the Department of Natural Resources, but ended up being $404 million dollars light. You will notice that revenue is almost never overestimated, while government budgets are almost always overestimated - especially in 2011, 2012, and looks to be the same for 2013.
As you can see, "austerity" started early as in 2012 $790 million that was budgeted to be spent by departments was not.In the same year total revenue was only $148 million over. Add the two together and expenditures were actually under budget by about $650 million. In that year every single government entity other than Executive Council came in under budget.
Then there was 2011. That was the year when we got the big oil return we weren't expecting - $531 million to be exact. However, the untold story is that every government entity also came in under budget except Government Services and Human Resources, Labour, and Employment. See the trend. The obvious trend is overstate transfers from the consolidated fund (the government's bank account) to government department's and agencies; understate revenues from all sources; and combine the two to keep "miracle" surpluses happening - which brings me to another point. A strategy such as this, keeping in mind how the government is not advertising the fact it is not spending the money it has allocated to programs like roads etc, is being used by the government to achieve several goals. The first and most important is it allows them to skim from departmental budgets to add increasing dollars to their cash and investment portfolio - more on this in a minute. The second is it allows them to seem like economic miracle makers, and fine "stewards" of the economy and public purse. And of course, it keeps the public away from demanding money for those programs that always seem to get big announcements, but few things change. The obvious reason for that being of course the full budgeted money is not spent on the programs, so relatively few things do change. As many people, especially outside the overpass say, "where has all the money gone?"
Well, here is what the government is doing with it. They are building a war chest of sorts. It's called CASH ON HAND/TEMPORARY INVESTMENTS. It means money they have put away by clawing it from programs it was originally budgeted to meet the needs of. Here is how that fund has grown:
2002 - $ 509,520,000
2003 - $ 185,404,000
2004 - $ 688,960,000
2005 - $ 833,802,000
2006 - $ 600,264,000
2007 - $ 1,316,660,000
2008 - $ 2,267,497,000
2009 - $ 1,921,837,000
2010 - $ 2,212,774,000
2011 - $ 2,442,963,000
2012 - estimated $2.6 - 2.7 billion.
So, the government has a huge bank account that they've been skimming money from department/program budgets for. They've invested it in mostly very low interest bearing accounts, but it's there. The infuriating part of this, beyond the lies and manipulation of this government to their own people is the damage we are now seeing inflicted for absolutely no reason on the civil service of the province. The people who make up 25% of the entire work force of the province. You can argue that it's overdue. You can argue that government is too big, etc. That is all ideological whether it be from a pure economic or political point of view. The reality is 1200 people, representing 1200 families will now lose that security that allowed them to buy that over priced home, buy that new car, etc. It is a double betrayal - one of the facts, and two of the duty to be responsible not just with money, but also with people's lives. It is the ugliest of politics. It is very much like the poll fixing fiasco - government orchestrated manipulation of opinion to suit their own ends. This one involves budgets and people's lives. This one is budget fixing.
And when I looked I was astonished. Going back to 2010, and moving forward each year til the present 2013 budget, I discovered fixing - budget fixing. I have attached copies of my analysis below so you can see year-by-year budget-to-actual comparisons. You can see where the government came in high on projections and where they came in low (the low has a negative sign in red). Going through this process a definite pattern evolved. A cynical pattern. One the government has not admitted to publicly, but would rather take a heap of abuse for. Another pattern for these folks. The more abuse they are willing to take publicly over something they could easily explain the more you should be concerned - such is the case here.
Below are the Budget vs Actual spread sheets for you to see, 2010 - 2013. Pay attention to the patterns you see, then move to my analysis below them.
As you can see, "austerity" started early as in 2012 $790 million that was budgeted to be spent by departments was not.In the same year total revenue was only $148 million over. Add the two together and expenditures were actually under budget by about $650 million. In that year every single government entity other than Executive Council came in under budget.
Then there was 2011. That was the year when we got the big oil return we weren't expecting - $531 million to be exact. However, the untold story is that every government entity also came in under budget except Government Services and Human Resources, Labour, and Employment. See the trend. The obvious trend is overstate transfers from the consolidated fund (the government's bank account) to government department's and agencies; understate revenues from all sources; and combine the two to keep "miracle" surpluses happening - which brings me to another point. A strategy such as this, keeping in mind how the government is not advertising the fact it is not spending the money it has allocated to programs like roads etc, is being used by the government to achieve several goals. The first and most important is it allows them to skim from departmental budgets to add increasing dollars to their cash and investment portfolio - more on this in a minute. The second is it allows them to seem like economic miracle makers, and fine "stewards" of the economy and public purse. And of course, it keeps the public away from demanding money for those programs that always seem to get big announcements, but few things change. The obvious reason for that being of course the full budgeted money is not spent on the programs, so relatively few things do change. As many people, especially outside the overpass say, "where has all the money gone?"
Well, here is what the government is doing with it. They are building a war chest of sorts. It's called CASH ON HAND/TEMPORARY INVESTMENTS. It means money they have put away by clawing it from programs it was originally budgeted to meet the needs of. Here is how that fund has grown:
2002 - $ 509,520,000
2003 - $ 185,404,000
2004 - $ 688,960,000
2005 - $ 833,802,000
2006 - $ 600,264,000
2007 - $ 1,316,660,000
2008 - $ 2,267,497,000
2009 - $ 1,921,837,000
2010 - $ 2,212,774,000
2011 - $ 2,442,963,000
2012 - estimated $2.6 - 2.7 billion.
So, the government has a huge bank account that they've been skimming money from department/program budgets for. They've invested it in mostly very low interest bearing accounts, but it's there. The infuriating part of this, beyond the lies and manipulation of this government to their own people is the damage we are now seeing inflicted for absolutely no reason on the civil service of the province. The people who make up 25% of the entire work force of the province. You can argue that it's overdue. You can argue that government is too big, etc. That is all ideological whether it be from a pure economic or political point of view. The reality is 1200 people, representing 1200 families will now lose that security that allowed them to buy that over priced home, buy that new car, etc. It is a double betrayal - one of the facts, and two of the duty to be responsible not just with money, but also with people's lives. It is the ugliest of politics. It is very much like the poll fixing fiasco - government orchestrated manipulation of opinion to suit their own ends. This one involves budgets and people's lives. This one is budget fixing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)