New Facts on the death of Don Dunphy

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

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

Fact #1

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

Fact #2

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

Fact #3

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

Fact #4

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

Fact #5

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

Fact #6

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

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

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

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

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

The Corruption Culture in Newfoundland's Politics.

I've been writing on the corruption within Newfoundland's governing circles for years. In fact, I did a series on potentially corrupt practices by Ministers of this government, and its predecessors in a multi-part series on this blog called "All the King's Men". I've exposed the fact that Ben Aissa, convicted and disgraced SNC Lavalin VP, was appointed to a SNC numbered corporation here in Newfoundland during 2007-2008 (during the period SNC was pushing a large LNG project and a refinery to be located in Placentia area), and which mysteriously was dissolved at the end of 2008 when both projects failed. That blog is here.

I've written on a scheme that paid the Innu people $5,000.00 per person days after they voted for the Muskrat Falls project to proceed. That link is here. I wrote on the Innu cabinet minister that figured prominently in that deal, and was then turfed from office over illegal campaign donations - mostly from Muskrat Falls contractors, or those associated with the iron ore mining industry that would directly benefit from Muskrat Falls. His campaign manager was just charged by Elections Canada over the issue. That story was here and here and here.

I've written on the Muskrat Falls contractors who've donated directly to PC Party and its MHAs, including corruptly disgraced SNC Lavalin here. I've even written on the law firms, primarily in Quebec, that have donated to the PCs and received millions from Nalcor and the government in fees over the Muskrat Falls project here.

Over and over again the same patterns appear. Over and over again they repeat themselves. The corruption culture in Newfoundland is beyond the pale. The latest scandal over Muskrat Falls is the realization that Nalcor hired a construction firm out of Quebec, whose owner has admitted to paying  off government officials for contracts with bags of money and free holidays. (here). Now, this morning, in an attempt to turn the channel quickly, Premier Davis is offering up a cancellation in the HST hike because oil is "high". Peculiar given oil rests at $65 a barrel, down from $110 just a year ago... strange for a government that relies on oil for 33% of its annual budget.

Truth is this government and Nalcor will do anything to suppress information, real information, on Muskrat Falls. It is absolutely submersed in corruption and more likely than not influence peddling. It's not a coincidence that firms like SNC Lavalin, Genivar, and now the latest Opron have ended up on the Muskrats Falls payroll. The payroll of Nalcor. All Quebec construction firms. All implicated in corrupt practices. Not "best practices", the term Nalcor likes to throw around like candy to justify its business dealings.

Indeed, corruption permeates our political system here. It is endemic. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. It's "just the way it's always been done". In fact, it is a disgraceful indictment of a culture that needs to suffer an immediate and inglorious death. It reflects negatively on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Why? Because it has been allowed to go on for generations with not much more than a wink and a nod. This isn't the first corrupt government here. It's just the latest. The next government, and there will be a next government, best realize that the culture of corruption is detested and disgraced world-wide. We are no different.  

RCMP bring in Ontario Investigator in Don Dunphy killing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Dunphy - Shoot the Messenger - Media vs Social Media

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

All the King's Men - Part 2 - Tom Marshall and Pomerleau Construction

Tom Marshall has a reputation among the people of this province as a calm, steady hand. For most of his political career he was the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board - both jobs that require professionalism and judgement. On the surface, Marshall comes across that way. But, is that really the story here?

People might be a little surprised to realize that, in fact, Tom Marshall has taken more cash from companies doing business with the government than any other PC MHA. I certainly wasn't expecting to find that, but that is the truth. Going through the political donations the pattern is quite obvious, especially when a particular corporation donates to more than one MHA. In those cases you may see an MHA get $500.00, another minister get perhaps $1,000.00, but then you will see Marshall get $5,000.00. I've taken to calling it the "$5,000.00 Club". Corporations that fall into that club, at least for the last election in 2011, were:

Atlantic Engineering Consultants Ltd (owned by WSP-which was the disgraced Genivar from Quebec)
Brook Construction
Hearn Fougere Architects Ltd
Johnson's Construction
Marine Contractors

All have significant business with this government. Then of course there is the biggest single donor to Marshall, which is none other than Coleman Management Services for ($7,500.00) owned by Frank Coleman - the guy who just got out of a quandary with his paving company Humber Valley Paving. That one is now being investigated by the provincial Auditor General.

There are a number of what I like to call the "$1,000.00 Club", and they all have contracts with the government to. There are too many to reasonably list here, but one of them, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, might raise some eyebrows. Considering that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper were undergoing no less than the environmental review of two long term forestry use plans at the time, a political donation might well be questionable - at best. Suffice it to say that the interim premier of this province is the biggest offender when it comes to taking money from those that hold government contracts. However, there is one particular case that is perhaps more troubling than most.

We have all heard of the corruption investigations going on in Quebec. They've been going on for two years now. The Commission there is looking at the construction industry, and the use of political donations by these companies to get contracts. People are being investigated. People have been arrested and charged. It's a serious problem.

In 2007 a construction company from Quebec was looking to get its foot in the door here in the province. That company's name is Pomerleau Construction. You may have seen their signs on the Convention Centre addition in St. John's. If you are reading this from Corner Brook you've seen their signs on City Hall jobs, and the new health centre. In Labrador, ditto at the new Lab West hospital. In 2007 they were just coming in. I've already wrote one post on how former premier Danny Williams accepted $5,000.00 from the company just around the time they were awarded the Long Term Care Facility job in Corner Brook:
http://rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.ca/2013/04/pomerleau-construction-donation-to.html

However, Williams wasn't the only one to receive funds from Pomerleau that year for his election campaign fund. Marshall did to. There was a difference between the two donations funny enough. In the case of Williams, the cheque was made out by Pomerleau Construction to him. In the case of Marshall it was trickier to find. In fact, it was disguised. It was disguised by location. It was disguised by name. It was disguised by amount. Here's how it worked.

Two senior executives of Pomerleau Construction donated $2,500.00 each (to reach the magic $5,000.00 total). The executives were Eric Gaulin, Vice President Construction - Ontario and Atlantic Canada, and Barbara Veilleux, both from the Ottawa office of Pomerleau. The other interesting part of this is the donations are recorded as coming from Fall River, Nova Scotia. Fall River is located just outside of Dartmouth where the Pomerleau office is located.

The bottom line is that a Quebec construction company, that never made a political donation in the province before, suddenly makes $10,000.00 worth of donations to the two most powerful people in the Newfoundland and Labrador government within months of winning its first contract here- in their district no less. As bad as that sounds, and it does sound bad, the fact that there appears to be an attempt to disguise the donations to Marshall is just as disturbing. Certainly Marshall must have known these two people. In 2007 those two donations to his election campaign ranked in the top five highest campaign donors for him (along with Humber Valley Paving). The natural conclusion I reach from all of this is that it is not simply coincidence that a Quebec firm, implicated in corruption in that province (ie its ownership of Genivar - now WSP), had two executives make $2,500.00 worth of donations each, and disguise the origin of those donations. Certainly, both Mr. Williams and Marshall have some answering to do, because this appears to be a case of "thank-you very much money", and if that were true, it would be illegal.

All the King's Men - Part 1 - Derrick Dalley

All the King's Men is a new series on stories involving public officials, public dollars, and electoral donations. This story involves Derrick Dalley, the MHA for The Isles of Notre Dame, the current Minister of Natural Resources, and, back in 2011, the Minister of Business.

Dalley was a marginal MHA in the Williams' government between 2007-2010. He barely won his seat in 2007, and the worry in 2010 was that he wouldn't win it in 2011. So, on January 13, 2011 he was appointed to Cabinet as Minister of Business. He also sat on the Public Accounts Committee from 2009 on.

It was during this time that a little known company, Eastern Star Group Canada Ltd, was making its way through the environmental approval process to establish a shell fish plant in Dalley's district - which was approved on December 22, 2010. And, less than two weeks after Dalley became the Minister for Business, the government approved a $500,000.00 loan to Eastern Star Group to create the business. The press release is here http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2011/fishaq/0126n06.htm

Dalley had this to say:

"This project is exciting for a number of reasons," said the Honourable Derrick Dalley, Minister of Business. "The processing facility is being established in rural Newfoundland which will result in new employment and other spinoff benefits for the local economy.."

What Dalley didn't say is that the project approval was great personal news for him - especially the potential spin off benefits. You see, less than 9 months after Dalley personally approved the loan to Eastern Star Group, he was apparently rewarded with some hefty political contribution for his re-election campaign by the folks from Eastern Star Group. The company itself gave Dalley $3,500.00 in reelection donations. One of the principles of Eastern Star Group, Phillip Davis, Head of the Biochemistry Department at Memorial Univerisity, and Vice-President at Eastern Star Group, donated another $3,500.00 to Dalley's reelection fund. Finally, as much as I can tell, one Rhonda White, a biology technician at MUN gave another $3,000.00 to Dalley's election fund. That's a total of $9,500.00 in political donations made directly to Dalley's campaign after he personally approved a $500,000.00 loan to the company from the taxpayers. None of the donors gave money before or after to the PC Party, or Derrick Dalley - it was a large, one-off donation.

In case that doesn't get your blood boiling, there is always the rest of the story.. After Dalley lent the taxpayer's money to Eastern Star Group the company folded and the taxpayers lost all their money.In a strange twist to the story, found after doing a bit of research, it seems we weren't really getting the whole truth on eastern Star Group to start with. The hint comes in its official name: Eastern Star Group Canada Ltd. Yes, the emphasis being on the word "Canada". You see, the Chinese gentleman that was fronting Eastern Star Group in Newfoundland, Hettinger Chang, also had an operation going on in the states called Eastern Star Group Plc, which was also known simply as "The Eastern Star Group" on their:

website

http://www.easternstargroup.com/

 or on their Facebook site

 https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Eastern-Star-Group/314373741916301

or simply on their Zoominfo site

 http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/person?personId=1584891737&targetid=profile

The fact is Mr. Chang's US business just didn't seem to exist legally in the US. There is no record of his company on any exchanges or ever being registered as a corporation in the State of New York. In fact, even the phone number given for his company in the states was fake, and actually belongs to a New York architect firm that has had it, as the lady said, "for decades". Its one claim to fame appears to be exporting a bit of coffee from Mexico to Russia in 2011 before it disappears from sight. In other words, it appears that not much due diligence was done by Minister Dalley, or his department, on Mr. Chang before the money was handed over.
Still can't believe it? Check out the registered office of Eastern Star Group Canada Inc in St. John's:

 https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.597581,-52.723235,3a,75y,321.5h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ss02E83ykrEVF4i-O1pPK7A!2e0

Bottom line in all this is that it stinks. It stinks bad. And Derrick Dalley, the current Minister of Natural Resources, responsible for billions upon billions of dollars in project and decisions, is up to his elbows in it. I ask myself, how does a minister explain taking personal political donations for his reelection fund from a company that he personally approved a $500,000.00 loan for on behalf of taxpayers? How is it that these three people gave a total of $9,500.00 once, and once only, in the same year they received that loan? The obvious question is: was this a reward for Dalley bringing in the dollars for the company? If it was it would be illegal. Ask yourself why a technologist from MUN who lives in St. John's, a professor in St. John's who also acts as a VP, and a company that had to borrow money from us to live, make a one-time election donation to an MHA who lives in Twillingate? This is another case where an RCMP investigation should shed some light. Dalley, just another of the King's men.

Here are some links to stories surrounding this company:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/shuttered-plant-got-loan-from-controversial-fund-1.1179913

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/500k-at-risk-as-provincial-business-fund-recipient-folds-1.1165744

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/twillingate-shrimp-plant-remains-closed-1.1161197

Muskrat Falls Contractors Political Donations to the PCs

Section 121 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out what it means to act in a  corrupt way when it comes to political parties and elections:

"Contractor subscribing to political fraud
(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 expressed 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 or party of candidates to Parliament or the provincial legislature; 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."

So, what does that mean? Well, essentially it says if in order to get or keep a contract with the government, whether its obvious or implied, you reward a politician or political party, you are guilty of corruption in Canada. That's a criminal offence.

So, is this happening in Newfoundland and Labrador? To start with, there are only three jurisdictions in Canada where corporate or union political donations are even legal - this province is one of them. That being said, just because it's legal to donate doesn't mean the guidelines of the criminal code don't have to be respected. That's where the grey area comes in.

The purpose of this post is to detail, to the best of my knowledge, the corporations that have received Muskrat Falls contracts since 2007, and the donations they have made to the PC Party. How they did it. Where they did it from. Just a note of interest, it's not just Canadian corruption laws that may apply here. The Bribery Act in the United Kingdom may also be applicable. You see, any company with a head office in the UK, or any company (say located in Canada or the US) that just has an office in the UK, is subject to their Bribery Act. That Act is far less stringent in qualifying what may be considered corruption. In other words, a number of these companies can be investigated for acts they are doing in Canada by the British justice system. It's not out of the question.

It is important to note that no one is guilty of anything unless they are investigated, charged and convicted. With that in mind, the contractors that have received contracts on Muskrat Falls, or the Lower Churchill in general, and made political donations to the PC Party are:


The following companies have head offices or offices in the UK and their donations:

AMEC                                                   $66,700.00

Fasken Martineau (QC)                          $45,650.00

SNC Lavalin (QC)                                 $51,025.00
(includes Spectrol Grp)

CIBC                                                     $38,270.00

TD Bank                                                $27,150.00

Gowlings (law firm)                                $17,600.00

RBC                                                      $16,250.00

Deloitte                                                 $  6,915.00

Strikeman Elliott (law firm)                    $   5,000.00

Anderson Sinclair (law firm)                  $   5,000.00

Johnson's Construction                            $ 5,000.00

The following companies have headquarters in the US:

Hatch Mott MacDonald                        $32,800.00

The following companies are primarily headquartered in this province,or elsewhere in Canada:

Pennecon                                             $60,700.00

Provincial Aerospace                           $60,700.00
(includes Provincial Airlines &
Liannu Partnership)

The Idea Factory                                 $29,000.00

G.J. Cahill & Company                        $28,200.00

Fugro Jacques (QC)                            $23,350.00

Woodward Oil Limited                        $20,000.00

H.J. O'Connell                                    $   4,500.00

Speutra Security                                 $   4,000.00
(through Spectrum Security)

These figures do not include 2013, as they are yet to be published. There may be more Muskrat Falls contractors donating at that time, and those that have donated likely donated more.

I tried to contact a number of these organizations, although not all, to get their side of this story. A number of them actually forbid donations or gifts to governments they are doing business with. Some have already been convicted of corruption offences, or are being investigated. For example, take AMEC. In 2009 it settled with the United States Department of Justice for $19,000,000.00 in kickbacks and frauds on the government involving US government federal contracts. AMEC apparently turned a leaf after that, and dropped political donations. In this filed annual report, 2011, http://www.amec.com/documents/investors/6.6_financial_reports/annual-report-governance.pdf

AMEC states:

"Our policy is not to make political donations and none
were made during 2011 (2010 – £nil)."

That is not true, however, as the company was making donations every year from 2007-2012 in this province. I attempted to get an explanation from AMEC, and I received two replies:

The first one:
 " Hi Brad, Wanted to let you know that I've just received your email from a colleague of mine in the UK and I am looking into it. Regards, Lauren."

Then this one days later:
" Hi Brad, I do not have any comment at this time. Regards, Lauren"

There is of course the well documented case of SNC Lavalin, and its political donations to political parties of all shapes and sizes, and its prosecution for bribery, etc. There was the case of the lawyer from Fasken Martineau, arrested and charged for using political donations to secure contracts in Quebec. Other s have been alleged to have participated in similar schemes:
http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2012/01/26/transnet-mum-over-findings-of-probe-into-contract-awards;jsessionid=45C235FCD1628DDC5F0731D1AE4DEC0F.present2.bdfm

Some companies are very upfront with these donations, while others have partners of their firms make the donations. This is particularly true of every law firm listed above. The amounts from each partner are, by coincidence, the exact same amount - but add up one way or another to a similar annual figure. It raises a number of questions. First, are these companies being lobbied for the funds by the PCs? Is there a list of companies with contracts that get hit up every year for a donation? The trend I've found is once these companies are on the PC Party's rolls they don't get off. Year after year - unless their business ends with the government. Likewise, some pop out from nowhere. Take H.J. O'Connell and Johnson's Construction. Johnson's just started donating in 2012, which just so coincided with it's Muskrat Falls work. Ditto for H.J. O'Connell. Johnson's construction is out of the UK, and H.J O'Connell is out of Quebec. Why were these two companies suddenly interested in donating to the PC Party here? The same question could be asked to any number of the companies above. Almost all of them donated exclusively to the PC Party. From all over the world, and all over the country.

Has the PC Party established a network to source out donations from contractors with government contracts? I know Terry French told the audience at the 2010 AGM, Election Readiness meeting to hit up paving companies, "cause they know where the contracts come from". It's difficult to be positive, without an investigation, but the trend seems to indicate that. Is that illegal? Well, as the law says: "whether expressed or implied". It is certanly illegal for a political party to request a donation of any kind from a contractor doing work for the government. One thing is certain, when the work dries up so do the donations. That is the trend. An investigation is required to determine the legality of this scheme.

If this upsets you, and you want to make a difference, you can confidentially report this to the Serious Fraud Office in the UK here http://www.sfo.gov.uk/bribery--corruption/where-should-i-report-corruption.aspx . Make a difference. It's important to our democracy.

Are Newfoundland Cabinet Ministers Guilty of Influence Peddling?

I'm starting this very serious post with a description on Section 121 of the Criminal Code of Canada. That way, you can judge the transactions of the noted Ministers of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador yourself. It goes like this:

Frauds on the government
121.
(1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) directly or indirectly
(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any
member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or
(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept
from any person for himself or another person,
a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for
cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in
connection with
(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating
to the government, or
(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is
authorized or is entitled to bestow,
whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance,
exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may
be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, pays a commission or
reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee
or official of the government with which he deals, or to any member of his
family, or to any one for the benefit of the employee or official, with
respect to those dealings, unless he has the consent in writing of the head
of the branch of government with which he deals, the proof of which lies
on him;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, demands, accepts or
offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the
government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind
directly or indirectly, by himself or through a member of his family or
through any one for his benefit, unless he has the consent in writing of the
head of the branch of government that employs him or of which he is an
official, the proof of which lies on him;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a

minister of the government or an official, demands, accepts or offers or

agrees to accept for himself or another person a reward, advantage or

benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise

of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including himself, to an office;

(e) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to a minister of the government or

an official a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for

cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in

connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including himself, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government

Contractor subscribing to election fund

(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 or 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.

Now, back in 2011, Minister Terry French came on province-wide radio to attack my integrity (for which he is now before the Courts), because I stated  his address to the PC Convention of October 2010, election readiness meeting, was illegal. If you don't know, this is what he said: "Don't be afraid to approach a contractor working on your roads, for a donation. They know where the contracts come from". Now, take a look at Section 2 above (Contractor subscribing to election fraud), and Section 1(a)(ii). Pretty clear is it not? This is against the law.

Then, back in December, 2011, I wrote an article on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary http://rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.ca/2011/12/is-royal-newfoundland-constabulary.html . The RNC Association, made up of police members, (their web site http://www.rnca.ca/?) has as their stated goal to " The goals and objectives of the RNCA are to improve benefits and working conditions for police officers..." To accomplish this mission, in part, the RNCA is spending considerable money buying tickets to PC fundraisers. Since I wrote that story on them in 2011, the RNCA has continued with this practice. In fact, this line appeared on the political finance report of the province for 2012:

"Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC"

Aside from the provincial RNC Act prohibiting political activity, the Criminal Code of Canada Section 121 clearly prohibits this activity by officials, and people attempting to influence those officials, in this way.

Then there is the issue of political donations made by corporations that have contracts with the provincial government. Political donations by corporations in Newfoundland and Labrador are legal (Section 282 of the Elections Act http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/laws/stat/snl-1992-c-e-3.1/latest/snl-1992-c-e-3.1.html). That being said, it is not a blank cheque. Section 7.1 of the provincial Conflict of Interest Act http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/statutes/c30-1.htm#4_ states:

" Accepting extra benefits

7.(1) A public office holder shall not, directly or indirectly, accept a fee, gift or personal benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that is connected, directly or indirectly, with the performance of his or her duties."

In other words, as a politician, the only funds you can receive for doing your job is your pay cheque for doing your job. That brings us to this: political donations made to ministers of the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The following list is from the official record of political donations made to ministers of this government only. There are many cases where MHAs have also received similar donations. Ministers of the Cabinet have direct influence on the expenditure of public funds, and the establishment of spending priorities by the government - including individual projects as small as road paving, and as large as mega projects. They have direct influence and decision-making roles. The list of corporations, doing business with this government, and the ministers they donated to, in the 2011 general election, are as follows:

Air Labrador                        $2000.00     Patty Pottle;

                                            $  500.00     Derrick Dalley;

Atlantic Audio                     $ 1000.00    Kathy Dunderdale

Visual Inc

Atlantic Engineering             $  300.00     Joan Burke

Consultants

                                           $5000.00    Tom Marshall

  

Atlantic Minerals Ltd.          $ 1000.00   Tom Marshall

Avalon Coal Salt Ltd          $ 1000.00    Tom Hedderson

BAE Newplan Group Ltd   $  500.00    Paul Davis

(SNC Lavalin)

                                           $ 500.00    Paul Davis

                                           $ 500.00    Steve Kent

                                           $ 1000.00  Derrick Dalley

                                           $ 1000.00  Terry French

                                           $ 1000.00  Clyde Jackman

                                           $ 1000.00  Jerome Kennedy

Bennett's Construction         $ 1000.00  Darrin King

and Supplies

Bluebird Investments Ltd     $ 1000.00  Susan Sullivan

Brad Roberts                      $ 2500.00  Jerome Kennedy

Developments

Brook Construction             $ 5000.00  Tom Marshall

David Bussey                      $ 2000.00  Jerome Kennedy

CBS Bus Lines                   $ 1000.00  Jerome Kennedy

Canada Fluorspar               $ 1000.00  Darrin King

                                         

Cold Ocean Salmon            $ 1500.00  Darin King

                                           $ 2500.00 Clyde Jackman

Coleman Management         $7500.00  Tom Marshall

Services

Concord Paving                  $1000.00  Charlene Johnson

                                           $3000.00  Jerome Kennedy

Corner Brook Pulp and       $1000.00  Tom Marshall

Paper

Dr. G. E. Drogar PMC Inc  $1000.00 Susan Sullivan

Dr. King Jim PMC Inc        $ 100.00  Susan Sullivan

Dr. MS Boodhurn PMC     $  100.00 Susan Sullivan

Inc

Dr. Michael Cohen PMC   $  500.00 Susan Sullivan

Dr. Steven Parsons PMC    $ 1000.00  Susan Sullivan

Inc 

Eastern Star Group Ltd      $ 3500.00  Derrick Dalley

Phillip J Davis                    $ 3500.00  Derrick Dalley

Emera Inc                          $ 1200.00  Shawn Skinner

Fairview Investments          $ 2800.00  Kathy Dunderale

Farrells Excavating Ltd       $  500.00  Clyde Jackman

                                          $1000.00  Terry French

                                          $2000.00  Tom Hedderson

Freak's Ambulance             $1500.00  Kevin O'Brien

Service                               $1500.00  Susan Sullivan

Fusion BPO Services          $1500.00  Susan Sullivan

Harris and Associates          $  100.00  Charlene Johnson

                                           $1000.00  Jerome Kennedy

Hearne Fougere Architects   $ 500.00  Clyde Jackman

Inc                                       $ 500.00  Joan Burke

                                            $ 500.00  Charlene Johnson                                           

                                            $ 500.00  Darrin King

                                            $1000.00 Jerome Kennedy

                                            $1200.00 Shawn Skinner

                                            $5000.00 Tom Marshall

J-1 Contracting                    $5000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

Johnson's Construction Ltd   $5000.00  Tom Marshall

Land and Sea Wielding         $2000.00  Jerome Kennedy

Malthius Canada Ltd            $1000.00  Paul Davis

Marine Contractors Inc        $5000.00  Tom Marshall

Marystown Shopping           $3049.00  Clyde Jackman

Centre Ltd (PQ)

Mercer's Ambulance            $2500.00  Derrick Dalley

Service

Municipal Construction        $2500.00  Tom Hedderson

Ltd

Nortech Construction Co    $1000.00  Derrick Dalley

Ltd                                     $1000.00  Clyde Jackman

                                           $1000.00  Darin King

Oram Group Inc                 $2000.00  Charlene Johnson

Pardy's Waste Management  $1000.00  Tom Marshall

Pennecon Limited                 $1000.00  Derrick Dalley

                                            $1000.00  Terry French

                                            $1000.00  Tom Hedderson

                                            $1000.00  Keith Hutchings

                                            $1000.00  Darin King

                                            $1000.00  Shawn Skinner

                                            $2000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

Penney Paving Ltd.               $1000.00  Tom Hedderson

                                            $2500.00  Susan Sullivan

PBH Group Inc (Stantech)   $1000.00  Joan Burke

                                            $5000.00  Darin King

Pinnacle Engineering Ltd      $1000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

Provincial Airlines Limited    $1000.00  Joan Burke

                                           $1000.00  Derrick Dalley

                                           $1000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

                                           $1000.00  Charlene Johnson

                                           $1000.00  Shawn Skinner

Provincial Paving Ltd.          $ 500.00  Keith Hutchings

Pyramid Construction Ltd    $ 300.00  Tom Hedderson

                                           $ 300.00  Keith Hutchings

                                           $ 300.00  Kevin O'Brien

          

Reliable Ambulance           $1500.00  Tom Marshall

Service 

RJG Construction Ltd        $2500.00  Darrin King

Ron Fougere Associates    $2000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

Terra Inns Ltd                   $2000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

The Brigus Production       $1000.00  Terry French

Company 

Tiffany Village                   $1000.00  Kathy Dunderdale

Western Petroleum           $1500.00  Jerome Kennedy

Newfoundland Ltd 

Western Star Trucks Ltd   $ 500.00  Susan Sullivan

This list does not include Ross Wiseman who received substantial like donations, but is now the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

Having studied the donation lists extensively over the last year, I have some observations:

1.    It appears that the more influence the Cabinet Minister has within the government, the more and the     higher the donations from corporations that have contracts with the government;

2.   There are numerous cases where the Minister responsible for a department is actually receiving direct political donations from a company that deals directly with her or his department, for example - Hedderson in Transportation and Works getting donations from excavation, construction and paving companies - Sullivan in Health Care receiving donations from doctors - etc;

3.  Donation from corporations with live bids on the Muskrat Falls contract - for example Coleman Management Services (owned by current PC Party Leadership candidate Frank Coleman) to current interim Premier Tom Marshall;

4.  Ordinary MHA's of the government receive almost nothing in donations from corporations with government contracts, relative to the Cabinet Ministers - which implies there is an order of donation based upon influence within the government;

5.  Corporate donations to Cabinet ministers of the government is rampant among smaller industries dependent on government money - ambulance services; funeral homes, seniors homes, school bus companies, the aqua culture industry, etc. Most of those donations have not been recorded here as they receive grants from government, but do not necessarily have a contract for supply with the government; and

6.  Almost no members of the Liberal or NDP parties received donations from these companies - although a few, small donations were made.

Total corporate donations from companies, doing business with the government, to Cabinet Ministers in the 2011 general election:

Tom Marshall         $37,000.00

Kathy Dunderdale  $15,000.00

Jerome Kennedy    $14,000.00

Derrick Dalley       $14,000.00
Darin King             $13,000.00

Clyde Jackman      $10,500.00
Susan Sullivan        $ 9,700.00

Tom Hedderson     $ 8,800.00

Shawn Skinner       $ 4,800.00  (subsequently defeated)

Charlene Johnson   $ 4,600.00

Terry French          $ 4,000.00 

Joan Burke            $ 2,800.00

Patty Pottle            $ 2,000.00  (subsequently defeated)

Paul Davis             $ 2,000.00

Kevin O'Brien       $ 1,800.00

Keith Hutchings     $ 1,800.00

This post is written to inform the public on a matter of public interest. It is written to inform those that were unaware. It is written to change what needs to be changed in our province, for the benefit of the people of the province. It is written to uphold the law. As it stands now, these issues need investigating by the Special Branch of the RCMP. Until the issue is investigated, and if people are charged, and if they are convicted, then these observations remain just that.  

      

                                           

                                            

Were the Innu bribed for the Muskrat Falls Vote?

The Innu communities of Labrador, Sheshatsui and Natuashish, are tight communities. Understanding what is taking place, or has taken place there is difficult at best. With a total population of 2245 people according to the 2011 census, everybody knows everybody and large families dominate the political and economic life in the communities. Therefore, getting accurate information of what is happening there is almost impossible for outsiders. This article is made possible by a number of Innu who have broken that code of silence and taken me into their confidence - for that I'm thankful to them as we should all be.

In the early 1980's Peter Penashue and two other people Incorporated a body politic now called the "Innu Nation". Essentially, the Innu Nation's purpose was to act as a quasi-government for the Innu people, because without a finalized land claim the two communities could only represent themselves and not the overall interests of the Innu in Labrador. The first real major financial victory for the Innu Nation came with the Voisey's Bay Agreement.

The Innu had tried to stop it until they had a land claim in place, but the courts ruled it could proceed and an impacts and benefits agreement was put in place. As part of that agreement the Innu would receive quarterly royalty payments from the provincial government of 5% of Vale's Voisey Bay sales and $59 million for the Teshipitakan Fund (T-Fund). The T-Fund was created soley as a fund for future generations (ie: the Innu children). As of February 4, 2011 the fund had grown to $66 million. Revenues from Voisey's Bay are split 3 ways: 50% to the T Fund (Innu Nation); 25% to the Sheshatsui Community Fund; and 25% to the Natuashish Community Fund.

The trustees of the fund, members from each Innu community and the Innu Nation, have been trying to gain access to the children's trust for some time. Minutes of their meetings show a determined effort by Paul Rich, brother-in-law of Peter Penashue, to take $25 million from the fund to build houses. The money was to be split evenly between the communities. He had no support but managed to have the trustees lawyers give an opinion. The only way to pull money from the trust was to prove a "man-made disaster" had occurred. He tried to have the housing issue put in that context. The issue was so divisive the trustees were read the Trust's mission statement, and they reviewed their trustee's Oath of Office. The trustees were cautioned by the manager to remove their "biases (personal and political)". They were reminded that the principal of the Trust could not be touched in any case.

On February 7, 2011, Paul Rich motioned the idea of getting a loan for the money and using the Trust as collateral. It was agreed that this course would be explored. It was also agreed the Bank of Montreal, the representative of the Trust, would look into the matter. On February 14, 2011 Paul Rich put forward a motion to lend the $25 million from the Trust. During discussions the concern of money being used for payouts to community members rather than housing was brought up. The motion was defeated 4-2 in a recorded vote.

During the May 10, 2011 meeting it was discussed and agreed to that public meetings would be held in each community in the middle of June - just weeks before the referendum on the New Dawn Agreement. On May 26, 2011 it was agreed the meetings would be held in the first week of June with expenses for planes, halls, and lunches to be funded. Then, during a Trust meeting on June 3, 2011, just days before the meeting were to take place, they were cancelled.

This is were it gets very interesting. On July 6, 2011, less than a week after the New Dawn vote, the trustees held a teleconference. The issue again was money, but this time it was different. The following motion, the only apparent topic on the agenda, was made:

" Paul Rich made the following motion: The Trust hereby agrees to apply for a loan for approximately $12,500,000 from the Bank of Montreal to provide a per capita payout of $5,000 to each member of the Innu Nation. It was seconded by Mary Jane Edmonds. BMO Trust Company, the corporate trustee, abstained from voting because of the conflict of interest with the application for a loan from the Bank of Montreal.  All other trustees voted in favour and the motion was carried."

So, less than a week after the Innu voted 88% in favour of the New Dawn Agreement, a $5,000 payment was authorized to every man, woman, and child - motioned by non other than Peter Penashue's brother-in-law. There are a few points to digest on this. Firstly, there was discussion during the meeting to have $5,000 payments for children placed in trust - that was summarily ignored in the motion. Secondly, and quite shockingly so, no reason was given for the payout in the minutes anywhere. Thirdly, the average annual income of the Innu people, according to last available census data, is approximately $12,000. Now consider the following facts:

Sheshatsui

population 1,314
ages:
0-4      200
5-9      130
10-14  150
15-19  115

total children 695 or 53% of the population

Natuashish

population 931
ages:
0-4      145
5-9      125
10-14  90
15-19  100

total children 460 or 49% of the population

Based on this census data, $6,775,000 of the $15,000,000 would go to children - or their parents on their behalf. To put that in perspective for some, the following are family sizes in:

Sheshatsui

2 people  100
3 people  95
4 people  60
5 people  80

Natuashish

2 people  65
3 people  60
4 people  50
5 people  55

Keeping in mind the average ANNUAL income in both communities is less than $12,000 per year, many families and individuals were about to hit the jackpot. For example, families with 5 people living in a household looked to receive $25,000.

On July 8, 2011, a formal meeting of the trustees was held. It was announced at that meeting that the Bank of Montreal had approved the loan for $12,500,000 for the $5,000 payout to each Innu. The bank, however, said it would take some time to process the loan. Paul Rich then motioned:

"Paul Rich made the following motion: To advance money from the Teshipitakan Fund to provide money for the per capita payout, and the money advanced from the Fund will be replaced once the loan money is available. The motion was seconded by Gregory Rich. BMO Trust Company, the corporate trustee, abstained from voting because of the conflict of interest with the application for a loan from the Bank of Montreal.  All other trustees present voted in favour and the motion was carried. The trustees were advised that tomorrow is the earliest the funds could be advanced. Janet will discuss with Lorraine Rich and Karen Penunsi about how much money to hold back. Only the amount that we are paying out will be sent to the band office."

In a somewhat incredible twist of events, a sum of $25,000,000 for housing was changed to a sum of $12,500,000 for individual $5,000 payments, days after the New Dawn was successfully approved by referendum, and motioned by Paul Rich - Peter Penashue's brother-in-law. The Peter behind the Muskrat Falls dam as it were. Interestingly, if you do the math, $5000 multiplied by 2245 people comes out to $11,225,000 leaving $775,000 left over. It appears that the early concerns of some trustees that this housing money would be used for personal payouts was warranted after all. It was noted in the minutes that once a major loan was drawn using the children's trust as collateral no other loan could be made in a similar fashion. So, after the New Dawn payout was made the housing crisis was to remain a housing crisis. The sudden reward for voting in favour of the New Dawn, or so it would appear, and the sudden rush to get the money into the hands of the Innu, robbed the future trustees of any ability to leverage that fund for any other purpose. As an aside, the trustees are currently trying to amend the terms of the trust so they can gain access directly to its funds.

The questions that now surround the New Dawn Agreement, which was necessary for the Muskrat Falls project to proceed, are many. Most seem to centre on what happened during the referendum to approve the New Dawn Agreement. It is illegal to offer a reward or bribe to people for voting in favour of a particular thing. It appears quite obvious this $5,000 per person payment was a big reward for some of the poorest people in Canada. There has been many stories of voting money and alcohol bribes to get the Innu to vote in favour of the New Dawn Agreement. In the end though, without sworn affidavits from the Innu themselves, these remain just stories. However, the $5000 per person payments just days after the vote, and sudden in its conception, leads to the inevitable conclusion that these funds were either a reward or a promise of reward fulfilled. That is my take on it. I have also been advised the RCMP were provided with all the documentation surrounding this issue a year ago, but have done nothing in the way of an investigation or forensic audit. If bribery or reward was used on some of the poorest people in the country to push forward the Muskrat Falls dam project, well, that is just unjustifiable in a country that we think we understand. Surely our provincial government knew these payments had taken place. It goes against our laws, our core beliefs, and everything we believe in as a people.

Political Donations the Penashue - the inside look

There is just something so blatant, so manipulative, so insulting to the citizens and the law of our country about Peter Penashue's electoral victory in 2011. For me, knowing how corrupted Newfoundland and Labrador politics is, this one drew my attention. Still, I seriously believed that nobody would have the gall to try and play the games they play with politics in this province on the federal level - with all its rules. I have to say I was seriously wrong on that one.

To start with, Penashue's campaign filed an initial return on March 19, 2011. Immediately jumping off the page are the 17 corporate donations, which are illegal, and in particular the Pennecon donation for $5,500.00 - which exceeds the allowable donation by an individual allowed to donate. That was just the initial take. There were 11 individual donations (although 3 were from a "K Williams" which would also violate the law) to go along with the 17 corporate donors. Total donations were $27,850 and $18,710 in non-monetary (read plane rides).

Then there is another list of contributors - all dated after March 19, 2011. There are only 2 corporations on this list, and 63 individuals. Together the two lists paint a picture of deciept, and corporate manipulation of the electoral process - in my opinion. Here are the facts, you be the judge. Don't be afraid to leave me a message on here of what your take is.

To begin with, the first list has three individuals names on it that disappear on the second list - which is odd if you believe Penashue needed all the individual contributions he could get to offset those corporate ones: John Higham, from Nova Scotia based Chignecto Consulting Group (they were the Innu Nation's advisors on the New Dawn Agreement deal); Sheila Montague; and a "K Williams" that made three seperate donations on Mar 30, 2011 (twice) and May 4, 2011. The remainder of the individual donators on the original list show up again on the second list.

This is where it gets tangly folks. This is where the ugly really comes. In this list you are going to find: family of a former provincial leader of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia (and several people using his address to make donations - FYI he now doubles as President of Grand River Ironsands Inc in Labrador); principles of the Innu Nation's auditors (and family); executives of Pennecon and Penney Group, Law firms for the Innu Nation; Consultants for the Innu Nation; a Quebec construction company; Innu "partnerships" with private corporations; and the list goes on. To get the feel for what is happening economically and politically in Labrador, and Newfoundland for that matter, you need to read this and let it sink in. To make this as readable as possible I've broken down each donor one-by-one. Allowed or Disallowed is to indicate whether or not Elections Canada accepted the donation as legitimate:

Roland Andrews - Clarke's Beach councilor, campaign manager for PC Glen LittleJohn, and employee of NL Hydro-CFLCo. ALLOWED

Michael Barrett - President Academy Canada, Corner Brook. ALLOWED

Larry Barry - actually Lawrence Barry, sole director of Chaisson Construction, director of Innu-Chaisson Construction Ltd (Innu partnership). NOT ALLOWED

Brian Brace - owner Brace's Woodworking. NOT ALLOWED

Rose Branton - wife of Edgar Branton who is director of Innu-Rail Cantech Ltd (Innu Partnership with Quebec company) and financial controller of the Innu Nation. Address used on the return was that of Branton's Enterprises Ltd in Gould's. ALLOWED

Michael Burrell - actually Michael Barrett but entered as a different person. Address used the same as Barrett's. NOT ALLOWED

Gary Callahan - jointly owns Pencal Supplies Ltd with Max Penahue (Peter's brother). Listed on original donation list as Penecal Plasters which doesn't legally exist. NOT ALLOWED

Kathy Capp - listed with an address that does not match a postal code, and the city name spelled wrong, in Nova Scotia. No information is available for her. ALLOWED

Bryan Chafe - actually "Brian Chafe". Chief Operating Officer of Provincial Airlines. ALLOWED

Brad Cole - Vice-President at Pennecon. NOT ALLOWED

Sandy Connors - owner of Switch Electrical Ltd, in partnership with Cahill and Max Penashue (Peter's brother) and Bart Jack (Jr) in a "partnership" called "Iskueteu, A Limited Partnership" which is not incorporated. Fred Cahill appears as contact for Cahill and Sandy Connors for Switch. Cahill head office is listed as the "corporate" address and Switch's address is listed as the "operations" address. Cahill was awarded the ECPM services contract for Muskrat Falls by SNC Lavalin. Eskueteu has been awarded work on the Voisey's Bay project. NOT ALLOWED

Eric Coombs - Chartered Accountant - principle at Gardener Coombs Winsor Coombs Chartered Accountants (GCWC). Auditors for the Innu Nation. ALLOWED

Jane Coombs - wife of Paul Coombs, who is a principle at GCWC. Address listed on return is that of Ranstar HSE Services & Consulting owned by David and Renee Randell. ALLOWED

Lorraine and Robin Cooper - owners of Blizzard Corp, and Minipi Outfitters. ALLOWED

Brad Dalley - General Manager for Newfoundland Multi-Foods Ltd located in Labrador, which is owned by the Warr family. Bob Warr sits on the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. ALLOWED

Dove Dyer - address is that of Resource Development Associates Inc., directors David and Rhonda Dyer. No Dove Dyer was found. ALLOWED

Phillip Earl - Sole director, President and CEO of Air Labrador. NOT ALLOWED

Gail Ernest - Unable to locate in Nova Scotia. Incorrect postal code. ALLOWED

Salvatore Furino - Vice-President at H.J. O'Connell, a Quebec construction firm that has/had "partnerships" with Labrador Construction Ltd, SNC Lavalin, Innu-Kiewit and Sons (another partnership), and Innu Nation. H.J. O'Connell has been awarded the bulk excavation work on Muskrat Falls. ALLOWED

Barb Gilles - really Barb Giles, of Hodge Brother's Ltd - Lab City (company address used on return). NOT ALLOWED

Geoffrey Goodyear - director of Universal Helicopters, along with John Steele, Harry R. Steele, and Norm Noseworthy. Innu Mikun Helicopter Service (unincorporated) is in "partnership" with Universal Helicopters, Canadian Helicopters, and the Nunasiavut Government. ALLOWED

Michael Hickey - director of Hickey Construction (forestry). Partner in Kakatshu Limited Partnership - Innu partner is Michel Rich. NOT ALLOWED

Lloyd Hillier - Owner of Hotels North. Partner with Innu in Nika Wood. Innu partners are Michel Rich and Bart Jack (jr). ALLOWED

Steve Hurlburt - V.P. and Secretary Treasurer of H.J. O'Connell Ltd (Quebec). ALLOWED

Larry Innes - Partner at Toronto's Olthius, Kleer Townshend LLP, law firm for the Innu Nation. Resident of Alberta. No personal address in Labrador despite using a Goose Bay address on the donation return. Registered federally as a lobbyist using the address of the Innu Nation office in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. NOT ALLOWED

Innu Mikun Limited Partnership - partnership with Innu Development Limited Partnership (unincorporated) and Provincial Airlines (that supplied Penashue with a writeoff for most of his air travel during the campaign). ALLOWED

Kurt Jacobs - VP at Dexter Construction of NS, subsidiary of Municipal Group of Companies NS. Gray Rock/Municipal Group of companies formed "partnership" with the Innu Development Limited Partnership to create Innu Municipal GP inc/Gray Rock Mining. Jacobs is the General Partners contact in the partnership. ALLOWED

Gerald Kerr - principle at Chignecto Consulting Group Inc. Helped Innu Nation negotiate the Voisey's Bay and Lower Churchill Impact Benefit Agreements. Lists 9 federal departments as clients. NOT ALLOWED

Nancy Kleen - is actually "Nancy Kleer" founding partner of   Olthius, Kleer Townshend LLP, law firm for the Innu Nation. Unlike her partner she used the wrong name instead of the wrong address. ALLOWED

Leonard Knox - Vice President, Major Projects/Eastern Canada Bird Construction, parent company of  H.J. O'Connell Ltd. (Quebec) ALLOWED

Brian Lemessurier - President of H.J. O'Connell (Quebec) ALLOWED

Richard Levert - President of Levert Personnel. (Ontario) ALLOWED

Rich Lewis - owner Lewis Concrete Forming Ltd. Aboriginal business. NOT ALLOWED

Lloyd McDougall - Retired RCMP, owns Mass Consulting Inc (was on the original donors list) in NS (security). Also with CAI Logistics. CAI Logistics has a partnership with CAI Nunatsiavut Marine - a Labrador Ferry service. This person is listed under the same address as Francis MacKenzie, former leader of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and President of Grand River Ironsands. NOT ALLOWED

Gladys MacKenzie - wife of Francis MacKenzie, former leader of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and President of Grand River Ironsands. She is listed at the same address as Lloyd McDougall and Simeon Osmond. ALLOWED

Charles MacKenzie - relative of Francis MacKenzie, former leader of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and President of Grand River Ironsands. ALLOWED

Ed Murphy - Senior VP of Finance, Pennecon Limited. NOT ALLOWED

Donald Noseworthy - Senior VP of the Energy Division, Pennecon Limited. ALLOWED

Geraldine Noseworthy - wife of Donald Noseworthy. ALLOWED

Patrich O'Callahan - should be "Patrick O'Callahan" founder of East Coast Catering. They are in a "partnership" with Innu Development Limited Partnership to operate Labrador Catering Limited Partnership. ALLOWED

Gus Ollerreed - President, Provincial Airlines. ALLOWED

John Olthius - one of the founding partners of  Olthius, Kleer Townshend LLP, law firm for the Innu Nation. ALLOWED

Simeon Osmond - Atlantic Policy Congress for Aboriginal peoples (NS). Address listed under the same address as Francis MacKenzie, former leader of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and President of Grand River Ironsands. NOT ALLOWED

Neil Parrott - director N.E. Parrott Surveys Limited. Address used is business address. Involved with surveying Innu lands. Listed as N.E. Parrott Surveys on original donor list. NOT ALLOWED

Geoffrey Pearly - Could not find an individual under this name. The address listed for this person was false, and no such person lives at the address given in the return - personally verified. ALLOWED

Max Penashue - brother of Peter Penashue. Involved in numerous Innu companies. NOT ALLOWED

Ches Penney - Chairman of Pennecon Limited, Chairman of Penney Group holding over 60 companies and employing over 3000 people. NOT ALLOWED

Barney Powers - Father of Tim Powers of SUMA and vocal supporter of the Lower Churchill development. Barney Powers is a director of Labrador Construction (2005) Limited that had partnerships with H.J. O'Connell, Innu Nation, Labrador Inuit and Peter Kiewit and Sons. Apparently Barney has been retired for a few years, but his name remains on the corporate registry. ALLOWED

Carlos Presado - President Labrador Catering Limited Partnership. NOT ALLOWED

Provincial Airlines Ltd - the company that granted a major writeoff of the costs of Peter Penashue's election travel. ALLOWED

Larry Puddister - C.E.O. Pennecon Limited. NOT ALLOWED

Thomas Randell - Data provider - Innu Mikum Airlines. NOT ALLOWED

Edward Reid - Financial Officer, Department of Natural Resources, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. ALLOWED

Angela Rich -  ECE Coordinator at Sheshatsui Innu First Nation; and director Innu Nation. NOT ALLOWED 

Paul Rich - Peter Penashue's brother in law. NOT ALLOWED

Ben Rich - director: Atsanik Nitassinan Scaffolding Ltd; Mamu Solutions Inc.; Uapishkut Construction Ltd.; Pishumuss Group of Companies; Shshatshiu Innu First Nation councilor; and Innu Nation. NOT ALLOWED

Charles Roe - unable to confirm any information here other than the address is wrong, but the postal code is right for a C.P. Roe. ALLOWED

Richard Sheppard - General Manager, East Coast Catering Ltd, in partnership with Labrador Catering Limited Partnership. Bidding on the Lower Churchill EPCM contract. NOT ALLOWED

Paul Snelgrove - President, Labrador Sales Ltd. Labrador Sales Ltd was on the first donors list. NOT ALLOWED

Perry Trimper - First VP Stantec Consulting. Involved in two Innu/ Inuit partnerships: Aivek Stantec; and Stassinu Stantec. Involved in the environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill project for Nalcor. ALLOWED

Jerry White - Chief Financial Officer Penecon Limited. NOT ALLOWED

Darryl Winsor - Chartered Accountant, principle at Gardener Coombs Winsor Coombs Chartered Accountants (GCWC). Auditors for the Innu Nation. ALLOWED

Herbert Woodward - President of: Hamilton Store Limited; Hamilton Wholesalers Limited; and Northland Catering Services.

And that is it! You may ask yourself, given the often repeating nature of corporate and innu relationships outlined here how Elections Canada decided to allow some donations and not others? It would be a fair question...The threads of this seem to be replacing obvious corporate donations with private ones. The donations almost all clearly corporate in nature. A number are disguised in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from the donators - that is illegal. There are some curious things happening in the Nova Scotia donations - especially those centered around the home address of the former leader of the Liberal Party there. There are somewhat shocking ones like those of the auditors of the Innu Nation. And so it goes. You be the judge. My conclusion is the RCMP should be first in and last out here, and Peter Penashue should not have the audacity to run in a byelection that was caused by such obvious manipulations. In many ways this election return reflects the nature of politics in Newfoundland and Labrador where anything goes and there is no accountability. That is not how it goes nationally though...Mr. Penashue and company.

One last story for you to digest on while you contemplate what you read here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/13/innu-nation-angry-as-former-chief-paid-1m-in-two-years/



FROM THE ELECTIONS CANADA ACT:

No circumvention of limits

405.2 (1) No person or entity shall

• (a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or
• (b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.

No concealing of source of contribution

(2) No person or entity shall

• (a) conceal, or attempt to conceal, the identity of the source of a contribution governed by this Act; or
• (b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.

Prohibition – accepting excessive contributions

(3) No person who is permitted to accept contributions under this Act shall knowingly accept a contribution that exceeds a limit under this Act.

Prohibited agreements

(4) No person or entity shall enter into an agreement for the provision for payment of goods or services to a registered party or a candidate that includes a term that any individual will make a contribution, directly or indirectly, to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant