Harper, a Caligula for our time.

In normal times I would not write this story, but these aren't normal times. I looked forward to seeing the eyes of the people, through the media, being firmly focused on the scandal enveloping the Prime Minister, his office and the Senate. Yet it was  not to be. Instead, Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford pulled his Samurai sword out and threw himself upon it in front of the blood thirsty Toronto media.

Ford, a personal and political friend of the Prime Minister decided, that of all days, to admit to having tried crack cocaine, by stopping himself in front of the media at his office and asking them to ask him a question that was asked over a year ago: "Did you smoke crack?". That drew the attention of the national and international media for the day, including a dramatic press conference right before the Senate was to have its historic vote which was just a repeat of his earlier performance. Mission accomplished - the night of the long knives in the Senate drew barely a glance.

The fact is Prime Minister Harper, the Caligula of our times, had his guard politically execute three Senators. Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau. The Canadian public had watched this drama take place in record numbers, with about 88% engagement - a record in recent times. The central issue to Senators fighting the Prime Minister's plans was due process - were these Senators being given fair judgement before being suspended. The issue of due process struck home with Canadians as they railed against yet another arbitrary decision of their Prime Minister. After Duffy's revelations of a political conspiracy and cover up, backed by an extensive email and paperwork trail, confirmed for many their thoughts of Prime Minister Harper - he is dishonest.

The three Senators claimed they followed the rules. They produced emails from senior officials authorizing their expenses, and charged the Prime Minister with getting rid of them for to garner political favour with the Conservative Party base.

The Prime Minister, and the Conservative Party, claimed these Senators "broke the rules", were caught by the auditors, and deserved a two year suspension without pay, benefits or use of the Senate facilities and staff. The common spin being if you or I did this in our work place we would be treated no differently - at a minimum.

All these arguments aside, and they can be put aside, the one most relevant guideline that was completely ignored by Harper, the Conservative Party, the Press, and even the Senators is such a move is unconstitutional. The role of the Senate, and the guidelines for all things Senate, is the British North America Act (BNA) of 1867 - our original constitution. It was consolidated with our official constitution in 1982 - The Constitution Act. The BNA makes no provision for suspending a Senator. It does have a very specific set of criteria to fire a Senator:

Disqualification of Senators

31.

The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases: (1) If for Two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails to give his Attendance in the Senate: (2) If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power: (3) If he is adjudged Bankrupt or Insolvent, or applies for the Benefit of any Law relating to Insolvent Debtors, or becomes a public Defaulter: (4) If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime: (5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there.

Not one of these criteria were met. There is the suggestion that these Senators did not reside in their province, but no finding was made to that effect by the Senate or the Courts. Even if they were found not to be residing in their province the sentence is to expelled from the Senate permanently, with a replacement to be chosen. That is a very important fact. The constitution requires that each province in confederation be represented by a specific number of Senators. It states these Senators must be "in" the Senate, and they must "represent" their province. Specifically, from the BNA Act:

Representation of Provinces in Senate

22.

In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions: 1. Ontario; 2. Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island; 4. The Western Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators; the Maritime Provinces and Prince Edward Island by twenty-four senators, ten thereof representing Nova Scotia, ten thereof representing New Brunswick, and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the Western Provinces by twenty-four senators, six thereof representing Manitoba, six thereof representing British Columbia, six thereof representing Saskatchewan, and six thereof representing Alberta; Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members; the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by one member each. In the Case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.

The Senate is in fact, constitutionally, not a "star chamber" of sober second thought. Constitutionally it is described to be a weighted, appointed body that's focus is to represent provincial interests against an otherwise elected House of Commons. The rise of provincial governments in that role has practically diminished that role for the Senate, but on paper that remains its purpose. The bottom line is, the provinces of Quebec, PEI and Saskatchewan are without the constitutionally required number of Senators to represent them for two years. That is unconstitutional. That is improper.

Stephen Harper, the prodigy of Preston Manning, and co-founder of the western based Reform Party of old, has become the ultimate dictator. Instead of changing Ottawa for the better, he has simply used his office as a tool to impose his will. He has abused his power, his authority, and his office. He has shown his ruthlessness, and at the same time exposed to us all that the foundations of our country are but a mere inconvenience to him. It does not make him a strong leader with a vision. It makes him the Caligula of our times here in Canada, and it needs to change immediately.
  

Dunderdale, Skinner, and Despicable Acts

The Elizabeth Matthews secret appointment story grows - expontentially. On Monday,  an indignant Ms Matthews withdrew her nomination as Vice Chair for the Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB), and the already existing position as a regular member of the Board. A furious Minister Kennedy came on the VOCM Open Line show and condemned the Official Opposition for scurrilously attacking poor Ms Matthews character, and lamenting that such attacks were aimed at nothing less than women's rights. That somehow the Opposition was against advancing women in politics. Forget for the moment that the Leader of the Opposition is a woman. Let's focus on his spin. Minister Kennedy ignored the fact that Ms Matthews was secretly appointed. He ignored the fact that the government had an obligation to inform it's citizens about the actual nomination, and not just the hypothetical nomination as Vice-Chair. Again, the spin, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, was put ahead of the actual issue.

Then there is my twitter conversation with David Cochrane of the CBC. Mr Cochrane stated to me that Ms Matthews told him she was unaware of being appointed to the Board. As far fetched as that would seem one would think that lying to the press would be even more so. Surely in a government process, where officials are always making sure they have their collective selves covered, a paper trail will be there - somewhere. Then there is Mr Skinner coming on CBC, NTV and the Telegram and stating:

"There was a process, as I indicated, that was supposed to be followed — and again — I haven't been able to determine why that process wasn't done in a more timely manner, but again, I'm going to investigate that," Skinner said.

He further sated:

"While I respect [Matthews's] decision, I am disappointed that such an accomplished and capable individual was pushed to such a decision by petty political manoeuvring by the Opposition that went too far," Skinner said in a statement Monday.


A nasty shot at the Official Opposition, again, with the purpose of demonizing them and ignoring the issue. His own extended interview on the matter started with him saying there was a communications breakdown. That Ms Matthews was not informed of her appointment, and that he would investigate why. Then he said the problem was politics and not communication problems. Then, at the end of the interview, he went back to his position there was a communications problem. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Fast forward to Tuesday. One day later and a new document is released. A copy of the actual Order in Council authorizing Ms Matthews appointment to the board and nomination as it's Vice Chair:


You will notice that Ms Matthews is listed, along with the Premier, as people to receive copies of the Order. That makes sense considering the Premier put forward the appointment, and Ms Matthews was the person receiving it. In addition, two Deputy Ministers, the Clerk, and the file were to receive copies. That document was dated 21 December, 2011. The only problem being that Ms Matthews and Minister Skinner said she wasn't notified.

Then the bombshell fell Wednesday. The Telegram wrote a story: http://tinyurl.com/48lhz44. Apparently, an spokesperson for Executive Council confirmed that the Order in Council was delivered to Ms Matthews. Oops. Ms Matthews told the CBC she wasn't told she was on the Board. According to the Telegram:

Matthews told The Telegram she received a copy of the order in early January, but was told it was sent to her in error.

“I received an (Order in Council) in the mail in January at which point I contacted the Premier's Office to enquire about its contents,” Matthews said. “I was told they were unaware the (Order in Council) had been sent to me and it should not have been sent.”

Here are some immediate questions. Why would Elizabeth Matthews or the Premier's Office question her receiving a copy of the Order when she is designated to get a copy as stated on the Order?Why should the Oder in Council not be sent to Ms Matthews when she was on the internal distribution list? Why would the Premier's Office, of all Offices, tell her it was mistakenly sent out? Why did Minister Skinner say she wasn't told of her appointment when she was (in January no less)? Why would Ms Matthews have to enquire about the contents of the Order considering her extensive experience as the government's Director of Communications. Then there are the two big questions: Why did Kathy Dunderdale not tell the press the truth, and why did she allow Minister Skinner to mislead the public? After all, according to Ms Matthews, she spoke to the Premier's Office directly about her appointment in January. Ms Matthews knew she was appointed in January. The Premier knew that Ms Matthews was aware of her appointment in January. So why did the premier allow Minister Skinner to mislead the public?

The questions are just finally coming to the real nuts and bolts of things. The bottom line is we can't have politicians lying at will to our press. The press are our ears and eyes, and a firm check on the power of governments. This is the most serious of challenges to our democratic way of life. It challenges the very foundation of our democratic process. This is an issue that should bring down Mr Skinner, Ms Dunderdale, likely Minister Kennedy and perhaps the government in general. A breach of trust. A gross attempt to manipulate it's own citizens for purely partisan reasons. A despicable act by any government claiming to be democratic.

Dundergate - Where is the accountability?

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

“The provincial government has retained the services of local law firm Roebothan McKay Marshall …”
The last line of Tuesday's press release regarding our province's lawsuit against "Big Tobacco". Not a shock in itself. This firm after all is purportedly Newfoundland and Labrador's preeminent personal injury law firm. I suppose you could consider tobacco use as a personal injury. All in the name of redress against the great sins of the producers of the evil weed. Not those that sanction it's sale of course - that would be our government. Try to look past that one for now. Let's look at the pure and unadulterated greed behind it.

For those not in the know Roebothan McKay Marshall used to have another name in front of it - Williams. Yes, that's right, Williams as in former Premier Danny Williams. The same Williams that just left Office in this province leaving behind a leaderless and unprincipled crowd to rule. A crowd that owed their existence to him. A crowd that treats rules and regulations like steeples rather than road blocks. Certainly the recent Auditor General's Report is a classic example of this. Then there is my own experience with the shameless disregard by the Party of the Party's own constitution during the recent leadership non-race - I digress. The point is, as stated in my letter of resignation, this Party and Government has lost it's moral compass. It has abused power and, by the rules of the jungle, it must now lose power.

The conflict of interest in choosing this law firm is obvious. Danny Williams, with several other lawyers, founded this firm. He may or may not still have an interest in this firm - that is an unknown. What is incredibly obvious is that the government is in a gross violation of every common sense rule that applies to politics. Here's one: Justice must not just be done - it must be seen to be done (my version). The arrogance of this decision is apparent just on these grounds. However, it doesn't end there.

Further investigation by Russell Wangersky finds that it was not tendered. A lawsuit that has garnered hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in other jurisdictions is not tendered. We could measure the possible value of such a contract if we new the fee, or more likely percentage, of this contract to William's old firm, except the government won't disclose it. Will not disclose it. It is not unheard of law firms taking on cases for 25 to 30 percent of awards - especially if they know it's a guaranteed win. If that were to be the case here we could lose hundreds of millions to this one law firm. Theoretical of course as the terms aren't being made public.

I often wondered about previous decisions by this government to make futile legal challenges on issues such as the Upper Churchill agreement. It seemed that the only possible winners could be the law firms that did the work. I suppose that is another issue - or is it?

Just to summarize, and wrap my mind around this scandal, a law firm founded by the former premier is awarded a contract of massive proportions less than two months after the former premier departs. The contract is awarded without tender. The government refuses to disclose how much the firm will benefit. All  because they are the best personal injury law firm in the Province...except for one thing: 
"They will be working closely with foreign legal consultants Humphrey, Farrington and McClain of Missouri who have expertise in dealing with tobacco companies.”Okay. So the American law firm are the experts in dealing with Tobacco companies, but we must still have "the best personal injury" firm in the Province involved. Apparently, this US firm was previously contracted for a 30 percent share in any suit against the tobacco companies by the previous Grimes administration. So what's changed? It sounds a lot like Mr Williams old practise of getting a cut on energy deals before allowing them to proceed with their business. Is it the case here that somebody wants a percentage of any deal - other than the American firm of course? Will the St. John's firm get a cut of the American's pie, or is that a further cut of what the people in the Province will receive? Right now we don't know for certain, because the boys and girls in Confederation Building feel we are not worthy of information about our own government.

Another first class reason to have an open and essentially unrestricted access to information law. Our press folks have been calling this government out on it, and it's easy to see why. After all, they are the ones who educate us - thank God somebody is. Frankly, the stench of dictatorship gone bad is wafting throughout the Province, and the antics would be laughable if it were not so painful.

Note to the provincial PC Party: I apologize.You never "lost your moral compass" - you destroyed it.