March

The Progressive Conservatives under Danny Williams were elected on October 21, 2003.

The new House of Assembly began its first session on March 18, 2004, 149 days later.

The Progressive Conservatives under Danny Williams were re-elected on October 9, 2007.

The new House of Assembly began its first session on March 10, 2008, 153 days later.

The Progressive Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale were re-elected on October 11, 2011.

The new House of Assembly began its first session on March 5, 2012. 146 days later.

There is a good argument for the House of Assembly to resume sitting earlier than March.

There is no such good argument, however, to be made by any of the sad-sack band of PC survivors, once members of the Williams and Dunderdale caucuses, who now constitute the official opposition.

Trailblazing

A fascinating couple of bits of Hansard today in the Bow-Wow Parliament, as Susan Sullivan introduces a bill to regulate tanning, piercing, tattooing, and other such body arts:

MS SULLIVAN: In Canada, a number of provinces have either moved forward with regulating tanning facilities or are considering doing so. Nova Scotia currently has regulations in place to ban tanning for those under nineteen years of age. Nova Scotia also requires tanning bed salons to display mandatory health warning signs. This fall, British Columbia may limit the use of tanning beds to those under eighteen, and Quebec is considering an age restriction as well. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we are among the top three or four provinces in the country to move forward with this legislation.

MR. S. COLLINS: I am proud to say that, while we are not the first Province to adopt such legislation, we are amongst the first. Only Quebec and Nova Scotia have a law prohibiting people under the age of nineteen from using tanning beds. All other provinces have voluntary guidelines, which we have as of right now. I am happy to say that BC, Ontario, and Manitoba all have legislation in the works. We are not the trailblazer, but we are one of the few, which I think is something to be very proud of.

We have taken essentially a proactive approach with this. Many provinces have not jumped on board yet. There are some in the queue that are trying to get their legislation together as we are doing right now. It is good to see that all the Canadian provinces are moving towards this. If you look on an international level, as was stated earlier, France, the UK, and Australia have similar measures. The entire countries do.

So, when it comes to tanning beds and tongue-piercing, Dundergov will gladly (a) point to the legislative experience of other provinces, (b) boast about being among the first provinces in Canada to legislate in the field, and (c) actually take some legislative action.




But not when it comes to the whistleblower protection that was promised for the first post-election session of House of Futility back in 2007.

Censorship

From the memory hole, again:

NEWS RELEASE

Censorship:

Government subverting right of public access under Freedom of Information Act

ST. JOHN'S, April 5, 2000 — Opposition Justice critic Tom Rideout says the government has embarked on a deliberate policy to subvert the public's right of access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to information in the records of government departments and agencies.

The purpose clause of the Freedom of Information Act states: "The purpose of this Act is to provide a right of access by the public to information in records of departments and to subject that right only to specific and limited exceptions necessary for the operation of departments and for the protection of personal privacy."

In the legislature Wednesday, Rideout said, "That right is being restricted and denied, illegally, at every turn. And, worst of all, the Minister of Justice has been put in charge of government's censorship strategy. Why has the Minister of Justice, the chief law enforcement officer in the land, accepted this unbecoming role? Why has he allowed the Ministry of Justice to become the Ministry of Government Censorship?"

"The Act says, very specifically, that only the minister of a department that receives a request for information can decide to grant or deny the request. It doesn't happen that way anymore. Every minister and deputy minister have been ordered by the Premier to send all requests for information to the Justice Minister's office, and to comply with that minister's decision. That is a violation of the Act. Why is the Minister of Justice, the person in this province who has a sacred obligation to uphold the law, a willing participant in this scheme to circumvent the law and deny citizens their legal rights under the Freedom of Information Act?" he asked.

Rideout said, "Public servants who know what is going on, laugh at the notion that the Justice Minister's instructions are based solely on legal opinion. Lawyers in his department give professional legal opinions, when asked. But the orders the minister gives departments are not based solely on legal opinion, but are politically motivated to deny information, in contravention of the Act, that would embarrass government or expose government misdeeds."

"The Minister of Government Services and Lands knows the Justice Minister is the Censorship Minister. He has, in fact, been censored by the Justice Minister. He told a journalist – after her request for information about buried fuel tanks was denied – that he wanted to release the information, but the Justice Minister wouldn't let him. What gives the Justice Minister the legal right to deny this request? Certainly not the Freedom of Information Act!" Rideout said.

- 30 -

For more information:
Tom Rideout, MHA Lewisporte

Metaflipflop

The provincial NDP have, if belatedly, come to their senses, and are challenging one bit of Danny Williams-Government legacy, the utterly idiotic special ballot provisions, in court.

This prompted a particularly snotty response from Minister of Whatever Jerome Kennedy Is Minister Of This Month, Jerome Kennedy, who points out (correctly) that the NDP were for Danny Williams' special ballot rules, before they were against them:

PC Party responds to comments of NDP Leader on special ballots
December 8, 2011

The Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador today responded to comments made by Lorraine Michael, Leader of the provincial NDP, who attempted to defend her complete reversal in position on special ballots. The NDP has taken court action to have the election results for the district of Burin-Placentia West declared void. The NDP and Julie Mitchell are presenting the argument that the use of special ballots violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In June 2007, in the House of Assembly, Ms. Michael spoke in favor of special ballots and in fact advocated for their wider use in the electoral process.

“Ms. Michael’s about-face is disturbing on a number of fronts – first of all, her flip-flop on this matter shows a lack of principles and secondly, rather than taking responsibility for her actions, she tried to blame her staff for not doing adequate research,” said Jerome Kennedy, Minister of Natural Resources, Government House Leader and MHA for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. “Our party welcomes the opinion of the court on the matter of special ballots. We take no issue whatsoever with any scrutiny of our electoral process. What is interesting though is the timing of the NDP. If they were so concerned with the process, why didn’t they take this action earlier? And why are they only concerned with one district where the NDP lost? It is obvious that the NDP are so desperate to become the Official Opposition that they have no problem tossing aside the will of the people who voted by special ballot. Ms. Michael is essentially saying to those voters, your votes do not count and I will not respect the choice you made on election day. For a party which has said democracy can only be served with the House of Assembly open, their willingness to disrespect the decision of voters when it is convenient for them is particularly hypocritical.”

Minister Kennedy added “It would be one thing if the NDP were saying they want to improve the electoral process for any future elections, but they want to overturn the will of the voters in the district of Burin-Placentia West after the fact. Democracy is a priority for Ms. Michael and the NDP only when convenient.”

Hmmm.

Superjerome seems to have a principled problem with "flip-flops". Flip-flops are bad now. People who flip-flop lack principles.

Also bad: blaming the help. However, in Ms. Michael's defence it should be noted, as a mitigating factor, she never suggested anyone "should be shot over there."

Flying the democratic flag of convenience, that, too, is a sin in Jerome's books. Or, it is now, anyway.

But here's the kicker. This matter is the subject of a long-overdue challenge under s. 3 of the Charter, possibly the most woefully under-argued of all the Charter rights. It is now before the courts.

Jerome Kennedy 2011, meet Jerome Kennedy 2008:

I say to the Opposition House Leader, as a former Minister of Justice, there is a basic principle that we do not comment on matters before the court. Now, that is accepted. It is one that I understand is enshrined in practice if not in principle. Now, how can one distinguish between the inquiry? Now, I do not know, I say to Madam Chair, the answer to that, but I think it would be prudent to seek guidance from commission counsel as to what should be going on in this House, because the last thing any of us want to do is jeopardize this inquiry.

Politician, heal thyself

Premier Kathy Dunderdale — just like her predecessor — doesn't think much of the body that she volunteered to be elected to:

"I don't find it a place for a very healthy, open, constructive debate to start with," she told the CBC in a post-election interview.

"Most of my issues are around the quality of debate and the research and the fact that you can pretty well get up in the House of Assembly and say whatever it is you like. You don't have to be concerned with truth."

For the record:

Dunderdale was first elected as MHA in 2003, along with 33 other Progressive Conservatives; a 34-member government caucus facing a combined opposition of just 14.

She was re-elected in 2007 as a member of a landslide 44-member PC caucus, facing a combined opposition of just four.

Including those members who were elected in intervening by-elections, Kathy Dunderdale's entire eight-year experience as a Parliamentarian has been as one of 55 Progressive Conservatives against a rolling total of 17 Liberals and New Democrats. (That figure doesn't include this year's crop of first-time MHAs; seven PCs, four Dippers, and three Liberals.)

Thirty of those 55 Progressive Conservatives, an absolute majority of the new House, were incumbents who were re-elected on Tuesday night.

That is to say: Kathy Dunderdale, in her entire elected political career, has never known anything other than a House of Assembly that is overwhelmingly dominated by fellow Progressive Conservatives.

So when she says that the House isn't "a place for a very healthy, open, constructive debate" — just whose fault is that, anyway?

And why hasn't she, or her party, having sucked almost all of the political oxygen out of the province, ever once taken steps to change that?

Oh yeah — right.

The Dunderdale Test

Kathy Dunderdale tells VOCM Radio:

There's all kinds of people who want fibre, for all kinds of reasons. But are there going to be jobs here for the people, y'know, besides the harvesting? Is there going to be some kind of secondary processing done? Is there going to be a benefit to the people of this region of the province? And unless you can meet that test then, y'know, it's better to leave the trees where they are.

She was referring to "fibre" — formerly known as "trees" — in central Newfoundland, post-Our Dear Repatriation of AbitibiBowater resources and toxic waste.

It is not immediately clear whether the solemn principle laid down in the Dunderdale Test applies to other resources or to other regions of the province.

Coz, if so, hooo boy...

Shut up and go away

The Word of Our Dan:

Premier Danny Williams suggests that former premiers should “shut up and go away” once they leave office, and not criticize incumbent governments.

“I find it sad when former premiers comment on current administrations,” Williams said.

“I pray to God that I never do that when I finish politics.

“I certainly hope that I can make a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that I won’t provide gratuitous comments or opinions on someone who succeeds you — different times, different circumstances.”

...

“I’m disappointed,” Williams said of Peckford’s commentary. “I think there’s a point in time when politicians should move on.”

He said he tries not to comment on the actions of previous administrations, and won’t critique his successor whenever he leaves office.

“Hopefully, I can live up to what I’ve said, and when I get out of politics, then I’ll shut up and go away,” Williams said.

Blessèd be.

Justification (II)

Here's sad-sack Felix Collins again on April 6th, weakly justifying Dundergov's new-found opposition to whistleblower protection legislation that Dandergov promised, in 2007, to implement in the first session of the about-to-expire legislature:

Mr. Speaker, before we embark upon legislation, before we expend significant funds and create more bureaucracy, we will continue to learn from the growing pains of other jurisdictions until we are satisfied that we will bring to this House a bill that is well thought out, thorough and effective to meet the needs of this Province. We need the time to do it right. To proceed immediately, Mr. Speaker, does not give us that time. That is the reason we will be voting against this motion.

For the record: in 2004 there were 9581* provincial government employees, with a total payroll of $368-million.

That's not including other public sectors such as health or education. Just provincial government direct employment.

"Bureaucracy", if you will.

In the twelve months ending March 2010 (the most recent data available), there were 11,263* provincial government employees, with a total payroll of $530-million.

That's an 18% increase in the total number of provgov employees, and a 44% absolute increase in the provgov payroll. (Adjusted for inflation, the payroll increase is "only" 29%.)

Does anyone know when this crowd found the religion of worrying about the funds they spend or the bureaucracy they create? Such deep-rooted concerns were nowhere to be found in the past seven years.

* Twelve-month average, to flatten out the seasonality in provincial government staffing levels.

Nasty

Shawn Skinnew's feewings awe huwt:

MR. SKINNER: We make no apologies on this side of the House for doing good government business, I tell you that. Now, if the members opposite want to continue to get up and be nasty – that is what I will call it, being nasty – talk about what is going on in outside circles, party business; if that is where they are going, they are not going to go very far. The House of Assembly should really be about doing the people’s business. When you bring in partisan politics to people’s business, I think you are a little bit off-track – I think you are a little bit off-track.

I will not go any further with that because I do not want to go down that track myself. I just want to make the point; I just want to advise the members opposite of where their focus should be. I would have thought after having a whole winter to think about what they wanted to come into the House and speak about, the last thing they would have been coming in to talk about would have been petty partisan politics, but obviously that is where they are. We will leave it at that – we will leave it at that.

It sure is a good thing that Shawn Skinner's outfit have never, ever, ever, been partisan, in a nasty, petty, or any other way, in the House of Assembly

Rick rants

Rick Mercer has some good questions and good rants.

It's just too bad that for seven years, he (among many others) turned a wilfully blind eye and a wilfully deaf ear as Danny Williams did, mutatis mutandis, THE EXACT SAME THING.

Jerome Kennedy's family values

Jerome Kennedy is shocked and appalled by the Liz Matthews affair, calling in to VOCM on Monday:

What we can’t forget the human side of all of this, the effect it has on people and has on families. We can attack the decision without attacking the person, and that’s what I think has gotten lost here. The decision – whether it be patronage, whether it’s the right decision – we can have comments on that and we can have debate as we should. But when it gets to the point of attacking the person, like the attacks that have been made here in this case, I find it disheartening and I think it’s simply another reason why good people won’t enter politics.

Remember: Jerome Kennedy was recruited into politics by Danny Williams.

That Danny Williams.

Jerome Kennedy supported Danny Williams.

Yes, that Danny Williams.

So when Jerome Kennedy cries crocodile tears over personal attacks, good people, and their families, well — the Joyce Hancocks of the world, the Quebec Lovers, the Traitors, the Eddiots, don’t they have families, too?

Won’t someone think of the children?

Be not deterred

In her righteously indignant parting snot-o-gram to her detractors, Liz Matthews lashes out at politicians who dare to, umm, politick:

The Opposition will attempt to claim victory; but on the contrary, they have shamefully created this debate for political purposes. I would have hoped that if Ms. (Yvonne) Jones was sincere about wanting a qualified person for this position she would have made a legitimate attempt to find out about my abilities as opposed to spreading inaccuracies. I can only hope that in this — an election year — those who are qualified, energetic and passionate about making this province a better place will not be deterred from taking part in the political process by the unnecessary negativity that sometimes occurs.

This "unncessary negativity", of course, is to be contrasted with its equal but exact opposite, entirely necessary negativity.

Like, say, on April 7th, 2003, when former PC MHA Fabian Manning got up in Question Period, and asked:

Each Member of the House of Assembly has the opportunity to hire a political assistant. Some members who are a part of Cabinet have the opportunity to hire more than one. The Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, all have the right to hire their political staff as they wish. Civil service positions on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, should fall under rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission. To do otherwise is an affront to the union movement and an insult to career civil servants.

Contrary to remarks made by the Premier in a March edition of The Telegram, that the Liberals have not used contractual positions as a way of stacking the public service with Liberal supporters, I have to admit that just the opposite of this statement is true.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier today why his government continues to ignore the Public Service Commission and continues to find jobs for loyal Liberal supporters in the public service without going through a competition process?

Or, as former PC MHA Ed Byrne asked a month later:

Mr. Speaker, last week we saw the appointment of the former Public Relations Director of the Premier’s office to the Bull Arm Corporation. While the Public Service Commission is not necessarily involved in the competition for such political appointments, it is normal procedure, I would think and I would assume that it is, that in appointing somebody to such an important position that some sort of search would have occurred to ensure that the skills set that you wanted, to ensure that the corporation achieved its objectives and goals in terms of attracting business to that site, were achieved.

I would like to ask the Premier this question today: What sort of search did you undertake, as Premier of the Province, to ensure that the skills set that you required to keep the Bull Arm site up and running and going and attracting more business is the one that you got?

In 2011, an election year, it is a threat to our very democracy when the opposition cries foul over patronage appointments.

So, what was it when the current government, then the opposition, did the exact same thing in election year 2003?

Greatest Misses, Vol. I

From the pages of the 2003 edition of the "Bluesheet" — oh, how tempting it is to make a pun with a near-homonym of that word — some of Danny Williams' deeply-held beliefs and fondest ambitions that didn't quite see the light of day. Emphasis added throughout:

Consistent with our energy policy objectives, a Progressive Conservative government will make use of the hydroelectric potential of the Lower Churchill and any electricity that can be recalled or reclaimed from the Upper Churchill to accomplish the following priorities:

• Promote industrial development and meet domestic energy demand in Labrador and then on the Island of Newfoundland.

In order to stabilize government's fiscal position, a Progressive Conservative government proposes the following policies:

• Keeping real program spending constant by limiting the annual growth in spending to the anticipated growth in inflation. New needs that arise will be accommodated within this budget constraint.

In order to stabilize government's fiscal position, a Progressive Conservative government proposes the following policies:

• Approximately 40% of all government expenditures goes towards salaries and employee benefits. Over the next five years, approximately 25% of the public service will be eligible for retirement. A Progressive Conservative government will use this five-year period to reduce the size of the public sector through attrition.

During its first mandate, a Progressive Conservative government will make it illegal for government to spend money without prior legislative approval when the House of Assembly is in session, and restrict spending by Special Warrant to a specific emergency that occurs when the House is not in session.

We will restore a significant, independent role to the House of Assembly through:

• The election of an independent speaker, who will not sit in a caucus or be eligible for a cabinet appointment during the term of a legislature over which he or she presides.

To encourage more people, particularly persons with family responsibilities, to run for election to the House of Assembly, a Progressive Conservative government will:

• Ask the legislature to adopt family friendly election timetables and work schedules, so that Members can combine their work more easily with family and childcare responsibilities. This will involve a fixed legislative calendar with fixed sittings and adjournments dates, an end to legislation by attrition, a fixed budget day, and workable time lines that ensure a proper balance between Members' responsibilities to the legislature, their constituents, and their families. [Ah, so that's why the House never sits... they are being "family friendly" — ed.]

Committees will be expected to meet regularly outside St. John's to provide better access to the general public and to encourage greater participation by individuals and groups. [What's a "committee"? — ed.]

A Progressive Conservative government will take the following actions to close those loopholes:

• Legislate contribution and spending limits for Party leadership contests and nominees in Party candidacy races. [Surely such rules will be legislated before the PC leadership gets under way — ed.]
• Require full disclosure of contributions and expenditures in party nomination contests and elections.
• Require disclosure of contributions to leadership campaigns as they occur and disclosure of independently audited expenses within three months after the election of a new leader.

A Progressive Conservative government will propose amendments to the Elections Act and other relevant acts that will:

• Set and publish content rules for government advertising that will stop the use of public funds for political advertising.

A Progressive Conservative government will:

• Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include amendments that will clearly identify information that should be in the public domain, including cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the information to the public.
• Release to the public every government-commissioned report within 30 days of receiving it, indicate the action government will take on a report's recommendations within 60 days, and ensure prompt public access to all government reports in hard copy and on the Internet.

An open memo

To: All the disgusting Tory plants who piled onto the public pillorying of Wally Andersen for choking up on TV
Fr: Your consciences, if you have any
Subject: Tears

I hope you are capable of feeling shame.

YC, IYHO

Inflammation

Himself went before the microphones today and blurbled the following funny joke:

This inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help that situation, and actually brings out the worst elements in society as a result of it... All we're saying today is that there's no need for this kind of rhetoric, coz that's gonna inflame the situation, it's gonna feed into the vitriolic atmosphere of politics that has now creeped into the province over the course of the last month. And that's only gonna get worse.

This is the same Himself who told an Ottawa audience in June:

And just what is Québec doing with all this revenue? They are giving tax breaks, reducing electricity rates, funding the best child care programs in the country and the lowest tuitions for post-secondary students for only Québec residents.

And Canadians are paying for Québec satellite offices – or mini embassies - in approximately 26 countries including the cities of Barcelona, Taipei, Munich, Mumbai, Vienna, Santiago and Damascus to name just a few.

...

Québec gets its own way because it has achieved the political trifecta. Their provincial special interests are protected by their influential Ministers in the Federal Government, the Provincial Government of Québec and the Bloc - a party that has a significant role in the balance of power which prioritizes issues only of concern to Québec.

And a local audience in September:

Quebec pours its money into huge tax subsidies for its companies, the best childcare programs in the country and massive electricity subsidies for its people valued at seven billion dollars.

Because of its electricity subsidies, it records less provincial revenue on its books, enabling it to qualify for additional federal aid.

Canadians are, in effect, paying Quebec to subsidize electricity exclusively for its own. And they have the skin on them to impede our progress after gouging us the first time.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg of the special deals Quebec’s citizens and enterprises receive from the government and people of Canada, including multi billion dollar subsidies to the aerospace industry. The latest suggestion is for a half billion dollar hockey rink in Quebec City out of public funds.

...

I understand your AGM this year is in Quebec, so I do wish you great success and if I might be so bold I would suggest that you keep your head up!

It's also the same Himself who, not long before His Ottawa speech, slurred the infamous slur:

If we could only keep the Quebec lovers quiet, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice.

It is refreshing, however, to see His born-again beliefs, the veritable zeal of the converted, in expounding on the immorality of inflammatory rhetoric that does nothing to help, that actually brings out the worst elements in society as a result of it; rhetoric that there's no need for, that's gonna inflame the situation, and that's gonna feed into the vitriolic atmosphere of politics that has now creeped into the province.

After all, Dear Leader, you wouldn't want that to get worse, now, would you?

Poppie, what's a Silly Fish?

Another choice morsel from Our Dear Rant last Thursday night before an audience of people who certainly got $500 worth of entertainment:

Anybody knows me, I can take a joke with the best of them... But I gotta tell ya, when those things are said about you personally, when you put yourself in Our shoes, and like I said, you need to put yourselves in the shoes of someone whose grandchild says, “what's that all about, Poppie? why are they saying that? what does that mean? why would they mention something like that?” That's when it hits home. That's when it really hits home. And in politics, that's not necessary.

One hopes, then, that His Premierliciousness will not rest one minute until he finds out who leaked the Westcott email to the press, thereby precipitating all those news stories and radio interviews which linked the words “Danny” and “penis” and “Williams” and so on together in the same paragraph. No stone can be left unturned, no email account left unscoured, every inventory of brown envelopes cross-checked and tabulated, until that person, who caused, even if inadvertently, so much pain to the First Family, has been found out and dealt with in accordance with whatever the law is this week.

Giv'em hell, Danny.

On the other hand, it is a refreshing change, coming from Him, to learn that family matters, well, matter. It is a welcome turn that He now believes that the families of those in public life should be shielded from the slings and arrows that dominate the Roman arena that is political life in a democracy.

It wasn't always thus.

For example, on April 19, 2005, Himself rebutted questions about potential familial conflicts of interest not, as you might expect, by invoking the sanctity of the family, but rather by dragging the questioner's family into the debate as well:

MR. GRIMES: Again, I guess he does not want to tell us exactly whom it is that he divested the interest in.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these conflict of interest concerns and the potential of a minister who is participating in decisions that impact his immediate family, I ask the Premier: What conflict of interest guidelines do you expect your ministers to follow when participating in Cabinet decisions relating to family members?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We will follow the same guidelines that were followed by the previous government, for the Leader of the Opposition. As a former premier, he knows what those guidelines are. He knows how we behaved when we were on the other side of the House. There was no character assassination. There was no attempt to defame someone’s character, someone like the Minister of Finance, who has an impeccable reputation in this Province. To go on a character assassination is really pitiful, quite frankly, and very unfortunate. As a matter of fact, this particular gentleman has a legal lawsuit against the hon. gentleman opposite for the statements that he has made. There is no doubt about it, what he said.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if I can, while the hon. gentleman opposite was in power as Premier of this Province, we acted as a responsible Opposition because - in fact, the hon. Premier’s brother Ross was a negotiator for CUPE, at a time when he was Premier, and he gave a raise to the public section unions. Your brother was a public sector negotiator. Did we come up and ask you whether you excused yourself? His brother happens to be a pastor, was he involved in the denominational education discussions? His other brothers actually work at Abitibi. In fact, did he excuse himself when the legislation was passed for the No. 7 machine in Grand Falls? Did he excuse himself on that? Finally, when your good wife, who works at NAPE, sits there in the office, in a very important position, did we ever, for one minute, question your -

AN HON. MEMBER: The NLTA

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am sorry, the NLTA. Did we ever question your integrity or try and attack your character or assassinate you or your family like you are trying to do this man? That is absolutely despicable!

The scene replayed itself the next day:

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister has stated that he did not leave the Cabinet Table when the decision to implement production quotas was taken and he is stating that he will not leave the Cabinet meeting when the crab production quota issue is discussed in the future. He is taking this action even though he has brothers who may directly benefit from this government policy.

I ask the Premier: Is the Premier aware that two of the Finance Minister’s brothers are on the Board of Directors of the Association of Seafood Producers, an organization that has lobbied hard to have these production quotas implemented? If he did know that, why did he then still permit his Finance Minister to be actively involved in these discussions with such an obvious conflict of interest in play?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the reputation, the honesty, the ethics, the integrity, of the Minister of Finance is not in question. It is not questioned by members on this side of the House; it is not questioned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. For you to continue on this particular attack, which you are doing, is not only libellous and defamatory - as I have said to you before - it is scandalous and it is embarrassing to you and to your Party.

Now, having said that, there is a double standard. What happened in your Cabinet when things were discussed, when your brother was a negotiator for CUPE? What about when things were discussed concerning Abitibi and forestry, when your brother or brothers were working with that organization? What happened when the hon. gentleman from Twillingate & Fogo was Minister of Education and his good wife was a teacher, and he did allocations? What happened there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What about when the Member for Torngat, whose brother was a negotiator for the LIA -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Or on May 1, 2006, when the questioner did not even start with any reference to any government members' family:

MR. REID: I asked the Premier when he had discussions with FPI and Mr. Barry concerning this issue, because, just before the Easter break, in listening to the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier himself, they said they were not having discussions with FPI about anything; they were meeting with themselves in the Premier’s office. Yet we see, in a news release from FPI, that they did indeed have discussions with the government. All I asked was why or when you had these discussions. Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier does not want to answer questions about FPI; he would prefer to hide away and cut deals on the side.

Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate Mr. Barry and Mr. Risley, the FPI Act will either have to be amended or abolished outright. I ask the Premier: If this proposal is accepted, the one that your minister trotted out last week, which route will this government take?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman fails to understand is that there is no proposal being accepted; everything is being considered. All options are being considered.

The hon. gentleman was Minister of Fisheries and part of a government for years, and chaired an all-party committee. He seems to have all the answers now, but we inherited what they left us. You have to remember that the management of FPI changed under their watch. That is when it changed. The number of plants that were closed by that particular party when they were in government is a significant number of plants, and the problem, as we all know, there is a significant problem with the management of FPI. That is the problem, that is the root of the problem, so we are trying to work our way through a very, very complex and a very, very difficult situation; but, as to accommodating Mr. Barry or the brother of the Member for Grand Falls, or any of these people, these people are at the table. They are at the table; we are prepared to listen to them. If there are responsible business people in this Province then we are prepared to consider their offers.

And again on November 23 of that year:

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, whatever the hon. member is trying to imply, there is nothing untoward or anything improper about this process. This proposal was submitted to INTRD. It was not submitted to the Department of Business. It did not go through the Department of Business; it went through Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. That is exactly where it went, and that is the normal process.

Of course, the hon. member opposite is a former minister and she knows that, but she is still trying to imply impropriety and something wrong with this, and still trying to put a slur on this and talk about a public inquiry. I mean, where does that go? Do we now go back and start to review every single business transaction that has ever happened with this government?

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, her brother does business with this government all the time, a very reputable business person, and when he and his companies come with a proposal we take them in good faith and we deal with them in the normal course. If we have to bring him in to a public inquiry or an independent inquiry, or anybody else, any other people who do business with government - what does she say about when she was in government and the Apollogate or Country Ribbongate? You are so cute to use the term cablegate, let’s talk about some of the other transactions that (inaudible).

And, closing out that fall's sitting of the Bow-Wow Parliament, in response to a question from the current interim opposition leader, Kelvin Parsons:

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, you know this is an unusual procedure for a government to even allow an Auditor General to come in on a very reasonable business deal, an economic development tool, and allowing him to come in and even have a look at it. We are giving him lots of time to do that.

It is interesting you mentioned the word penny, because as a result of your new diligence, as a result of the cross, that we are on the road to Damascus, where now there is a whole new scrutiny in government, we have decided that we are going to take a closer look at what they did. Now that you mentioned the word penny, it would be interesting to note that the brothers of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, since 1998 to 2004, got $76 million in contracts from Works, Services and Transportation. Now, we are not alleging that there is anything wrong with that, but we are putting that out for public disclosure because we are going to disclose all the information. We will even disclose what your sons got when you were Justice Minister and the legal work that they got from the Department of Justice. Do you know something? They are good lawyers and we do not see anything wrong with that.

And from the then-member for Grand Bank:

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, the new-found righteousness that has come over on the other side. This is the same minister who decided to take her husband on a little trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They went to Australia and New Zealand to see if they could find Crocodile Dundee maybe - Crocodile Judy. They also went to China and they dropped into Hawaii on the way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

His family is sacrosanct.

Your family, however... your family might just have a target painted on them.

Offensive, vile, and mean-spirited

Once again, Danny Wiwwiams is suffewing fwom huwt feewings:

“His behaviour has been vile, for want of a better term. You know, the statements that he made in the email were very, very offensive. Not only offensive to me but offensive to a lot of people. Then, when he and the Liberal party came back and said that this was really a joke, that just made it worse.

Williams called the comments “mean spirited” and said he felt it was important to point out Westcott’s previous actions.

“I don’t want the caucus members in my party subjected to this kind of vile behaviour.

You see, gentle reader, here’s the funny thing.

There is no small number of people who would think it vile — for want of a better term — when the Premier of a province says of certain public health-care employees, “It's disgraceful. They should be shot over there."

There is no small number of people would would think it mean-spirited to refer to members of the legislative opposition as “Quebec lovers”, and belittle the Leader of the Opposition by sarcastically calling her “mademoiselle”, one of the four French words he knows.

There is no small number of people who would think it offensive to call refer to the leader of the NDP, given her former career, as “holier than thou”.

There is a huge number of people, a huge, silent number of people, who thought it gravely offensive for an officer of the court to suggest that a Supreme Court Justice “got up on the wrong side of the bed” for making a decision that did not meet Our Dear Approval.

There is an even huger number of people who thought it offensive when the heard, live on the air, the same man berate a radio journalist, whose mind was insufficiently blown by some announcement or another, that “we don't need that kind of crap and pessimism coming out of your mouth”

There is at least one person who was offended when he sneeringly dismissed a member of his own caucus with “Pfff. Anyway, for what it's worth, he's entitled to his opinion.”

There’s at least one person who could have torqued it as a threat of violence, when he threatened a municipal election candidate with a “shit-knocking”. And, invoking the new Westcott precedent, even though this episode was before he entered into his current job, it still matters.

There are some people who find it vile and offensive when he refers to domestic political opponents, or even private citizens, as “traitors” who “betray” us with their “betrayal”.

And there are people who still remember the patronizing, bordering on sexist, comments, by the leader of a party and a government, who expressed his “disappointment” in female leaders of other parties for having the temerity to question or oppose him; for snotty references like “Miss Guy can do her 'Dear Diary' notes alongside of her, whassername”; or for using the phrase “Joyce Hancocks of the world” as a pejorative.

Vile, offensive, and mean-spirited.

And those kinds of things are bad, apparently. At least when they directed at Him.

Which is, of course, why He apologized for all of those comments.

Oh, wait. No it isn’t.

In fact, on one occasion, when expressly offered the opportunity to apologize for one of His dantrums, He was offended at the very suggestion:

"No are you kidding, apology?" a visibly upset Mr. Williams scoffed to reporters Thursday, defending his government and Health Minister Ross Wiseman's role in an Eastern Health press release boondoggle this spring.

"There will be no apology. Why should I apologize for protecting the health and the safety of the people of this province?"

In the matter of Westcott vs. Williams, it’s no trouble to see who is the bigger man.

How to negotiate properly (I)

In response to this Telegram article, one of the usual suspects retorts, in a comment on the newspaper's Facebox page:

Well, with the big mouths and loose lips of the Liberals, I wouldn't tell them anything to make sure they don't pooch the deal. When they can keep a secret and negotiate properly, we'll let them sit with the adults.

Which is high-stericly funny, because not so very long ago, the complaint from the usual suspect's personal hero was that certain mouths and lips weren't big and loose enough. Like on this occasion:

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in his leadership campaign, policy statement number six, in January of this year, the Premier told the people of the Liberal Party who placed him in office as Premier, and I quote him: The new Freedom of Information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - should not be used as a vehicle to frustrate or prevent the quick dissemination of public information. I would ask the Premier: If he is so interested in providing the public with information, why does section 23(1)(e) of the bill prevent disclosure of information about negotiations carried on by your government?

...

MR. WILLIAMS: The negotiations that are before the people of this Province are very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier. Isn’t is a fact that Section 23(1)(c) of the act gives you and your government virtual veto power to deny the public information about any negotiations which your government carries on, including Voisey’s Bay and including the Lower Churchill?

Or this one:

MR. WILLIAMS: What I would like to do, first of all, is share with some of the hon. members opposite. Now I do not know if any of them were in the room at the time, but last December 5, when I announced my intention for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party - I am not sure if any hon. members opposite were there on that day when I announced it. In case you were not, I am going to tell you what I said. The reason it is important is because the Minister of Justice indicated that on December 12, 2000, a review committee was set up to look at the Freedom of Information Act. Well, a week before that I made a statement - and you must have reacted to it because I quoted Abraham Lincoln, he said: "Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of this Province fully informed; there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden agenda. If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course for our future.." of this Province. That is what I said at that time, and a week later the committee was struck to review the Freedom of Information Act. I am glad that you took that initiative.

...

That is what my platform is all about; no hidden documents, no hidden agenda. That is why our position is so clear on Voisey’s Bay. No secret negotiations, no secret documents. If the people know the country will be safe, and they have a right to know. They need to know the details on major negotiations of a $50 billion resource. They have a right to know. Why should it be kept secret? That is why I said it.

Let’s go to our policy on Freedom of Information, which is contained in our Blue Book in the 1999 election. "A PC Government will establish a new Freedom of Information Act to reduce the cost of accessing information...". First point, reduce the cost of accessing information. Secondly, "...to reduce the wait for information, and to ensure that Ministers actually provide the information requested where that information belongs in the public domain...". Three pretty sound, reasonable principles.

Now, the comment from the Minister of Justice. In the paper he talked about a change of attitude. If I may, I have to take off my glasses because I am nearsighted. That change will not come overnight, he said, there is a mindset that has to be changed. It is no good to have a progressive piece of legislation if we do not change the mindset and understand that it is the public’s right to access the information. I agree with the Minister of Justice. The mindset of members opposite should be changed, I agree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Because the mindset was wrong for twelve years; hidden agendas, secrecy. Open it up, give them the information.

Or this one:

MR. WILLIAMS: Our legitimate concern is that if the ore leaves the Province and there is nothing to bring it back to, then it will not come back. That is the fundamental issue on Voisey’s Bay. This clause hides negotiations. It was not in the old Freedom of Information Act. We are trying to have a more open act, and now what we have, is a more secretive act. That is what we have accomplished, which is sad. The people have a right to know. They have a right to know what the government is negotiating on their behalf.

If we allow this clause to go through as is, without the amendment that is presented by the Opposition, then government can continue to have secret negotiations. So if the Minister of Mines and Energy wants to have secret negotiations about oil and gas, well, then he can do so. If he wants to have secret negotiations or negotiations in private about the Lower Churchill, our hydroelectric power, then he can do that as well. They can basically negotiate all the resources of this Province away, have the deals done and the people will never know what happened, what the reason were or why they did it. That is why this amendment is so very, very important to this legislation.

Or this one:

MR. WILLIAMS: I find it quite interesting that we received this update about - well, I guess it is an hour ago now - thirty minutes before we came into the House and have received nothing since August 1 when the original principles were announced. Now that the Premier has to provide some information to this House, he is providing it.

He originally said the deal would be done by the end of September, by the middle of September. We are now into November. Why now? Do you know why now? Because he lost a by-election in July. He has now gotten hammered in another by-election and these are the desperate actions of a desperate man and a desperate government.
Once again, we are in the dark. It has all been done in secret. Negotiations are completely in secret. We get a two-page update today on what is going on. That is all he has provided.

Voisey’s Bay all over again. Everything is done in secret. No information provided. I call on the Premier to make all the information available, to have a full debate, but let’s do it before that agreement is signed and let’s have a real shot at it this time around.

Or this one:

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with each passing day we learn more and more about the terms of the secret deal on the Lower Churchill, which appears to be a very, very bad deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and a very, very good deal for Quebec. Now we all know why it is, in fact, a hidden deal and why the Premier will not answer any questions on the terms.

Or as the Telegram reported eight years ago this past Monday:

Opposition Leader Danny Williams wants to be in the know about the Lower Churchill deal being negotiated with Quebec.

Pledging that a Tory government would consult with its Opposition, Williams said Thursday he wants to help Liberal Premier Roger Grimes reach the best possible deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

"Unfortunately, because (the deal) is being negotiated in secret, we know very little about this deal and therefore are not able to provide constructive thoughts and suggestions as to how it can be improved," he said.

"It is fundamentally different from the principles agreed to with Quebec in 1998. In fact, this entire arrangement sprang out of nowhere just days after talks between this province and Alcoa fell apart. There has not been a single update provided to the House of Assembly."

Promises to keep

His Dannyosity is displeased.

As usual.

The Telegram:

Premier Danny Williams says the executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association broke a promise to government.

During his leader’s annual report at the PC Party convention Saturday morning, he said Rob Ritter ensured government that raises given to attract and retain pathologists and some oncologists in May 2008 would not be used as a bargaining chip during general negotiations between the province’s doctors and the government.
That agreement reached in 2008 meant some specialists in this province went from the lowest paid in the country to among the highest, according to the health minister of the day, Ross Wiseman.

But Williams said Saturday that Ritter has not kept that promise and suggested that’s what has lead to prolonged negotiations with the association.

VOCM:

Premier Danny Williams is accusing the top official of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association of going back on his word. It all stems from the situation a few years ago where government stepped in and gave oncologists and radiologists a big raise to head off what was percevied then as a dire situation. The Premier was under the impression that the monetary injection would not be used against government in future negotiations with physicians. However, the Premier says it is one of the things holding up a deal on a new contract for doctors.

He says NLMA executive director Rob Ritter has gone back on his word.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ritter, the NLMA's bargaining position is utterly untenable in the face of such stinging criticism from Danny Williams, Mr. Decency, who has never ever ever broken a promise or gone back on his word in his life.

Wilt, Ritter, wither! in the face of such upstanding and decent consistency.

The showboat must go on

The Hurricane Igor fundraising concert gets a last-minute addition to the playbill:

Premier Danny Williams and the cast of “Republic of Doyle” have been added to the list of those who’ll take to the stage at the concert, a benefit for the victims of Hurricane Igor.

Danny Williams couldn't have heard Danny Williams' recent pronouncement: Showboats don't count. Boo!