Politics as Usual

Politics as Usual

By: Ryan Young

When I decided to take a summer hiatus from all things politics, I made the decision because I found I was becoming a very angry person. Every time I checked the news or my social media feed there seemed to be another story revolving around arrogant MHA’s and/or incompetent ministers.  Anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I am very far from a naturally angry person, so I decided to take a break to try to find some balance in my life.

The break did wonders for my spirit, but no matter how much I tried to avoid reading, writing, or talking about politics, it was damn near impossible to keep a blind eye to everything that has been happening in our provincial political whirlwind. Oh, to be a sheep…

A lot happened over the summer. So many stories to read and mull over. The biggest story of the summer may have been the cabinet shuffle that was triggered when Cathy Bennett decided that being finance minister was not what she thought it would be. Other than replacing her with former Speaker of the House, Tom Osborne, the shuffle didn’t really do much to encourage the public that things would improve much in her absence. After all, it is still all of the same monkey’s running the same circus.

Tom Osborne may be the only bright spot in the shuffle, promising a tax review and some possible relief to come from the more than 300 additional taxes and fees that his government brought in with their 2016 budget. Many applauded Osborne’s new position within cabinet, but he certainly has his work cut out for him in cleaning up the mess Bennett and Ball have left him.

Gerry Byrne was sworn in as the new fisheries minister and quickly took a hard line in front of the TV cameras, but the fishery is still very much in turmoil, and other than his TV tough talk, Byrne has not delivered anything concrete to convince fish harvesters and processors in this province that there is a future for them in this government’s plans. People want real answers and all Byrne has had to offer is platitudes. He certainly does not seem like the kind of minister that would be willing to go toe-to-toe with his former federal colleague in Ottawa, which unfortunately is exactly what our fishery needs. I wouldn’t expect any major action on the fisheries file unless Uncle Ottawa says so, and that is about as likely as Gerry Byrne speaking up when there are no TV cameras in the room.

Eddie Joyce has managed to allow a complete fiasco to unfold in the town of Witless Bay, where a former councillor was forced to resign from his position on council over fraudulent residency claims, and just a few weeks later was allowed to run again and be acclaimed to the new town council. Joyce assured residents that the issue would be resolved by the fall elections, and has yet to comment on the acclimation of the Witless Bay Town Council and allegations of election fraud being put forth by residents of the community. The town has not had a functioning council in months and one can only assume that the current goings-on will not be beneficial to the town, moving forward.

Dale Kirby has continued to prove that he has no trouble at all in abandoning the oath he swore when he became an MHA and a minister in cabinet. New childcare regulations have sparked the ire of the industry and an ongoing battle of words with school board trustees and concerned parents about the fate of Mobile Central High has put the minister back in the hot seat. Most recently, a post circulated on Facebook that showed a conversation between Kirby and a constituent who was asking legitimate questions about education for hearing impaired students. Kirby’s response was to block her. It really makes you wonder about the quality of our government when the premier offers “total confidence” in a man who would act this way in his position. Kirby has done nothing but create barriers and destroy professional relationships and yet he is still allowed to be in charge of decisions that directly affect our most valuable resource of all, our children. It really makes you scratch your head…

Oh, and then there is ole Dwight himself. The man, the legend. The premier who will probably be remembered as the worst of a very bad lot of grinning shyster’s who managed to play our eternal saviour complex just well enough to land himself in the premier’s chair. Since The Telegram revealed that 4.6 million hours have been billed by embedded contractors working for Nalcor, Ball has hinted for the first time that a Muskrat Falls inquiry could be in the works. The premier says he has reached out for advice on the terms of reference, but very few people that I have spoken with have confidence that the inquiry will have any teeth. The terms of reference need to very broad in scope and the inquiry needs to be run by someone with integrity and who has no connection to the current or previous administration. Likely the only way that will happen is if someone is brought in from outside the province, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for that either.

I could use many more examples, but what is the point? The media either ignores or can’t be bothered to do any real investigative journalism anymore, and we lap it up like fresh kibble after a week-long fast. The only truth that most people ever get to see is the filtered tidbits that they are fed daily, with no real insight into what is actually happening in our province. If the people ever want to see things change, they need to be the catalyst that start that change. Sadly, there seems to be little will outside of a handful of “known critics” and “nay-sayers” to actually drive any sort of meaningful change for our future. It often makes me wonder what it will take before people finally wake up and wonder how we let this happen. My prediction is that it will come for many right around the same time their electricity bills double to pay for Muskrat Falls. In the meantime, It’s all just politics as usual in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Trolls, Clowns, & Parliamentary Language

Trolls, Clowns, & Parliamentary Language

By: Ryan Young

Earlier this week, opposition MHA Steve Kent was ejected from the House of Assembly for refusing to withdraw a statement where he referred to Finance Minister, Cathy Bennett, as being unethical, dishonest, and deceptive for giving misleading numbers during estimates committee. Kent was also called out for his use of social media which was called a “back-door” way of saying things that he would not be allowed to say in the legislature. This led to a very public Twitter debate with Gerry Byrne and a complete unhinging of Government House Leader, Andrew Parsons, who was quick to rise on the point of order that eventually got Kent ejected.

Now I know that many of my readers may not be big fans of Steve Kent, but the fact of the matter is that Kent was right. He asked the minister a very direct question and she offered an answer that did not include the whole truth. The whole issue was over the severance pay of an employee let go from Government House. When Kent asked about the amount of the severance, Bennett told him that it was $111 000. When Kent pressed for more details, Bennett revealed that the total number was $378 000. This led to the Member from Mount Peal North using the “unparliamentary language” that ultimately led to his ejection from the house. Bennett could have easily given the full amount when prompted, she had the information right in front of her, but instead she decided to be cagey and try to mislead the facts about the real amount. In this bloggers humble opinion, Kent was right to stand his ground, even if it meant that he was given a timeout from the sandbox.

So, what is unparliamentary language anyway? According to Wikipedia, Parliaments and legislative bodies around the world impose certain rules and standards during debates. Tradition has evolved that there are words or phrases that are deemed inappropriate for use in the legislature whilst it is in session. In a Westminster system, this is called unparliamentary language and there are similar rules in other kinds of legislative systems. This includes, but is not limited to the suggestion of dishonesty or the use of profanity. The most prohibited case is any suggestion that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, suggesting that another member is lying is forbidden under of legislative rules.

A curious thing about the rules regarding unparliamentary language is that there is no provision against actually being dishonest in the House of Assembly. You can’t call another member a liar, but it is perfectly acceptable to lie. Sure, the rules say that a member must remain honorable at all times, but as stated above, there have been several instances where members have been caught out on a less than truthful statement, but there is no punishment for that kind of behaviour. This just highlights how outdated our system of governance really is.

Speaking of unparliamentary language, Neil King, MHA for Bonavista also rose in the House of Assembly this week to offer some very important insights to the people of NL. He told us that despite his great job of spreading the government's message in a recent media article about CNA, the internet trolls were out in full force against him. King took a few minutes to tell the province how he felt he was being treated unfairly and unjustly by the keyboard warriors trying to tarnish his good name and finished the segment by referring to constituents who have expressed legitimate concerns to him as “clowns.” Very parliamentary language to be sure and a wonderful use of the time allocated for important debate in our legislature.

After some expected criticism on social media, King lashed out at a local Facebook group known as FreeNL, accusing them of mocking his physical appearance and his facial disability. The post garnered quite a bit of sympathy for King among his friends, but as is the common practice for government MHA’s, anyone with opposing views are blocked so nobody was able to offer the truth about King’s comments. I personally scoured the posts and comments regarding King on the FreeNL page. The group has over 4000 members and not surprisingly, there was quite a bit of negative criticism of King’s words. Curiously though, there was not one mention of his appearance or any type of disability or impairment. It is unfortunate that an MHA would stoop to such behaviour as to mislead people into believing that he is being cyber-bullied by “internet trolls,” when in reality they were just reacting to his calling them trolls and clowns for expressing their views on the very important issues in our province. Maybe if Mr. King wants to put such allegations out there, he should have some credible evidence to back it up.

In another curious twist, Education Minister, Dale Kirby, chimed in on King’s post, taking personal shots at one of FreeNL’s leaders, Mark Croft. Kirby wrote:

“Croft spends his time blaming the government for his perpetual state of unemployment. He fails to realize that social media is the first place most employers look when screening job applications. One look at his despicable online bullying behaviour is enough to deter any employer.”

Not only does Kirby continue to perpetuate the myth that Mark Croft or FreeNL are personally bullying MHA’s, he also gives false statements about Croft’s employment. Croft is currently employed full-time and uses his spare time for activism. While there is certainly some heated debate on FreeNL and other groups, Croft has been one of the leaders in trying to discourage negative and personal comments about individuals and has been steady in his attempt to keep the discussion about the issues. Instead of trying to paint anyone who protests their governance as unemployed, uneducated, social justice warriors that can’t even get a job, perhaps if Kirby and the rest of the Liberal caucus should take the time to come to one of the people’s protest and learn that these events are being organized and attended by hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that care enough about the mess this government s creating to stand up and try to have their voices heard.

There are many more examples example of the lengths that our government will go to deceive the people and distract them from the truth. The House of Assembly Management Commission voted to accept the committee’s recommendations regarding pension reform instead of the Liberal proposal. Kirby and other members tweeted that the PC’s and NDP voted against pension plan that would save the province money. They conveniently neglected to mention that their plan was voted down because it would have grandfathered in all of the current one-term MHA’s and made them eligible for a pension after just two years of service. Kirby also accused both opposition parties of voting against pay supplement increases for Early Childhood Educators. The truth is that while both parties did vote against the budget itself, there was no specific vote regarding the ELCC supplement and opposition members had expressed during debate that they were happy to see the wage increases even if they could not vote for the budget as a whole.

The irony is not lost on this blogger that Steve Kent was punished  for calling out Bennett on not offering the correct numbers and for using his Twitter account as an outlet to let people know what was happening in the House of Assembly, while government backbenchers and ministers alike are taking to social media to insult their constituents and spread false information about people and groups that they disagree with. Despite their promises to be open and transparent, the Liberals have not fared very well when it comes to being forthcoming with information to the public. Getting even the simplest piece of information can often be a monumental task and the premier and his cabinet have been caught up on more than one occasion being less than entirely truthful in their answers in the House of Assembly and to the media.

This whole unfortunate situation is symptomatic of many of the problems we are experiencing with government these days. Lack of openness and communication and a total disregard for what voters are saying have made this one of the most unpopular governments in our history. Calling people trolls and clowns in the House of Assembly and making false statements on social media about those who oppose you are not the best ways to endear voters to give you another chance next time around. People expect better from their elected officials and it is very disappointing to see this kind of behaviour from our MHA’s. With so many important matters that need to be addressed to get this province back on track, I am glad that they find the time to ridicule the people that they were elected to represent. If this is the best that we can expect from the people we elect to represent our best interests, then 2019 can’t come soon enough.

The Funeral March

The Funeral March

By: Ryan Young

When Education and Early Childhood Development Minister, Dale Kirby, publicly stated that any teacher cuts in this year’s budget would be made “over my dead body,” most people rolled their eyes at the ministers attempt to make it appear like he was finally ready to stand up for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. The very next day, we learned that Mr. Kirby was already backtracking on that statement, and what he actually meant was that there would be no change to the teacher allocation formula, but that there was still a possibility of more job losses for teachers.

Of course, Kirby was not literally talking about his own dead body, he was talking about the death of his career. As a long -time advocate for education, Dale Kirby became known for being stubborn and voters had assumed that after four years on the opposition side criticizing education policies, that he would be a good man to get our system back on track. Nobody could have predicted that Kirby would quickly cut education in this province to the bone, a term that was a favourite of his when in opposition. He is already feeling the heat, and he knows that further cuts to education will certainly hasten the end of his time in our House of Assembly.

Nothing was spared in education last spring. Teacher cuts, busing cuts, library cuts, and child care cuts were all offered up as part of Cathy’s directive to trim 30% from each budget. The provincial child care budget alone took a 16% cut in funding, just months after Kirby had ridiculed former minister Clyde Jackman at a public child care forum where he promised investment, not cuts. I’m sure that everyone understands that the province is in a tough place, but when you make a career out of advocating for better education and then when you finally have the chance to make a difference, your first act is to make dramatic cuts, people are going to question your credibility. Kirby has continued to defend his actions by blaming the opposition whenever a serious question is asked of him and has refused to take responsibility for any actions or comments he has made. All of this has elevated him to the same level of disdain that people have for the premier and the finance minister.

If you read my last post, you would know that credibility is a big problem for our government. With the House of Assembly open again, the Liberals have continued to dodge questions and dance around the issues, all the while pointing the finger of blame back at the opposition side every single time a serious issue is raised. Dwight Ball continues to throw his own credibility under the bus by maintaining his Ed Martin story, and Cathy Bennett maintains that her fiduciary responsibility to Nalcor, a crown company owned by the people, trumps her responsibility to protect the people of the province by providing pertinent information to government about the corporation. If that was indeed the case legally, then why was Bennett ever appointed as a minister in the first place? How can we have a finance minister that stated publicly that her first responsibility is to the Nalcor board and not the people of this province that she was elected to represent?

Politics is a world built on trust. You don’t always have to make the most popular decisions, as long as the people feel that you are being honest with them. Governments in this province and elsewhere have quite often been able to get themselves out of trouble by coming clean with the people and providing a clear plan of action. For this government, it seems to be more about duck and cover and one-way communication. Trust does not seem to be a matter of concern as the tendency has been to not be honest until evidence is presented that forces them to acknowledge the truth. Even when faced with blatant facts, such as in the recent Auditor General’s report into Ed Martin’s severance, they continue to go with their own story, despite the fact that everyone in the province knows that they are not being honest.

Trust is something that when broken, is very hard to get back. Most governments realize this, and work very hard to ensure that those values shine through in their interaction with the people. In our case, government has failed at every turn to be upfront and honest, or to provide us with a clear plan of what their intentions are. The Way Forward is a lovely document, but one that is very short on details and facts, and even when they make announcements that sound positive, hard facts are always left out in favour of spin and fluff. Even after all of the public outrage and backtracks in the past year, they still can’t manage to come out and have a real conversation with the people about the issues.

Despite the millions spent in communications, it seems like every single time a government member opens their mouth, something comes out wrong. This is a tell-tale sign that the decision makers in this province are not in tune with the wants and the needs of the people of this province. People are tired of the same old political games. They want the real change they were promised and they want their elected officials to listen to them. Kirby’s “over my dead body” quip has been a gold mine for cartoonists, media, and bloggers, but it does raise the issue that there will likely be many “dead bodies” of political careers after the next election. Cue The Funeral March…

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas XI - Dale Kirby

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas XI - Dale Kirby


Part 11 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Mount Scio MHA and Education and Early Childhood Development Minister Dale Kirby

Click Here:

https://youtu.be/51V9EzeZHMY

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

By: Ryan Young

Most people don’t bother to watch the proceedings of the House of Assembly. They get highlights of the best exchanges during question period on the news. I envy these people, as they get to bypass the unavoidable rises in blood pressure and eye rolls that come from watching the spectacle on a daily basis.

It was our second premier, Frank Moores, that brought question period into our House of Assembly after his election in 1972. The idea was to bring more openness and transparency into the legislature. Although it did accomplish that goal to some extent, Moores always considered question period a colossal waste of time and avoided it whenever he could.

The idea behind question period is a good one. Opening the government up to questions about legislative issues seems like a no-brainier. It would be except for one thing, there is nothing in the legislation that requires a member to answer a question directly and/or truthfully. In fact, it is considered un-parliamentary to call another member a liar in the House of Assembly, or to question the truthfulness of their answers. Therefore, we often have opposition parties asking the same questions, over and over, but in a slightly different way.

To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, let me quote a couple of exchanges from the first day of the current sitting of the house. Let’s start with an exchange between Opposition House Leader Keith Hutchings and Finance Minister Cathy Bennett.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is receiving $10 billion in equalization while forecasting a $2 billion surplus. Nova Scotia is getting $1.7 billion; yet, Newfoundland is running a deficit and not seeing a penny in equalization.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Have you made any effort to advocate for equalization from the federal government for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to the incredible work that our Premier and our colleagues on this side of the House of Assembly have been doing with our federal counterparts – successfully, I might add – to help lighten the burden of the financial situation that we're faced with in our province. 

Recently, there was an announcement of a $2.9 billion enhanced federal loan guarantee which will help reduce the costs associated with the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, we've seen actions that are very broad, including things like removing the tariffs from the boats that were purchased by the former administration without even considering the tariffs on those boats. 

We have been working very hard with our officials and colleagues in Ottawa and we will continue to do that. We will continue to bring back results. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't indicate if she was advocating on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador. All that she referenced in regard to funding from the federal government, we certainly applaud that, but there's a federal program under equalization that we should have access to. 

In her fiscal update, the minister talked – it wasn't a supplementary budget, it was an update. The minister herself acknowledged the unfairness of the current equalization program. 

So, I ask her again: Why are you not talking to the federal government about a fair share of equalization for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, not only are we advocating, but we're getting results. I just listed a large number of them, including a $2.9 billion loan guarantee that this government has been able to bring to fruition for the people of the province against the Muskrat Falls Project which is a huge success. 

When it comes to equalization, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Member opposite that the equalization formula as it is implemented today was negotiated and agreed to by the former administration. 

As you can see, Mr. Hutchings asked very direct questions to the minister, but the minister responded in a round-about way that did not even remotely resemble an answer to the questions that he asked. Certainly, the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee is an important issue to discuss in the house, but Mr. Hutchings was asking direct questions about equalization. Unfortunately, this is not a rare incident. In fact, if you look through Hansard for any given day, you will be hard pressed to find an example of a government member directly answering a question from the opposition members.

Another example from question period on the second day of sitting came during an exchange between Opposition critic, David Brazil, and Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Dale Kirby.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I ask the Minister of Education: What did the review of the library system cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly will remember, last January all agencies, boards, commissions and departments of government were requested to try and find a certain amount of savings over a number of years. The provincial libraries board, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, came up with a plan. In fact, they exceeded the goal, some might argue, in terms of finding savings.

There were five proposals that were worked on. There was one that was accepted. That was incorporated into the budget. Following that, there was significant amount of public feedback about the need to have further consultation with the public about those decisions and also there was an interest in having a consultant review the system.

So that's what we did. If I have additional time, I'll continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't answer, so I'll answer it for him. It was $187,000 for the contract, but that didn't include travel, it didn't include taxes, associated fees, stakeholder agreements and third-party surveys.

So can the minister tell me – I'm assuming a quarter of a million dollars to this point – exactly what it cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have consultations around libraries after you determined that you were going to cut 54 of those in this province? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development. 

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I appreciate the opportunity to continue. I don't know why the Member is asking me questions if he thinks he already knows the answer to them. 

After we listened to what people had to say, the feedback that they had provided, we used the consultant that was basically the agency of record to go out and do some work. It was a major undertaking that was done. There were 10 consultations that were held around the province; two in St. John's. Those concluded on November 8. 

There was a significant amount of opportunity for people to provide feedback. There was also an online form that people could provide feedback through. There was also a survey that people could provide feedback to. All that feedback is now going to be included into a final report, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we see a minister twice asked a direct question, and both times the minister talked around the issue without actually answering the question. Mr. Brazil asked for an exact cost to taxpayers for library consultations and Kirby just plain ignored the question and responded in the usual round-about manner. He didn’t answer the question. How can this be considered to be providing the people with an open and transparent account of governments activities? Is it any wonder that Moores called it a waste of time? Is it any wonder that Opposition Leader, Paul Davis asked almost 40 questions about Labrador hydro  developments in 3 days last week, trying to get a clear answer to his questions? I’m not saying that the opposition does not put forth some dumb questions from time to time, but it seems that you can ask until your face turns blue, but nobody is going to give an answer.

So, what can we do to make it better? We need to find a way to hold members of government accountable to the spirit of openness and transparency that question period was supposed to provide. I am not exactly sure what it would look like, but there must be a way to make our elected officials answer a damn question. It is a sad state of affairs that we even have to consider legislature to force politicians to answer questions, especially when they run their election campaigns on openness and transparency. It should be the foremost thing on the minds of every elected member. Unfortunately, as you can see from the examples above, this is not the case.

If our elected officials are not willing to be open and honest with us, then maybe we do need legislation to force them. People have grown tired of endless government spin and they want real answers for a change. The Liberals are not alone; this has been going on ever since Moores brought in Question Period more than 40 years ago. The difference is that people are more informed nowadays, and they don’t have to rely on the word of the premier or one of his ministers. They can find the information for themselves and bring it to the public eye. This is a very important change that politicians have not seemed to figure out yet, but they will learn the hard way. The people have made it clear that they are tired of business as usual, and as they say; the truth will always come out in the end.

School Board Elections & Why You Should Vote

School Board Elections & Why You Should Vote

By: Ryan Young

Elections for school board trustees are happening all across the province today, with 50 candidates running for 17 positions on the NL English School Board and an additional 12 candidates running for 8 positions on the French board (CFSP). For the past number of years, school board trustees have been appointed instead of elected, and today’s elections mark the culmination of the Liberals, and Dale Kirby’s promise to hold trustee elections within a year of gaining power.

There has been some criticism of the amount of promotion and engagement done by the department and the school board to prepare the public for the elections. NDP critic, Lorraine Michael, has raised the issue of the website being too confusing and of the lack of direct information to voters on who can vote and where. The PC’s have also questioned the qualifications of former Liberal candidate Geoff Gallant, who was hired to coordinate the election process, without having to go through the Independent Appointments Commission.

Overall, the controversy may be helping to promote the elections and convince more people to vote. The last time elections were held, 7 years ago, the turnout was a lowly 2.5%. Yesterday, VOCM’s Question of the day asked: “Are you planning to vote in tomorrow’s school board elections?” With over 3000 votes cast, 83% said they would not bother. While certainly not a scientific poll, it is disheartening to see such a lack of interest in the future of our children’s education. Minister Kirby has been very clear that he would like to see turnouts increased, and hopefully, coverage in the media and on the call-in shows will help to convince more people to get out and make an effort to vote.

I was lucky to have had the opportunity to attend a short Q & A with the candidates in my area that are running for Zone 15 trustee. I was very pleased at the quality of the candidates and I feel that my children will be well served by whoever wins the election today. It was also nice to put a face to the names and get an opportunity to ask some follow up questions afterwards. I would have liked to have seen more of this type of engagement from across the province, but regardless, it seems that most zones will have competitive races with quality candidates. This bodes well for the future of our education system as we will have trustees that are elected and accountable to the public, that are also engaged in the conversation about how we can do better for our children and educators.

Education is the very foundation of our province. In order to put us on a better footing, we need to provide better educational outcomes and deliver adequate resources to deal with our ever-changing needs. Yes, money is tight, but when times are tough we need to invest in our future leaders and innovators to carry our province into the next generation. The role of school board trustee is more important than it has ever been, and so is your engagement and your vote. So please take a few moments today to visit your local polling station and cast your vote for a deserving candidate in your zone. Our very future depends on it.

If you don’t know what your zone is, you can find it here:

http://www.schoolboardelectionsnl.ca/resources/doc/nlesd_zones.pdf

Get to know your candidates here:

http://www.schoolboardelectionsnl.ca/en/01-05.php

To find out where to vote click here:

http://www.schoolboardelectionsnl.ca/en/03-04.php

Good luck to all candidates and thank you for your effort and your interest!

Egos in Education

Egos in Education

By: Ryan Young

Is there a portfolio in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that is off to as bad a start as Education and Early Childhood Development? There are certainly some close challengers, but the repeated failings of the D-of-EDU under its new minister, Dale Kirby, has earned a place of distinction as the worst of the worst. This should be troubling to many, and not just parents, teachers, and administrators. As the old saying goes, a person without education is like a building without a foundation, and our foundations are being torn apart from the inside. In our current time of economic crisis, we need to be making investments in education, but instead we have seen nothing but cuts and bad accounting decisions. As if that was not bad enough, we have a minister with skin like parchment paper, who refuses to engage in any meaningful way with anyone who dares to question his decisions. Instead of offering us facts and evidence, Mr. Kirby has continually resorted to personal attacks and the immediate dismissal of serious concerns. At what point does the premier say enough is enough?

Of course, we can’t blame Dale Kirby for all the problems in education, and it would be foolish for us to assume that there would be an easy fix to the many complex problems we are facing. Nobody denies that Minister Kirby and the rest of his colleagues inherited a tough situation, but the people overwhelmingly voted for change and on that front Kirby has fallen short. Everything he has said and done so far as minister has been in direct contrast to everything he said while in opposition. From libraries, to school closures, to school bus safety issues, Minister Kirby continues to contradict his old self at every opportunity. He has certainly come a long way from the vocal protester that demanded better rights and opportunities for students.

Many of my readers will remember my recent departure from the chair position at the Child Care Coalition of NL. Kirby was a big supporter of the coalition while in opposition, and we had a few meaningful discussions shortly after he took office. That all changed with the budget last April, and my vocal opposition to cuts, and pretty soon the cord was cut. After months of being ignored by the minister and department staff, and having to file Access to Information requests for simple budget documents, it became clear that the organization was being ignored because of my vocal opposition to cuts and lack of communication. As much as I didn’t want to leave the position, I felt that my only option was to step down and hope that someone else might be able to re-establish an open line of communication with government.

Soon after, Federation of School Councils President, Peter Whittle, also resigned his position after a very public battle with the minister. NLTA president Jim Dinn has also been very vocal about Kirby’s attitude and lack of communication, and has asked the minister to apologize for undermining the teacher’s union. After hearing comments that the minister had made about Mr. Whittle, Mr. Dinn, and the complete dismissal of their legitimate concerns, I realized that I was not alone in my struggle for answers and recognition of real issues. Somewhere along the way it seems that Mr. Kirby has forgotten the role of education minister, and has completely ignored the mandate letter that he was given by the premier when he was sworn in last year.

Not many were surprised then, when the news broke yesterday that the NLTA executive had lost confidence in Minister Kirby, and that they had voted unanimously to ask for his removal from the education portfolio. As Mr. Dinn pointed out, if stakeholders can't have a discussion with government about hard issues relating to schools without resorting to personal attacks, then we have to wonder about their ability to resolve important issues in the education system. When you hear those kinds of words from someone like Mr. Dinn, it makes you step back and wonder how much damage are we doing to our children’s education in order to satisfy the minister’s fragile ego?

Another great example is Dave Callahan. Mr. Callahan has been speaking out for years on the bus tendering system in this province, and has promised us time and time and again that government policy was going to lead to safety issues within the bus system. He, like many other advocates, had a friend in Dale Kirby while he was in opposition, but since last November, Mr. Callahan’s concerns have fallen on deaf ears. Now with buses being pulled off the road and more than 100 charges pending due to safety violations, it appears that Mr. Callahan’s warnings have come true. The school board promises that safety is its top priority, but the department who is ultimately responsible has been silent. Again, I don’t blame Dale Kirby for the unsafe busses that were discovered, but he was given information that this would happen and failed to act on it. As minister, he has the responsibility to ensure the safety of our children and in the end the buck stops with him.

The minister may not like people like myself, Mr. Whittle, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Callahan, and the plethora of others who have been speaking up about issues in the education system, but sooner or later he needs to address the concerns of stakeholders and offer a clear plan for education in this province. Nobody in government ever likes to admit they are wrong, but how long can we afford to gamble with our children’s future so that Dale Kirby can feel satisfied that he is right? The situation has escalated well beyond political norms and it is not only the NLTA who feel that it is time for a change in our education portfolio.

Last fall, the Liberals promised to break the cycle of governing based on politics in favor of evidence-based decision making. Instead we got full-day kindergarten before we were ready, cuts to teachers and child care, and the closure of libraries followed by the after-the-fact $187,000 Ernst & Young review to see if closing them is actually a good idea. In one of the few times the minister has come out of hiding, he told reporters that it was unlikely that the government would have the stomach to go back to the library closures. So why are we still spending that kind of money on a review, while the School Lunch program was forced to raise its own money to meet the demand from thousands of new students enrolled in the program this year because of full-day kindergarten? Want to know how many school lunches the EY library review could buy? About 53,429. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?

At this point the only thing that we can hope for is a cabinet shuffle soon. Several ministers have lost the confidence of the people and if Dwight is ever going to get this ship right-side-up, he is going to need to start drawing on some new sources of ideas. When it comes to education, how long can you allow a minister to alienate stakeholders and the public? It is long past time for Dwight Ball to shed the nice guy persona and start getting tough with his own people. Yes, the ministers will take their own heat, but at the end of the day it will be the premiers leadership, or lack of it, that will be remembered. In a few years, Dale Kirby’s name will be forgotten as he fades into the annals of history as part of the governing class that couldn’t quite make the cut. Dwight Ball, however, will be remembered for much longer. Does he really want to hitch his legacy on the egos of people like Dale Kirby? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Open Letter to Premier Ball - It's Time for a Change in Education

Open Letter to Premier Ball - It's Time for a Change in Education

By: Ryan Young

roguebayman@gmail.com


September 27, 2016

Dear Premier Ball,

There are many issues that I could be writing you on today. It is no secret that the people of this province are unhappy with many of the decisions that your government has made since last November. People are suffering under your “tough choices,” and there has been a total breakdown in communication between government and the people of this province. This has resulted in many of us losing faith in your ability to successfully manage our province.

Of the many issues we are facing, Education has been the one getting the most attention as of late. Schools being closed by an un-elected school board, the rush to implement full day kindergarten, shared classrooms, overcrowding, bussing issues, and child care are just a few of the issues that people are concerned about. There has been an up-welling of public outrage at not only the cuts to our children’s education, but at the continued arrogance and disdain shown by Minister Dale Kirby towards legitimate concerns.

We all understand that the province is in a tough spot, but the old adage that you can’t cut your way into prosperity is a true one, especially when we are talking about our children’s safety and education. By taking money from our children to fund projects like Muskrat Falls we are setting ourselves up for failure. Only by investing in our children and our families can we expect to build a real “stronger tomorrow” for our province.

Less than a year into his tenure as minister, Mr. Kirby has already alienated the NLTA, the Federation of School Councils, and the Child Care Coalition of NL, among other groups, as well thousands of parents across the province who are unsatisfied with the job he is doing as minister, and with his utter disregard for their concerns. He has repeatedly dismissed legitimate concerns as “foolish,” and has refused to engage in meaningful discussions with education stakeholders. He has been accused by leaders of stakeholder groups of being dishonest and spreading falsehoods. And maybe worst of all, the arrogant and dismissive nature in which he has been dealing with criticism has been very unprofessional and has left the public feeling that Minister Kirby is completely out of touch with the people of this province.

We are less than a month into the school year, and already we have heard stories of not enough furniture in classrooms, and teachers have been asked to scrounge for supplies. Parents won a court decision to keep their school open and were hopeful that an elected school board would decide their future, but they were denied that right. We have heard numerous complaints about safety concerns regarding our bussing system, and just last week we had the majority of children at Riverside Elementary kept home in protest to a dangerously overcrowded school. These are serious concerns that deserve to be dealt with in a timely and effective manner. We are talking about the safety of our children. That should trump any budget concerns we have. Our children are worth the expense. At the very least the minister should be having open discussions about these issues instead of calling us all foolish and refusing to talk with stakeholders.

This government campaigned on a platform of openness and transparency. It was the very first part of the Liberal 5-point plan that outlined your plan for the next four years. Were these just buzzwords used to get elected? Since you have taken office, your government has been anything but open and transparent. I myself have had to file ATIPPA requests for simple budget documents and have been ignored by both Minister Kirby as member of the coalition, and as MHA Dale Kirby, who represents my district of Mount Scio. Does my being vocal mean that I don’t deserve government assistance when dealing with issues? Does it mean that the stakeholders of the education and early learning system in this province have their concerns ignored? Apparently it does. At first I thought it was just me, but as we now know, many others are saying the same thing. Minister Kirby’s response has been to either ignore or dismiss each and every concern that has been brought forward by the people of the province.

Based on Minister Kirby’s performance thus far, I call upon you, Premier Ball, to step in and take necessary action to restore the faith of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the management of our education system. If Minister Kirby is unwilling or unable to address the concerns of the people, then he needs to be replaced with someone who will. We can’t afford to waste time playing with word games and clashing personalities. The children of this province deserve better and the people need to know that our education system is moving in the right direction.

Minister Kirby has had ample opportunity to put ego aside and begin engaging in meaningful conversation with education stakeholders to begin tackling the major issues we are facing. The issues are many, and can only be resolved when all stakeholders have a seat at the table. In the spirit of openness and transparency and the commitment that your government made to improve education for children in this province, it is time for a change in the education portfolio. If you wish to restore the faith of the people in your leadership, you must be willing to listen to the concerns of the people and prove to us that you are willing to act in the best interest of our province. We will accept nothing less.

Sincerely,

Ryan Young

Stepping Down to Search for Dale Kirby

Stepping Down to Search for Dale Kirby

By: Ryan Young

It was with mixed emotions that I announced last week to my colleagues at the Child Care Coalition of Newfoundland and Labrador (CCCNL), that I would be stepping down as chair, effective at our next AGM in October, 2016. I did not make the decision to step down because the work was done. We still face the second highest childcare rates in the country and a staggering 75% of children in this province have no access at all to regulated care or any type of subsidy. Early Childhood Educators are still struggling with wage and quality issues, and private operators have been forced into a two-tier system under a government operating grant that allows some parents to pay low rates while others pay much higher ones, regardless of income. Yes, there is still lots of work to be done, and I hope that our members we elect me to remain on the board on October 22^nd so that I may still be able to offer help and advice as we fight the good fight for our children, educators, and hard-working parents.

No, the reason I am stepping down as chair is because I no longer have an effective voice in the governments ear. Many of my readers will note that I have been very active and very vocal in the pursuit of a better future for our children. That started long before the election last fall, and it will continue after the Liberals fall from grace in 2019, or sooner. I have been on open-line and have done several interviews with various news outlets on why we need to do better, and how government policies just are not working. Some of the things I say come from my own personal experiences, but as the chair of a broad reaching coalition I hear from stakeholders from all sides of the childcare spectrum. When I bring a concern to the department or to Minister Dale Kirby, it is not just my own concern, it is a concern that has been raised by our members. These are legitimate concerns that deserve legitimate answers. Unfortunately, these answers have not been forthcoming.

The CCCNL board has prepared several emails for Minister Kirby since the budget last April. We have raised the legitimate concerns of our membership and have offered recommendations on how we can work together to move forward. Before the election, Minister Kirby was a very vocal ally of the coalition. He demanded to know why the government of the day refused to hear the concerns of a grassroots group made up of concerned stakeholders. After the election we were able to have a meeting with the minister and other members of the department, and we were able to cover a lot of ground. While I realized that it would still be an uphill battle, it seemed like the minister was listening to our concerns and seemed willing to make some key policy changes. The real resistance to getting things changed seemed to be coming from the bureaucracy within the department. It is worth noting that when we met with the minister, he was the only new face at the table. All of the others were the same bureaucrats from the previous administration who had created the plan that we wanted to change. I have to question how ministers can expect to make real, meaningful change in such an environment.

Despite my concerns about the bureaucracy, we continued to have follow up meetings with department officials to talk about specific concerns, and we were confident that we were making some real headway. We were concerned about the budget, but with a tiny expenditure of under $50 million, we did not foresee any major cuts to funding in Early Childhood Development. What actually came down the pipes was a 16% reduction in funding and the elimination of the transportation subsidy program that so many low income parents depended on. We were shocked at such large cuts without any consultation whatsoever with stakeholders but at the same time a little relieved that core program funding had been left intact for now. We were hoping that the operating grant money would go into the subsidy department and that was a disappointment, but overall the consensus was that it could have been worse but we still had some major issues to deal with. I contacted the minister in a personal message after the budget and thanked him for not cutting core funding and keeping our children in mind, even if I was not happy about the cuts. I even offered him advice on communicating things better, as I felt that the government was doing a very poor job of that. I soon started hearing from our stakeholders with concerns that wanted me to speak out about these cuts as they educated me on the real life effects that they were having. The more we talked to people, the more we realized how many people were being affected by these cuts, despite the departments assurance that cuts would have a minimal impact on service.

So I spoke out. I stated publicly that these cuts were a bad idea and that we felt let down by a minister who promised to make investments in childcare, not cuts. This did not go over well with the minister and he let me know that he did not agree with my position. The day after the budget I spoke with two senior bureaucrats from the department via conference call to discuss the budget changes and at that time I asked them to provide me with some documentation of the actual funding changes so that we could break down the numbers and prepare an analysis. I waited two weeks but had not yet received any information so I called the Director of Child Care and Family Services and again requested the breakdown. After another week, on May 5, I emailed the director again, so as to have a record of my request, and to this day I still have not received an email reply from her office. I brought this issue up to the minister in a private message and hoped that the information would be provided to me in a timely manner. Again, nothing happened, and on May 31^st, I filed an Access to Information request for the requested documents.

On June 3, I forwarded our official budget response to Minister Kirby and the Director of Child Care and Family Services. I informed them of my disappointment at having to file an ATTIPA request for documents that should have been easy to obtain. They were not secret government documents; they were budget documents that would be released to the public anyway. I outlined our position on the budget and other issues, and suggested that we have another meeting to discuss the issues in question. As was becoming a pattern, there was no response from either the minister or the director. I waited a week and then went to write the minister a personal message and discovered that we were no longer friends on Facebook and that he had removed me as a follower on Twitter. I’ll note that he didn’t block me, but it is a pain in the butt having to re-follow him every few days just to try to find out what he is saying about education in this province. I thought this was in very poor taste and I wrote the minister one last message letting him know how I felt about it. He sent me back a simple “Thank You.” That was on June 10^th. We have not spoken since.

Since then I have made several calls and emails to the minister and department officials. I got through on the phone once, from a different number than my own, but other than that the response has been silence. Minister Kirby also happens to be my MHA and I have written him several times on issues and concerns that I have had but my emails are ignored. I don’t even get the customary, “we have received your email” response. I have brought this up with the premier’s office but they didn’t seem too concerned about it either. I guess a dissident rogue like myself does not deserve representation from a MHA if they dare speak out. Just last week the minister stated on CBC radio that parents with bussing concerns could write him and he would provide school board contact information. I wrote and asked for that information and that email too was ignored. After all of this and plenty of soul searching over the last month I came to the conclusion that I must step down as chair if the stakeholders of the Child Care Coalition are to have a real voice with the minister.

So it has come to this. A former activist has become the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development and he has totally turned his back on everyone that he has promised to fight for. Further than that, he has decided to shut out anyone who opposes him, and to punish the stakeholders of the Child Care Coalition because I dared to speak out against him. What does that say about Dale Kirby the person? What does it say about his character? I certainly did not get involved in this fight for our children for my own gain and I have no desire to be involved in a public battle of ego’s with the man who I used to consider an ally to the cause. If I have to step aside to give this group a voice, then this is what I will do, but I will tell the truth about why I am going. When I heard the exchange between Dale Kirby and Peter Whittle this summer about activism directly affecting funding, I knew this eventuality was only a matter of time for me.

The message here is loud and clear, if you speak out against Dale Kirby, your organization will be punished or ignored. If poor Dale’s inflated ego wasn’t clouding his vision he might see the irony in the fact that he is acting with the same arrogant disdain for the people that the PC’s did for 12 years. He likes to blame them for every decision he has made so far, but when he opens his mouth he sounds just like every other minister before him. I’m pretty sure at this point, Minister Kirby can see the writing on the wall for his political career. Maybe that would make me bitter too if I were in his shoes, but it is no excuse for the pure arrogance he has continually shown to myself and other parents, educators, and concerned residents in this province. The issues we bring forth are real and he dismisses them out of hand. We are not even a year in, and already this government has totally lost touch with its people.

I don’t usually get so personal with my posts. Even in politics we have to respect that we are talking about other human beings who have families and are most often good people in their heart of hearts. But when I continually hear Dale Kirby make excuses and tell half-truths regarding our children’s future, I can’t help but speak out and say that this is not good enough. If he responds to this post at all, he will tell you that he has met with members of the coalition board and that action has been taken on some issues. This is true, but these members had to approach the minister as private operators through personal channels and not on behalf of the coalition. We made the decision to rally the troops that way, and have been successful in making him hear the concerns they have. In the meantime, our email inbox is collecting cobwebs waiting for a response, any response to any of our inquiries in the last four months. I am almost lost for words at how a minister could act this towards any organization, let alone one that represents the interest of our most precious resource, our children. If Minister Kirby thinks the people of this province will stand for such behaviour, I fear that he may soon find himself mistaken. Parents have long memories.

It is no secret that parents in this province are angry. Childcare, full day kindergarten, bussing safety concerns, overcrowded classrooms, school sales, and many other issues are already putting a black mark on Mr. Kirby’s tenure. He would do well to look back at how that has historically worked out for education minister’s in the past. There have been many battles over education in this provinces history and the parents almost always win.  If Mr. Kirby can’t get that through his inflated head, we will be sure to remind him at the ballot box next time around. Until then I promise to be a thorn in his side by continuing to speak the truth and to show the contrast between a seemingly genuine, sincere, opposition critic and the arrogant, untrustworthy minister he has become.  Game on!

Nepotism is Alive and Well in NL

Nepotism is Alive and Well in NL

By: Ryan Young

It all started with Bill 1. Ah yes, the Liberal’s flagship legislation that was supposed to take the politics out of political appointments.  I don’t think that anyone would argue with the spirit of the bill, but the actual legislation seems to be already falling short of public approval. Bill 1 covers the appointments to provincial boards, agencies, & commissions but it does not include core civil service appointments such as Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister Positions.

This flaw in Bill 1 became glaringly apparent last week when it was made public that 3 core (and highly paid) civil service positions had been awarded to blatant Liberal insiders. Lynn Sullivan, George Joyce, and Paula Buckle were all former Liberal election candidates, Sullivan in 2015, and Joyce in 2011 and 2007, and Paula Buckle (as Paula Walsh) in 1999. This in itself should not disqualify these particular individuals, all of which are certainly qualified, but it certainly should not allow them a fast track into juicy government positions either. If this government was really committed to taking the politics out of political appointments, they should include an open application process for all civil service positions.

On Friday we found out that another former Liberal candidate, Geoff Gallant, has been appointed as the new School Board Election Coordinator. Gallant ran for the Liberals this past fall. He also ran under the NDP stripe in 2011 and reports suggest that he is a close friend and colleague of Education Minister Dale Kirby. That in itself is not an issue per se, but as PC critic David Brazil Pointed out in an article published in the Telegram by James Mcleod, “I don’t know what Geoff’s qualifications are, because, again, we don’t know what they’re looking for, because nobody put out a call for proposals,”

As the aforementioned David Brazil pointed out, the problem is not that the appointees in question are unqualified, it is that there may have been other people more qualified that never had a chance to express an interest in any of the appointed positions. This would have been a great opportunity for the government to open the hiring process at the top levels and prove that they were totally committed to creating a non-partisan bureaucracy. Instead, they decided to appoint people to these positions with blatant Liberal connections. Whether or not these new appointees are qualified is no longer a question of significance in the public eye. All we can see is the same kind of patronage and nepotism that has existed for as long as Newfoundland and Labrador has been a "democracy."

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador were still fuming from the Cathy Dornan patronage spending, when we were hit with the news of the firing of John Ottenheimer from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. This should have been our first major signal that Ball and Co. were not really serious about their political appointment rhetoric. No doubt, Ottenheimer, a former PC cabinet member and leadership candidate, was appointed to the job by pure patronage by the former administration, but by all accounts, he was very dedicated and was doing a good job in his position of CEO at NLHC. The government’s explanation for Ottenheimer’s dismissal was simply that they “were not satisfied with the way this position was filled in 2015.” Call me silly, but I didn’t think that the spirit of Bill 1 was to remove former PC appointments under jobs covered under the bill, while at the same time appointing Liberal “cronies” to jobs not covered under the bill. If nothing else, it all makes for very bad optics and leaves a bad taste in the public’s mouth.

It is interesting to note that no less than 4 Liberal MHA’s made time to call the open line programs on Friday to defend the appointments. The common theme between them all was that Bill 1 did not cover core civil service appointments, and therefore there is nothing wrong with such blatant political appointments to core government positions. It is true that no part of these appointments violate the actual Bill 1 legislation, but no matter which way the Liberal members wish to spin this, the people are not fooled about the fact that it is business as usual for our current government.

No matter how much rhetoric and spin we hear from the Liberals, actions speak louder than words. At every turn we hear of our government clearing spots at the trough for their own, while publicly patting themselves on the back for taking the politics out of appointments. Sometimes you have to step back and wonder that if they keep saying enough, that they will really start believing it themselves. The truth that we all know in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that nepotism is alive and well…and don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

Another Government Move, Communicated Badly

Another Government Move, Communicated Badly

By: Ryan Young

In an attempt to maintain my promise to my readers to stay fair and level with my commentary, I would like to bring attention to a potentially positive move from our government. At least the government should be touting it as a positive move. The reason I feel that I have to talk about it, is that, as usual, the government has done a very poor job of communicating a significant change that they have made.

The move in question is the restructuring of several government departments in an effort to create a more efficient bureaucracy with better communication and less expense on the final budget line. The department of Child, Youth, and Family Services will merge with the department of Seniors, Wellness, and Social Development, becoming the Department of Children, Seniors, and Social Development. The Forestry and Agrifoods Agency will combine with the existing Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture to become the Department of Fisheries, Forestry, and Agrifoods. The Office of Climate Change has been combined with the Environment portfolio to create the Department of the Environment and Climate Change, and the Labour Relations Agency will now be managed under the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. In addition to these changes, the Access to Information Office will now fall under the Department of Justice and Public Safety, Fire and Emergency Services will now be under the Department of Municipal Affairs, and the Office of Public Engagement is now under Cabinet Communications.

The idea, one has to imagine, is to combine like minded departments and agencies to create a more cohesive unit with better opportunities for in-house communication and more efficient service delivery for taxpayers. According to the media reports, five Deputy Minister positions will be eliminated, in addition to a 19% reduction in staffing in the affected departments. The number of related savings has not been released. Reports have also surfaced that indicate that new Deputy Minister positions have been filled by Liberal insiders, but I will address that in another post.

In my last post, I wrote about the recent shake-up in the premier’s communication staff, but it seems that the new crew working on the eighth floor are determined to make the same mistakes as their predecessors. The departmental restructuring news should have been announced with much fanfare and a press conference by Dwight Ball, telling us all how his government is committed to keeping the promises it made last November. Instead, all we got was a few snippets in the local media outlets. The premier was travelling and unavailable for comment, and they did not even bother to add a news release to the government website. You would think that they would be eager to pat themselves on the back and try to win some public support but instead they chose to remain in hiding as they have been for most of the summer.  Did they not have faith in their own decision, or is the new policy to avoid all media and public interaction, good or bad?

I will not pass full judgement on these changes until the full details and savings have been released to the public. All of which should have been included in the news release that should have accompanied the announcements. It reminds me of when Dale Kirby announced changes to the inclusion program in the Early Childhood Development division earlier this summer. The Child Care Coalition of NL had been advocating for those changes for over a year and they were not even consulted or informed of the decision until Kirby made the announcement publicly. It would have been a great opportunity for Minister Kirby to bridge the gap and ease some strained relations with a very important segment of the workforce, but instead the changes were made, almost in passing. At least Kirby gave a press conference to tell us why the changes were being made. With this latest government shake-up, we were not even given the courtesy of being able to ask questions about what the changes really mean.

If this government intends to ever start repairing the damage they have done to their reputation they are going to have to stop running scared and start facing and working with the people of this province. If this is the best that the new communications experts have to offer, maybe it is time to roll the dice again Mr. Premier.