Steve Kent hides behind Cloak? Come out in the Open!

Kent and Harper - two Steve's I want to forget but still living with their incompetence.

Harper lies and generally speaking is not competent on matters of Canada.

Kent just yaps and then re-yaps to explain or re-explain whatever he is talking about.

Both play around with democracy like it's an institution they own and are willing to do whatever to portray favourably whatever outcome they are seeking.

When Kent was dealing with the Boy Scouts of Canada scandal - he assured us he checked and there was nothing hidden. But then he re-explained that there was - he just did not know at the time. Steve's facts are apparently determined based on Steve's knowledge at any given time and not the actual facts of a situation. This makes him dangerous as a public servant.

A fact is: A thing that is indisputably the case.

First of all there are two measures of fairness and balance when the Tories wish to reveal information.

One for Ross Reid and Len Simms, and another for Sue Kelland-Dyer (me)

But let's review what Mr. Kent had to say in the House of Assembly on March 13th 2013.

               ______________________________

They talk about fiscal responsibility and they suggest mismanagement when we provided, in the past, modest bonuses to executives who are doing great work to improve and strengthen the public services we provide. They will talk about those modest bonuses, and the Minister of Finance addressed those in Question Period today, but you will not hear them talk about the $59,000 they paid to Sue Kelland-Dyer for consulting work from May 2001 to April 2002. May 2001 to April 2002, they paid $59,000 to Sue Kelland-Dyer for consulting work. 

Mr. Speaker, the folks over there, like the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands and the Leader of the Opposition, talk about fiscal responsibility, but they will not tell you about what happened several months later in December 2002. In December 2002 they spent $88,000 to hire none other than Sue Kelland-Dyer again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: Eighty-eight thousand dollars, because she was out criticizing government, but once a couple of payments over a period of time totalling $59,000 and then $88,000 on top of that to be a consultant in the Premier's office to monitor the radio shows, Mr. Speaker, and the polls. It is rather disingenuous for members opposite to stand up and talk to us today about fiscal responsibility.   
               ______________________________

This comparative to Len Simms and Ross Reid?

If we are going to talk about private citizens who no longer are under the employ of government and who cannot answer statements made in the People's House of Assembly - then perhaps we should try to do it fairly.

Len Simms and Ross Reid are long-standing Tories - previously elected Tories - fundraising Tories and remain employed by the Government or a Government Agency.

I am not a long-standing Liberal - not previously elected as a Liberal nor run as a Liberal Candidate.
In fact, Mr. Kent, Liberals used to call me a Tory when I opposed the governments of Clyde Wells and Brian Tobin.

I did not take a leave of absence or quit and hit the campaign trail or become a campaign co-chair and then get re-hired after an election.

Please advise us all of the total dollars I have ever received from working with the government, opposition, or as a consultant and then reveal the total compensation that Ross Reid and Len Simms have received.

Then Kent suggests that I was given $88,000 by the government because I opposed the government and then as a consultant to the Premier's Office to monitor Open-Line shows and polls.

First Mr. Kent you should seek the report that was completed by me as a consultant - release it - and then discuss the contents. The "Crown Jewels".

Then you need to ask yourself if I was actually monitoring Open-Line shows and polls or was I in fact working on things such as the need to establish the Ombudsman's Office, Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, A report on our Place in Canada; and policy matters such as natural resource developments, equalization, and class-action lawsuits.

You are a poor excuse of an MHA and even more so as the holder of facts.

Give me a place and time that you and I can discuss these matters in a public forum. Let's see how you hold up when the House of Assembly cloak is removed.