On your Ballot - write the words - I want a public inquiry!

I listened to Paul Dicks this week - through a prepared statement doing a few things. They were very similar - in fact too similar to Walter Noel's reappearance a few days earlier. Both of them said I made errors in judgement - both were sorry - then both of them claimed they were within the rules.

Walter Noel and Paul Dicks were Cabinet Ministers - Dicks was Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of Finance. Noel was Minister of Government Services and Minister of Mines and Energy. Both have premium pensions for their public service. What a pathetic sight they were - either deliberately taking advantage of a flawed system - they were part of controlling - or not possessing the ability until now to determine what they were doing was wrong.

As Ministers what were they responsible for? The two geniuses voted to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - both were involved in energy planning and Lower Churchill discussions. The finances of the province were in Paul's hands and to make matters worse so was the Department of Justice.

This whole mess is more serious than these two people let on - and they know it. These individuals did make judgements of others and they made decisions on behalf of you and me. How reasoned were those decisions?

Dicks announced last week that he was going to pay back the money spent on art and wine. I am curious - where is the art? Where is the wine? If they were purchased as Dicks claims - as a result of errors in judgement - have these items appreciated? If we were to conclude that Dicks purchased these assets with our money - in a sense a loan - which he now is paying back - where is the interest?

How did "intelligent" men believe that buying art - wine - and Christmas presents out of a constituency allowance was okay? They were sitting MHA's and Ministers - did they not think to ask their fellow MHA's on the Internal Economy Commission about the appropriateness of such spending? Did they not - all on their own - think it might be reasonable to suggest a change in the rules?

Paul Dicks is a lawyer practicing with the firm Benson-Myles and is currently a Director of the Bank of Canada. Is this alright? If these two were in charge of setting rules for corporate spending and later it was determined that they made rules in the best interest of themselves versus the shareholders - what might happen? I don't know but Conrad Black might have part of the answer. Yet Walter insists that while he made an error in judgement - he was only making the same errors as if he was in the private sector. Okay Walter try it out - and we will watch your progress.

A public inquiry must occur so that we can ask these people what exactly they were doing. We can also bring up and sort out the whole sordid affair of booting the Auditor General out of their books - ironically brought about by the AG's concern over expenditures made by Dicks.

Instead these people ride off into the pensioned sunset - living with reputations that have been false - but helped them carry on into private life. Let's say the Dick's spending had become public when he was still in office - would he have received the same opportunities after he left?

Would Junior Achievement of Canada looked at him the same way? Would the Federal Minister of Finance have offered him a board appointment to the Bank of Canada? Would Benson - Myles have offered him a position with that law firm? We might never know the answers to these questions and fortunately for Dicks - enough time had passed before the discovery for him to establish himself financially and professionally. The question now is will he be asked to do the right thing or will he offer to do the right thing and resign from positions he now holds - and like so many others of us - have to start again - and again.

All of this is notwithstanding that Wally Anderson is on the campaign trail with Danny Dumaresque - Randy Collins has taken up a great job again with his union - Paul Dicks is living high on somebodies hog - Walter has shown his head during the federal Liberal leadership contest and in this provincial campaign. If no criminal convictions come out of the current charges - it does not change what the Auditor General found. It does not change the over-spending and inappropriate spending.

For all of this this Danny is still making excuses for these people - Gerry does not even want to talk about it - Tom Rideout says he will repay the bonus constituency payment when he loses or retires out of his severance. Not one of them give a damn that thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want to vote - as they are sickened by the whole works of them. Then they come out and ask people to vote - and tell them nothing is accomplished by not voting.

I say to people - go vote - mark the ballot up - send whatever message you want - write in names - scratch off names - or better yet mark in the words - "I want a Public Inquiry".

What are we here anyway? There are people named in the AG report with significant "errors in judgement" who are running again. What have we been reduced to?

The Bank of Canada eh???

Sue's Blog will post extensively on the Report of the Auditor General "On a Review of Constituency Allowance Claims" 1989-90 - 2005-06. This is the first of such posts.

As the Report accentuated the abuse of taxpayer dollars by Paul Dicks - I have sent the following to the Governor of the Bank of Canada - where Mr. Dicks sits on the Board of Directors.

Dear Mr. Dodge,

I am writing as a citizen of Canada who wishes to express my concern respecting the previous activities of a member of the Bank's Board of Directors.

Mr. Paul Dicks - a board member and former MHA and Minister of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been named by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador as having made numerous and significant inappropriate expenditures of public money.

Please refer to the Report of the Auditor General 2007 issued as at today's date. Please use the link below to access.

AG Report

I feel the behavior of Mr. Dicks with respect to his fiduciary duties to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was abysmal.

A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the people): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.

I trust the information delivered by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador would cause concern to any citizen of this province - this country - and the leadership of the Bank of Canada.

Please take the time to review the tabled report and I trust the Bank will take appropriate action.

Best Regards,

Sue Kelland-Dyer