The Race to Save Canada from its CEO

It's hard to tell just how much damage Harper can do over the next three years.

After the federal election - May of 2011 - Harper said the following: “One thing I’ve learned in this business is that surprises are generally not well-received by the public, and so we intend to move forward with what Canadians understand about us and I think what they’re more and more comfortable with”.


Read and reread the quote.

Our Prime Minister is an educated man and he understands fully the statements he makes.

I would like a few English professors to interpret this quote.

What it means to me is Harper believes he is an all powerful CEO of a privately held major corporation.

What it means to me is Harper does not understand he is running a country.

What it means to me is that the shareholders of the company he believes he runs are not Canadian.

What it means to me is that Harper believes "voters" understood him and his ilk.

What it means to me is that Harper fully plans to make us comfortable with his agenda.

What it means to me is that Canada will not be recognizable when he's finished.

What it means to me is that - the Race is On to Save Canada - and it had better happen before too many policies are virtually irreversible.

What is particularly scary about Harper is that not one Progressive within Conservative rank and file MP's has crossed the floor.

He was raised as an adult by ideology that is foreign to most Canadians and his role is to deliver this country up to particular global entities. 

Liberal and NDP members in the Commons had better do more than posturing.

Canadians had better do more than gasp.

Our PM lies with ease, deceives at his pleasure, and rules through intimidation.

Our laws mean nothing to him and he believes he is entitled to secrecy whenever he chooses.

He is not a man of science but is rather a man of ideological zealotry. Canada did not suit his beliefs - so he will change it.

Hi is a very dangerous person and he happens to be the Prime Minister.

Loyola Sullivan and Fabian Manning - do they deserve your vote?

This was originally posted by Sue's Blog - September of 2007.
Considering that Loyola Sullivan and Fabian Manning want your vote - it is worth considering the following.



The Auditor General's Report also dealt with the "special" "onetime" $2875 constituency allowance payment. Primarily because during the last election some MHA's went on an election spree and spent up to 90% of their yearly allowance in just 6 months. That helps with the vote hey?

There was a commitment by all parties that this money would be paid back. Unfortunately - this has not been the case.

As at August 16 - 07 - nine MHA's had not paid any back nor made arrangements to do so. Another three had not paid any back but had made arrangements and six had paid some back and had made arrangements.

Those in the first category are:

Wally Anderson
Percy Barrett
Ed Byrne
Randy Collins
Kathie Goudie
Roger Grimes
Jim Hodder

Fabian Manning

Loyola Sullivan

According to a local news story the Premier said "Williams says the repayment of the bonus seems to be a question of means."

Okay - I have TWO words for that - SCHOOL TAX

Was or is the former Minister of Finance Loyola Sullivan being gouged for mega-interest on the monies owed? He had no problem gouging ordinary citizens who owed resurrected back accounts for school tax.

Or how about those people suffering from ALS - no experimental drugs?
Public Pensioners with no indexing?
Not enough nurses?

To the MHA's

Is your electricity disconnected?
Your phone cut off?
Credit cards maxed?
Houses run down?
Eviction notices?
Car repossessed?
No furnace oil?
Going to the foodbank?

Come on tell us about your financial hardship! Now you want another pension? More income? You are kidding right? The funniest part of Fabian offering himself is who is running his campaign - the former Auditor General and now Senator Elizabeth Marshall. My how her standards are lowering.

Marshmallow Report from the AG

The latest special Report of the Auditor General on the fibre-optic deal is a marshmallow.

I am frankly surprised that the man who likes to dig deep has barely scratched the surface on this particular task.

It does nothing to convince me that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians got the "best" deal for its investment - and is particularly weak when it comes to the Lobbyist Act.

First of all the project or "investment" of 15 million was not tendered and there was no request for proposals to achieve the government's stated objectives. On that basis alone we cannot determine if we got the "best" deal our money could buy.

Secondly - the financial assessment of whether or not our 15 million was needed was based on the cost of construction and did not include potential markets and revenues which could be generated for the companies involved. That is not acceptable.

Third - the Auditor General has a radio and a television and presumably keeps up with current affairs - he would then have known that this project was sold to the people as a "consortium" of companies - that did not have a name - as the party that needed the 15 million not Persona alone. In fact when the Electronic Warfare Associates report was - in part - made public - people questioned why Persona's finances could not be investigated - the response was that Rogers was a public company while Persona was private. This supposed consortium did not really exist as Persona is the owner of the system.

Fourthly - the AG determined that officials of Persona were not in violation of the Lobbyist Act as the Act states that 20% of the individuals time had to be spent lobbying. Clearly MacDonald could argue as the President of Persona - he did not spend 20% of his time lobbying for this project. However the Act provides for 2 types of lobbyists - in house - and consultant - The AG and according to him the office responsible for the lobbyist registry - found therefore there was no violation. They apparently ignored the possibility that MacDonald was acting as a consultant lobbyist which has no % of time associated with it.

MacDonald claimed he met with government officials on behalf of the consortium - Rogers - Persona - and MTS. This clearly makes MacDonald a consultant lobbyist as he was not only representing Persona - but a consortium. I therefore continue to believe the Act was violated.

Finally while there has been much fanfare from the AG office over the past year or so concerning the "spending scandal" and while the AG has been quite available for the camera - holding his own News Conferences - this report was floated out following the constituency allowance report on appropriateness of spending which had all taxpayers losing their stomachs and as such went under our radar.

This was a marshmallow report - which in the end did not provide taxpayers value for their money. In fact an imaginary News Release from the so called "consortium" probably would have looked very similar.

No recommendations - no concern about the lobbyist act - and no concern about the "best" value for our dollar.

Between the election call - the constituency spending - and conferences - and regular news events - the media did not have time to blink. I hope when the dust settles this report gets more scrutiny and more questions are asked.

Remember now - one of the key reasons government gave was that one partner of the "consortium" was a local company. Well Persona just as Cable Atlantic before it has been flipped to out-of-province interests.

For further background material on the Lobbyist Act refer to these previous posts:

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Summary

From one AG to another...tsk tsk tsk...

If we are to accept that one MHA - Elizabeth Marshall - above all others was the catalyst for the Auditor General to gut the financial operations of the House of Assembly - and there's no shortage of people who would claim that to be true - then Elizabeth Marshall's constituency spending and accounting should be perfect.

Let's look at this MHA's record - as prepared by the AG - for three of the four years she has been in office.

Of 115 MHA's that served the people (yah right) over a 17 year period - almost 25% had no double billings. Their average years of service was about 5 years. Elizabeth Marshall double billed.

Despite that the current Auditor General John Noseworthy states and the former Auditor General Elizabeth Marshall should know - that alcohol only purchases are inappropriate and represented part of the concern then AG Marshall had with former Cabinet Minister Paul Dicks - Marshall managed to make alcohol only purchases in the few short years she has been sitting. This despite that fact that 50% of her colleagues did not.

When the $2875 special payment was given to the MHA's as a "top-up" of their constituency allowances - although the former AG did not take it - she did not make it public either and waited for the current AG to get his hands on it and report.

I would also like to know whether or not the donations made by Marshall over the past 4 years have in any number or amount been claimed on her personal income tax return. Given the amounts reported and averaged and working with the latest taxation information - Marshall could have benefited in access of $2000 per annum personally.

The question is - will she tell us?

Given the Member for Topsail has only been in office for 4 years - the bar set by this former AG is not very high.