Minister Susan Sullivan was the picture of deception when performing at her News Conference on Midwifery.
It should only take another 5 to 7 years for the process to be complete. Decision Gate 75.
The Minister says she wants to make sure they will not experience the same problems as other jurisdictions in Canada that have already completed the legislated/regulated process for midwives.
Ms. Sullivan appears to be in a contest with her Atlantic Canadian peers in a race to be the slowest to regulate and utilize midwives. The rest of the provinces - no problem - with many of them being active since the late 1990's.
Ms. Sullivan knows or ought to that there is enough information to move forward now - not when she is no longer in government. This is just a case of - we don't want to do it now - don't want to spend the money now - despite the evidence that this type of service might actually save money. Unfortunately the amount saved - would not be recognized fully between now and the next election.
When this government - including Minister Sullivan WANT to do something - no problem. Let's say they put the effort into fast-tracking midwifery as they have done with Muskrat Falls - by now 40% of births would happen at home.
When I think of the mess they have made both in Muskrat Falls and our energy system - their RUSH to get everything approved - their RUSH to sign a deal with Emera; regardless of cost - the comment by Sullivan that they want to get midwifery right is nothing but deception or ignorance.
Minister Sullivan moved ahead with the destruction of independent pharmacy based on the Ontario actions - despite the problems they had in that jurisdiction. Right now we are witnessing extreme shortages of many generic drugs - ten times more in some cases - since the slashing of revenues to pharmacies. Why are these drug shortages occurring? What is it costing us?
When it comes to decision gates - the number of gates - and the time to pass through them has little to do with best practices, good social or economic policy for the people, and or the future benefits for the province it has to do with what they (Sullivan and her colleagues) want to do and when.
I guess we are at decision gate 75 for midwives, decision gate 100 for whistle blower legislation, and decision gate 450 for pensions.
Now how about we all take a crack at how many decision gates were required for Bill 29?
We now should demand decision gates on all policies - with the pomp and glory comparable to the Muskrat Gates of Eden.
We are tired Minister - but we can't shut our eyes. Time for you and the rest of your Tory Cabinet to move on. Why wait to be booted from office - follow your "friend" Kathy and leave. Are you all still blaming that one person for communication problems and bad policy?
I can't wait for the people's Decision Gate 1 in the fall of 2015 or sooner.
Showing posts with label bill 29. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill 29. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
What do Bill, Darin, Keith, Derrick have that Kathy does not?
So Bill 29 is getting inspected - but why unelected Premier Marshall?
Was elected Premier Kathy Dunderdale so vicious that you and your colleagues could not stop her?
Thousands of people yelling and screaming protest on Bill 29 - and you unelected Premier Marshall and your colleagues just ignored that? But why?
It took the loss of the first woman elected Premier of our province and who had a majority government for you and the other fellas to say - maybe we should review this.
On the strength of that - why after we were on rolling blackouts for obvious reasons of incompetence - did you not fire Ed Martin?
On that note - if you are going to "review" Bill 29 - why not "review" the Muskrat Falls deal?
Every identifiable Tory willing to speculate has been hauled out as a potential candidate for your upcoming (whenever) leadership contest. The only one left is Brian Peckford - can you manage to politically resurrect him - in your spin to demonstrate real interest in taking over the 20% party?
Is Dunderdale's seat being held for a new Townie leader and yours unelected Premier Marshall for Bill Barry?
The same old twitter backbench rats continue to attack and mock citizens. They continue on the same old path.
Then there is this - the people and the media are to blame for the loss of our Premier Dunderdale. "She was not understood" "people did not know her like we did". Sure - your the ones who booted her out. "She was not a good communicator" - yet you now are reviewing Bill 29 - not trying to re communicate the virtues of the Bill.
I've been around politics long enough to know that the PC's are in real trouble and are in panic mode. Even PC's - Bill Barry - thinks a revolution is needed - for him to even support you. So the one and only leadership candidate basically thinks the party needs to be blown up (figuratively speaking) in order for it to survive.
Tell me what do Darin King, Steve Kent, Derrick Dalley, or Keith Hutchings think they have that Kathy does not? Oh no never mind - the glass ceiling thing again.
One final question - if Bill 29 is changed - will the changes be retroactive?
As the unelected Premier overseeing the internal election of another unelected Premier - please remember you should not proceed with any major deals or developments. Time to go to the electorate - not PC's in a panic.
Was elected Premier Kathy Dunderdale so vicious that you and your colleagues could not stop her?
Thousands of people yelling and screaming protest on Bill 29 - and you unelected Premier Marshall and your colleagues just ignored that? But why?
It took the loss of the first woman elected Premier of our province and who had a majority government for you and the other fellas to say - maybe we should review this.
On the strength of that - why after we were on rolling blackouts for obvious reasons of incompetence - did you not fire Ed Martin?
On that note - if you are going to "review" Bill 29 - why not "review" the Muskrat Falls deal?
Every identifiable Tory willing to speculate has been hauled out as a potential candidate for your upcoming (whenever) leadership contest. The only one left is Brian Peckford - can you manage to politically resurrect him - in your spin to demonstrate real interest in taking over the 20% party?
Is Dunderdale's seat being held for a new Townie leader and yours unelected Premier Marshall for Bill Barry?
The same old twitter backbench rats continue to attack and mock citizens. They continue on the same old path.
Then there is this - the people and the media are to blame for the loss of our Premier Dunderdale. "She was not understood" "people did not know her like we did". Sure - your the ones who booted her out. "She was not a good communicator" - yet you now are reviewing Bill 29 - not trying to re communicate the virtues of the Bill.
I've been around politics long enough to know that the PC's are in real trouble and are in panic mode. Even PC's - Bill Barry - thinks a revolution is needed - for him to even support you. So the one and only leadership candidate basically thinks the party needs to be blown up (figuratively speaking) in order for it to survive.
Tell me what do Darin King, Steve Kent, Derrick Dalley, or Keith Hutchings think they have that Kathy does not? Oh no never mind - the glass ceiling thing again.
One final question - if Bill 29 is changed - will the changes be retroactive?
As the unelected Premier overseeing the internal election of another unelected Premier - please remember you should not proceed with any major deals or developments. Time to go to the electorate - not PC's in a panic.
Monday, January 27, 2014
PC Convention - putting more lipstick on a pig
For a Party that has avoided a real leadership contest in almost two decades - 19 years - the choice of a delegate style event seems underwhelming.
In a country where provincial and federal parties are opening up the leadership process to all but children - the Newfoundland and Labrador Tories are determined to keep this in their controlled house.
The question is why?
When the Party was at its height - in popularity - somewhere holding on to the coattails of Danny Williams - people were kept at bay from challenging the "I don't want this job" interim Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
At first there were rumors that several caucus members would throw their hats in - then some speculation on outside interests. Brad Cabana paid his money - but was blocked from even a challenge - to what the party interests wanted. In the end - no takers.
So now the field has become wide open (so to speak) for any select individuals to step forward. As mentioned in an earlier post - I believe this process is taking on such flurry now because particular corporate interests wee unsuccessful in getting their chosen Liberal leader.
Such as all this is - why shut the people of the province out? Why not allow all to vote who want to vote? Why use delegates on a floor instead of the more progressive and open approach of letting everybody cast their own votes?
Instead of over 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians casting individual votes - as was the way with the Liberal Party - late last year - we are going to see about 500 district delegates and some ex-officio's engage in some good old backroom politics and deals.
For a party that says it wants to listen to people more, engage them more, and be more open and accountable - their first act of contrition - is to control the party once again from within.
The slight of hand thing has already been set in place with wannabe - really wannabe - Cabinet Minister - Sandy Collins - referring to the Liberal Convention this way "we should strive to repeat your process. I really liked the sounds of crickets in the half filled room. Tumble weed nice touch."
Sandy has taken over from Minister Kent who used to do the useless hacking until he was placed in Cabinet. Of course like children - if they see another child being rewarded for bad behavior - similar behavior may follow.
In either case - what the Liberal process did was allow everybody to cast their own private vote and to choose a second third and fourth choice. The fact is over 20,000 people participated directly in that democratic process.
Collin's instructed position is that we would rather stuff 500 in a room via delegate selection - so the optics would be better. He likes the sounds of cheers and wants to be taken to a room and be smoozed into voting for one or another.
The 500 or so who attend may well represent only 1000 or less people. You and I will never know unless we attend each and every district association meeting.
In our democracy you don't get a separate vote for the Premier - so a leadership contest is the only inclusion there is. When you strip that to a delegate convention - you may party hardy and hoop and holler - but you are doing nothing to directly involve tens thousands of people.
So here we go again - the method of communications - is key - not the message. That's why they say Dunderdale was dumped. Pile people in a room - they are delegates - therefore they should have their expenses paid. Pile people in a room - looks like the party is growing in its enthusiasm. Pile people into a room and feed the media cameras.
Let's not forget - not that long ago people piled into a room for now former Premier Kathy Dunderdale. The media reported that all was happy in Toryland. In fact Telegram reporter James McLeod headlined "Support for Premier rock solid at convention". This was September - just 4 months ago.
Now after 19 years of no leadership contest - after appointing and anointing the chosen - the Tories are going to the backrooms to pick a leader.
The message has not changed - the Tories are putting more lipstick on a pig.
In a country where provincial and federal parties are opening up the leadership process to all but children - the Newfoundland and Labrador Tories are determined to keep this in their controlled house.
The question is why?
When the Party was at its height - in popularity - somewhere holding on to the coattails of Danny Williams - people were kept at bay from challenging the "I don't want this job" interim Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
At first there were rumors that several caucus members would throw their hats in - then some speculation on outside interests. Brad Cabana paid his money - but was blocked from even a challenge - to what the party interests wanted. In the end - no takers.
So now the field has become wide open (so to speak) for any select individuals to step forward. As mentioned in an earlier post - I believe this process is taking on such flurry now because particular corporate interests wee unsuccessful in getting their chosen Liberal leader.
Such as all this is - why shut the people of the province out? Why not allow all to vote who want to vote? Why use delegates on a floor instead of the more progressive and open approach of letting everybody cast their own votes?
Instead of over 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians casting individual votes - as was the way with the Liberal Party - late last year - we are going to see about 500 district delegates and some ex-officio's engage in some good old backroom politics and deals.
For a party that says it wants to listen to people more, engage them more, and be more open and accountable - their first act of contrition - is to control the party once again from within.
The slight of hand thing has already been set in place with wannabe - really wannabe - Cabinet Minister - Sandy Collins - referring to the Liberal Convention this way "we should strive to repeat your process. I really liked the sounds of crickets in the half filled room. Tumble weed nice touch."
Sandy has taken over from Minister Kent who used to do the useless hacking until he was placed in Cabinet. Of course like children - if they see another child being rewarded for bad behavior - similar behavior may follow.
In either case - what the Liberal process did was allow everybody to cast their own private vote and to choose a second third and fourth choice. The fact is over 20,000 people participated directly in that democratic process.
Collin's instructed position is that we would rather stuff 500 in a room via delegate selection - so the optics would be better. He likes the sounds of cheers and wants to be taken to a room and be smoozed into voting for one or another.
The 500 or so who attend may well represent only 1000 or less people. You and I will never know unless we attend each and every district association meeting.
In our democracy you don't get a separate vote for the Premier - so a leadership contest is the only inclusion there is. When you strip that to a delegate convention - you may party hardy and hoop and holler - but you are doing nothing to directly involve tens thousands of people.
So here we go again - the method of communications - is key - not the message. That's why they say Dunderdale was dumped. Pile people in a room - they are delegates - therefore they should have their expenses paid. Pile people in a room - looks like the party is growing in its enthusiasm. Pile people into a room and feed the media cameras.
Let's not forget - not that long ago people piled into a room for now former Premier Kathy Dunderdale. The media reported that all was happy in Toryland. In fact Telegram reporter James McLeod headlined "Support for Premier rock solid at convention". This was September - just 4 months ago.
Now after 19 years of no leadership contest - after appointing and anointing the chosen - the Tories are going to the backrooms to pick a leader.
The message has not changed - the Tories are putting more lipstick on a pig.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Dunderdale's supporters pulled the plug
I watched yesterday - as most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did - Premier Kathy Dunderdale resign.
It was not a sad time for me - I did not like her leadership style or the policies she rammed down our throats.
The resignation speech was - in part - a list of "accomplishments" of her government - all the wonderful things. If this was the case - why would she resign? Why are the polls reflecting that close to 80% of the people do not want her leadership or her government?
What I heard yesterday was a continued drone of - "communication" problems. Was she a great communicator? No - however that is not the reason the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not support her or her government.
It does not matter who communicates Bill 29 - we don't want it.
It does not matter who communicates the Muskrat Falls deal - we don't want it.
It does not matter how she relates the coziness with Stephen Harper - we don't like it.
It does not matter who makes excuses for not holding an inquiry on the death of Burton Winters - we want one.
It does not matter who communicates the CETA deal - the people are not satisfied with the amount of information provided.
It's not the messenger - it is the message.
In this regard - all the tired Cabinet behind her - should have gone with her. Are they delusional? Do they think if they get the one line spinner type like Brian Tobin or the bully type like Danny Williams - the policies they are trumpeting would be any more acceptable? What ever happened to the simple reasoning? Is it in anyway possible that the people do not like the policies and deals of this government?
On Muskrat - they fired everything at us - more expert communicators and communications than any person should have to suffer. They did not and do not have the peoples' support for this deal.
And by no means was she going to throw any of the backroom antics out into the open. We are to believe that Kathy Dunderdale ran back from Florida to resign - cause - she wanted to?
If the so-called supporters of Dunderdale want to patronize this woman by saying you are doing wonderfully my dear - but it's just the way you say it - or do it or the way you look - the I guess the Premier should really examine her choice of "friends".
For me it's this - the people do not like what you are doing with the province. In that respect we do not support your Cabinet who were involved in the decisions.
The other part of her speech - was what could be termed the human part - the emotional part. In this she thanked her family - as we all should thank our families. The part about sacrifice I can do without as many professions and jobs - particularly those involved in protecting and saving lives - make that sacrifice for their entire careers - 50 years of it in some cases. Next up was the "women's" advancement discussion. As a woman - I can say she did nothing whatsoever for me as it relates to advancing women in politics. She was one of the most extreme partisan politicians I can remember. If you were a woman and supported her and her government - yes you would be looked upon favourably. If you were a young PC or a man who supported her and her government - you would be looked favourably upon. If you were a woman who was critical of her government and policies - she had no problem slicing and dicing you - and remember - she had the power to abuse it.
If she would like to confirm that she at no time discriminated against a woman because they were publicly critical of her government and policies - then I will challenge it.
All in all - I found Premier Dunderdale to be arrogant, out of her depth on many issues, too delighted with her power, and generally incompetent.
Do I care about how she looks or how she speaks (outside being relatively literate for the position), or that she is a woman? No. I care about how she conducts herself while in such a position, the decisions she makes and how she treats the people who put her there.
I care that the Premier and her government spent many hours of public media condemning those who disagreed with her policies and deals. The use of the words partisan, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists to describe the population one serves are not the words I want to hear from a "leader".
On the continued media thread that communication is the big problem here - that's assuming we - the people - are all not able to really see the benefits of something unless it is communicated by the likes of a John F. Kennedy? It is quite likely that when the vast majority of a population cannot see the benefit of one deal or another - it's because - it's not beneficial for them.
A politician - like all people - can be thanked for service - however to place them on a pedestal above many in a population who serve in some capacity or another is wrong. Yesterday the Premier quit her job. Her choice. It says a great deal however about the commitment to finish the job you started. Imagine if other professions could or would do that - imagine the mess we would have.
Her Cabinet and caucus who supported her leadership and policy choices did nothing much to prevent the resignation - that we can see anyway. So the wannabe new Premiers and their supporters spent most of the day blaming the people and or media for "not understanding her".Yesterday they wanted us to feel bad for causing her to leave.
The majority of people may not have supported her - but the majority of people could only replace her on election day. The Premier's supporters pulled the plug. It's important to add that they pulled the plug for polling results that were achieved through the policy choices of the entire Cabinet.
It was not a sad time for me - I did not like her leadership style or the policies she rammed down our throats.
The resignation speech was - in part - a list of "accomplishments" of her government - all the wonderful things. If this was the case - why would she resign? Why are the polls reflecting that close to 80% of the people do not want her leadership or her government?
What I heard yesterday was a continued drone of - "communication" problems. Was she a great communicator? No - however that is not the reason the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not support her or her government.
It does not matter who communicates Bill 29 - we don't want it.
It does not matter who communicates the Muskrat Falls deal - we don't want it.
It does not matter how she relates the coziness with Stephen Harper - we don't like it.
It does not matter who makes excuses for not holding an inquiry on the death of Burton Winters - we want one.
It does not matter who communicates the CETA deal - the people are not satisfied with the amount of information provided.
It's not the messenger - it is the message.
In this regard - all the tired Cabinet behind her - should have gone with her. Are they delusional? Do they think if they get the one line spinner type like Brian Tobin or the bully type like Danny Williams - the policies they are trumpeting would be any more acceptable? What ever happened to the simple reasoning? Is it in anyway possible that the people do not like the policies and deals of this government?
On Muskrat - they fired everything at us - more expert communicators and communications than any person should have to suffer. They did not and do not have the peoples' support for this deal.
And by no means was she going to throw any of the backroom antics out into the open. We are to believe that Kathy Dunderdale ran back from Florida to resign - cause - she wanted to?
If the so-called supporters of Dunderdale want to patronize this woman by saying you are doing wonderfully my dear - but it's just the way you say it - or do it or the way you look - the I guess the Premier should really examine her choice of "friends".
For me it's this - the people do not like what you are doing with the province. In that respect we do not support your Cabinet who were involved in the decisions.
The other part of her speech - was what could be termed the human part - the emotional part. In this she thanked her family - as we all should thank our families. The part about sacrifice I can do without as many professions and jobs - particularly those involved in protecting and saving lives - make that sacrifice for their entire careers - 50 years of it in some cases. Next up was the "women's" advancement discussion. As a woman - I can say she did nothing whatsoever for me as it relates to advancing women in politics. She was one of the most extreme partisan politicians I can remember. If you were a woman and supported her and her government - yes you would be looked upon favourably. If you were a young PC or a man who supported her and her government - you would be looked favourably upon. If you were a woman who was critical of her government and policies - she had no problem slicing and dicing you - and remember - she had the power to abuse it.
If she would like to confirm that she at no time discriminated against a woman because they were publicly critical of her government and policies - then I will challenge it.
All in all - I found Premier Dunderdale to be arrogant, out of her depth on many issues, too delighted with her power, and generally incompetent.
Do I care about how she looks or how she speaks (outside being relatively literate for the position), or that she is a woman? No. I care about how she conducts herself while in such a position, the decisions she makes and how she treats the people who put her there.
I care that the Premier and her government spent many hours of public media condemning those who disagreed with her policies and deals. The use of the words partisan, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists to describe the population one serves are not the words I want to hear from a "leader".
On the continued media thread that communication is the big problem here - that's assuming we - the people - are all not able to really see the benefits of something unless it is communicated by the likes of a John F. Kennedy? It is quite likely that when the vast majority of a population cannot see the benefit of one deal or another - it's because - it's not beneficial for them.
A politician - like all people - can be thanked for service - however to place them on a pedestal above many in a population who serve in some capacity or another is wrong. Yesterday the Premier quit her job. Her choice. It says a great deal however about the commitment to finish the job you started. Imagine if other professions could or would do that - imagine the mess we would have.
Her Cabinet and caucus who supported her leadership and policy choices did nothing much to prevent the resignation - that we can see anyway. So the wannabe new Premiers and their supporters spent most of the day blaming the people and or media for "not understanding her".Yesterday they wanted us to feel bad for causing her to leave.
The majority of people may not have supported her - but the majority of people could only replace her on election day. The Premier's supporters pulled the plug. It's important to add that they pulled the plug for polling results that were achieved through the policy choices of the entire Cabinet.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Jerome Kennedy - Wrongfully elected?
Goodbye Jerome? - you have left your mark on the political landscape of our province.
Yours was a reign of arrogance, belligerence, intolerance, and prejudice.
Prior to becoming a "politician" - Mr. Kennedy was a defense lawyer of note - fighting against injustices, protecting the wrongfully accused. The lion of of a lawyer standing between them and the zealous prosecution, them and sloppy police work and more between them and the judges. Don't forget how Kennedy once described the judiciary: "It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing" and "Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is as a result of intentional or unintentional biases."
Well what has Kennedy become?
I can certainly say that he acted on some policy issues where he did not know what he was doing and part of that was because of political influence. He certainly has biases whether intentional or unintentional.
He has punished people or threatened to punish people without any fair hearing or process.
With respect to those who have plead guilty of violence - who are sexual offenders - I say that Minister Kennedy had no problem celebrating such a criminal because he was successful in a hockey game. he stood in the House of Assembly, our Legislature and said: "The CeeBees rode stellar goaltending by Mark Yetman and were led on and off the ice by their captain, veteran Keith Delaney, and assistant captains, Mike Dyke, Donnie Gosse, and Robert Slaney."
So when Jerome Kennedy was fortunate enough to be elected and sit as an MHA and as a Minister - how did he handle his new found power?
Did he try to bring what he learned as a lawyer fighting for the innocent and challenging how the judges handled the power they had?
No he became what he complained about and fought against. His power was so intoxicating he lost sight of all the little people. He condemned without ever meeting. He issued threats to small business owners and professionals to get his way. He was vindictive toward critics of his government. He was a bully. Then hockey prowess trumped the rights of women who were violated by a person - he chose to celebrate.
Poetic justice is probably more suited to our Mr. Kennedy.
Was he able to take constructive criticism? No.
Was he able to use his power wisely, justly, and with humility? Yes - however he chose not to.
Did he practice what he preached when given the opportunity? No
Did he treat all citizens fairly and without prejudice? No
Did he become a political hack? Yes
All that was done in his previous career has been greatly diminished by his approach when holding a powerful position.
Is it time for him to go? It was - for me - the day after his first appointment to Cabinet.
How he looked up into the galleries of the House of Assembly and mocked ordinary citizens who were there to fight for what was right. That's the last memory I have of Jerome Kennedy - for after that - there was no need to listen to anything else he said.
I leave the allegedly departing - student of poetry - Minister with the following:
Yours was a reign of arrogance, belligerence, intolerance, and prejudice.
Prior to becoming a "politician" - Mr. Kennedy was a defense lawyer of note - fighting against injustices, protecting the wrongfully accused. The lion of of a lawyer standing between them and the zealous prosecution, them and sloppy police work and more between them and the judges. Don't forget how Kennedy once described the judiciary: "It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing" and "Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is as a result of intentional or unintentional biases."
Well what has Kennedy become?
I can certainly say that he acted on some policy issues where he did not know what he was doing and part of that was because of political influence. He certainly has biases whether intentional or unintentional.
He has punished people or threatened to punish people without any fair hearing or process.
With respect to those who have plead guilty of violence - who are sexual offenders - I say that Minister Kennedy had no problem celebrating such a criminal because he was successful in a hockey game. he stood in the House of Assembly, our Legislature and said: "The CeeBees rode stellar goaltending by Mark Yetman and were led on and off the ice by their captain, veteran Keith Delaney, and assistant captains, Mike Dyke, Donnie Gosse, and Robert Slaney."
So when Jerome Kennedy was fortunate enough to be elected and sit as an MHA and as a Minister - how did he handle his new found power?
Did he try to bring what he learned as a lawyer fighting for the innocent and challenging how the judges handled the power they had?
No he became what he complained about and fought against. His power was so intoxicating he lost sight of all the little people. He condemned without ever meeting. He issued threats to small business owners and professionals to get his way. He was vindictive toward critics of his government. He was a bully. Then hockey prowess trumped the rights of women who were violated by a person - he chose to celebrate.
Poetic justice is probably more suited to our Mr. Kennedy.
Was he able to take constructive criticism? No.
Was he able to use his power wisely, justly, and with humility? Yes - however he chose not to.
Did he practice what he preached when given the opportunity? No
Did he treat all citizens fairly and without prejudice? No
Did he become a political hack? Yes
All that was done in his previous career has been greatly diminished by his approach when holding a powerful position.
Is it time for him to go? It was - for me - the day after his first appointment to Cabinet.
How he looked up into the galleries of the House of Assembly and mocked ordinary citizens who were there to fight for what was right. That's the last memory I have of Jerome Kennedy - for after that - there was no need to listen to anything else he said.
I leave the allegedly departing - student of poetry - Minister with the following:
Wrongfully Elected
His potential was great, his ability - exceptional, his timing ideal
He however squandered, underperformed, abused political power.
Contempt became his noun, as he sentenced others without
trial, representation, or financial clout to fight him.
His act of despising defined him, clouded him,
ruled him.
Injustice he bemoaned became justice he delivered,
power he protested became the legislative hammer he wielded.
Society should hold no favorites; therefore society was unnecessary.
Brave when times were celebraTORY when actions could be retaliaTORY words deprecaTORY - cowardice abound when polls are in the lavaTORY, or a rogaTory process was replaced with the number 29; a bill of ill repute.
So great was his opportunity that his deeds seem so feeble.
This adieu is doubly sad; that when there he retreated and when retreating is irrelevant.
The mark left is big - broad - bold - but bush-league. An oxymoron? No - for when so much was possible yet so little realized - the resulting scar can be profound.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Cathy Bennett fails 1st Transparency Test
The Liberal leadership has brought a barrage of commitments from all candidates regarding openness, transparency, and accountability. This is a great thing.
The candidate who has been on the firing line the most on this issue is Cathy Bennett. Rightly - other Liberal hopefuls have suggested her work as the Chair of Nalcor was wrought with secrecy and during a time when government was shutting information doors.
Ms. Bennett says she was opposed to Bill 29 and determined to open the information lines to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
She was tested the other night and failed.
The debate at Memorial University was public. The exchanges were heated. Leadership was on the line.
We know that Cathy Bennett said something to Danny Dumaresque immediately following the debate.
We know that Cathy Bennett apologized to Danny Dumaresque for the comment.
Considering this was a public forum being held as part of a process to choose a leader of the Liberals; who may well go on to be Premier - we should know what Cathy Bennett said to Danny Dumaresque.
The comment may have been made at the heat of the moment - but we can anticipate that a Premier of a Province may have many such moments when dealing with Ottawa, provincial colleagues, executives of companies, union representatives, or citizens. We need to know what happens to Cathy Bennett when she is challenged. We need to know how she conducts herself in these circumstances.
The fact that Cathy Bennett will not tell us - means her transparency will be based on what she thinks we have a right or need to know. That's exactly what we have now.
Cathy Bennett has failed her first transparency test.
The candidate who has been on the firing line the most on this issue is Cathy Bennett. Rightly - other Liberal hopefuls have suggested her work as the Chair of Nalcor was wrought with secrecy and during a time when government was shutting information doors.
Ms. Bennett says she was opposed to Bill 29 and determined to open the information lines to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
She was tested the other night and failed.
The debate at Memorial University was public. The exchanges were heated. Leadership was on the line.
We know that Cathy Bennett said something to Danny Dumaresque immediately following the debate.
We know that Cathy Bennett apologized to Danny Dumaresque for the comment.
Considering this was a public forum being held as part of a process to choose a leader of the Liberals; who may well go on to be Premier - we should know what Cathy Bennett said to Danny Dumaresque.
The comment may have been made at the heat of the moment - but we can anticipate that a Premier of a Province may have many such moments when dealing with Ottawa, provincial colleagues, executives of companies, union representatives, or citizens. We need to know what happens to Cathy Bennett when she is challenged. We need to know how she conducts herself in these circumstances.
The fact that Cathy Bennett will not tell us - means her transparency will be based on what she thinks we have a right or need to know. That's exactly what we have now.
Cathy Bennett has failed her first transparency test.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Lorraine Michael is 100% Right - Here's Why
MHA David Brazil appeared on a talk show this morning to downplay the significance of the findings by Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Victor Powers.
He said the Commissioner said the violation was a "minimum of minimum" - yet I do not see this in the report. In fact Brazil's take on the finding is that he accepts the findings but his actions were not that bad and were an "oversight".
He brushed off the "conflict of interest" comment by saying it was not outlined how he did that.
Basically - he brushed off the Report and inserted his own interpretations of what are clear findings.
How serious is this?
Well let's reflect on why there is a Code of Member's Conduct to begin with.
This was established to satisfy one of the recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green in his report - acting as the head of an Independent Commission of Review set-up by the Williams Government.
All this of course followed the scathing findings of Auditor General ( Elizabeth Marshall) regarding conduct of Members of the House of Assembly.
We had MHA's go to jail, MHA's who just missed the criminal threshold pay thousands of dollars back to the Crown, MHA's buying artwork, women's lingerie, and even trinkets purchased from a company whose owner was also was found guilty of criminal behavior.
Due to the nature and severity of the MHA behavior - it became incumbent on all MHA's in the future to make a concerted effort to understand the law to the point where oversight would not occur. This needed to be achieved for the public to regain trust in their elected representatives.
In Commissioner Powers Report regarding the actions of MHA David Brazil - the Commissioner in no way takes away from the seriousness of the violations of two laws of the Province.
David Brazil contends that the Commissioner stated that his violations of the law were a "minimum of minimum". This is where the buffoonery enters. The minimum of minimum would mean he violated no law. The Commissioner did find that David Brazil was in violation of two laws and that in each case he found the Member should be reprimanded. A reprimand is the lesser of the penalties available.
Victor Powers did not negate the seriousness of Brazil's breaches - he in fact spent many words highlighting the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and further the importance of full disclosure by the Member of his Interests.
Listening to David Brazil on the talk show this morning makes me believe that the MHA does not accept that his actions were serious, he is not taking the Commissioner's report and recommendations seriously, and he is not prepared to be meaningfully remorseful for his actions.
An MHA - a person who is a Member of the Legislature - where laws are debated and passed -should absolutely be crystal clear on what the laws are related to his conduct as a Member. This was clearly not the case if Brazil contends an oversight.
Should the House re-open to deal with this? Yes - after the history of abuse by Members of the law - and in a day of continued breaches by Senators of Canada - it should be treated seriously and dealt with swiftly. If this does not occur - those who may consider breaking or those who may consider being lax with the law in the future - would have no real deterrent. Further Commissioner Powers did say that failure to disclose required information to the Commissioner's Office contributes to the erosion of transparency and accountability as required from members.
If David Brazil were seriously interested in accountability and serious about breaches in the law - he would do the honourable thing and resign - and let his constituents decide what the "reprimand" should be.
Then again this government giveth and taketh away from transparency and accountability. On the one hand we get new laws for disclosure and accountability for MHA's and on the other hand passes Bill 29 which erodes disclosure and accountability. In this respect I find David Brazil's attitude in keeping with his leader and Cabinet. This should be sufficiently concerning to us all.
Here are the Links to Relevant Material
Commissioner Powers Report
House of Assembly Act
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
The Code Of Conduct
The Green Report - Rebuilding Confidence
He said the Commissioner said the violation was a "minimum of minimum" - yet I do not see this in the report. In fact Brazil's take on the finding is that he accepts the findings but his actions were not that bad and were an "oversight".
He brushed off the "conflict of interest" comment by saying it was not outlined how he did that.
Basically - he brushed off the Report and inserted his own interpretations of what are clear findings.
How serious is this?
Well let's reflect on why there is a Code of Member's Conduct to begin with.
This was established to satisfy one of the recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green in his report - acting as the head of an Independent Commission of Review set-up by the Williams Government.
All this of course followed the scathing findings of Auditor General ( Elizabeth Marshall) regarding conduct of Members of the House of Assembly.
We had MHA's go to jail, MHA's who just missed the criminal threshold pay thousands of dollars back to the Crown, MHA's buying artwork, women's lingerie, and even trinkets purchased from a company whose owner was also was found guilty of criminal behavior.
Due to the nature and severity of the MHA behavior - it became incumbent on all MHA's in the future to make a concerted effort to understand the law to the point where oversight would not occur. This needed to be achieved for the public to regain trust in their elected representatives.
In Commissioner Powers Report regarding the actions of MHA David Brazil - the Commissioner in no way takes away from the seriousness of the violations of two laws of the Province.
David Brazil contends that the Commissioner stated that his violations of the law were a "minimum of minimum". This is where the buffoonery enters. The minimum of minimum would mean he violated no law. The Commissioner did find that David Brazil was in violation of two laws and that in each case he found the Member should be reprimanded. A reprimand is the lesser of the penalties available.
Victor Powers did not negate the seriousness of Brazil's breaches - he in fact spent many words highlighting the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and further the importance of full disclosure by the Member of his Interests.
Listening to David Brazil on the talk show this morning makes me believe that the MHA does not accept that his actions were serious, he is not taking the Commissioner's report and recommendations seriously, and he is not prepared to be meaningfully remorseful for his actions.
An MHA - a person who is a Member of the Legislature - where laws are debated and passed -should absolutely be crystal clear on what the laws are related to his conduct as a Member. This was clearly not the case if Brazil contends an oversight.
Should the House re-open to deal with this? Yes - after the history of abuse by Members of the law - and in a day of continued breaches by Senators of Canada - it should be treated seriously and dealt with swiftly. If this does not occur - those who may consider breaking or those who may consider being lax with the law in the future - would have no real deterrent. Further Commissioner Powers did say that failure to disclose required information to the Commissioner's Office contributes to the erosion of transparency and accountability as required from members.
If David Brazil were seriously interested in accountability and serious about breaches in the law - he would do the honourable thing and resign - and let his constituents decide what the "reprimand" should be.
Then again this government giveth and taketh away from transparency and accountability. On the one hand we get new laws for disclosure and accountability for MHA's and on the other hand passes Bill 29 which erodes disclosure and accountability. In this respect I find David Brazil's attitude in keeping with his leader and Cabinet. This should be sufficiently concerning to us all.
Here are the Links to Relevant Material
Commissioner Powers Report
House of Assembly Act
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
The Code Of Conduct
The Green Report - Rebuilding Confidence
Thursday, August 15, 2013
MHA Brazil's Oversight - another Red Flag
Tory oversights of which Dave Brazil owns the most recent must cause all people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pause.
In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.
Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".
Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight
So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.
So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.
Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?
And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight.
Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.
In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.
Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".
Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight
So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.
So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.
Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?
And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight.
Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Our Secret Society - Who is the head Puppeteer?
Bill 29
Untendered Contracts
90 million $$$$ ????
Land deals
Resource giveaways
The Miracle Budget
Finding 1 billion in a month
The political hum in the air is undeniable - it is very stinky.
It stinks to the high heavens.
So the PC caucus need not know about the secret commercially sensitive $90 million dollar talks?
Will these MHA's vote for a budget when they are not privy to all the details?
Will these Tory Backbenchers stand up and really be counted or will they act as they are being treated - like garbage littering the seats at the peoples house?
Little Miss Bluffitt these days seems to be aloof to polls and commentary on her government. She has risen above the criticism and is going to do what's best for us - as if we are 4 year olds wanting to cross the street.
"I cannot govern by polls" she says with a flip of the head and the shrug of a shoulder. The same woman who heads a herd of non-scientific poll fixers, riggers, party puppets?
The strings are becoming more and more apparent as days go by. The upper echelon of the PC party must be getting ready to pounce or getting ready to leave as the next election draws near. I suppose that will depend on if they got their fair share of the public pie.
Eliminate the justice system?
It matters not who is in control of project management at Muskrat - it matters not if we are told a thing about the billions she and her posse is spending of our money.
So who's getting another little piece of education pie this time? Are we once again trying to keep the population as uneducated as possible?
And yet still 48 members of the House of Assembly - no cuts - no political staffers worried about getting the blue slip.
Based on those oil projections driving Muskrat Falls - and the oil projections driving our deficit - we had better bring this government down - sooner rather than later. If enough protest and speak out - she will have to go. Democracy must be restored - let your voice be heard.
She is a liar.
Dunderdale uttered the following in the House of Assembly on March 21-2013
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, only the Leader of the Liberal Opposition would have the face to get up here and talk about somebody calling in to a radio poll, when they in their time in government had two full-time people in the Premier's office whose only job – Tom Hann and Sue Kelland-Dyer, let me remind people of the Province – was to call in to Open Line to carry the party line, Mr. Speaker, and to influence people of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.
The tip of the iceberg - what does the woman say in private settings and meetings? Well everybody will soon find out. Pure desperation!
Come out from under the protection of the House of Assembly - where all things you say about private citizens are not able to be dealt with in the courts - and repeat the messages.
Don't forget those other points and observations you make - when in "appropriate" company.
To the boys in the backroom - Keep those Solid Gold ideas flowing...
Untendered Contracts
90 million $$$$ ????
Land deals
Resource giveaways
The Miracle Budget
Finding 1 billion in a month
The political hum in the air is undeniable - it is very stinky.
It stinks to the high heavens.
So the PC caucus need not know about the secret commercially sensitive $90 million dollar talks?
Will these MHA's vote for a budget when they are not privy to all the details?
Will these Tory Backbenchers stand up and really be counted or will they act as they are being treated - like garbage littering the seats at the peoples house?
Little Miss Bluffitt these days seems to be aloof to polls and commentary on her government. She has risen above the criticism and is going to do what's best for us - as if we are 4 year olds wanting to cross the street.
"I cannot govern by polls" she says with a flip of the head and the shrug of a shoulder. The same woman who heads a herd of non-scientific poll fixers, riggers, party puppets?
The strings are becoming more and more apparent as days go by. The upper echelon of the PC party must be getting ready to pounce or getting ready to leave as the next election draws near. I suppose that will depend on if they got their fair share of the public pie.
Eliminate the justice system?
It matters not who is in control of project management at Muskrat - it matters not if we are told a thing about the billions she and her posse is spending of our money.
So who's getting another little piece of education pie this time? Are we once again trying to keep the population as uneducated as possible?
And yet still 48 members of the House of Assembly - no cuts - no political staffers worried about getting the blue slip.
Based on those oil projections driving Muskrat Falls - and the oil projections driving our deficit - we had better bring this government down - sooner rather than later. If enough protest and speak out - she will have to go. Democracy must be restored - let your voice be heard.
She is a liar.
Dunderdale uttered the following in the House of Assembly on March 21-2013
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, only the Leader of the Liberal Opposition would have the face to get up here and talk about somebody calling in to a radio poll, when they in their time in government had two full-time people in the Premier's office whose only job – Tom Hann and Sue Kelland-Dyer, let me remind people of the Province – was to call in to Open Line to carry the party line, Mr. Speaker, and to influence people of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.
The tip of the iceberg - what does the woman say in private settings and meetings? Well everybody will soon find out. Pure desperation!
Come out from under the protection of the House of Assembly - where all things you say about private citizens are not able to be dealt with in the courts - and repeat the messages.
Don't forget those other points and observations you make - when in "appropriate" company.
To the boys in the backroom - Keep those Solid Gold ideas flowing...
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Muskrat Love and Poll-itical Divorce
Muskrats have small eyes that are positioned on top of their heads that allow them to be secretive in the water.
Problem is: the water is drying up and the Muskrat is coming under close scrutiny.
The Muskrat tried feverishly to protect itself by trying to drown us in waterlogged access to information - however that failed.
The polls are a reflection of both the arrogance and secrecy of the Dunderdale/Williams administration.
The people are NOT sold on the Emera deal and a significant number are obviously very concerned.
Here is a list of what I think Dunderdale's problems are:
1. Muskrat Falls Deal
2. Access to Information Changes
3. Continued Arrogance
4. Support for Harper
5. Loss of federal jobs and services
6. Mess of the Fishery
7. Mess of rural Newfoundland and Labrador
8. Loss of forestry industry
9. Incompetence of Ministers and backbenchers
10. Health (cuts, nurses, doctors, pharmacies - mismanagement)
11. Partisan appointments
The most important - the loss of Burton Winter's Life - we Demand an Inquiry
The arrogant list:
Premier Dunderdale
Minister Jerome Kennedy
Minister Susan Sullivan
Minister Joan Burke
Minister Darin King
Minister Kevin O'Brien
Minister Tom Marshall
Minister Charlene Johnson
MHA Sandy Collins
MHA David Brazil
MHA Steve Kent
By the way the continued childish attacks on Dale Kirby are NOT working.
The continued attempt to control open line programs is NOT working.
So - Kathy Dunderdale and fellow vainglorious PC members - don't get that the fix is in or they are aware and are not planning to run again - or they are hoping to see some personal gain/favour.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador must stop the Muskrat deal - we cannot afford it.
It is NOT enough to fire them out of office - we must stop the deal.
Problem is: the water is drying up and the Muskrat is coming under close scrutiny.
The Muskrat tried feverishly to protect itself by trying to drown us in waterlogged access to information - however that failed.
The polls are a reflection of both the arrogance and secrecy of the Dunderdale/Williams administration.
The people are NOT sold on the Emera deal and a significant number are obviously very concerned.
Here is a list of what I think Dunderdale's problems are:
1. Muskrat Falls Deal
2. Access to Information Changes
3. Continued Arrogance
4. Support for Harper
5. Loss of federal jobs and services
6. Mess of the Fishery
7. Mess of rural Newfoundland and Labrador
8. Loss of forestry industry
9. Incompetence of Ministers and backbenchers
10. Health (cuts, nurses, doctors, pharmacies - mismanagement)
11. Partisan appointments
The most important - the loss of Burton Winter's Life - we Demand an Inquiry
The arrogant list:
Premier Dunderdale
Minister Jerome Kennedy
Minister Susan Sullivan
Minister Joan Burke
Minister Darin King
Minister Kevin O'Brien
Minister Tom Marshall
Minister Charlene Johnson
MHA Sandy Collins
MHA David Brazil
MHA Steve Kent
By the way the continued childish attacks on Dale Kirby are NOT working.
The continued attempt to control open line programs is NOT working.
So - Kathy Dunderdale and fellow vainglorious PC members - don't get that the fix is in or they are aware and are not planning to run again - or they are hoping to see some personal gain/favour.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador must stop the Muskrat deal - we cannot afford it.
It is NOT enough to fire them out of office - we must stop the deal.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
VOCM - Open-Line - Slander 101
On Monday caller "Bob" to VOCM openline - hosted by Randy Simms - decided it was perfectly acceptable to make false statements about me.
"Bob" had called - as he usually does - to defend the Tories on one issue or another.
"Bob" also discussed - as he usually does - how he is unique and how his whole life he was made to feel abnormal.
That's what makes his continued attack on me so bizarre. It's as if he will punish me by doing to me what he claims was done to him.
In either case - on Monday - "Bob" once again crossed the line and as usual VOCM allowed it to be broadcast. VOCM failed to use the technology they employ to prevent such occurrences (delayed broadcast).
Audio of the Call can be found at the end of this post.
I will let the reader of this blog determine how or why I became relevant to what "Bob" was talking about. For now let's look at what "Bob" said about me.
"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."
I was not hired by Roger Grimes to defend any proposed deal regarding the development of the Lower Churchill. When I was hired it was Voisey's Bay that was the contentious issue and is a project that the Tories have benefited from politically ever since. The second part regarding Roger Grimes giving me a pharmacy for my loyalty is not a matter for interpretation. I do not and have never owned any part of a pharmacy.
Further my involvement in pharmacy began in 2008 as the Executive Director of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners. Roger Grimes has not been Premier since 2003. To suggest that I was given a pharmacy for my loyalty is a slanderous statement. It - one - is not in any way factual and - two - suggests that I was rewarded in some unethical way for loyalty to a politician or a political party.
What did Randy do? Well he laughed and then through an employee of VOCM on twitter suggested I call in.
This equally was despicable.
I am not employed by government and am not an elected official. I am a private citizen who engages in public discourse on matters of public interest.
I deal with policy and political issues and when I state somebody owns one asset or another - they do. When I state they hold a particular Board position or another - they do.
This blatant attempt to disparage me - based on completely false statements - by "Bob" and then allowed to be broadcast by Randy Simms and VOCM - will only serve to make other people afraid to make any public comments. This will make others feel they have no right to criticize the policies created and promoted by elected officials - for fear that partisans may call and make false statements about them.
Is this the point? If not I fail to see why this type of behavior continues to be allowed by a publicly traded company.
Audio Clip PRESS HERE
"Bob" had called - as he usually does - to defend the Tories on one issue or another.
"Bob" also discussed - as he usually does - how he is unique and how his whole life he was made to feel abnormal.
That's what makes his continued attack on me so bizarre. It's as if he will punish me by doing to me what he claims was done to him.
In either case - on Monday - "Bob" once again crossed the line and as usual VOCM allowed it to be broadcast. VOCM failed to use the technology they employ to prevent such occurrences (delayed broadcast).
Audio of the Call can be found at the end of this post.
I will let the reader of this blog determine how or why I became relevant to what "Bob" was talking about. For now let's look at what "Bob" said about me.
"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."
I was not hired by Roger Grimes to defend any proposed deal regarding the development of the Lower Churchill. When I was hired it was Voisey's Bay that was the contentious issue and is a project that the Tories have benefited from politically ever since. The second part regarding Roger Grimes giving me a pharmacy for my loyalty is not a matter for interpretation. I do not and have never owned any part of a pharmacy.
Further my involvement in pharmacy began in 2008 as the Executive Director of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners. Roger Grimes has not been Premier since 2003. To suggest that I was given a pharmacy for my loyalty is a slanderous statement. It - one - is not in any way factual and - two - suggests that I was rewarded in some unethical way for loyalty to a politician or a political party.
What did Randy do? Well he laughed and then through an employee of VOCM on twitter suggested I call in.
This equally was despicable.
I am not employed by government and am not an elected official. I am a private citizen who engages in public discourse on matters of public interest.
I deal with policy and political issues and when I state somebody owns one asset or another - they do. When I state they hold a particular Board position or another - they do.
This blatant attempt to disparage me - based on completely false statements - by "Bob" and then allowed to be broadcast by Randy Simms and VOCM - will only serve to make other people afraid to make any public comments. This will make others feel they have no right to criticize the policies created and promoted by elected officials - for fear that partisans may call and make false statements about them.
Is this the point? If not I fail to see why this type of behavior continues to be allowed by a publicly traded company.
Audio Clip PRESS HERE
Monday, June 18, 2012
Sample of Nalcor Transparency - Be very Afraid!
The following is a copy of email correspondence between Nalcor and I over the past 2 weeks.
If this is a sample of transparency - we are in real trouble. I am a shareholder of Nalcor and so are you. It is our company - it does not belong solely to Ed Martin, Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Danny Williams, or Dean MacDonald.
Please notice how basic the request is and how long the response is taking.
June 08-2012 Sent to info@nalcorenergy.com
Please advise where I may find a copy of the bylaws outlining the responsibilities of the Board of Directors.
Thank you,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
June 08-2012 Sent from NalcorAdministrator@nalcorenergy.com
Thank you for your enquiry to Nalcor Energy. Questions and general
enquiries will be responded to within five business days.
Job enquires and applications will be forwarded to the Human Resources
department. Please visit nalcorenergy.com/careers, where you can find
current opportunities, submit a general application and sign up for job
notifications.
Visit HydroSafety.ca for tips and videos that will help keep you and your
families safe.
June 18 - 2012 Sent to info@nalcorenergy.com
Please advise what the status of this request is.
Thank you,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
If this is a sample of transparency - we are in real trouble. I am a shareholder of Nalcor and so are you. It is our company - it does not belong solely to Ed Martin, Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Danny Williams, or Dean MacDonald.
Please notice how basic the request is and how long the response is taking.
June 08-2012 Sent to info@nalcorenergy.com
Please advise where I may find a copy of the bylaws outlining the responsibilities of the Board of Directors.
Thank you,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
June 08-2012 Sent from NalcorAdministrator@nalcorenergy.com
Thank you for your enquiry to Nalcor Energy. Questions and general
enquiries will be responded to within five business days.
Job enquires and applications will be forwarded to the Human Resources
department. Please visit nalcorenergy.com/careers, where you can find
current opportunities, submit a general application and sign up for job
notifications.
Visit HydroSafety.ca for tips and videos that will help keep you and your
families safe.
June 18 - 2012 Sent to info@nalcorenergy.com
Please advise what the status of this request is.
Thank you,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
Dunderdale NOT a Leader - Just Facilitating a Plan
Last week we seen the end of a record setting filibuster in the House of Assembly.
The debate was cut short by the PC's in the house through closure.
Bill 29 an Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was and is a very controversial piece of House business. The crux of the concern is the reduction of access to information.
The Newfoundland and Labrador electorate is still suffering trust issues from the constituency allowance spending scandal - which ultimately sent 4 former MHA's to jail. One of the convicted was Ed Byrne - a PC MHA who became a Cabinet Minister and Deputy Premier under the Danny Williams administration.
In large part - the entire criminal fiasco was caused by not allowing the Auditor General to review the expenditures of the MHA's. The concept of maximized transparency and access to information was touted by Danny Williams as a hallmark of his government - of which current Premier Kathy Dunderdale served in Cabinet and as the Deputy Premier.
Any changes to law which would diminish - in any way - transparency and access should concern Kathy Dunderdale a great deal. It - however - did not phase her - apparently it did not even interest her.
Instead of being a leader by explaining to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why her government wants to change the access to information law - she ran away. Dunderdale was here:
The Honourable Kathy Dunderdale, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be the keynote speaker at the sixth annual Memorial University Calgary Affinity Dinner tomorrow (Wednesday, June 13) at the Fairmont Palliser Hotel in Calgary. The dinner begins at 7:00 p.m. MDT, with the Premier scheduled to speak at approximately 8:30 p.m.
The theme of the keynote address is Bold and Tenacious: Driving Growth and Prosperity in the New Newfoundland and Labrador.
Oh I can hear the tapping of partisan twitter characters already. They will suggest that this event was planned for some time and it is an important piece of business for our province.
Let's say we accept this rationale completely.
No problem, the Bill did not have to be called until the Premier returned. Or in the alternate - the debate did not have to be shut down until the Premier returned.
When so many people and media in the province were calling foul on this Bill - Kathy had a choice - she chose to run away. Do you really think she will take any responsibility for soaring power rates and massive debt if the Emera deal proceeds?
Dunderdale is not a leader - she is simply facilitating a plan.
The debate was cut short by the PC's in the house through closure.
Bill 29 an Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was and is a very controversial piece of House business. The crux of the concern is the reduction of access to information.
The Newfoundland and Labrador electorate is still suffering trust issues from the constituency allowance spending scandal - which ultimately sent 4 former MHA's to jail. One of the convicted was Ed Byrne - a PC MHA who became a Cabinet Minister and Deputy Premier under the Danny Williams administration.
In large part - the entire criminal fiasco was caused by not allowing the Auditor General to review the expenditures of the MHA's. The concept of maximized transparency and access to information was touted by Danny Williams as a hallmark of his government - of which current Premier Kathy Dunderdale served in Cabinet and as the Deputy Premier.
Any changes to law which would diminish - in any way - transparency and access should concern Kathy Dunderdale a great deal. It - however - did not phase her - apparently it did not even interest her.
Instead of being a leader by explaining to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why her government wants to change the access to information law - she ran away. Dunderdale was here:
The Honourable Kathy Dunderdale, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be the keynote speaker at the sixth annual Memorial University Calgary Affinity Dinner tomorrow (Wednesday, June 13) at the Fairmont Palliser Hotel in Calgary. The dinner begins at 7:00 p.m. MDT, with the Premier scheduled to speak at approximately 8:30 p.m.
The theme of the keynote address is Bold and Tenacious: Driving Growth and Prosperity in the New Newfoundland and Labrador.
Oh I can hear the tapping of partisan twitter characters already. They will suggest that this event was planned for some time and it is an important piece of business for our province.
Let's say we accept this rationale completely.
No problem, the Bill did not have to be called until the Premier returned. Or in the alternate - the debate did not have to be shut down until the Premier returned.
When so many people and media in the province were calling foul on this Bill - Kathy had a choice - she chose to run away. Do you really think she will take any responsibility for soaring power rates and massive debt if the Emera deal proceeds?
Dunderdale is not a leader - she is simply facilitating a plan.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Striking a Balance Bill 29? Logic tells us otherwise!
Over the past week we have heard Government MHA's suggest that "frivolous and vexatious" requests are part of the reason they have to change access to information laws.
It is commonly agreed that more information will be kept secret and some information harder to get because of the amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Bill29).
Ministers stood on their feet and dragged out samples of such requests - and while this is not the norm - they pointed out they were compelled to stop such wastage of taxpayer money.
Here's the other side of the balance: Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered many more fraudulent and bad resource deals than it has suffered "vexatious and frivolous" information requests - and the cost to the taxpayer has been far more severe from the bad and/or fraudulent and/or corrupt deals.
The billions of dollars essentially robbed from our people - be it fish, energy, minerals, forests, or cash far outweighs the few thousand dollars suffered from "frivolous and vexatious" access to information requests.
So what does the government do? Well they tighten information to protect business. Yes that says it all about fairness and balance.
We as a people should conclude that there is something to hide - as not to do so would be illogical and open us up to another 50 years of bad resource deals.
I have a request of our media - please research and present all the losses we have suffered from bad and/or corrupt business deals and compare that dollar value to the amount lost from "frivolous and vexatious" access to information requests.
While we are at it - which caused more harm to the tenuous trust we have in government; the few "frivolous and vexatious" requests presented or the marching of 4 former MHA's to jail?
Yes we should strike a balance regarding access to information - but Bill 29 is not that balance. It is a lopsided - one way - ticket to hiding information. What has been the result of that approach in our past?
It is commonly agreed that more information will be kept secret and some information harder to get because of the amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Bill29).
Ministers stood on their feet and dragged out samples of such requests - and while this is not the norm - they pointed out they were compelled to stop such wastage of taxpayer money.
Here's the other side of the balance: Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered many more fraudulent and bad resource deals than it has suffered "vexatious and frivolous" information requests - and the cost to the taxpayer has been far more severe from the bad and/or fraudulent and/or corrupt deals.
The billions of dollars essentially robbed from our people - be it fish, energy, minerals, forests, or cash far outweighs the few thousand dollars suffered from "frivolous and vexatious" access to information requests.
So what does the government do? Well they tighten information to protect business. Yes that says it all about fairness and balance.
We as a people should conclude that there is something to hide - as not to do so would be illogical and open us up to another 50 years of bad resource deals.
I have a request of our media - please research and present all the losses we have suffered from bad and/or corrupt business deals and compare that dollar value to the amount lost from "frivolous and vexatious" access to information requests.
While we are at it - which caused more harm to the tenuous trust we have in government; the few "frivolous and vexatious" requests presented or the marching of 4 former MHA's to jail?
Yes we should strike a balance regarding access to information - but Bill 29 is not that balance. It is a lopsided - one way - ticket to hiding information. What has been the result of that approach in our past?
The 2015 Election is Underway - Where's Dunderdale
Both Opposition Parties in Newfoundland and Labrador have made their first 2015 election promise.
The race to replace has begun.
We - the people will hold them to it.
It is positive to see politicians respond immediately to the people by making a promise that all of us really need right now. A commitment to eliminate this cloak of secrecy - called Bill 29.
Last night Charlene Johnson either lied or demonstrated unfathomable ignorance by blaming the constituency spending allowance on the previous Liberal government.
The statements made - not yet available on Hansard - were beyond irresponsible they were grossly negligent.
The three political parties suffered blame as members of each were trotted off to jail. How did that happen? Read the Green Report. Read the Auditor General's special reports.
The Deputy Premier of Danny Williams - a person he put great trust in was front and centre in the political scandal of our time. His second in command - a Cabinet Minister in control of significant information secret and otherwise. This person who admitted to forging documents and stealing over $100,000 from us the people. This person who the Auditor General said received almost $500,000 over his entitlements.
Do we need a system that is open and transparent? Yes.
Do we need a system that seeks to thwart transparency? No
The government had options.
1. They could have let the debate finish naturally, they did not - they invoked closure.
2. They could have had Bill 29 reviewed by Chief Justice Green, Senator Beth Marshall, or by former Auditor General John Noseworthy (the man who brought the cost of secrecy to light).
3. They could have created an all-party committee to travel the province and consult with the people on the proposed changes.
4. The government could have sincerely considered amendments brought forth and at least pretended to have interest in the process.
5. The government could have killed the Bill - and in doing so appropriately recognized the wisdom of their colleagues, the people, and members of the media who were screaming foul.
Dan Crummell was just now on VOCM open-line suggesting that the media took offence to the Bill more than anybody. He said he believes they want to be in the Cabinet Room.
There is no defence to reducing access to information - yet Dan attempted to do it anyway. Way to trot to the trough there Dan. Fill-er-up. Gotta get a Cabinet Post - gotta get - me - me -me Dan.
Newfoundland and Labrador politicians have absolutely no right to reduce access to information - simply because the wound is too deep and fresh from the constituency allowance scandal. How arrogant must they be to support cloak and dagger legislation - when many of them were there when their colleagues were put in cuffs.
The Opposition parties have now taken a necessary step to rebuild confidence and trust in the electorate. They appear to understand that we are not prepared to "trust" them - on their word - just yet.
What Dunderdale, Collins, Marshall, Kennedy, King, Sullivan, Burke, and Johnson seem not to understand is reducing access now - so soon after the scandal - is like giving a parent giving their teenage son or daughter the car a week after they are convicted of drinking and driving.
Yes it is that serious! Yes it is that condemnable!
Now it is up to the NDP and Liberal MHA's to remind the people and the PC caucus that they will reverse the Bill and will reveal all hidden documents - as soon as practicable after the PC's are defeated.
By the way where is Danny on this? Where is Danny on this? Will this be the issue that excuses Danny away from "his" party and toward Dean? It remains incredible that all these PC backbenchers have not yet figured out that the fix is in.
They play you like a fiddle and in turn you fiddle while your political reputations burn.
Premier Dunderdale - where are you dear? The 2015 Election Campaign began early this morning. The race to boot the Tories out has begun and you were nowhere to be found.
The race to replace has begun.
We - the people will hold them to it.
It is positive to see politicians respond immediately to the people by making a promise that all of us really need right now. A commitment to eliminate this cloak of secrecy - called Bill 29.
Last night Charlene Johnson either lied or demonstrated unfathomable ignorance by blaming the constituency spending allowance on the previous Liberal government.
The statements made - not yet available on Hansard - were beyond irresponsible they were grossly negligent.
The three political parties suffered blame as members of each were trotted off to jail. How did that happen? Read the Green Report. Read the Auditor General's special reports.
The Deputy Premier of Danny Williams - a person he put great trust in was front and centre in the political scandal of our time. His second in command - a Cabinet Minister in control of significant information secret and otherwise. This person who admitted to forging documents and stealing over $100,000 from us the people. This person who the Auditor General said received almost $500,000 over his entitlements.
Do we need a system that is open and transparent? Yes.
Do we need a system that seeks to thwart transparency? No
The government had options.
1. They could have let the debate finish naturally, they did not - they invoked closure.
2. They could have had Bill 29 reviewed by Chief Justice Green, Senator Beth Marshall, or by former Auditor General John Noseworthy (the man who brought the cost of secrecy to light).
3. They could have created an all-party committee to travel the province and consult with the people on the proposed changes.
4. The government could have sincerely considered amendments brought forth and at least pretended to have interest in the process.
5. The government could have killed the Bill - and in doing so appropriately recognized the wisdom of their colleagues, the people, and members of the media who were screaming foul.
Dan Crummell was just now on VOCM open-line suggesting that the media took offence to the Bill more than anybody. He said he believes they want to be in the Cabinet Room.
There is no defence to reducing access to information - yet Dan attempted to do it anyway. Way to trot to the trough there Dan. Fill-er-up. Gotta get a Cabinet Post - gotta get - me - me -me Dan.
Newfoundland and Labrador politicians have absolutely no right to reduce access to information - simply because the wound is too deep and fresh from the constituency allowance scandal. How arrogant must they be to support cloak and dagger legislation - when many of them were there when their colleagues were put in cuffs.
The Opposition parties have now taken a necessary step to rebuild confidence and trust in the electorate. They appear to understand that we are not prepared to "trust" them - on their word - just yet.
What Dunderdale, Collins, Marshall, Kennedy, King, Sullivan, Burke, and Johnson seem not to understand is reducing access now - so soon after the scandal - is like giving a parent giving their teenage son or daughter the car a week after they are convicted of drinking and driving.
Yes it is that serious! Yes it is that condemnable!
Now it is up to the NDP and Liberal MHA's to remind the people and the PC caucus that they will reverse the Bill and will reveal all hidden documents - as soon as practicable after the PC's are defeated.
By the way where is Danny on this? Where is Danny on this? Will this be the issue that excuses Danny away from "his" party and toward Dean? It remains incredible that all these PC backbenchers have not yet figured out that the fix is in.
They play you like a fiddle and in turn you fiddle while your political reputations burn.
Premier Dunderdale - where are you dear? The 2015 Election Campaign began early this morning. The race to boot the Tories out has begun and you were nowhere to be found.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Bill 29 - Review by Chief Justice Green?
So the PC MHA's are going to shut down debate on Bill 29 - An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
First of all it's cowardly and very undemocratic. It demonstrates weakness and a complete disrespect for the people of the province.
The above is not exaggerated - it is appropriate considering the law we wish to change.
When such actions are taken by sitting government MHA's one can reasonably conclude that transparency is not atop their agenda and secondly that they are willing to risk a repeat of the criminal fiasco we had the last time a blockage of information occurred.
The history is too recent and the wound is too fresh - the parade of MHA's trotting off to jail.
It appears that Dunderdale and caucus are of the belief - that regardless of the position they take on any subject - they are above debate, above critique, above scrutiny, and essentially above the law.
I say this because the PC's in the House of Assembly will use the legislature to change any law they wish to accommodate their own protection. Further - they are willing to invoke closure when they are ready to silence the opposition members. All MHA's were elected and this is the people's House - not Jerome Kennedy's or Kevin O'Brien's or Tom Marshall's.
The Dunderdale Regime appears certain that if a democracy elects a dictatorship - tough! You elected us to do what we wish when we wish.
You see a mature democracy and intelligent and competent elected Members do not need to ram something down our throats or change the law to hide information on the decision making process. Mature politicians are able to promote their policies and ideas to the people without hiding information they used to make a decision.
You cannot claim democracy - when you only practice it 12 hours every 4 years (election).
Why not advise the multinational companies, multi-millionaires, and the stock market that if you wish to make a fortune on our resources - deals will be subject to public scrutiny. Corporations do not vote - they are not the electorate. We - the people - own the resources and we deserve as all shareholders do - complete disclosure.
By the way - where is Danny on Bill 29? He will yammer on about the virtues of Muskrat and the "need" for power here and there - yet the purported superhero of accountability and transparency has not commented on this?
How about we let Chief Justice Green review the proposed amendments and publicly report on his findings. He is a man above reproach and somebody that Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Felix Collins can trust.
The media, citizens, national and provincial bodies have trouble with Bill 29 - and once again the critique is coming from across the political spectrum.
What is happening in our House of Assembly now is very significant and very scary. What next? It appears that Kent - while sitting as Chair - is intolerant of the opposition and Kennedy is intolerant of the Chair. It appears the current Dunderdale posse is frustrated with the whole idea of the House of Assembly. First she did not really want to open it - and second - only did so it appears to achieve a budget and shut down information.
What other Bills are in our future? A change to funding for the Opposition? A change to Question Period rules? A change to our system? Sure why not - Dunderdale seems prepared to rule by decree and the men and women around her have decided they serve her and not the people.
This Bill should not see the light of day - let alone become law.
Considering the checkered past of MHA behavior and longstanding record of bad deals, corruption, and fleeing business gurus to Panama - please ask that Chief Justice Green officially review Bill 29 and report his findings and recommendations in full to the people.
First of all it's cowardly and very undemocratic. It demonstrates weakness and a complete disrespect for the people of the province.
The above is not exaggerated - it is appropriate considering the law we wish to change.
When such actions are taken by sitting government MHA's one can reasonably conclude that transparency is not atop their agenda and secondly that they are willing to risk a repeat of the criminal fiasco we had the last time a blockage of information occurred.
The history is too recent and the wound is too fresh - the parade of MHA's trotting off to jail.
It appears that Dunderdale and caucus are of the belief - that regardless of the position they take on any subject - they are above debate, above critique, above scrutiny, and essentially above the law.
I say this because the PC's in the House of Assembly will use the legislature to change any law they wish to accommodate their own protection. Further - they are willing to invoke closure when they are ready to silence the opposition members. All MHA's were elected and this is the people's House - not Jerome Kennedy's or Kevin O'Brien's or Tom Marshall's.
The Dunderdale Regime appears certain that if a democracy elects a dictatorship - tough! You elected us to do what we wish when we wish.
You see a mature democracy and intelligent and competent elected Members do not need to ram something down our throats or change the law to hide information on the decision making process. Mature politicians are able to promote their policies and ideas to the people without hiding information they used to make a decision.
You cannot claim democracy - when you only practice it 12 hours every 4 years (election).
Why not advise the multinational companies, multi-millionaires, and the stock market that if you wish to make a fortune on our resources - deals will be subject to public scrutiny. Corporations do not vote - they are not the electorate. We - the people - own the resources and we deserve as all shareholders do - complete disclosure.
By the way - where is Danny on Bill 29? He will yammer on about the virtues of Muskrat and the "need" for power here and there - yet the purported superhero of accountability and transparency has not commented on this?
How about we let Chief Justice Green review the proposed amendments and publicly report on his findings. He is a man above reproach and somebody that Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Felix Collins can trust.
The media, citizens, national and provincial bodies have trouble with Bill 29 - and once again the critique is coming from across the political spectrum.
What is happening in our House of Assembly now is very significant and very scary. What next? It appears that Kent - while sitting as Chair - is intolerant of the opposition and Kennedy is intolerant of the Chair. It appears the current Dunderdale posse is frustrated with the whole idea of the House of Assembly. First she did not really want to open it - and second - only did so it appears to achieve a budget and shut down information.
What other Bills are in our future? A change to funding for the Opposition? A change to Question Period rules? A change to our system? Sure why not - Dunderdale seems prepared to rule by decree and the men and women around her have decided they serve her and not the people.
This Bill should not see the light of day - let alone become law.
Considering the checkered past of MHA behavior and longstanding record of bad deals, corruption, and fleeing business gurus to Panama - please ask that Chief Justice Green officially review Bill 29 and report his findings and recommendations in full to the people.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Will Steve Kent ever Learn? Transparency Essential!
Watching Steve Kent as the Deputy Chair of Committees reminds me why some people should not be in a position of authority or power.
Frankly some of his comments today reminded me of a little boy hanging on to the jacket of a parent and saying I want to be a Tory too.
Steve has in the past suggested that he was not provided with all information. As a result he made statements regarding a matter that ended up being incomplete. Surely he can rationalize that the blocking of information is not a "good" thing or a "progressive" policy.
Below please read why Steve Kent should know that blocking or withholding information is not progressive or positive. It does not protect people and it prevents the truth from surfacing until further damage is done. Please notice that Steve says, "To our knowledge there has not been deviation from this policy by Scouts Canada.” That's the problem Steve you did not have all the information.
Steve
Kent, in an exclusive interview with The Fifth Estate, acknowledges
Scouts Canada did not report all past sexual abuse allegations to the
police. (CBC)
Kent was responding to revelations from CBC News that it appeared several cases were not handed over to the police.
Three months ago, Kent posted a YouTube video insisting the organization had always gone to police. “Any information that Scouts Canada obtains related to abuse allegations is communicated to police," he said. "To our knowledge there has not been deviation from this policy by Scouts Canada.”
Now Kent says he was wrong.
“My understanding has changed. There are indeed cases … where information was not brought to the authorities fast enough, and that is deeply troubling… I’ve actually instructed our staff to get in touch with the OPP [Ontario Provincial Police] to provide the information we do have.”
One final note Mr. Chair - Have you learned Steve or were you placating the public?
Frankly some of his comments today reminded me of a little boy hanging on to the jacket of a parent and saying I want to be a Tory too.
Steve has in the past suggested that he was not provided with all information. As a result he made statements regarding a matter that ended up being incomplete. Surely he can rationalize that the blocking of information is not a "good" thing or a "progressive" policy.
Below please read why Steve Kent should know that blocking or withholding information is not progressive or positive. It does not protect people and it prevents the truth from surfacing until further damage is done. Please notice that Steve says, "To our knowledge there has not been deviation from this policy by Scouts Canada.” That's the problem Steve you did not have all the information.
Scouts Canada's chief commissioner,
Steve Kent, says he now accepts that his organization did not report
all allegations of sexual abuse to police in past decades, contrary to
previous denials.
The admission came in an interview with CBC’s The Fifth Estate as part of its ongoing investigation into how Scouts Canada dealt with past cases of sexual abuse.Steve
Kent, in an exclusive interview with The Fifth Estate, acknowledges
Scouts Canada did not report all past sexual abuse allegations to the
police. (CBC)Kent was responding to revelations from CBC News that it appeared several cases were not handed over to the police.
Three months ago, Kent posted a YouTube video insisting the organization had always gone to police. “Any information that Scouts Canada obtains related to abuse allegations is communicated to police," he said. "To our knowledge there has not been deviation from this policy by Scouts Canada.”
Now Kent says he was wrong.
“My understanding has changed. There are indeed cases … where information was not brought to the authorities fast enough, and that is deeply troubling… I’ve actually instructed our staff to get in touch with the OPP [Ontario Provincial Police] to provide the information we do have.”
One final note Mr. Chair - Have you learned Steve or were you placating the public?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)