Let's review the situation we have had and continue to have with the PC Party and its leadership.
1. Kathy Dunderdale quits.
2. Marshall named interim Premier.
3. PC leadership rules and process announced.
4. Three candidates qualified to run.
5. One is thrown out (Tommy Williams and party exec) - a second bows out due to process (Danny Williams condemns him) - one candidate remaining.
6. Candidate remaining was involved (guarantor) with a company that was released from its bond obligation.
7. Auditor General called in to review the HVP contract circumstances.
8. Frank Coleman - Premier in-waiting admits he had personal guarantees attached to the bond.
9. Minister Nick McGrath attempts some sort of explanation regarding the bond/s.
10. Bonding experts claim Minister did not know what he was talking about.
11. Premier Tom Marshall fires most of Office of the Premier staff.
12. Premier Tom Marshall hires staff for the Office of not-yet Premier Frank Coleman.
13. Province admits road left by HVP will now cost 1.5 million dollars more.
14. This would not have been the case if the bond was not released.
13. Premier designate Frank Coleman - prior to actually taking office - quits.
14. PC Party starts over to find a new leader - and a Premier.
The Tories celebrated their new House of Assembly Act in 2004. This great new democratic tool to ensure everybody had some expectation of a regularly called election on a fixed date. They insured that if a Premier quit too early - then an election could be called earlier - so as to give the people a say in the new leadership and direction of the government.
Who talked to Frank Coleman and encouraged him to run? He came out of the blue and certainly did not appear prepared for or really that interested in politics. We should assume Mr. Coleman had some idea before he decided to run that his business HVP would be released from a bond - in which he was a personal guarantor. Is this enough to make somebody run?
What would be the value to the Tories? Well it certainly has delayed the call of an election - and they are in losing poll territory. However - if Mr. Coleman stayed - they would not get the same delay. They have bought themselves another 3 months. Many people speculated the fix was in for Frank - so it is more than coincidence that there was no contest - for if there were - we would still have a leader and an election could be called.
It has now become a conspiracy theory that all this is innocent. Any thinking - inquiring - mind would have to be cynical.
It is time the Opposition Parties demanded an election - visited the Lieutenant Governor and dealt with the obvious manipulations by the PC Party.
The PC Party is not the government. The PC Party and its representatives like Tom Marshall - should not be spending money for a Premier not yet in office. The PC Party should not be able to control through slight of hand the laws of this province.
The only way not to smell a rat - is if you have a tightly squeezing partisan clothespins on your nose.
Has it become so bad here that the most stinky of events - seems normal?
Showing posts with label hoa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hoa. Show all posts
Friday, June 20, 2014
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Upper and Lower Jaw of Kennedy's Muskrat
So Jerome Kennedy has become such an expert on the Lower Churchill - he cannot find anyone educated enough on the subject to debate with him.
Delusional! Minister Kennedy does not have the guts to debate the proposed deal on Muskrat with anybody unless that person is chosen by him and in an environment set up by him.
As for no special debate in the House of Assembly - well that's just laughable.
The mouths that are now government never stopped yapping when demanding a full debate on Voisey's Bay and the Inco deal. That is a non-renewable resource - the massive hydro power potential in Labrador is a renewable resource. It is also a resource in its own right as a river.
Kennedy has not answered the legitimate questions on this development and he has not begun to deal with the entire Churchill - Upper and Lower. It is all connected and each development will have an impact on the other.
2041 remains floating - with Kennedy blowing the hot-air to keep it up where people cannot see it.
Markets, Costs, Alternatives, Long-term employment, Labrador benefits, energy requirements, and privatization remain grey areas of speculation.
The costs to our people - particularly the coming generations is outrageous and renders them used in the same way our generation has been with the Upper Churchill fiasco.
If you want to push this mess of a deal - do so for real reasons and tell us what they are.
If you want this deal - stand and debate it.
Don't hide behind a cloak of innuendo, rhetoric, insults and delusions of superior knowledge or intelligence.
I don't like the cut of your jib - so show us the cut of your jaw in debate. A maul mouth you have proven - but wisdom you have not.
Delusional! Minister Kennedy does not have the guts to debate the proposed deal on Muskrat with anybody unless that person is chosen by him and in an environment set up by him.
As for no special debate in the House of Assembly - well that's just laughable.
The mouths that are now government never stopped yapping when demanding a full debate on Voisey's Bay and the Inco deal. That is a non-renewable resource - the massive hydro power potential in Labrador is a renewable resource. It is also a resource in its own right as a river.
Kennedy has not answered the legitimate questions on this development and he has not begun to deal with the entire Churchill - Upper and Lower. It is all connected and each development will have an impact on the other.
2041 remains floating - with Kennedy blowing the hot-air to keep it up where people cannot see it.
Markets, Costs, Alternatives, Long-term employment, Labrador benefits, energy requirements, and privatization remain grey areas of speculation.
The costs to our people - particularly the coming generations is outrageous and renders them used in the same way our generation has been with the Upper Churchill fiasco.
If you want to push this mess of a deal - do so for real reasons and tell us what they are.
If you want this deal - stand and debate it.
Don't hide behind a cloak of innuendo, rhetoric, insults and delusions of superior knowledge or intelligence.
I don't like the cut of your jib - so show us the cut of your jaw in debate. A maul mouth you have proven - but wisdom you have not.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Dale Kirby and Terry French - Who has a REAL job?
Last Wednesday in the House of Assembly Dale Kirby asked
Terry French a question regarding legislation on replacement (scab)
workers. French responded in a manner not becoming a Minister but very telling
of his own character.
Here is the quote:
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring
to a couple of incidents, but the hon. member has two jobs, as we all know here
in the House, and he is an academic in his real job. So, Mr. Speaker, to
speak to him being an academic, I would like to challenge him to read some of
the work that some of the academics have done throughout this country and
throughout the world, and he will quickly discover that there is a great divide
on the usefulness of replacement worker legislation...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As many of you already know - I am not always in agreement
with Dale Kirby - however I respect his profession and his work.
Currently Dale Kirby is the MHA for St. John's North and
that is a REAL job. In the past and at present Dale Kirby does not NEED
to be a politician to be gainfully employed. It's not likely the best gig he
will ever have. That is refreshing to a voter.
You on the other hand Mr. French are looking like a career
politician more and more each day. That is a problem. How and why did you go
into politics? If you were in Opposition today - what else would you be
doing?
You Mr. French want the people of the province to provide
you with a job and pension as a politician. This is not so good - particularly
when you consider the situation of public service pensioners. In my opinion Mr.
French - this is the best gig you will ever have and that is worrisome.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Blunder - Stunder - Thunder - Media, Liberals, Kennedy
Yesterday if Gregory Parsons was watching the House of Assembly - he must of been proud of what Jim Bennett did for his constituent - as it was exactly the approach used by then defence lawyer Jerome Kennedy when he was fighting for him.
The only problem is Jerome Kennedy became self-righteous and showed indignation toward his colleague Jim Bennett for doing exactly what he would have done.
Let's look at what Jerome said in July In 2003 when he was frustrated by the refusal of the Newfoundland inquiry commissioner, former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Antonio Lamer, to examine the role of trial judges in the wrongful convictions. National Post Story
"It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing...Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is a result of intentional or unintentional biases."
Then how about this?
Kennedy said Lamer's findings — particularly that police investigators had "tunnel vision" and prosecutors were excessively focused on winning cases — would be read closely in other Canadian jurisdictions.
"This notion that we have to win — that's not the role of the Crown," Kennedy said following the release of the report.
"I would suggest that Crown culture [involves] deeply seated attitudes and beliefs. You can put all of the resources and money you want into a department, but unless you change the attitudes, you're not going to change the system itself," he said.
And what about this one? CBC Story
Meanwhile, Kennedy lashed out against criticism this week from retired judge John Gomery, who was appointed in 2004 to oversee the federal commission on the sponsorship scandal.
Gomery said it was inappropriate for Williams and Kennedy to have spoken out, and particularly said Williams should not have used the words "witch hunt" to describe the tone that inquiry counsel have taken. Gomery also said that his reading of the inquiry so far indicates that some witnesses have been covering up what they know.
The justice minister said it was "presumptuous" of Gomery to make what Kennedy slammed as "uneducated opinion."
"Judge Gomery is entitled to his opinion," Kennedy said.
"[But] prior to his being appointed to this commission, no one ever heard of him. He conducted a $60-million sideshow in Ottawa," Kennedy said.
"So who he is to come down here and start to tell us what to do — I have questions with that."
Kennedy also said that Gomery was accused of "holding a bias" during the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, which examined how the former Chrétien government used the federal sponsorship program to bolster federalism in Quebec.
You see it's like this - both Bennett and Kennedy are lawyers, both were representing interests of people. Both got the result they wanted. Both people they were representing were fighting for their lives. Both were right in talking about incompetence in the system.
The difference is: the media missed the irony and reality of the political side-show. The Opposition did not enjoy good research and advice on the situation. International Women's Day was used by Kennedy and the government for a great political game.
The media bought it hook - line - and sinker. It was amateur day all round yesterday as the boys fought it out during a day to celebrate women.
I have not even started on the Cameron Inquiry - remember that one Jerome?
The only problem is Jerome Kennedy became self-righteous and showed indignation toward his colleague Jim Bennett for doing exactly what he would have done.
Let's look at what Jerome said in July In 2003 when he was frustrated by the refusal of the Newfoundland inquiry commissioner, former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Antonio Lamer, to examine the role of trial judges in the wrongful convictions. National Post Story
"It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing...Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is a result of intentional or unintentional biases."
Then how about this?
Kennedy said Lamer's findings — particularly that police investigators had "tunnel vision" and prosecutors were excessively focused on winning cases — would be read closely in other Canadian jurisdictions.
"This notion that we have to win — that's not the role of the Crown," Kennedy said following the release of the report.
"I would suggest that Crown culture [involves] deeply seated attitudes and beliefs. You can put all of the resources and money you want into a department, but unless you change the attitudes, you're not going to change the system itself," he said.
And what about this one? CBC Story
Meanwhile, Kennedy lashed out against criticism this week from retired judge John Gomery, who was appointed in 2004 to oversee the federal commission on the sponsorship scandal.
Gomery said it was inappropriate for Williams and Kennedy to have spoken out, and particularly said Williams should not have used the words "witch hunt" to describe the tone that inquiry counsel have taken. Gomery also said that his reading of the inquiry so far indicates that some witnesses have been covering up what they know.
The justice minister said it was "presumptuous" of Gomery to make what Kennedy slammed as "uneducated opinion."
"Judge Gomery is entitled to his opinion," Kennedy said.
"[But] prior to his being appointed to this commission, no one ever heard of him. He conducted a $60-million sideshow in Ottawa," Kennedy said.
"So who he is to come down here and start to tell us what to do — I have questions with that."
Kennedy also said that Gomery was accused of "holding a bias" during the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, which examined how the former Chrétien government used the federal sponsorship program to bolster federalism in Quebec.
You see it's like this - both Bennett and Kennedy are lawyers, both were representing interests of people. Both got the result they wanted. Both people they were representing were fighting for their lives. Both were right in talking about incompetence in the system.
The difference is: the media missed the irony and reality of the political side-show. The Opposition did not enjoy good research and advice on the situation. International Women's Day was used by Kennedy and the government for a great political game.
The media bought it hook - line - and sinker. It was amateur day all round yesterday as the boys fought it out during a day to celebrate women.
I have not even started on the Cameron Inquiry - remember that one Jerome?
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Talk with Sue Second Show - Electoral Reform - the Sleeping Democracy - Dunderdale's arrogance!
Join us tonight at 8 pm - Talk with Sue - Second Show deals with electoral reform.
Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?
42% of people did not vote. Why?
The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?
Why type of electoral system would you like to see?
Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?
What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.
I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.
We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.
Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!
Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.
Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?
42% of people did not vote. Why?
The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?
Why type of electoral system would you like to see?
Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?
What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.
I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.
We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.
Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!
Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Call an Inquiry or "Simon Says" Call an Inquiry
This from a CBC story July 06-07
Gerry Reid today in the Telegram on MHA spending:
Question is will Gerry speak to Simon and ask him not to mention the issue - or will Simon do what he is passionate about and call for a public inquiry during the campaign?
St. John's blogger Simon Lono, however, believes it is not the job of the police to look at where the constituency spending system broke down.Lono is spearheading an online petition calling for a public inquiry into the operations of the house of assembly.
Gerry Reid today in the Telegram on MHA spending:
"There is enough guilt to go around and everyone feels bad enough as it is," he said.
"I don't think that should become an election issue, because it can work both ways."
Question is will Gerry speak to Simon and ask him not to mention the issue - or will Simon do what he is passionate about and call for a public inquiry during the campaign?
Saturday, September 15, 2007
From one AG to another...tsk tsk tsk...
If we are to accept that one MHA - Elizabeth Marshall - above all others was the catalyst for the Auditor General to gut the financial operations of the House of Assembly - and there's no shortage of people who would claim that to be true - then Elizabeth Marshall's constituency spending and accounting should be perfect.
Let's look at this MHA's record - as prepared by the AG - for three of the four years she has been in office.
Of 115 MHA's that served the people (yah right) over a 17 year period - almost 25% had no double billings. Their average years of service was about 5 years. Elizabeth Marshall double billed.
Despite that the current Auditor General John Noseworthy states and the former Auditor General Elizabeth Marshall should know - that alcohol only purchases are inappropriate and represented part of the concern then AG Marshall had with former Cabinet Minister Paul Dicks - Marshall managed to make alcohol only purchases in the few short years she has been sitting. This despite that fact that 50% of her colleagues did not.
When the $2875 special payment was given to the MHA's as a "top-up" of their constituency allowances - although the former AG did not take it - she did not make it public either and waited for the current AG to get his hands on it and report.
I would also like to know whether or not the donations made by Marshall over the past 4 years have in any number or amount been claimed on her personal income tax return. Given the amounts reported and averaged and working with the latest taxation information - Marshall could have benefited in access of $2000 per annum personally.
The question is - will she tell us?
Given the Member for Topsail has only been in office for 4 years - the bar set by this former AG is not very high.
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Bank of Canada eh???
Sue's Blog will post extensively on the Report of the Auditor General "On a Review of Constituency Allowance Claims" 1989-90 - 2005-06. This is the first of such posts.
As the Report accentuated the abuse of taxpayer dollars by Paul Dicks - I have sent the following to the Governor of the Bank of Canada - where Mr. Dicks sits on the Board of Directors.
Dear Mr. Dodge,
I am writing as a citizen of Canada who wishes to express my concern respecting the previous activities of a member of the Bank's Board of Directors.
Mr. Paul Dicks - a board member and former MHA and Minister of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been named by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador as having made numerous and significant inappropriate expenditures of public money.
Please refer to the Report of the Auditor General 2007 issued as at today's date. Please use the link below to access.
AG Report
I feel the behavior of Mr. Dicks with respect to his fiduciary duties to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was abysmal.
A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the people): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.
I trust the information delivered by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador would cause concern to any citizen of this province - this country - and the leadership of the Bank of Canada.
Please take the time to review the tabled report and I trust the Bank will take appropriate action.
Best Regards,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
As the Report accentuated the abuse of taxpayer dollars by Paul Dicks - I have sent the following to the Governor of the Bank of Canada - where Mr. Dicks sits on the Board of Directors.
Dear Mr. Dodge,
I am writing as a citizen of Canada who wishes to express my concern respecting the previous activities of a member of the Bank's Board of Directors.
Mr. Paul Dicks - a board member and former MHA and Minister of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been named by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador as having made numerous and significant inappropriate expenditures of public money.
Please refer to the Report of the Auditor General 2007 issued as at today's date. Please use the link below to access.
AG Report
I feel the behavior of Mr. Dicks with respect to his fiduciary duties to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was abysmal.
A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the people): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.
I trust the information delivered by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador would cause concern to any citizen of this province - this country - and the leadership of the Bank of Canada.
Please take the time to review the tabled report and I trust the Bank will take appropriate action.
Best Regards,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
From the World's largest Democracy....
on a day when we continue to question whether there is political corruption in ours. Every now and then Sue's Blog hears from a unique visitor - who demonstrates the good the "age of the internet" has brought.
This wonderful ability to reach out globally and share ideas - culture - information - and good will.
It is therefore most timely that I received the following message yesterday.
We all know where the money went Sue- right into the pocket of the politicians of India. Corruption has become the norm in India now. That is why we have started www.purdafash.com to fight back. Please let me know in case you want to help us out
Regards,
Areeb
The money he is referring to is explained in a story covered by Sue's Blog in February called "SNC Lavalin and India caught up in corruption scandal"
When people from democracies speak up and work together - corporate and political corruption can be curtailed and sometimes even avoided. The company discussed in the India affair is SNC Lavelin - a company that may have future potential work on the Lower Churchill.
Why not visit Areeb at the purdafash blog or the purdafash site.
This wonderful ability to reach out globally and share ideas - culture - information - and good will.
It is therefore most timely that I received the following message yesterday.
We all know where the money went Sue- right into the pocket of the politicians of India. Corruption has become the norm in India now. That is why we have started www.purdafash.com to fight back. Please let me know in case you want to help us out
Regards,
Areeb
The money he is referring to is explained in a story covered by Sue's Blog in February called "SNC Lavalin and India caught up in corruption scandal"
When people from democracies speak up and work together - corporate and political corruption can be curtailed and sometimes even avoided. The company discussed in the India affair is SNC Lavelin - a company that may have future potential work on the Lower Churchill.
Why not visit Areeb at the purdafash blog or the purdafash site.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Williams held his News Conference in the wrong Venue
As Sue's Blog has already posted - I support and have supported the Premier regarding his position on Hebron.
Now - unfortunately all positive feelings on the MOU for the development - have been removed and replaced by my feelings of contempt of an individual who believes he is above even his own principles.
When Williams stated that this resource development would not be brought to the floor of the House of Assembly for debate and ratification - he and he alone placed himself squarely in the college of Stephen Harper - Paul Martin - Loyola Hearn - and John Efford. Premier you are now misleading your own people.
During the Voisey's Bay negotiations and subsequent Statement of Principles you stated that such deals must go to the peoples House - whether the deal or good or bad - you felt anybody could miss something and maybe the wisdom of 48 could prevent serious errors or loopholes.
You are now saying that because a deal or MOU is brokered by you - the same should not apply. Not only is this arrogant but it borders really close to a dictatorship (one man rule)mentality.
What I can say now is this - neither you or nor Gerry Reid are sincere when stating resource deals should be brought to the HOA for debate and ratification because neither of you tabled legislation during your tenures to assure this.
I will take Lorraine Michael at her word and therefore she stands as the lone voice of democracy and principles of openness and accountability.
Listening to Paul Oram on VOCM open-line this morning was nauseating as he tried to justify Williams being above all others - therefore the checks and balances of our elected institution should not apply. Paul Oram - as an individual grown man - should really stand back and listen to what he actually said this morning - and try to find where he left his common sense - and rethink hero worship of a human being.
Gerry Reid is no better than Williams - both used the concept of bringing resource deals to the HOA for purely political gains as opposed to doing it because it's right.
It is time that government introduced and passed this legislation to ensure that any leader falsely believing they are above error or scrutiny are put back in their place in a thinking democracy.
If this is how Williams is going to respond to openness and accountability - he should have booked a space at the Basilica or the Cathedral for the announcement.
The voter must now really reflect on what or who they vote for. If you elect Williams now - in great majority - we give him the continued right to rule by decree - and worse carry on with the Lower Churchill development in the same atmosphere as the Upper Churchill fiasco. He should not be permitted to hold himself above everybody else or even more scary - believe he actually is.
These Tory Puppets should think long and hard about supporting let alone praising this stance.
What a sad day - following what should have been a celebratory occurrence for the people and the Province.
The Premier by allowing the closure of the Stephenville Mill - changing his mind on the status of the Metis - and now this refusal to place the MOU before the House of Assembly - is choosing to keep company with the Prime Minister (Steve) right Dan?
Now - unfortunately all positive feelings on the MOU for the development - have been removed and replaced by my feelings of contempt of an individual who believes he is above even his own principles.
When Williams stated that this resource development would not be brought to the floor of the House of Assembly for debate and ratification - he and he alone placed himself squarely in the college of Stephen Harper - Paul Martin - Loyola Hearn - and John Efford. Premier you are now misleading your own people.
During the Voisey's Bay negotiations and subsequent Statement of Principles you stated that such deals must go to the peoples House - whether the deal or good or bad - you felt anybody could miss something and maybe the wisdom of 48 could prevent serious errors or loopholes.
You are now saying that because a deal or MOU is brokered by you - the same should not apply. Not only is this arrogant but it borders really close to a dictatorship (one man rule)mentality.
What I can say now is this - neither you or nor Gerry Reid are sincere when stating resource deals should be brought to the HOA for debate and ratification because neither of you tabled legislation during your tenures to assure this.
I will take Lorraine Michael at her word and therefore she stands as the lone voice of democracy and principles of openness and accountability.
Listening to Paul Oram on VOCM open-line this morning was nauseating as he tried to justify Williams being above all others - therefore the checks and balances of our elected institution should not apply. Paul Oram - as an individual grown man - should really stand back and listen to what he actually said this morning - and try to find where he left his common sense - and rethink hero worship of a human being.
Gerry Reid is no better than Williams - both used the concept of bringing resource deals to the HOA for purely political gains as opposed to doing it because it's right.
It is time that government introduced and passed this legislation to ensure that any leader falsely believing they are above error or scrutiny are put back in their place in a thinking democracy.
If this is how Williams is going to respond to openness and accountability - he should have booked a space at the Basilica or the Cathedral for the announcement.
The voter must now really reflect on what or who they vote for. If you elect Williams now - in great majority - we give him the continued right to rule by decree - and worse carry on with the Lower Churchill development in the same atmosphere as the Upper Churchill fiasco. He should not be permitted to hold himself above everybody else or even more scary - believe he actually is.
These Tory Puppets should think long and hard about supporting let alone praising this stance.
What a sad day - following what should have been a celebratory occurrence for the people and the Province.
The Premier by allowing the closure of the Stephenville Mill - changing his mind on the status of the Metis - and now this refusal to place the MOU before the House of Assembly - is choosing to keep company with the Prime Minister (Steve) right Dan?
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The best Politicians money can buy...2
MUST READ - MUST READ - MUST READ
All we need to read is today's Telegram and the story headlined "Behind Closed Doors". That tells us what politicians our money buys under their own rules...
Think People - it is time to clean House - and it is time for a Public Inquiry!
All we need to read is today's Telegram and the story headlined "Behind Closed Doors". That tells us what politicians our money buys under their own rules...
Think People - it is time to clean House - and it is time for a Public Inquiry!
Saturday, February 17, 2007
I am not a "Crook"
Turning the tables. This particular strategy is vulgar and I would like to know whose mind created it. The injured party here - is the population - not John or any other MHA.
As I write today - the arrogance of John Hickey amazes me. He double-billed - and he wants to sue a constituent and the Premier is warning others. Hickey did not pay interest on the overpayment - he did not cover the costs of justice resources to investigate - but he wants what? To clear his name. Let's help him.
Here's what the Auditor General said:
Introduction
Section 15(1) of the requires the Auditor General to report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council instances the Auditor General becomes aware of during the course of an audit which may involve improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act.
A matter of this nature came to my attention during my review of the
appropriateness of constituency allowance expenditures claimed by
Members of the House of Assembly and the adequacy of supporting
documentation.
As outlined by the Commission of Internal Economy, [of the House of Assembly]“Each Member is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, information material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags,pins, etc..”
Findings
On 8 January 2007, I reported through the Minister of Finance, to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that a review of expenditures at the
House of Assembly identified 20 instances totalling $3,770 where
Mr. John Hickey, M.H.A. submitted claims and received reimbursement
for items that had already been claimed by him and reimbursed to him.
These double billings were claimed by Mr. Hickey on Members
Constituency Expense Claim forms signed and filed by him with the
Office of the Clerk of the House of Assembly during the fiscal years 2004,
2005 and 2006. The attached schedule provides details on the double
billings by Mr. Hickey.
Recommendation
I recommended that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council refer the matter
of Mr. Hickey's double billings for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006 to the
Department of Justice.
If you would like to look at each of the instances please PRESS HERE
Sue's Blog does not have a copy of the Police Investigation Results and I have not seen any media produce it. I have not seen anything from the Crown Prosecutors Office and I have not seen any of the media produce it.
I have heard the Premier - John Hickey and certain media say "cleared of any wrongdoing" - and I understand from them that no charges will be laid. I have not seen or heard John Hickey say he did not double-bill and John Hickey has said he has paid back the over-payments resulting from double-billing.
There John your name is cleared - looks normal to me! Right?
As I write today - the arrogance of John Hickey amazes me. He double-billed - and he wants to sue a constituent and the Premier is warning others. Hickey did not pay interest on the overpayment - he did not cover the costs of justice resources to investigate - but he wants what? To clear his name. Let's help him.
Here's what the Auditor General said:
8 January 2007
The Honourable Harvey Hodder, M.H.A.
Speaker House of Assembly
Dear Sir:
In accordance with Section 12(1) of the Auditor General Act, I respectfully submit herewith, for transmission to the House of Assembly, a report regarding the identification of double billings by Mr. John Hickey, M.H.A. totalling $3,770 relating to fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN L. NOSEWORTHY, CA
Auditor General
Introduction
Section 15(1) of the requires the Auditor General to report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council instances the Auditor General becomes aware of during the course of an audit which may involve improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act.
A matter of this nature came to my attention during my review of the
appropriateness of constituency allowance expenditures claimed by
Members of the House of Assembly and the adequacy of supporting
documentation.
As outlined by the Commission of Internal Economy, [of the House of Assembly]“Each Member is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, information material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags,pins, etc..”
Findings
On 8 January 2007, I reported through the Minister of Finance, to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that a review of expenditures at the
House of Assembly identified 20 instances totalling $3,770 where
Mr. John Hickey, M.H.A. submitted claims and received reimbursement
for items that had already been claimed by him and reimbursed to him.
These double billings were claimed by Mr. Hickey on Members
Constituency Expense Claim forms signed and filed by him with the
Office of the Clerk of the House of Assembly during the fiscal years 2004,
2005 and 2006. The attached schedule provides details on the double
billings by Mr. Hickey.
Recommendation
I recommended that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council refer the matter
of Mr. Hickey's double billings for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006 to the
Department of Justice.
If you would like to look at each of the instances please PRESS HERE
Sue's Blog does not have a copy of the Police Investigation Results and I have not seen any media produce it. I have not seen anything from the Crown Prosecutors Office and I have not seen any of the media produce it.
I have heard the Premier - John Hickey and certain media say "cleared of any wrongdoing" - and I understand from them that no charges will be laid. I have not seen or heard John Hickey say he did not double-bill and John Hickey has said he has paid back the over-payments resulting from double-billing.
There John your name is cleared - looks normal to me! Right?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Yearning for Cross Examination!!!
Danny Williams - Open-line - February 14-07
Randy:
We're feeling I think - that what your saying is that you can't besmirch anybodies reputation - we have a moving target when it comes to defining what's libelous or slanderous or scandalous or whatever - and you know I'd rather that we erred on the side of - let's have a reputation or two muddied rather than have free speech in any way curbed and your commentary leaves the impression that - there's a real threat to free speech in loading up every MHA with a lawyer.
Danny:
Well first of all - I just wanna for the for the record - so so that we're very clear - John Hickey is the IEC will pay John Hickey's legal fees - but John Hickey is not going to the IEC - John Hickey is gonna pay his own legal fees. So just for the record so that that is very clear - I just want to make that straight off the top. Now secondly your comment on - let's maybe you know I I can't remember your word there Randy might a been smear couple of reputations - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Well now you know maybe we'd besmirch a reputation or two - (Danny jumps in)
Danny:
What about if it was yours? (Randy says "same thing") what about - what about if Roger Grimes came on the air and said ah Randy you're a criminal - you've deliberately mislead the people - you've deliberately misappropriated funds - you've deliberately done something that's criminal therefore you ah by your own deliberate actions are a criminal. How would you feel about that?
Randy:
I'd sue him!
Danny:
(giggling) That's all I need to know. That's all I need to know - and that's exactly the situation - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Yeah but but but hold on hold on hold on hold on - I'm gonna tell you it's gonna be a lot easier and a lot more comfortable to do that if my employer has said to me that it really doesn't matter Randy - you can have a lawyer whenever you want here - you can go with like a loaded gun and anybody who speaks ill of you - you can always threaten with a lawsuit. That to me curbs free speech - that's more dangerous than if my reputation gets besmirched - because as a public figure somebody says I'm a crook.
Danny:
Let me ask you another question then - so you're an open-line host you're a moderator on open-line and Roger Grimes phones up and says Randy - some of the things you've said over the last couple of days - boy you're a criminal - ahh you've deliberately done something here - you've deliberately mislead people - you've done something that's criminally wrong - you're a criminal - and he accuses you while you're an open-line host - in your capacity as an open-line host - would VOCM defend you?
Randy:
I would think - (Danny bullies in) there ya go - there's your answer again now - (Randy fights back)
Randy:
Yeah but hold on now - hold on now - I would think but only from the perspective of this - if there was some element of that that was going to impact upon this company - like for example I have no doubt that government should protect it's Ministers - you should you know the IEC should be up there all bats swinging if somebody - if I sued John Hickey or if I sued you - or something you know - they should be there in the course of your duties but you know - we're public figures - every single one of us - like it or not - so if somebody says you know listen - somebody comes on the air today for example Premier - and here's what scares me in this kind of action - somebody comes on the air and says - you know what Randy - the whole friggin lot of them - their all a bunch of crooks bye. Now come on - we know what that person is saying and reputations are not falling apart because of that - is it...
Danny:
But Randy Randy look from my perspective - with a statement like that I'm one of those crooks. I've spent 57 years of my life building my reputation as a lawyer as a businessperson and as a community volunteer - I've here - I work for nothing - I donate my salary - I have people who are coming out saying that because my salary is donated to a foundation I'm getting tax benefits from it - nothing is further from the truth because I actually not only donate my salary I donate the tax deduction as well - so 100% of my money is going to charities - so if people come out and start to tag politicians generally as being crooks you know that's an irresponsible statement - there has to be some limits - there has to be some controls - and when you get somebody who knows better who's a former Premier of a province and says that someone deliberately ahh entered into a criminal action - that's a pretty serious piece of business. And you said to me in the beginning if someone called you a criminal - you'd sue em - and if you said something in your capacity as moderator of that show - that VOCM would support ya. But I'm telling you first of all - ya know - John Hickey is going it alone - John Hickey knows he's got a strong opinion here - he knows he's got a very strong case - and he will be proceeding against Roger Grimes. (Randy tried to say something - the Premier bullied over him) people have no license to come on and completely destroy reputations. Look you know - open-lines are free speaks - they're wonderful vehicles - they get public opinion out - we get debate - I've learned lots of things from open-lines - I've heard your ??? callers phone in and suggest things that are wise wonderful things and I agree with all that - but you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines. That that's my point simply. So you know just so the public knows it - they won't be be paying for any lawsuit against Roger Grimes - but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable.
Randy:
Where do we draw the line between legitimate political criticism and disagreement and I'll say passionate debate - where do we draw the line between that and someones interpretation that my reputation has now been besmirched?
Danny:
The law the line gets drawn on ordinary common sense - how many lawsuits have you got? How many callers have you had on your open-lines in the last 5 years - and how many lawsuits have arisen?
Randy:
One
Danny:
And ya know and just just think about it - and the ones who've done it have been people with sharp tongues who basically got back on again and they apologized. There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched - because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide - as Roger Grimes has said the judges will decide on this and John Hickey is quite happy to allow a judge to decide on this - but that doesn't mean that every single caller that phones up whether they happen to be a regular Liberal caller - regular PC caller - regular NDP caller - are going to be subject to lie-suit that's lawsuit - that's just taken the whole argument to the ridiculous. So I just ya know its ya know I'm here to firstly first of all say it's not going to be taken out of the public purse - but I'm also saying that I think it's wrong that public officials get slandered because they're offering up their good lives to serve the people of this province. Thanks Randy - have a good morning.
Randy:
We're feeling I think - that what your saying is that you can't besmirch anybodies reputation - we have a moving target when it comes to defining what's libelous or slanderous or scandalous or whatever - and you know I'd rather that we erred on the side of - let's have a reputation or two muddied rather than have free speech in any way curbed and your commentary leaves the impression that - there's a real threat to free speech in loading up every MHA with a lawyer.
Danny:
Well first of all - I just wanna for the for the record - so so that we're very clear - John Hickey is the IEC will pay John Hickey's legal fees - but John Hickey is not going to the IEC - John Hickey is gonna pay his own legal fees. So just for the record so that that is very clear - I just want to make that straight off the top. Now secondly your comment on - let's maybe you know I I can't remember your word there Randy might a been smear couple of reputations - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Well now you know maybe we'd besmirch a reputation or two - (Danny jumps in)
Danny:
What about if it was yours? (Randy says "same thing") what about - what about if Roger Grimes came on the air and said ah Randy you're a criminal - you've deliberately mislead the people - you've deliberately misappropriated funds - you've deliberately done something that's criminal therefore you ah by your own deliberate actions are a criminal. How would you feel about that?
Randy:
I'd sue him!
Danny:
(giggling) That's all I need to know. That's all I need to know - and that's exactly the situation - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Yeah but but but hold on hold on hold on hold on - I'm gonna tell you it's gonna be a lot easier and a lot more comfortable to do that if my employer has said to me that it really doesn't matter Randy - you can have a lawyer whenever you want here - you can go with like a loaded gun and anybody who speaks ill of you - you can always threaten with a lawsuit. That to me curbs free speech - that's more dangerous than if my reputation gets besmirched - because as a public figure somebody says I'm a crook.
Danny:
Let me ask you another question then - so you're an open-line host you're a moderator on open-line and Roger Grimes phones up and says Randy - some of the things you've said over the last couple of days - boy you're a criminal - ahh you've deliberately done something here - you've deliberately mislead people - you've done something that's criminally wrong - you're a criminal - and he accuses you while you're an open-line host - in your capacity as an open-line host - would VOCM defend you?
Randy:
I would think - (Danny bullies in) there ya go - there's your answer again now - (Randy fights back)
Randy:
Yeah but hold on now - hold on now - I would think but only from the perspective of this - if there was some element of that that was going to impact upon this company - like for example I have no doubt that government should protect it's Ministers - you should you know the IEC should be up there all bats swinging if somebody - if I sued John Hickey or if I sued you - or something you know - they should be there in the course of your duties but you know - we're public figures - every single one of us - like it or not - so if somebody says you know listen - somebody comes on the air today for example Premier - and here's what scares me in this kind of action - somebody comes on the air and says - you know what Randy - the whole friggin lot of them - their all a bunch of crooks bye. Now come on - we know what that person is saying and reputations are not falling apart because of that - is it...
Danny:
But Randy Randy look from my perspective - with a statement like that I'm one of those crooks. I've spent 57 years of my life building my reputation as a lawyer as a businessperson and as a community volunteer - I've here - I work for nothing - I donate my salary - I have people who are coming out saying that because my salary is donated to a foundation I'm getting tax benefits from it - nothing is further from the truth because I actually not only donate my salary I donate the tax deduction as well - so 100% of my money is going to charities - so if people come out and start to tag politicians generally as being crooks you know that's an irresponsible statement - there has to be some limits - there has to be some controls - and when you get somebody who knows better who's a former Premier of a province and says that someone deliberately ahh entered into a criminal action - that's a pretty serious piece of business. And you said to me in the beginning if someone called you a criminal - you'd sue em - and if you said something in your capacity as moderator of that show - that VOCM would support ya. But I'm telling you first of all - ya know - John Hickey is going it alone - John Hickey knows he's got a strong opinion here - he knows he's got a very strong case - and he will be proceeding against Roger Grimes. (Randy tried to say something - the Premier bullied over him) people have no license to come on and completely destroy reputations. Look you know - open-lines are free speaks - they're wonderful vehicles - they get public opinion out - we get debate - I've learned lots of things from open-lines - I've heard your ??? callers phone in and suggest things that are wise wonderful things and I agree with all that - but you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines. That that's my point simply. So you know just so the public knows it - they won't be be paying for any lawsuit against Roger Grimes - but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable.
Randy:
Where do we draw the line between legitimate political criticism and disagreement and I'll say passionate debate - where do we draw the line between that and someones interpretation that my reputation has now been besmirched?
Danny:
The law the line gets drawn on ordinary common sense - how many lawsuits have you got? How many callers have you had on your open-lines in the last 5 years - and how many lawsuits have arisen?
Randy:
One
Danny:
And ya know and just just think about it - and the ones who've done it have been people with sharp tongues who basically got back on again and they apologized. There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched - because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide - as Roger Grimes has said the judges will decide on this and John Hickey is quite happy to allow a judge to decide on this - but that doesn't mean that every single caller that phones up whether they happen to be a regular Liberal caller - regular PC caller - regular NDP caller - are going to be subject to lie-suit that's lawsuit - that's just taken the whole argument to the ridiculous. So I just ya know its ya know I'm here to firstly first of all say it's not going to be taken out of the public purse - but I'm also saying that I think it's wrong that public officials get slandered because they're offering up their good lives to serve the people of this province. Thanks Randy - have a good morning.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
An RFP for MHA's
Why not put out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for our MHA's?
Let's review this - we need rules - we didn't know the rules - we did what the IEC said - I was new and didn't know - in hindsight it was a bad decision - wait for the process to finish.
In 2000 the Auditor General - Elizabeth Marshall informed the IEC (Internal Economy Commission) of some potentially inappropriate spending of constituency allowances regarding art and wine.
The IEC at the time were:
Lloyd Snow - Beaton Tulk - Paul Dicks - Kevin Aylward - Gerald Smith - Loyola Sullivan - and Tom Rideout
The response to that was to bar the Auditor General from the accounts of HOA and to seek legislative amendment. This would mean the AG had to be invited in - in order to do an audit.
On May 11th of 2000 - the Bill was tabled and by leave went to second reading at which point 2 members spoke 4 lines each and passed the legislation. All members supported the Bill.
What has been the result of this one piece of as Loyola Sullivan put it at the time "pretty straightforward and pretty routine" legislation?
Tom Rideout is the only survivor of that group.
In 2004 the IEC received a proposal and approved that proposal - which was the $2875 payment to MHA's. The Auditor General says there was no reason given in the minutes for the payment. Harvey Hodder has said it was done to replenish the constituency allowances - as some of the members newly elected had their constituency allowances disproportionately depleted as at the election of October of 2003.
Since then Kathy Dunderdale and Roland Butler say that these new members were given a 6 month top-up of their allowances in addition to this blanket $2875 payment.
The members of the IEC at the time were:
Harvey Hodder
Roger Fitzgerald
Ed Byrne
Loyola Sullivan
Beth Marshall
Percy Barrett
Kelvin Parsons
These individuals have not yet told the public - with the exception of Hodder anything about this event.
None of them have told us where the money was found - and what other budgets it was taken from.
Beth Marshall - who was in Cabinet at the time - chose not to say anything despite her own protestations as an Auditor General for a decade.
The IEC represent the MHA's and are MHA's they have been deliberately responsible for their own rules. Now they all are waiting for Chief Justice Greene to tell them what the rules will be.
The MHA's proceeded to overspend their budget in 2006.
Considering all the foregoing - let's just put out a request for proposals for a group to propose the provision of 30 people who can sit in the legislature and follow Justice Greene's rules. Of course we the people reserve the right to reject any or all bids - but it is most likely the lowest bidder will be accepted.
Let's review this - we need rules - we didn't know the rules - we did what the IEC said - I was new and didn't know - in hindsight it was a bad decision - wait for the process to finish.
In 2000 the Auditor General - Elizabeth Marshall informed the IEC (Internal Economy Commission) of some potentially inappropriate spending of constituency allowances regarding art and wine.
The IEC at the time were:
Lloyd Snow - Beaton Tulk - Paul Dicks - Kevin Aylward - Gerald Smith - Loyola Sullivan - and Tom Rideout
The response to that was to bar the Auditor General from the accounts of HOA and to seek legislative amendment. This would mean the AG had to be invited in - in order to do an audit.
On May 11th of 2000 - the Bill was tabled and by leave went to second reading at which point 2 members spoke 4 lines each and passed the legislation. All members supported the Bill.
What has been the result of this one piece of as Loyola Sullivan put it at the time "pretty straightforward and pretty routine" legislation?
Tom Rideout is the only survivor of that group.
In 2004 the IEC received a proposal and approved that proposal - which was the $2875 payment to MHA's. The Auditor General says there was no reason given in the minutes for the payment. Harvey Hodder has said it was done to replenish the constituency allowances - as some of the members newly elected had their constituency allowances disproportionately depleted as at the election of October of 2003.
Since then Kathy Dunderdale and Roland Butler say that these new members were given a 6 month top-up of their allowances in addition to this blanket $2875 payment.
The members of the IEC at the time were:
Harvey Hodder
Roger Fitzgerald
Ed Byrne
Loyola Sullivan
Beth Marshall
Percy Barrett
Kelvin Parsons
These individuals have not yet told the public - with the exception of Hodder anything about this event.
None of them have told us where the money was found - and what other budgets it was taken from.
Beth Marshall - who was in Cabinet at the time - chose not to say anything despite her own protestations as an Auditor General for a decade.
The IEC represent the MHA's and are MHA's they have been deliberately responsible for their own rules. Now they all are waiting for Chief Justice Greene to tell them what the rules will be.
The MHA's proceeded to overspend their budget in 2006.
Considering all the foregoing - let's just put out a request for proposals for a group to propose the provision of 30 people who can sit in the legislature and follow Justice Greene's rules. Of course we the people reserve the right to reject any or all bids - but it is most likely the lowest bidder will be accepted.
Let's try to be fair - non-partisan
The Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully moved this file forward?
The Newfoundland and Labrador Roads
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully dealt with that file?
Outmigration of young people
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully dealt with this problem?
The Stephenville Mill
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully put a plan in place to keep the mill operating?
The Stephenville Airport
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has advanced the lot of that airport?
The Gander Airport
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully negotiated an equitable deal with the feds on the military flights or advanced the growth of the airport?
An Energy Plan
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully produced an Energy Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador?
The Spending Scandal
Which politician sitting in the House of Assembly has taken responsibility for the mess of the HOA books and accounts?
Which leader currently sitting in the House of Assembly has dealt with sitting members who are under active police investigation for amounts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Which MHA currently sitting in the House of Assembly protested the awarding of $2875 to themselves without the need for a receipt or accounting - on the heels of a public service strike?
Federal Jobs
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has prevented the loss of federal government jobs and services in our province?
Metis
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully respected the rights of the metis?
and so on and so on...
The real problem is - people cannot openly say these things without utter fear of retribution. These are very powerful people in our society and they have paid and volunteer goons who attack any person who dares question "dear leader".
Maybe the party people who send veiled threats to me - on a regular basis - would identify themselves and tell me what they get out of doing this activity. These gutless anonymous people are some of the most vindictive people you will meet. They will destroy people for their party or member - and without a second thought. They care nothing about the province and the problems - they only care about their own bread and butter provided by politicians that are incompetent and/or corrupt.
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully moved this file forward?
The Newfoundland and Labrador Roads
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully dealt with that file?
Outmigration of young people
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully dealt with this problem?
The Stephenville Mill
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully put a plan in place to keep the mill operating?
The Stephenville Airport
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has advanced the lot of that airport?
The Gander Airport
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully negotiated an equitable deal with the feds on the military flights or advanced the growth of the airport?
An Energy Plan
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully produced an Energy Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador?
The Spending Scandal
Which politician sitting in the House of Assembly has taken responsibility for the mess of the HOA books and accounts?
Which leader currently sitting in the House of Assembly has dealt with sitting members who are under active police investigation for amounts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Which MHA currently sitting in the House of Assembly protested the awarding of $2875 to themselves without the need for a receipt or accounting - on the heels of a public service strike?
Federal Jobs
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has prevented the loss of federal government jobs and services in our province?
Metis
Which politician currently sitting in the House of Assembly has successfully respected the rights of the metis?
and so on and so on...
The real problem is - people cannot openly say these things without utter fear of retribution. These are very powerful people in our society and they have paid and volunteer goons who attack any person who dares question "dear leader".
Maybe the party people who send veiled threats to me - on a regular basis - would identify themselves and tell me what they get out of doing this activity. These gutless anonymous people are some of the most vindictive people you will meet. They will destroy people for their party or member - and without a second thought. They care nothing about the province and the problems - they only care about their own bread and butter provided by politicians that are incompetent and/or corrupt.
Gerry Reid enters the discussion....
Begins by congratulating the Liberal candidates - muses about low voter turnout.
Talks about his campaign trail - while the fishery collapses - rural outmigration continues - the Premier reneges again on the Energy Plan - on and on and on...
Any movement would be a breakthrough - hang on he's going to talk about the ferry rates - he does not buy the feds "rising" the ferry rate or the fact the provincial government says it is concerned because the province has done it for provincial ferries.
That service is written into the "confederation document" - huh? Ah Gerry that's the Terms of Union OK.
We should not have to pay for it and we would let the feds off the hook if we paid for it. Let the feds off the hook Gerry? How ironic! What about the feds on/off the hook for the fishery? Where are you on that? Same place you've been for 12 years? Are you honestly suggesting that the fishery was not hurt under "your watch"?
You may have provided for your children - but your policies and leadership have prevented others from providing for theirs. Do you appreciate that?
Gerry found his way to a wharf in Petty Harbour (during a by-election) - I'm impressed.
What about that hindsight - do you take any responsibility for the absolute mess the HOA books and accounts have been in since 1989? Who should we blame? Did it happen on its own - around you? No comment on that hey? What's important to you are the by-elections where we the voters get to go out and elect people under the same pathetic leadership?
Talks about his campaign trail - while the fishery collapses - rural outmigration continues - the Premier reneges again on the Energy Plan - on and on and on...
Any movement would be a breakthrough - hang on he's going to talk about the ferry rates - he does not buy the feds "rising" the ferry rate or the fact the provincial government says it is concerned because the province has done it for provincial ferries.
That service is written into the "confederation document" - huh? Ah Gerry that's the Terms of Union OK.
We should not have to pay for it and we would let the feds off the hook if we paid for it. Let the feds off the hook Gerry? How ironic! What about the feds on/off the hook for the fishery? Where are you on that? Same place you've been for 12 years? Are you honestly suggesting that the fishery was not hurt under "your watch"?
You may have provided for your children - but your policies and leadership have prevented others from providing for theirs. Do you appreciate that?
Gerry found his way to a wharf in Petty Harbour (during a by-election) - I'm impressed.
What about that hindsight - do you take any responsibility for the absolute mess the HOA books and accounts have been in since 1989? Who should we blame? Did it happen on its own - around you? No comment on that hey? What's important to you are the by-elections where we the voters get to go out and elect people under the same pathetic leadership?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)