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.
Showing posts with label secret. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secret. Show all posts
Thursday, July 05, 2012
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?
"Secrecy Serves to Entrench Incumbents"
Below is Excerpt 2 from a lecture given by renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz
On Liberty, the Right to Know, and Public Discourse:
The Role of Transparency in Public Life
I have already called attention to several of these adverse effects: Secrecy provides the fertile ground on which special interests work; secrecy serves to entrench incumbents, discourage public participation in democratic processes, and undermines the ability of the press to provide an effective check against the abuses of government. But the adverse effects are more pervasive.
To maintain secrecy, often the circle of those involved in decision making is greatly circumscribed; those who are able to provide valuable insights are cut out of the discussion. The quality of decision making is thereby weakened. There is, again, a vicious circle. With more mistakes, public officials become more defensive; to protect themselves, they seek even more secrecy, narrowing in the circle still further, eroding still further the quality of decision-making.
Public programs may be designed not on the basis of the impact that they have, but on (government officials’ beliefs about) the perceptions of those impacts. Those perceptions will be affected by the information that is publicly available; program design may be as sensitive to those perceptions (and the extent to which they can be controlled) as to their real impact.
There is still one more, related effect: as the space of informed discourse about a host of important issues gets circumscribed, attention gets focused more and more on value issues. It takes an enormous amount of information to make judgments concerning complex economic issues. It takes far less (or a far different kind of) information to come to a view concerning abortion or family values. Thus, secrecy has distorted the arena of politics. The adverse effects of secrecy are multiple: not only are important areas of public policy not dealt with effectively, but also debate focuses disproportionately on issues which are often far more divisive.
__________________________________________________________
Without a doubt the Dunderdale government will seek naturally divisive issues such as hating Ottawa or Quebec in order to avoid real debate on issues such as Muskrat Falls.
This government and it's Secrecy Act are very dangerous to the well-being of our society.
On Liberty, the Right to Know, and Public Discourse:
The Role of Transparency in Public Life
I have already called attention to several of these adverse effects: Secrecy provides the fertile ground on which special interests work; secrecy serves to entrench incumbents, discourage public participation in democratic processes, and undermines the ability of the press to provide an effective check against the abuses of government. But the adverse effects are more pervasive.
To maintain secrecy, often the circle of those involved in decision making is greatly circumscribed; those who are able to provide valuable insights are cut out of the discussion. The quality of decision making is thereby weakened. There is, again, a vicious circle. With more mistakes, public officials become more defensive; to protect themselves, they seek even more secrecy, narrowing in the circle still further, eroding still further the quality of decision-making.
Public programs may be designed not on the basis of the impact that they have, but on (government officials’ beliefs about) the perceptions of those impacts. Those perceptions will be affected by the information that is publicly available; program design may be as sensitive to those perceptions (and the extent to which they can be controlled) as to their real impact.
There is still one more, related effect: as the space of informed discourse about a host of important issues gets circumscribed, attention gets focused more and more on value issues. It takes an enormous amount of information to make judgments concerning complex economic issues. It takes far less (or a far different kind of) information to come to a view concerning abortion or family values. Thus, secrecy has distorted the arena of politics. The adverse effects of secrecy are multiple: not only are important areas of public policy not dealt with effectively, but also debate focuses disproportionately on issues which are often far more divisive.
__________________________________________________________
Without a doubt the Dunderdale government will seek naturally divisive issues such as hating Ottawa or Quebec in order to avoid real debate on issues such as Muskrat Falls.
This government and it's Secrecy Act are very dangerous to the well-being of our society.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Loss of Millions $$$ from Health Care - Secret Committee
Do you want to witness wastage of our health care dollars?
An open request to the Auditor General: Please review the workings, processes, and results of the interchangeable drug review advisory committee.
This committee consists of individuals appointed by the Minister of Health and must comprise of 2 pharmacists, 2 physicians, the Deputy Minister, and other persons the Minister may wish to appoint.
When a drug comes off patent and generic equivalents are made available - this committee reviews submissions by generic drug companies to have their products listed on our formulary. These drugs which range between 50-60% of brand price have the potential to save tens of millions of dollars a year.
First you must understand that in order for a generic to be permitted for use in Canada - Health Canada reviews the scientific data and confirms that the generic is safe. Once that has occurred any pharmacy in Canada can purchase the drug and dispense it under various private insurance plans and cash paying customers. In fact these new generic equivalents are almost immediately available in our hospitals - and quite often are dispensed to a patient when in hospital - only to be unavailable at a retail pharmacy when they are released.
Newfoundland and Labrador is notoriously slow to list many of these generic equivalents as they become available. This money is wasted and over the years the tens of millions could be hundreds of millions. In some cases one month delay equals over $100,000 loss of health care dollars.
So how is it that other provinces in Canada are dispensing a generic equivalent under publicly funded drug cards and hospitals in our province are dispensing this same drug - but this "committee" has not cleared it for retail pharmacies - costing us tens of millions of dollars?
The review committee sits in private and the deliberations are secret. The minutes are not available to the public.
Will the media attempt to find the answers to this gross wastage of health care dollars? Will the Auditor General review this situation and report to the House of Assembly what is going on?
Will the Opposition parties step to the plate?
This is a serious and ongoing issue - that is being kept from public scrutiny.
An open request to the Auditor General: Please review the workings, processes, and results of the interchangeable drug review advisory committee.
This committee consists of individuals appointed by the Minister of Health and must comprise of 2 pharmacists, 2 physicians, the Deputy Minister, and other persons the Minister may wish to appoint.
When a drug comes off patent and generic equivalents are made available - this committee reviews submissions by generic drug companies to have their products listed on our formulary. These drugs which range between 50-60% of brand price have the potential to save tens of millions of dollars a year.
First you must understand that in order for a generic to be permitted for use in Canada - Health Canada reviews the scientific data and confirms that the generic is safe. Once that has occurred any pharmacy in Canada can purchase the drug and dispense it under various private insurance plans and cash paying customers. In fact these new generic equivalents are almost immediately available in our hospitals - and quite often are dispensed to a patient when in hospital - only to be unavailable at a retail pharmacy when they are released.
Newfoundland and Labrador is notoriously slow to list many of these generic equivalents as they become available. This money is wasted and over the years the tens of millions could be hundreds of millions. In some cases one month delay equals over $100,000 loss of health care dollars.
So how is it that other provinces in Canada are dispensing a generic equivalent under publicly funded drug cards and hospitals in our province are dispensing this same drug - but this "committee" has not cleared it for retail pharmacies - costing us tens of millions of dollars?
The review committee sits in private and the deliberations are secret. The minutes are not available to the public.
Will the media attempt to find the answers to this gross wastage of health care dollars? Will the Auditor General review this situation and report to the House of Assembly what is going on?
Will the Opposition parties step to the plate?
This is a serious and ongoing issue - that is being kept from public scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)