On September 27th 2012 - Sue's Blog predicted that Justin Trudeau would be the next Prime Minister.
There were 20 reasons given for this call - some of which dealt directly with who I thought Trudeau was and where he came from.
What that post did not deal with were possible weaknesses. I believe the stated strengths noted in the 2012 post are proving to have merit and now we need to look at what weaknesses are there and how Trudeau can rise to strengthen them.
As a public figure - I like the way he carries himself and that will reflect on Canada and her people as a whole. I do not know him personally and perhaps never will. Some federal Liberal Party stalwarts remain and they will not find memories of my criticisms in the past pleasant. Be that as it may - Trudeau is a new leader and a new Prime Minister - I can neither judge him by his colleagues nor of ever-present partisans who reside in all parties.
I am a Canadian citizen and I like to participate - usually causing politicians to avoid rather than engage. This unfortunately dismisses real and valid points and policy suggestions that I and others like me have. Trudeau will be faced with many people like me and it will be instructional to see how he and his Cabinet respond. I hold out hope that this leader will draw from society - will seek to listen with non-partisan ears - and truly unite Canadians.
The election win was a combination of people wanting to get rid of Harper and of choosing the alternative that provided the most potential.
There is no doubt that when Tom Mulcair listened to or participated in the decision to attack Trudeau versus choosing to raise his profile from Opposition leader to the nations Prime Minister - he and the NDP lost. Conversely when Trudeau and his team chose to take the road of answering critics head on by offering reasoned, calm, and modern thinking - he lead the party to victory.
The media - in their usual - deer in headlights response to an unexpected result - chattered and giggled about how the Niqab killed the NDP. Not only was that wrong - it was illogical. Trudeau took the same position on the Niqab as Mulcair - yet took ownership of Quebec.
Journalists on the Hill had bought into the "just not ready" theatrics which helped in their defence of propaganda coverage dictated by Stephen Harper. The five questions - no follow up rule was juvenile and mainstream media sucked it up in an equally juvenile and unprofessional manner. Andrew Coyne's very public sulking at the end of the campaign - added fuel to the fire that they all had bosses to listen to. Then in a very apparent/non-transparent way - we were all left to pity them.
Now the media floodgates are open - they are all over Trudeau and his Cabinet. Tripping and giggling at their regained power. The very same day - they failed to scrum Harper and let Rona Ambrose control the number of questions permitted.
Canada is a geographically large and culturally diverse nation. Our confederation continues to be challenged by obvious problems that politicians have yet to address - let alone improve. If and when a leader has the courage to deal with these problems - our confederation may permanently remove the threat to separate by any province.
On Wednesday I watched the Cabinet unfold with millions of other Canadians. For the most part I believe Trudeau ticked most of the important boxes and as he said "it is 2015". Gender equality in Parliament is important and there was no reason based on qualifications - that it should not have been achieved. There was also a great representation of age and experience. New ideas versus tried and true policy will provide great debate at the Cabinet table.
In all the newness that is Justin Trudeau - in all the forward looking that is Justin Trudeau there remains an antiquated view of regional representation in Cabinet. It is the final bastion of Upper and Lower Canada. It can be argued that we got Harper because the West (primarily the prairies) wanted in and they seen the Reform/Alliance as the way to get there.
If there is any such thing as "Old Stock Canadian" thinking it is geographic not racist and it is most assuredly the position that Ontario and Quebec are the most important pieces of geography in the country and also the most needy people when it comes to Cabinet placements.
We are a confederation of provinces - joined to form a Country based on common interests. All MP's are concerned with homelessness, affordable housing, health care, education, justice, transportation, taxation, security, and sovereignty - therefore all are representatives of these fundamentals. Cabinet should be utilized to deal with regional issues. This should not be based on population but rather on geography, assets, and particular needs.
If Ontario's focus is on the auto sector, banking, transit, manufacturing, and immigration - surely five competent MP's placed into Cabinet should be able to represent this. Likewise with all provinces and the North. A combination of population, geography, industrial sectors and cultural issues should be at the forefront of Cabinet appointments.
If we cannot have an equal, elected, and effective Senate - we must certainly strive to level the Cabinet playing field.
If Ontario has 11 Cabinet members to represent its interests there is no doubt that policy direction will favour that province. Quebec holding 6 posts and the Prime Minister means it has plenty of people to speak. 18 of 31 Ministers held by Upper and Lower Canada means that economic growth, population growth, and social growth will be dominated by these provinces. The fact that mainstream media - more often that not - refers to Atlantic Canada, Western Canada, Territories, Ontario and Quebec when describing our country demonstrates the real problem in identity and regional preferences in our country.
By reducing Ontario and Quebec's representation in Cabinet to 10 from 18 - would allow all provinces and the Territories to at least have 2 Cabinet posts. This better reflects Canada and its confederation.
This is a weakness in Trudeau. He needs to look outside the population box to unite the provinces and territories in a real partnership. It is outdated, regressive, and divisive - it must be corrected. If 8 provinces and 3 Territories feel a Cabinet direction is favouring the growth of Quebec and Ontario at the cost of the other 11 then real action could be taken.
The real and obnoxious attention to Quebec and Ontario was most recently witnessed in the election. All leaders with the exception of Elizabeth May (who concentrated efforts in BC) doted on the neediness of Upper and Lower Canada. It is time for real leadership on this most troubling and chronic problem.
If Canada continues to govern itself based on the preservation, growth, and dominance of 2 provinces we will cease to be a real confederation.
British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the North are the sea borders of our country and are bountiful in natural ocean resources. These resources being owned and managed by the federal government is absolutely wrong and patently unfair. More than this - Cabinets dominated by central Canadian MP's have either neglected or mismanaged these resources at a unfathomable loss to the affected populations.
The fishery, oil and gas, and search and rescue assets have been crucified by Cabinets dominated by people who have no clue about them or real interest in the fall-out of critical errors. The House of Commons - dictated to by population representation - can kill a small province with one vote.
For all the modern and youthful thinking of the new Prime Minister - Justin Trudeau demonstrated significant weakness in the area of Cabinet representation. Ironically 5 of the 36 seats held by the Liberals were from Newfoundland and Labrador. We represented 1/7th of what they had. What are we now?
If somebody does not deal with the inequalities in Cabinet representation and provinces continue to suffer losses in population growth, economics, and industry - there will come a time when people want out not in.
I wait to see if our new Prime Minister recognizes and then attempts to deal with this.
Showing posts with label Cabinet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cabinet. Show all posts
Friday, November 06, 2015
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Public correction of error by Minister King necessary
It's bad enough that Darin King believes the need for a public inquiry rests on his feelings on the investigation when it's over. The Minister, however, outdid himself by proclaiming for all radio-land that he and he alone is the one who decides if an inquiry is called.
I really think it's time we upped the level of what we expect from our elected officials and demand that Minister's understand laws they are referencing in public.
What a disgrace - Darin King on VOCM Back-Talk with Pete Soucy - told all the listening audience that it is he that will make a decision on a public inquiry. It is up to him he states.
I really think it's time we upped the level of what we expect from our elected officials and demand that Minister's understand laws they are referencing in public.
What a disgrace - Darin King on VOCM Back-Talk with Pete Soucy - told all the listening audience that it is he that will make a decision on a public inquiry. It is up to him he states.
Here is part of Section 3 of the Public Inquiries Act
Commissions of Inquiry
3.(1) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order establish a commission of inquiry and report on a matter that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers to be a public concern.
(2) Where a commission is established under subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the order,
(a) appoint the members of the commission in accordance with section 21;
(b) establish the jurisdiction of the commission by setting terms of reference for the inquiry;
(c) designate the Minister responsible for the inquiry; and
(d) fix a date for the termination of the inquiry and for the delivery of the commission's report.
emphasis added
It is not only responsible but one would think in keeping with the Minister's Oath of Office that Darin King clear up any errors he may make when explaining anything to the public.
Not only is it - not his decision to call an inquiry - he may not even be chosen by the Cabinet to be the Minister responsible for the inquiry after it has been called.
As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are going to have to hold our politicians more accountable. It is very difficult to have faith in our government when a Minister of the Crown speaks with authority about a law that he/she clearly does not understand.
This is what Minister King said:
"Well I guess I decide that if I'm the one that calls the inquiry - ultimately - to be blunt about it. I think the Public Inquiries Act provides that the Minister is the one that makes the call so ultimately I would be the person who had to make the decision."
Please try to reconcile the Act and the Minister words. How long has he been a Minister of the Crown?
Further to insure the Minister's red herring does not continue - we are not asking that an inquiry actually take place before the current investigation is over. We want a commitment that one will be called.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Trevor Taylor running for Tory leader?
Well the Tories should be ecstatic - looks like Trevor Taylor might be getting ready to throw his hat in the ring.
Taylor really lost it today in his Telegram opinion column READ HERE
Trevor decided that a frank discussion on the state of politics in Newfoundland and Labrador was in order.
His column takes many shots at the current crop of politicians in our province. He says of Liberal leader Dwight Ball: "Dwight Ball, while a nice guy, is not seen as a leader who is going to inspire the six or eight strong individuals he needs to step forward to form his first line."
A leader - Trevor - is somebody who is willing to step up and take on the hard tasks and do so without unnecessary drama and bravado. A leader - Trevor - is somebody who can bring people together from all sides of the political spectrum and make it work for the people. A leader - Trevor is somebody who does not quit in the face of adversity and finds a way to rebuild and connect. Dwight Ball is exactly that - and everything you are not.
Trevor expounds on "Cabinet Material" like somebody who knows what that is. Taylor was in Cabinet and accomplished what? Then Trevor quit. Then Trevor quit. Now Trevor complains.
He threw the entire backbench of the Tories under the big blue bus and is awaiting the coming of the next savior. Another man - like his leader Danny Williams - who quit. Or maybe like his leader Kathy Dunderdale - who quit. They are after all like him - they quit.
Considering your sage commentary - I expect your purported truth, wisdom and common sense is exactly what you will offer fellow Tories - by running for leader.
You remain a partisan sniper - who knows the political wilderness for your party is just around the corner. Now have the guts and step to the plate - and show us what you believe makes a real leader.
The recycled failed Tory Cabinet is exactly what you need to fix. What does it take to be a Cabinet Minister or leader Trevor? Why not show us.
Taylor really lost it today in his Telegram opinion column READ HERE
Trevor decided that a frank discussion on the state of politics in Newfoundland and Labrador was in order.
His column takes many shots at the current crop of politicians in our province. He says of Liberal leader Dwight Ball: "Dwight Ball, while a nice guy, is not seen as a leader who is going to inspire the six or eight strong individuals he needs to step forward to form his first line."
A leader - Trevor - is somebody who is willing to step up and take on the hard tasks and do so without unnecessary drama and bravado. A leader - Trevor - is somebody who can bring people together from all sides of the political spectrum and make it work for the people. A leader - Trevor is somebody who does not quit in the face of adversity and finds a way to rebuild and connect. Dwight Ball is exactly that - and everything you are not.
Trevor expounds on "Cabinet Material" like somebody who knows what that is. Taylor was in Cabinet and accomplished what? Then Trevor quit. Then Trevor quit. Now Trevor complains.
He threw the entire backbench of the Tories under the big blue bus and is awaiting the coming of the next savior. Another man - like his leader Danny Williams - who quit. Or maybe like his leader Kathy Dunderdale - who quit. They are after all like him - they quit.
Considering your sage commentary - I expect your purported truth, wisdom and common sense is exactly what you will offer fellow Tories - by running for leader.
You remain a partisan sniper - who knows the political wilderness for your party is just around the corner. Now have the guts and step to the plate - and show us what you believe makes a real leader.
The recycled failed Tory Cabinet is exactly what you need to fix. What does it take to be a Cabinet Minister or leader Trevor? Why not show us.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Why say NO to Peter Penashue? Vote ABC
Please read the following very carefully:
"Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendements to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the Former Official Agent."
The above can be found at Peter Penashue's latest Election Campaign website.
Now let's examine the true character Mr. Penashue wants to portray.
While he and other Conservatives want us all to believe that only Labrador should look at his record - they deliberately forget that he was also a federal Minister representing the entire province. Therefore we should all scrutinize very carefully what this person is all about.
The statement he makes above is not subject of his personal opinion - rather he presents it as fact.
1. Who has determined that a "mistake" was made?
2. Has it been determined that the actions in question were in fact a "mistake"?
3. Who has determined that Mr. Bowers is an "inexperienced volunteer"?
4. What does "inexperienced volunteer mean"?
5. What education and experience does Mr. Bowers have?
6. Through evaluation of Mr. Bowers education and experience - should a reasonably minded person or a legal authority accept that Mr. Bowers did not have the education and experience to be a volunteer?
7. Through evaluation of Mr. Bowers education and experience - should a reasonably minded person or a legal authority come to the conclusion that Mr. Bowers should have reasonably been aware of the governing legislation?
8. Considering the public office that Mr. Penashue was seeking, was successful in achieving, resigned from and is seeking again including being a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada - is it acceptable that Mr. Penashue was "unaware" of donations being made to his campaign? Is it acceptable that he did not know or ignored the type of donations being made to his campaign?
9. The term Mr. Penashue uses to describe donations is "ineligible". Considering Corporate donations to political parties and candidates are illegal in Canada - why is the term ineligible used? While it might be somewhat understandable that a personal contribution (which is legal) may sometimes - with enthusiasm be a little more that the eligible amount - there is no question that there is only one class of contributor. There have been reasons given why corporate contributions are illegal - therefore we must respect our democratic protections and ensure that we follow the Elections Act. Why would a man seeking federal public office not fully understand and protect against this type of activity?
10. The fact that Mr. Penashue seeks to hide behind a volunteer that he chose and understates the severity of breaching laws regarding federal elections - certainly demonstrates what he might do if given the privilege of public office again and even more so as a Cabinet Minister. How can one be an advisor of the legislature when one disrespects legislation?
Say no to Peter Penashue and I respectfully ask that you vote ABC.
Mr. Penashue and Mr. Harper must learn that they cannot buy our democracy and rule over instead of serve us - the electorate.
"Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendements to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the Former Official Agent."
The above can be found at Peter Penashue's latest Election Campaign website.
Now let's examine the true character Mr. Penashue wants to portray.
While he and other Conservatives want us all to believe that only Labrador should look at his record - they deliberately forget that he was also a federal Minister representing the entire province. Therefore we should all scrutinize very carefully what this person is all about.
The statement he makes above is not subject of his personal opinion - rather he presents it as fact.
1. Who has determined that a "mistake" was made?
2. Has it been determined that the actions in question were in fact a "mistake"?
3. Who has determined that Mr. Bowers is an "inexperienced volunteer"?
4. What does "inexperienced volunteer mean"?
5. What education and experience does Mr. Bowers have?
6. Through evaluation of Mr. Bowers education and experience - should a reasonably minded person or a legal authority accept that Mr. Bowers did not have the education and experience to be a volunteer?
7. Through evaluation of Mr. Bowers education and experience - should a reasonably minded person or a legal authority come to the conclusion that Mr. Bowers should have reasonably been aware of the governing legislation?
8. Considering the public office that Mr. Penashue was seeking, was successful in achieving, resigned from and is seeking again including being a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada - is it acceptable that Mr. Penashue was "unaware" of donations being made to his campaign? Is it acceptable that he did not know or ignored the type of donations being made to his campaign?
9. The term Mr. Penashue uses to describe donations is "ineligible". Considering Corporate donations to political parties and candidates are illegal in Canada - why is the term ineligible used? While it might be somewhat understandable that a personal contribution (which is legal) may sometimes - with enthusiasm be a little more that the eligible amount - there is no question that there is only one class of contributor. There have been reasons given why corporate contributions are illegal - therefore we must respect our democratic protections and ensure that we follow the Elections Act. Why would a man seeking federal public office not fully understand and protect against this type of activity?
10. The fact that Mr. Penashue seeks to hide behind a volunteer that he chose and understates the severity of breaching laws regarding federal elections - certainly demonstrates what he might do if given the privilege of public office again and even more so as a Cabinet Minister. How can one be an advisor of the legislature when one disrespects legislation?
Say no to Peter Penashue and I respectfully ask that you vote ABC.
Mr. Penashue and Mr. Harper must learn that they cannot buy our democracy and rule over instead of serve us - the electorate.
Due to
mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the
Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new
Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed
amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
Due to
mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the
Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new
Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed
amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
Due to
mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the
Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new
Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed
amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
Due to
mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the
Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new
Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed
amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf
Due to
mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the
Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new
Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed
amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpufle
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpufle
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Polygraph in order? Kent and Osborne
Which one would agree to a polygraph - Osborne or Kent?
This is an important test and both should be asked if they would agree. Kent is lobbying hard to sit in the Dunderdale Cabinet and is prepared to throw himself under Kathy's big blue bus if necessary. Osborne says he cannot take Dunderdale's leadership and no longer recognizes his own party.
Osborne says Kent spoke to him about concerns regarding the Premier's ability to lead and Kent says he did not.
Dunderdale for her part explained the road to Cabinet is through developing a relationship with her. That would leave Kent in a "deadwood" zone if he privately questioned the queen of the Tories ability to do her job.
It's bad enough that Dunderdale's most stated objective is that sucking up to her is the road to success - but when one of those kissing #*# might actually be doing so for the cameras while taking a swipe in the shadows - the plot thickens.
So this is an important truth. We don't want the convenient truth - we want the whole truth.
Is is disgruntled Tom or desperate Steve?
Let's see which one is willing to swear to it or be tested by a machine that could ultimately build or break political careers.
St
This is an important test and both should be asked if they would agree. Kent is lobbying hard to sit in the Dunderdale Cabinet and is prepared to throw himself under Kathy's big blue bus if necessary. Osborne says he cannot take Dunderdale's leadership and no longer recognizes his own party.
Osborne says Kent spoke to him about concerns regarding the Premier's ability to lead and Kent says he did not.
Dunderdale for her part explained the road to Cabinet is through developing a relationship with her. That would leave Kent in a "deadwood" zone if he privately questioned the queen of the Tories ability to do her job.
It's bad enough that Dunderdale's most stated objective is that sucking up to her is the road to success - but when one of those kissing #*# might actually be doing so for the cameras while taking a swipe in the shadows - the plot thickens.
So this is an important truth. We don't want the convenient truth - we want the whole truth.
Is is disgruntled Tom or desperate Steve?
Let's see which one is willing to swear to it or be tested by a machine that could ultimately build or break political careers.
St
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Kathy's Kakorrhaphiophobics
The CBC employee responsible for this photo - should be recognized for the best piece of journalism the station has produced in a while.
 | |||||||
| In the Beginning |
Monday, February 12, 2007
As long as Cabinet and Caucus - calls to say...
Whatever the Premier wants when he wants - I will keep a little tribute to them on the blog.
Please look on the left hand side and scroll down just below Previous Posts and sing along....
The Cabinet must have better things to do than the by-election circuit - openline political ad circuit - or I'm a part of Danny's team circuit....
Please look on the left hand side and scroll down just below Previous Posts and sing along....
The Cabinet must have better things to do than the by-election circuit - openline political ad circuit - or I'm a part of Danny's team circuit....
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Is this what happened?
Sometimes it is difficult to look at events from yesterday - when talking about an event today.
I believe we need to look carefully at the situation May of 2004 - to determine if something else was going on which caused Elizabeth Marshall and Danny Williams to be the only ones that did not take the constituency bonus.
During the years Danny spent in Opposition - he beat the Liberals silly with the Auditor General reports - some of which were completed when Elizabeth Marshall was the AG.
Marshall was handpicked by Williams as this CBC story at the time states.
The story also uses the headline "Accountability target in Topsail"
Here's the most interesting section of that CBC feature on Elizabeth Marshall - the candidate:
Marshall spent 10 years criticizing the Liberal government for its spending habits and book keeping as auditor general. She's the Conservative poster candidate for transparency and accountability — two areas in which she hammered the Liberals in her annual reports.
"I think I'm going in with a great benefit in that I know government very, very well," she says. "I've already thought a lot of things through in my mind, so I think it's a great benefit that I've had that experience in the past."
Cut wasteful spending
Marshall's message when campaigning in the district is one of fiscal responsibility. She says the government has to prioritize, given the province's fiscal position.
So there is Elizabeth - May 2004 - Minister of Health and member of the Internal Economy Commission (IEC) - and no doubt very close to the Premier - politically speaking.
The IEC meets - Beth knows the bonus payment is on the heels of a bitter strike, belt tightening - and increased taxes (service fees). We do not know what she said in that meeting but we do know she would not take the money. Beth also knows this is likely to be picked up on by the Auditor General (a man who was deputy auditor when she was AG) sometime in the future. At the same time - Elizabeth and the Premier would have been collaborating on the development of the Accountability legislation and preparing for what they knew would be messy. (allowing the AG at the books of the HOA)
No doubt Beth Marshall reported on her own colleagues and the Liberals sitting on the IEC to Danny - and I suspect she informed the Premier about that "poor decision" in May of 2004. Being Cabinet buddies and confidantes would have allowed the two to predict the eventual outcome of taking this cash and the two obviously knew it was wrong. Despite the Premier saying he knew nothing of it at the time (his underlings were taking care of it - he described in an interview) I believe Beth Marshall told him about the IEC decision and advised him she would not be taking the payment.
I don't think the Premier gave a damn if a few of his old buddies got the hammer - (Sullivan and Byrne) were expendable - as they were only tolerated and used as they were the old gang that held the works together while Dan was building Cable Atlantic.
After the deed was done and the accountability legislation was well in hand - the formidable Beth Marshall - despite her star qualities and expertise - was now expendable for Williams - she resigned in September of 2004.
So much for her campaign promise of transparency and accountability - she said nothing about the decision to increase the allowances and nothing about the vague way in which was noted.
Well now she is no longer in Cabinet and no longer on the IEC - her expertise and credentials no longer needed to lead government's financial affairs - but Elizabeth - remember - this particular expenditure - was under your watch. And Premier it's about time you said something about the elimination of your star candidate from Cabinet and your determination that she has nothing to offer the people of the province in such a role.
What does the Premier say about it all? Pay it back - okay that could have been avoided had you spoken up 2 years ago. What does Elizabeth Marshall say? Nothing - that speaks volumes.
From what we've seen from the AG so far - the Liberals were not keen on ensuring good records were kept or indeed did not bother to take the lead to correct the mess. Naturally they all took the cash - and from what I heard from Gerry Reid on CBC - entitled to their entitlements - until caught at which point you say "in hindsight it was a bad decision". Ha Ha Ha.....
I believe we need to look carefully at the situation May of 2004 - to determine if something else was going on which caused Elizabeth Marshall and Danny Williams to be the only ones that did not take the constituency bonus.
During the years Danny spent in Opposition - he beat the Liberals silly with the Auditor General reports - some of which were completed when Elizabeth Marshall was the AG.
Marshall was handpicked by Williams as this CBC story at the time states.
The story also uses the headline "Accountability target in Topsail"
Here's the most interesting section of that CBC feature on Elizabeth Marshall - the candidate:
Marshall spent 10 years criticizing the Liberal government for its spending habits and book keeping as auditor general. She's the Conservative poster candidate for transparency and accountability — two areas in which she hammered the Liberals in her annual reports.
"I think I'm going in with a great benefit in that I know government very, very well," she says. "I've already thought a lot of things through in my mind, so I think it's a great benefit that I've had that experience in the past."
Cut wasteful spending
Marshall's message when campaigning in the district is one of fiscal responsibility. She says the government has to prioritize, given the province's fiscal position.
So there is Elizabeth - May 2004 - Minister of Health and member of the Internal Economy Commission (IEC) - and no doubt very close to the Premier - politically speaking.
The IEC meets - Beth knows the bonus payment is on the heels of a bitter strike, belt tightening - and increased taxes (service fees). We do not know what she said in that meeting but we do know she would not take the money. Beth also knows this is likely to be picked up on by the Auditor General (a man who was deputy auditor when she was AG) sometime in the future. At the same time - Elizabeth and the Premier would have been collaborating on the development of the Accountability legislation and preparing for what they knew would be messy. (allowing the AG at the books of the HOA)
No doubt Beth Marshall reported on her own colleagues and the Liberals sitting on the IEC to Danny - and I suspect she informed the Premier about that "poor decision" in May of 2004. Being Cabinet buddies and confidantes would have allowed the two to predict the eventual outcome of taking this cash and the two obviously knew it was wrong. Despite the Premier saying he knew nothing of it at the time (his underlings were taking care of it - he described in an interview) I believe Beth Marshall told him about the IEC decision and advised him she would not be taking the payment.
I don't think the Premier gave a damn if a few of his old buddies got the hammer - (Sullivan and Byrne) were expendable - as they were only tolerated and used as they were the old gang that held the works together while Dan was building Cable Atlantic.
After the deed was done and the accountability legislation was well in hand - the formidable Beth Marshall - despite her star qualities and expertise - was now expendable for Williams - she resigned in September of 2004.
So much for her campaign promise of transparency and accountability - she said nothing about the decision to increase the allowances and nothing about the vague way in which was noted.
Well now she is no longer in Cabinet and no longer on the IEC - her expertise and credentials no longer needed to lead government's financial affairs - but Elizabeth - remember - this particular expenditure - was under your watch. And Premier it's about time you said something about the elimination of your star candidate from Cabinet and your determination that she has nothing to offer the people of the province in such a role.
What does the Premier say about it all? Pay it back - okay that could have been avoided had you spoken up 2 years ago. What does Elizabeth Marshall say? Nothing - that speaks volumes.
From what we've seen from the AG so far - the Liberals were not keen on ensuring good records were kept or indeed did not bother to take the lead to correct the mess. Naturally they all took the cash - and from what I heard from Gerry Reid on CBC - entitled to their entitlements - until caught at which point you say "in hindsight it was a bad decision". Ha Ha Ha.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)