Williams/Dunderdale Government shows Transparency in Policy

Below is the question found on the VOCM website today.

Do you think the province was right in contracting out the Labrador ferry service to two companies from the mainland? Why or why not?

Now let's examine this:

TOBACCO LAWSUIT = NO TENDER = PREMIER WILLIAMS FORMER LAW FIRM

FERRY SERVICES LABRADOR = TENDER = NO PARTISAN PREFERRED OPTION

   

FIBRE OPTIC CONTRACT = NO TENDER = PREMIER WILLIAMS FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER





 THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY TRANSPARENT POLICY TO ME!

Giveaway Dunderdale Caribou Pie and wash of Churchill Water

STOP THE LOWER CHURCHILL DEAL NOW!

Okay Newfoundland and Labrador - Premier Dunderdale and responsible departmental ministers and deputies have found a way to stop the slaughter of the caribou herd in Labrador. Give the Quebec Innu  hunting rights and management rights.

Yes that's correct slaughter animals illegally to the point of endangering the herd and you too can own a piece of the caribou pie. There is one hitch if you are a Labradorian you won't get a commercial hunt as you are doing things legally.

Now in return for this the Quebec Innu might recognize some herds are endangered if the government of Newfoundland and Labrador can prove it!

Remember now part of the reason the Quebec Innu gave for the slaughter/protest was to object to the Labrador Innu getting compensation for the Lower Churchill development - will the Quebec Innu also demand compensation for the Churchill development. Stay tuned - at this rate another slaughter may prompt our government to give them half the project.

The Montreal Gazette reports the following:

...the parties have decided to look for common ground to resolve the long-standing problem and a meeting took place Wednesday in Sept Iles between seven Innu chiefs and a N.L. delegation including three deputy ministers.

Gregoire said the sides have agreed to negotiations to tackle several issues, including the co-management of the Labrador caribou herd and the hunting rights.

"There is a will on both sides to settle this dispute," Gregoire said Thursday, adding the Innu will refrain from disrupting the ongoing caribou hunt during the negotiations.

Last February, some 150 Quebec Innu went on a caribou-hunting trip in Labrador to protest a deal that gives Labrador Innu hunting rights and compensation for the hydroelectric development of the lower Churchill River.

And if you wonder what our bureaucrats are doing for you - well three of the Deputy Ministers are up negotiating with the Quebec Innu - while the same government provides nobody to speak to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about what might turn out to be the biggest giveaway yet. 

Social Experiment #2 Danny wants to Lose Labrador?

When Clyde Wells employed Doug House - he knew what he was getting - and he knew what way to utilize his skills. Over a million dollars later I expect we have another Premier doing the same thing.

Here's one theory:

Labrador just might deliver what Danny Williams wants - 0 seats - or if one seat - it must be in an area where he's likely to receive support for his plans for Lower Churchill Power. That is in an area where if all the power is exported - they will make specific direct financial gain for their peoples.

Clyde Wells used Doug House to determine on a regular basis - how a community - mostly in rural areas of the province would react to some government cut-back - amalgamation attempt - loss of a fish plant here or there. He also used him to determine what the fight might be on the privatization of various government entities including Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. (He got that one wrong) He also used the knowledge of Doug House to determine how people were going to react to "education reform". As a sociologist House is known for "unique" socio-economic concepts (as yet I have not seen one work). He in a way is a social scientist who conducts experiments on communities of people.

This time - in his backroom - as a Deputy Minister of Provincial Development Plan (whatever that is) he might have been determining how people in Labrador would react to the "energy plan". That pamphlet falls well short of a real plan - but it is a document that makes statements to bring predictable results.

Same players though - Tobin hovering somewhere and MacDonald as the Chair of NLH - Doug House and a newbie to the social experiment - Ross Reid - who came back to Newfoundland and Labrador after conducting his and others theories in democratizing countries such as Afghanistan.

Danny Williams will not allow to happen what Grimes did allow. Remember Dean MacDonald's very public resignation from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro under the Grimes proposal for developing the Lower Churchill? I could accept the public hissy fit if MacDonald himself under the Tobin regime had not supported a proposal which would have seen Quebec own over 33% of the development. No hissy fit then.

Danny Williams and the gang want to do the Lower Churchill project - and the last thing they need is government MHA's or even a Cabinet Minister from Labrador crossing the floor in protest or putting on a display of disgust similar to the MacDonald resignation. My guess is Danny wants to have have the project sanctioned by Island MHA's and Ministers.

You see Danny is not stunned - he must have known that Labradorians upon viewing the "plan" would be up in arms. I believe he knew he was hanging Hickey out to dry - I believe he knew he was giving Yvonne Jones enough to be re-elected and I believe he suspected that Labrador West would give Baker the boot. Hard to know on Pottle - she may be able to sit in Cabinet and deliver to her district millions in royalties/revenues and also deliver an industry with a private power project in Torngat if I was hearing John Hickey right today.

You think Danny and the gang knew that by stating a transmission line would come across to the Island while not servicing Labrador would get the "predictable" outcry? And just before the election? This document - which could have been written in a week took over 2 years - and did exactly what I believe it was supposed to do - annoy Labradorians. I think Danny will be a happy man if Labrador seats are lost and gains are made on the Island.

You see the man gets on the radio and everywhere that he can be heard and takes cracks at popular Labradorians like Stanley Oliver - who before he is a Liberal - is a Labradorian. He knows he is giving a proud Metis - Chris Montague what he needs to turn the tide. I have to trust he is intelligent and as such knows that he is really bugging Labradorians - even by quasi-suggesting that Pottle might make it to Cabinet.(something he is not doing on the Island) Everywhere else the man is appeasing voters - but not in Labrador.

Multi-millionaires are made by reading the masses and what they can sell them. So far everything seems to be on plan.

Read - Reid - Read - to succeed...

Danny Williams is now learning Labrador politics - they no longer want to be a colony of Newfoundland. They will not allow the development of the Lower Churchill unless they are the "primary" beneficiaries. Thanks to them - another townie government will not repeat the Upper Churchill fiasco.

Now it's time for "read - REID - read" to succeed.

It is not possible that column after column - news story after news story - industry publication after industry publication - can be wrong when they state that aluminum chases cost competitive - reliable - renewable - and now my own word "kyotoble" power everywhere in the world but Labrador.

The continued ignorance of our collective elected reps is not acceptable anymore.

Here's another such story out of West Virginia - as Jackson County celebrates the 50th anniversary of its aluminum smelter. READ the Charleston Daily News STORY HERE

Here are a few of the interesting statements and comments in the article:

The Ravenswood plant has 660 employees. The average salary is $50,700. The plant has a $34 million annual payroll.

High energy costs have decimated the smelter industry in the United States, Hale said. In 1974, there were 34 smelters in the United States and they accounted for 34 percent of global aluminum production. Today there are only 13 smelters in the United States and they represent just 7 percent of global production, he said.

Hale said alumina accounts for 37 percent of the plant's costs, while electricity accounts for 26 percent, labor accounts for 16 percent, carbon accounts for 8 percent and other raw materials account for 12 percent.

Because aluminum is a worldwide commodity, Century can't control the price it receives for its product, Hale said. Therefore, the company focuses on costs in order to keep the plant competitive.

Century, like others in the aluminum smelter business, is expanding in locations where power costs are low. Century owns a giant smelter in Iceland powered with electricity generated using hydro and geothermal power. Century plans to have another in plant in operation in Iceland by 2013.

Most of the aluminum produced at Ravenswood is used next door at Alcan Rolled Products' rolling mill. The businesses were established as one unit in 1957, but split into two in 1999. Hale said Century just signed a new contract to supply Alcan through 2009.

Just so that we can feel more assured about this fellow Hale who is quoted throughout the story:

Wayne Hale, Century's executive vice president and chief operating officer and Hale worked here from 1986 to 1989. "It's a place where I learned about people," he said. Hale most recently worked in Moscow, where he oversaw operations at 11 aluminum plants in Russia and Ukraine for Sual-Holding.

If you export the power they will not come - once they understand that to use the superior power of the Lower Churchill they have to set up operations in Labrador - they will come. And as you can see above - the smelter is one piece - then there is the value added secondary production.

There is no argument to export that power - there is only the desire and the determination to use it for industry.

The Leader of the Opposition must do something other than follow Williams on this one - or repeat the mistakes of the Wells - Gibbons energy policy. You see if Williams can demand things of the oil companies and mining companies - he can certainly demand them for Labrador power.

So read Reid read to succeed.

The smell of "Old Liberalism" cannot be masked by expensive perfume...

What is it with the Liberals? They describe themselves as left of center on their web-page (at least it did until they updated it today)- while going right of Williams and the Tories on energy policy.

The answer is Rex Gibbons - if the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to follow the strategy of this man on energy - the Liberals will fail - politically.

Yesterday Gerry Reid was telling university students that equity in oil projects would not happen under a Liberal government. In defense of this position - Reid said that Alberta does not do it - so if that energy powerhouse does not do it - why should we?

Two answers to that Mr. Reid - and you would see them if Gibbons would stop advising for a little while.

1. Alberta owns it oil and gas resources. We do not. When Alberta develops it can say - you may develop this parcel if we receive this amount in royalties and we get a refinery or other petro-chemical industry in Alberta to process the resource. We are not allowed to refine our own oil until the refineries in Eastern Canada are fully satisfied. Do you understand this? Have you read the Atlantic Accord recently? Rex has - and Rex knows. Rex was the Minister of Energy - he made the deals on oil and he attempted to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. His policies failed and he has not been re-elected since.

2. Who cares if Alberta or other Canadian provinces do not take equity? I don't - I do not need Alberta to guide us on what we as our own jurisdiction should or should not do. We can have independent policy choices. Further - Reid should know that many other jurisdictions in the world do seek and achieve equity positions - such as Norsk Hydro.

Then there is the Liberal policy on wind development. Once again Rex (Clyde) rares his head and Gerry spews a suggestion regarding private wind generation.

Here is the situation Gerry - if Hydro guarantees to buy the output of such generation then you and me Gerry will pay for it via our electric bill. When that is paid - who do you prefer a portion be returned to - our provinces treasury or let's say the Government of Italy. This creeping in of private sector energy developments is back-door privatization of a resource we own outright. Further Gerry - you should ask Rex what happens when you have multiple players in the generation sector inputting into an electricity grid. You should ask him why Ontario had the big blackout when Quebec did not. You should ask him how we guarantee maintenance with a group of private generators and the cost of not having that control. You should ask him what happened with the joint use of utility poles - and what happens when one group maintains the poles a little more or less than another.

Until the Gerry Reid's "New Liberalism" stops depending on failed "Old Liberalism" policies - the party will continue to enjoy falling polls. It's time to let new thinking take over from Rex Gibbons - Clyde Wells - and past Minister Walter Noel. There is no perfume they can buy to make these policies smell good.



And as for Labrador energy policy - both the Liberals and the Conservatives fail - and they will get a sense of that as they crawl and slither around Labrador looking for a vote (the right to exploit Labrador to benefit the Avalon).

As I write this - back comes John Efford - dipping his toes in the political ocean - John - even if we can get past all the spending scandal and you were as pure as the driven snow in the administration of your constituency allowance - you are the one who told us to take or leave a lesser deal on equalization.

I close with this observation. If Williams does not win 3 of 4 seats in Labrador - he will not have a real mandate to develop the Lower Churchill under less than "best" terms for the Big Land. This is something I hope Labradorians will consider.

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:

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?

Why did the Premier threaten Private Citizens?

You see the Premier would like a few of us to change our commentary. Let's first deal with what Williams was trying to do. I can say that because when he mentioned me yesterday - one of three private citizens named - there was no stated reason?

I was not contacted by any lawyer - government MHA or the Premier to remove or alter a post on the blog or anything I said on the air.

His purpose therefore was to threaten - to warn - but why?

Well if one is critical of the government or Members of the House of Assembly - they might be named publicly like Sue was. Therefore it could only be seen as an intimidation tactic.

The Premier in his musings about besmirching peoples characters should be more concerned by his own actions. The naming of individuals yesterday was one example but the Premier has not shied away going at other people when it suits him.

For instance when the Premier was freely condemning Max Ruelokke's ability to represent the province properly on the CNLOPB - he routinely ignored the process of the appointment and forced Ruelokke to go to court in order to be appointed.

He had no problem putting Rulokke's life on hold - and then had no problem besmirching the judge.

Then there was the whole incident with his son downtown - as NUPGE puts it - the Premier owed the civil service an apology for even implying that the union might have had something to do with it. As it turns out the Unions had nothing to do with the incident.
Here's a part of a story on the site of National Union of Public and General Employees.

Evidence given in a St. John's court on Thursday indicated that the labour movement had nothing to do with the late-night assault on his son near the city's waterfront.

Without any evidence to back his claims, the hot-tempered premier went on television in March 2004 to suggest that unions had targeted his son in retaliation for his Tory government's anti-worker budget, which outlined plans to wipe out 4,000 public sector jobs across the province.

Public sector workers were on the verge of striking at the time and Williams threatened to keep them out "until the cows come home" if any connection between the incident and his son was established.

Did the Premier in that case attempt to besmirch the characters of thousands of people?

There was also the incident with an employee of the Government (at the time) - that he accused of hacking into the Opposition's (him at the time) computers. The RNC found nothing criminal there either.

The rules of this "democracy" are being made by Mr. Williams - and I guess we as people can tell him - it's not his democracy - it's our democracy - and we will defend it.

It was inappropriate for Williams to name private citizens for no reason other than to threaten - he his trying to intimidate.

The question is why?

Why Premier is it so important to shut me up? Lower Churchill? Fishery? Outmigration? Wind energy? Metis? Mistakes in the additional agreement? Why?

Where was the Premier when the moratorium was called on the fishery? Who will fight for them? When Hydro was being sold out from under us? Who will fight for them?

The Premier is a rookie with respect to public discussion on public policy - when compared with those he names. You were not really that loud when the government awarded Cable Atlantic a contract (under Tobin) or when you purchased that piece of land for the golf course (under Tobin) no all that was neat and tidy.

The Premier didn't mind taking a piece out of the fella who wanted to be paid for his role in the sale of his company (Cable Atlantic) - he won his court case too didn't he - as did Max Ruelokke

The Premier has no problem telling us what will happen before the RNC have finished investigating a matter - does he? Does he have a problem telling them? There's a chance the odd one of them is going to hear his statements on the air.

Here's a quote from the Premier's News Release:

"I am so pleased to welcome Minister Hickey back into Cabinet," said Premier Williams. "Effective immediately Minister Hickey will resume his full Cabinet portfolio and related responsibilities. I regret that he had to step aside last week, but under the circumstances it was the prudent thing to do. However, I reviewed the circumstances surrounding the Auditor General's findings into some double billing, and I am confident that there was no intentional wrong doing. As such, I am pleased that Minister Hickey is back where he belongs."

Then Judge Halley calls the delay tactics used by the provincial government on Ruelokke's appointment "reprehensible" - the Premier says the Judge had a bad day. Remember now - he is an officer of the court and was the Premier when the Crown was defending that action.

Here's the quote:

"We all get up on the wrong side of the bed. I have good days and I have bad days and perhaps that was a day when he felt a little more zealous than he normally would feel,"...

You said of Ruelokke who won his case:

"You know, Mr. Ruelokke had been kind of in the papers, in everybody's face on this particular one, in order to express his viewpoint," Williams said. "It might be just better if he just kept his head down and let the process run its proper legal course."

And as for women - the Premier is gaining a reputation:

Joyce Hancock?
Beth Marshall?
Sue Kelland-Dyer?
What do they have in common?
All strong women! All women the Premier has singled out in one way or another.

The Premier is also continually alluding to what Lorraine Michael will do or say on one position or another - and also propping her up (as if she needs his help) using her to take smacks at Gerry Reid and the official opposition.

His public support of Kathie Goudie versus John Hickey.(What's the difference?)

The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"But you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines."

Who?

The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"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."

Who?

Based on the fact that you also said on Open-Line today:

"...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."

I must be on the "watch" list.

Now how will I be watched?
Am I being watched now?

Who is watching me?
What are they watching for?
How long will I remain on the "watch" list?
Will I be notified if and when I am removed from the "watch" list?

For a complete transcript of the Premier's Statements today on Open-Line
PRESS HERE.



and finally - once and for all - you do get paid...we pay you and as for his further statement that:

"I work for nothing - I donate my salary"

What does this mean Premier?

The Premier works and he is paid a salary - he says I give it to charities which in his words means he works for nothing. Interesting!

How is it that we have come to know that Premier Williams donates his salary to charity? Did somebody else expose this - or was it him? It was him! Perhaps it would have been better to give (because he can) quietly. If for no other reason so people should not feel more indebted to his public service than that of others - because he "works for nothing"? The Premier expresses - every time there is a criticism of him - in a somewhat frustrated tone - that he donates his salary. Why is he saying this? Why does he keep saying things like "I don't need this" - or "Dean MacDonald doesn't need this" - is it to purchase exemption from criticism? If not why? I ask the reader to objectively answer these questions.

Lloyd's Limerick Land

Another Reader gets Poetic

EMP weighs in on the Premier's Open-Line rant...
Sue , you invited anyone who wished to "poetically" vent political frustrations to do so. This wouldn't qualify as poetry but I did vent a little.Here it is ;

It's evident now
Why, in the great house,
Each member settles down
Like a quiet little mouse.

We all heard Danny
On open line to-day
What he'd do to anyone
Who gets in his way.

The threats and the scolding
The rant and the roar
He'd take us mighty fast
To the court room floor.

Most of us now are too darned
scared
To even have our say
Danny thinks we have no right
To criticize "his" way.

So come all you good people
And listen to me
Don't let Danny Williams
Put that muzzle on "WE".

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.

February Holiday?

For the Love of Newfoundland and Labrador - make February 14th a Provincial Holiday

The Premier and Doug House have created a new method for increasing population??? - so maybe Valentines Day - in this way we might produce a new baby boom...

The the only problem will be keeping them here when they grow up - then maybe we can create another 12 provincial holidays - stay in Newfoundland and Labrador - we have more holidays.

On this holiday - the Province should give all citizens a constituency allowance to spend as we wish - in this way the flower shops - restaurants - hotels will be busy.

$2875 for each of us that has reached the age of majority (soon to be 75) would be great for a day off.

If we are clever - we can have our kids file the invoice - twice - maybe three times.

And if all this is not interesting enough - let's change daylight savings time for that day only - an early night. (check with Calvert)

One thing is for certain - if there needs to be reason for a holiday in February - John Hickey provides it - he double bills many many times - admits to it - then in February - wants to sue Roger Grimes for pointing out he's incompetent.

Let's call the day "Hickey's Happy Holiday" with the branding "Love not Hate".

Fraser "sue" Them....

DOUBLE STANDARD HICKEY
YOU SHOULD DO THE HONOURABLE THING AND RESIGN - REMEMBER FRASER?


So Hickey is going to court. Okay how are you going to prove you are not incompetent?
How do you prove you were not stupid or dumb? You double-billed - admitted it - and paid it back. So what were you when you provided invoices twice?

Now let's get back to double standards - Fraser March was fired by these people that double-billed - overspent - and gave themselves $2875. The provincial politicians always visit this blog - so comment - why was Fraser March fired by you?

How do you justify the double standard being applied here.

And for all the members of NAPE and CUPE - why won't your leadership call for a public inquiry?

We must get to the bottom of all this....

Fraser you must be able to get some standing in the Hickey versus Grimes case. That would be good.

My how the almighty pure Hickey has risen - I hope you spend as much time on trying to be accurate with taxpayer dollars as you have already spent complaining about Roger.

So John Hickey - why did you vote to fire Fraser March?

I wonder can Roger's lawyer subpoena the Office of the Auditor General?