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.

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.

       

Steve Kent hides behind Cloak? Come out in the Open!

Kent and Harper - two Steve's I want to forget but still living with their incompetence.

Harper lies and generally speaking is not competent on matters of Canada.

Kent just yaps and then re-yaps to explain or re-explain whatever he is talking about.

Both play around with democracy like it's an institution they own and are willing to do whatever to portray favourably whatever outcome they are seeking.

When Kent was dealing with the Boy Scouts of Canada scandal - he assured us he checked and there was nothing hidden. But then he re-explained that there was - he just did not know at the time. Steve's facts are apparently determined based on Steve's knowledge at any given time and not the actual facts of a situation. This makes him dangerous as a public servant.

A fact is: A thing that is indisputably the case.

First of all there are two measures of fairness and balance when the Tories wish to reveal information.

One for Ross Reid and Len Simms, and another for Sue Kelland-Dyer (me)

But let's review what Mr. Kent had to say in the House of Assembly on March 13th 2013.

               ______________________________

They talk about fiscal responsibility and they suggest mismanagement when we provided, in the past, modest bonuses to executives who are doing great work to improve and strengthen the public services we provide. They will talk about those modest bonuses, and the Minister of Finance addressed those in Question Period today, but you will not hear them talk about the $59,000 they paid to Sue Kelland-Dyer for consulting work from May 2001 to April 2002. May 2001 to April 2002, they paid $59,000 to Sue Kelland-Dyer for consulting work. 

Mr. Speaker, the folks over there, like the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands and the Leader of the Opposition, talk about fiscal responsibility, but they will not tell you about what happened several months later in December 2002. In December 2002 they spent $88,000 to hire none other than Sue Kelland-Dyer again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: Eighty-eight thousand dollars, because she was out criticizing government, but once a couple of payments over a period of time totalling $59,000 and then $88,000 on top of that to be a consultant in the Premier's office to monitor the radio shows, Mr. Speaker, and the polls. It is rather disingenuous for members opposite to stand up and talk to us today about fiscal responsibility.   
               ______________________________

This comparative to Len Simms and Ross Reid?

If we are going to talk about private citizens who no longer are under the employ of government and who cannot answer statements made in the People's House of Assembly - then perhaps we should try to do it fairly.

Len Simms and Ross Reid are long-standing Tories - previously elected Tories - fundraising Tories and remain employed by the Government or a Government Agency.

I am not a long-standing Liberal - not previously elected as a Liberal nor run as a Liberal Candidate.
In fact, Mr. Kent, Liberals used to call me a Tory when I opposed the governments of Clyde Wells and Brian Tobin.

I did not take a leave of absence or quit and hit the campaign trail or become a campaign co-chair and then get re-hired after an election.

Please advise us all of the total dollars I have ever received from working with the government, opposition, or as a consultant and then reveal the total compensation that Ross Reid and Len Simms have received.

Then Kent suggests that I was given $88,000 by the government because I opposed the government and then as a consultant to the Premier's Office to monitor Open-Line shows and polls.

First Mr. Kent you should seek the report that was completed by me as a consultant - release it - and then discuss the contents. The "Crown Jewels".

Then you need to ask yourself if I was actually monitoring Open-Line shows and polls or was I in fact working on things such as the need to establish the Ombudsman's Office, Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, A report on our Place in Canada; and policy matters such as natural resource developments, equalization, and class-action lawsuits.

You are a poor excuse of an MHA and even more so as the holder of facts.

Give me a place and time that you and I can discuss these matters in a public forum. Let's see how you hold up when the House of Assembly cloak is removed.

Think Twice about calling VOCM Talk Shows - Slander

 VOCM continues to ignore the slander allowed by them during Open-Line last week.

Then let's get the rules straight. You can without any concern broadcast absolute and defamatory lies about a private citizen on VOCM.

As their talk-show hosts encourage you to call their programs to voice opinion on issues of public importance - please understand that this may subject you to defamatory statements and lies.

You therefore should advise your family that by agreeing to participate in these programs you understand that you may be may harmed both personally and professionally - as VOCM will not prohibit outright lies and slander.

If you think you are immune to this - wait until you express an opinion that goes against the current political authority. Partisan zealots will stop at nothing to attack you - whatever way they can - and truth does not matter. VOCM for its part will not prevent such occurrences.

The statement below was made by caller "Bob" to open-line last week.
 

"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."

This statement is an absolute lie. It also states that I was given something by a politician for loyalty. This is most defamatory and damaging.


These shows say they rely on callers to make the broadcast. I would suggest if callers are going to be subject to this - eventually the calls will stop.


Do you stand up for people when they are being bullied?

Do you believe people have the right to publicly broadcast lies about an individual? Will you support such activity?

Open season on Sue? I wonder if those rules would apply to all people.

Paddy Daley & Randy Simms VOCM Broadcast Licence

Radio talk shows are part of everyday life in Newfoundland and Labrador. In some respects it's a continuity of the Gerald S. Doyle News Bulletin that combined news with personal messages. In this way people from all over could send messages to each other particularly about how somebody might have been doing in hospital or if somebody made it on a trip from one community to another.

We love to talk to each other - we love to discuss our place and the politics that affects it. We have gone through various economic challenges and chronic poor resource deals. Our province should enjoy a few million in population and significant industrial presence; yet we do not. There have been many reasons for this lack of regeneration and growth; transportation, corrupt or inept politicians, ill advised industrial/commercial ventures, and inferior or absent economic planning.

Generationally we witness very outspoken patriots who believe in Newfoundland and Labrador and are willing to stick their neck out - despite the predictable partisan political attacks. For those of you who keep your heads down and go about your business or those who take advantage of partisan connections - this post will be a nuisance. You will prefer to tune out, reject, or worse not even enter into thoughts of bettering our lot and the lot of the children and grandchildren.

There are large numbers of the population who care not only for their own immediate well being but also for community, region, and the generations who will follow. Getting them together is the challenge - not unlike other challenges we face due to geography.

Newfoundland is an island while Labrador is connected to the larger North American mainland. In our history and particularly since the "great" confederation we have not managed to connect our people through affordable and reliable transportation. For politicians - this has served well. Labradorians blame the theft of their resources on Townies or Islanders while Newfoundlanders have been taught to use Labrador as their resource well. Essentially Islanders blame Canada and Labradorians blame Islanders. Perfect for slick MHA's and MP's who are not capable of or interested in doing anything more than securing a pension after years of perks and privileges.

Time to get back to the topic - hard not to digress when talking about the less than stellar performance of our leaders.

VOCM and CBC provide talk shows - where residents can voice their opinions, concerns, and support of one policy or another or one resource development or another. The public broadcaster's  provision of this is minimal while the private sector radio station fills its programming with it.

VOCM's openline, backtalk, and nightline provide some 24 hours a week during various times of the the day for radio talk - and that should be a good thing. There was a time when it was. Today the quality of the hosts has diminished and more reflect American style partisan slight of hand.

Paddy Daly and Randy Simms are more interested in listening to, laughing at, praising and pontificating on their own ideas - with careful avoidance of annoying the powers that be. Pete Soucy more reflects the purer form of talk shows where he thoughtfully raises issues of the day, provides some sincere reflection on his own thoughts and genuinely encourages people to call.

Both Paddy and Randy are brave when they rip through those who may be vulnerable or wrong side partisan and enjoy taking pokes at people after the conversation has ended or in their absence all together. Randy's focus changes from - "here's what I think" and "you know I'm right" to interrogating inappropriately - somebody who calls with a significant social problem. You see there is no need to ask - what does your husband do - or why is he or she not working - or how do you treat your children - or what was your family like.

Both Paddy and Randy would do very well to turn the mic on and talk to each other for hours on end and then let's see if that would be commercially viable. The other desire of these hosts is to hear from politicians - particularly cabinet and leaders of the political parties. This they feel is success and a confirmation that their programs are "important". Both fall short of really challenging the government and the so called "tough questions" are tempered with laughter or softballs tossed in  between.

VOCM talk shows used to be open - call in - and if you got through - get in the line and wait for your turn. If you wished to remain anonymous that was a given unless you identified yourself. Nowadays it's call in - leave your number and advise what issue you want to talk about. Then depending on the whim of the host and after the endless line-up of politicians - you may get a call back. Make no mistake about it - the time you get may be very short or limitless depending on the message the host is after.

Minnie, Tony, and Marjorie have an opinion. Do you know what that opinion is? Do you think you need to hear it again? Will you learn anything by listening to another call from them? Can you guess who they support and who they do not? Do you know who they love, adore, and idolize? I will not be hypocritical here - they should be entitled to call and as often as they like. the problem comes when hosts allow greater access to the program than those who are calling with new information or opinion on issues - things that impact our lives and for generations of lives that follow.

Sometimes I think VOCM could better serve their listening audience and by extension their advertisers if they prescribed the nature of the shows. Perhaps the mornings and evenings could be geared to socio/economic issues affecting our province and leave the afternoon for lost things, birthdays, anniversaries, and those who want to do an unpaid or paid political announcement. The afternoon could also accommodate sitting politicians at the provincial or federal level. Let's see how commercially viable the afternoon show would be - and what advertisers would be interested in that audience base.

Here's the thing VOCM - you have a broadcast licence and you should be careful not to abuse the privileged position you are fortunate enough to have and make a profit on. Permitting and then not correcting slanderous statements about a member of the public does not demonstrate the respect for your licence - you should have.

One of course is entitled to get a lawyer and keep suing until you stop - however that is beyond the reach of the average citizen - yet your shows rely on those same people.

I for one will instead contact the Board of Newfoundland Capital Corporation (headquartered in Nova Scotia), tweet and blog about your activities, and further address the CRTC during licence renewal.

For a station that relies so heavily on talk shows to generate revenue - it seems folly to take the easy route of generating controversy by allowing slander towards those who have participated for years on the shows.

While we can say it's a great service to provide the medium - that good is eliminated when irresponsible hosts and management do not moderate obvious egregious behavior. If that's what the company relies on for revenue - perhaps they should stop patting itself on the back for "public" service and "community" involvement.

Next up the VOCM Cares Foundation.