- January 28, 2012 - 18:38
I don't believe the AG is asking where the money went. He is asking how they decide where the money is going.
- Nothing should be off limit to the Auditor General for perusal.
- January 27, 2012 - 18:59
No information pertaining to money that is spent by Government Members should be off limit for the perusal of the Auditor General.
- William Daniels
- January 27, 2012 - 17:40
I think the Telegram has nailed it. Well said. Nalcor/CNLPOB has been operating in secrecy for to long. We are being fleeced.
- January 27, 2012 - 14:31
No author? How wrote this?
- January 27, 2012 - 16:06
Congratulations on an excellent editorial about the Dunderdale government's hiding behind the Privacy Act tonot disclose where the $5 billion in infrastructure funding went. Since its inception in the early 1990's the cost-shared Infrastructure Program has been a political slush fund. If your town is not in a district which is respresented by a government M-H-A, don't expect to see a cent. Dunderdale's efforts to hide behind "Cabinet privilege" is a poor excuse. And her reaction to this editorial is proof that there is truth in the Auditor General's complaint. It is time to open the House of Assembly, Premier, and stop debating the media.
- January 27, 2012 - 13:43
The ag represents the people of the province and he should have every right to to look at the books to see where money went.
- Political watcher
- January 27, 2012 - 12:58
Think you struck a nerve with this one; just heard Premier's press conference
- Albert Jacobs
- January 27, 2012 - 11:42
After the fiasco a few years ago that saw our 'honourable' MHA's get caught stealing our tax dollars, it's difficult to imagine that the current government would dare pull such a stunt. Everybody needs to be accountable to someone; the AG exists to ensure that the highest levels of governmment are using our public funds with proper care and attention. Anything less indicates that there is something they are trying to hide. Keeping the legislature closed removes the only method of accountability other than the AG. Dunderdale's government seems to be echoing her federal counterpart in Ottawa with this 'we'll do what we want' attitude. Democracy as we knew it no longer exists in this case. Shame!
- John Smith
- January 27, 2012 - 11:29
Wow, I'd like to say the Telegram has stooped to a new low, but that would be wrong. This is just so incorrct and misleading. It really saddens me to see the utter verbal diarhea that appears in this editorial of late. i only hope people turn to some other media to get views and opinion that at least have some basis in fact. This is just wrong.
- Cyril Rogers
- January 27, 2012 - 10:32
Well, if the government needed a "piece" of legislation to work on and pass, in order for the A-G to do his job, they have one right now. What arrogance, cloaked in incompetence! This administration lurches from crisis to crisis and the silent majority sits idly by. Their long-term plans are a joke and they have no real vision for the future. They are simply an inward-looking group whose sole focus is to try and cling to power. In a period of our history when we have the fiscal capacity to be innovative, dynamic and visionary, they hoard some cash, spend when it makes them look good, and hide from any proper scrutiny. If they can't come up with a plan, I'd suggest they step aside and let a new Commission of Government handle things....it would most certainly be as democratic in its performance as this group has been.
- Maggy Carter
- January 27, 2012 - 09:49
The acting AG could refer the issue to the Supreme Court for a ruling. But then acting might be the closest he gets to being the AG.