• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Marshall Art
    April 22, 2014 - 09:36

    Excellent letter, Mr. Martin. Wouldn't it be nice to be a fly on the wall when the Premier and his advisors are discussing the committee of three that he's appointed to study Bill 29 ? Lots of guffaws and , when talk turns to the electorate, it's wink wink, nudge nudge. A Bill that stunk to high heaven from day one and was crucified by taxpayers, is now going to be 'studied' and we, the taxpayers , will pay the six figure cost for that study? Marshall and his cronies will find out in 2015 just how stunned the taxpayers are.

  • Ken Collis
    April 22, 2014 - 08:30

    With all due respect to Mr. Malone, my opinion on this letter is that the author is trying to impress on the reader the most likely way government is dealing with the issue. I happen to agree, after seeing this kind of thing from various governments before, that admitting failure doesn't happen. If government was truely listening to the people they would simply say "sorry, we made a mistake." and repeal bill 29. I would like Mr. Coleman's communications advisor to please write up Mr. Coleman's opinion on this matter and get it out to the public.

  • Bill 29 is dictatorial!
    April 22, 2014 - 08:22

    Thanks Mr. Martin for this interesting letter. And my advice to the Premier is that he should repeal Bill 29 pronto since there is nothing else he can do with this dictatorial piece of legislation to sanitize it or make it less sinister. Bill 29 only serves to make the political atmosphere in our province murky. Its sole raison d'etre was to keep the electorate of our province in the dark and it has already cost us dearly.

  • James R Malone
    April 22, 2014 - 07:11

    Oh my. Mr Martin sure seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Let's ignore for the moment that there is no "Bill 29" review committee. (It's a review of the ATIPP act. Yes, there *is* a difference.) The ranting and raving and name calling is completely inappropriate. Does the editorial page editors well-known hatred of the government color his decision to print this sort of thing? Surely there must have been one intelligently written, thought-provoking letter that Mr Wangersky could have chosen to print instead of this offensive childish rant? Try a balanced approach, and less name calling. Are *you* listening, Mr Wangersky?

    • Russell Wangersky
      April 22, 2014 - 07:18

      Hello Mr. Malone: just a quick clarification. I haven't been the editorial editor for quite some time now: I'm the news editor, and don't select letters. The editorial page choice of letters is made by Mark Vaughan Jackson. Russell Wangersky

    • James R Malone
      April 22, 2014 - 07:33

      I withdraw my statements about Mr Wangersky. My information was sadly out of date. Thanks to him for the clarification.

    • Bert
      April 22, 2014 - 14:52

      It's easy to see how you were confused with who's who with the editorial page editors. All seems to be mirror images of Russel Wangersky.

    • Frank
      April 25, 2014 - 13:43

      They print that drivel from Brian Jones on a weekly basis so the bar has been set pretty low.