Scandal, Nova Scotia taxpayers ...

...being robbed with a briefcase, the get away car, is a political party




To some extent the people of Nova Scotia ARE responsible for this sorry state of affairs. The people of Nova Scotia are not too bright. In fact they continue to be gullible … trusting one political party after another to provide honesty and transparency in government when history indicates systemic addictions to a negative dynamic.

This latest go round in provincial politics is no exception ... when elements of the population made the great mistake of exchanging one group of thieves and liars for what they were given to believe would be a new deal from Darrell Dexter’s New Democrats.
If Darrell Dexter and his band of Merry Misfits are so concerned about changing things for the better in Nova Scotia finances, there are a number of things he can do, give us back what you picked out of our pockets.

Dexter should be forced out of the party, and the other elected light fingered Houdini’s should resign. The Auditor General has no other choice but to re-open this audit, and together with the RCMP criminal fraud division and at least two outside auditing firms. All documents related to their expense accounts and all other monies that were just handed over to these MLA’s which did not require receipts must be investigated. And I would suggest that Revenue Canada be called in, to see just how much of this free money was not claimed on “their” income tax.
Here we have children going hungry, seniors going without food, heat or medication because they cannot afford one or the other.

It is a safe bet, judging by the way they treat out taxes, they also treat many, many people who try to communicate or set up a meeting with them, I know how they have treated me and I will no-longer support a political system that is geared to ignore me and abuse me, just because I am not one who flies in their circles of high flying political friends or am a lawyer.

You know, we never heard one word out of the NSGEU or the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour about this, you know why? Because “they” helped their buddy Darrell win the NDP leadership race.

I hope that Nova Scotian’s take a lesson from this, I hope that they stay away from the ballot box on election day and please ignore those in the media whose only claim to fame is that “we must vote “, because that is our only way to correct the system. Really, then why are we all where we are today, if voting one crook out worked. It doesn’t, it never will as long as the candidate is controlled by the party. And please, the next time a candidate knocks on your door, ask what his profession is, and if he says he or she is a lawyer.... run, run away fast and hard, while keeping your hand on your wallet.

Cheers Wayne Coady and Happy Valentines

Nova Scotia Scandal ....

...understand now what is happening yet, within the internal economy board.

Nova Scotia Finance Minister, Graham Steal, said in a recent statement: “We of the Nova Scotia New Democratic Party regret that some of our members (including Premier Darrell Dexter) have been caught buying stuff and using taxpayers’ hard earned dollars for our personal pleasure. We intend to work doubly hard to win back your trust and confidence as we sharpen our pencils in preparation for our first budget.”


For the first time, in a long time, we at Deep Throat Cove have been proven wrong. In various pieces we tacitly agreed that Nova Scotia’s New Democrats deserved a shot at governing the province because they could be no worse than the others and it would take them at least four years to learn to steal. These canny devils proved they are just as adept as the CONservatives and Liberals at stealing and lying … and, to think they accomplished this in less than one year.



AMAZING! But not surprising when you consider they have been understudying some of the more accomplished thieves and liars who have populated both of the parties that have been “government” in Nova Scotia in the past.

Premier Dexter, all flushed and contrite as he apologized to the people, has sort of alluded to some kind of “oversight board” thingy (didn’t he?) as he mentioned that Art Donahoe (another f****ing lawyer and ex-CONservative “government” member ) is looking into ways of making the system appear more transparent and open in the future and ensuring those who decide to steal are not so easily caught. Donahoe is the same parasite (objective third party) who championed the last round of big raises for MLA’s. How much are we expected to shell out to Art Donahoe for this latest job?

Why are WE paying the big salaries and allowances out to MLA’s if they are incapable of formatting proper rules and regulations? They are NOT doing the job. They are not LEADERS. They have proven to be no better than common criminals who flaunt laws and betray us all. Everyone of them should be up on charges ... as the rest of us would be.

This question came up in conversation recently with a few of the abused taxpayers of this province: “If governments/ governing political parties can have internal economy boards then, why can't the provinces or the nation? “

The answers that came up boiled down to this as we discussed some sort of oversight
committee that could ride herd on governments and their members who steal public monies and abuse the public trust … as has been the norm in Nova Scotia forever.

The conclusion is a frightening prospect, but might become necessary when those we elect resort to tyranny in the form of dictatorial rule.

There's no reason why they couldn't. That said, how would you define such a board, what would be their mandate ... and most important, what power would they have?

Ideally, such an organization would be composed of interested citizens ... with the power to arrest politicians and bureaucrats who commit theft or breach of trust and abuse power. They would be picked at random (like a jury)to serve a defined term of two years.

At present, in Nova Scotia, those roles are performed, to some (selective) degree by The Speaker of the House ( basically, another of the "old boys") or the Inspector General ( again, one of the boys, or certainly a friend sympathetic to the government in power that names him. This method of doing things has been one of the (traditional) weak links in a system that allows and contributes to the resultant problems we are witnessing today.

And, let's say those thieving politicians were charged with common theft under the Federal Criminal Code ... what are the odds that a protracted trial will yield a conviction? ... when you consider that judges, at all levels in this country, come out of the same milieu as all political appointments within the various levels of government.

The same good old boys and elitist's club that have provided and controlled who we get to vote for since forever.

Those judges, of course, come out of the pool of practicing lawyers, who, in the majority of cases form the cadre of “movers and shakers” within all political parties.

This is why, you will find upon close examination, it is damned near impossible to break these bastards and bring them to account.

The only way to effect real transparency, when politicians and bureaucrats simply cover up and deny taxpayers details of what THEY are doing, then, becomes revolt, insurrection ... a clash of one force against the other.

The problem here then becomes a question of who is right. Those in power ( government) can say the insurrectionists have broken the law(s) (THEY wrote) because they are forcibly demanding answers that have been denied ... even though their fight may be moral and righteous ... while the people in power will surely back up their position with a selective interpretation of those laws that favor their position, right or wrongly ... and all enforced with police, armies and courts that can eviscerate you and your arguments ... all nice and legal. Always legal.

To me, it's coming down to the law of the jungle ... if I have no food and you do (I'm bigger than you, or I have a gun ... or hired guns like the government) I will take your food and kill you if you try to stop me. That's how Royalty evolved.

All of the other niceties are now just bullshit that was conjured up over the years to make the masses feel they were participants and had a voice in determining how they were governed (voting) ... after all, you cannot complain about something "your" government has done to you if it was you who put them in their position of power ....right?

At last, it has finally come to pass, that when you VOTE ... you will literally " go f**k yourself " That’s the power in your vote. YOU get to Pick the DICtator you prefer for the next four years.

That’s exactly all you are doing … because your lousy little vote is worth nothing more.
Those who populate governments and engineer the elections that allow politicians to steal from you only want your vote to validate the system that THEY have set up to screw you.
Joseph Stalin did it. Idi Amin did it. Robert Mugabe is still doing it. There are others you can name, I'm sure.

There is no reason to BELIEVE or TRUST anymore … in organized religions, governments and politicians, police (RCMP for sure) as our civilization slips back into a scenario straight out of the Middle Ages.


What if they held an election and NOBODY came?

Audit finds inappropriate MLA spending...

...SO, WHAT ELSE IS NEW?


Here is a video whereby the citizen took control and started on cleaning up "their" dirty system...maybe a lesson we should consider.




But , of course, this was all a mistake. The politicians you elected apparently don't know their respective arses from a blank cheque. The only faux pas is they were caught ... by a reluctant Auditor General who really doesn't want to cast aspersions on his friends.

Regardless of party, these guys all cover each other's asses. "Cosa Nostra", translates into "our thing" ... and that is precisely what a collection of elites have going down on Hollis Street.

They got caught ... this time. So, when the next election comes around, YOU won't have to support any of the political parties with your dollars or your time ... they have been helping themselves.

HAVE YOU LEARNED ANYTHING YET, NOVA SCOTIA?

POLITICS ... IT'S OUR BIGGEST GROWTH INDUSTRY!


Nova Scotia's auditor general slammed the province's expense system Wednesday and said several politicians had filed "excessive and unreasonable" claims, in part because of inadequate spending controls.

In his 142-page report, Jacques Lapointe concluded inappropriate claims were made by some politicians for personal items, including almost $8,000 spent on a generator that was installed in a politician's home.

CBRM Mayor thoughts controlled by...

...Nova Scotia Barristers Society.




CBRM mayor charged with lawyerly misconduct
By TERA CAMUS Cape Breton Bureau

SYDNEY — Mayor John Morgan has been charged with professional misconduct.
The Chronicle Herald learned Thursday that the longtime mayor of Cape Breton Regional Municipality is accused of breaching provisions of the Legal Ethics Handbook for practising lawyers in Nova Scotia, according to the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society.

"Specifically, the charges allege that the member failed in his duty to encourage public respect for justice and to uphold and try to improve the administration of justice," the society said on its website.

In addition, the society said the mayor "failed to discharge his duty, as a lawyer who holds public office, to adhere to the standards of conduct as high as those which the handbook requires of a lawyer."

He’s also accused of failing to "treat the court with courtesy and respect" and failing "to uphold and encourage public respect for justice and the administration of justice."

A public hearing on the charges will take place before a committee of barristers at the Four Points by Sheraton Hotel in Halifax on Nov. 20, starting at 9:30 a.m.
A spokesman for the society could not be reached to comment on who filed the complaint against Mr. Morgan and when it was made.

The mayor, who was appointed to the bar in 1993, was also unavailable for comment. He was first elected mayor in 2000 and has won every municipal election since then by a wide majority.
On Thursday, one source said that the mayor likely found himself in trouble for criticizing Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal earlier this year in multiple media interviews.

Both courts quashed a lawsuit the municipality filed against the province seeking millions more in federal equalization money. Mr. Morgan, speaking to reporters following the Appeal Court’s decision in May, suggested he wasn’t surprised by the ruling because most judges and justices are political appointees of the Liberal and Tory parties.

At the time, the mayor said he disagreed with the decision by Chief Justice Michael MacDonald of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, who ruled that Section 36 of the Constitution Act applies only to the federal and provincial governments, and not municipalities or individuals.
"Really, the Constitution is available to all of the citizens of the region, and I would say it’s not reasonable to say that it is only government that could bring these issues forward," Mr. Morgan told CBC News last spring.

"But the whole nature of constitutional law is limitations on government or obligations of government, so to suggest that the only ones that could litigate it is government, I think is logically flawed."

The municipality’s case is now heading to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Morgan has repeatedly accused the province of trying to kill the region, which is struggling to maintain its basic infrastructure and population. He has also chastised the province for not negotiating the fairer distribution of equalization funding with municipal officials in an out-of-court settlement process.

A lawyer in good standing, Mr. Morgan has not been practising law since becoming mayor. Last fall, during his latest election campaign, he ran on the need to proceed with the lawsuit against the province.

The Workers' Compensation Statutory Bar...

...Held Not Applicable in Newfoundland Maritime Law.

;

Artlile: CANADIAN MARITIME LAW UPDATE

The Workers’ Compensation Statutory Bar Held Not Applicable in Newfoundland Maritime MatterThe Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division has ruled that the statutory bar prohibiting employees and their families from suing employers for injuries suffered or death occurred in the course of employment is inoperative in the context of navigation and shipping.

In Ryan Estate v. Universal Marine, the Court overruled the Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) and held that the families of two deceased fishermen were entitled to sue the designer, builder and inspector for the negligent design, construction and inspection of the fishing vessel “Ryan’s Commander” which capsized causing the deaths. This decision has significant implications for any business involved in shipping, the fishery and
offshore oil and gas, and could potentially have repercussions in other industries in the federal domain.

One of the fundamental principles of workers’ compensation regimes in Canada is the creation of a no-fault compensation system. In what has been described as the “historic trade-off”, workers surrendered their right to pursue civil remedies in return for the entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits in the event of a workplace injury or death. Employers pay into the insurance scheme, but in turn are protected from being sued. Essentially, an injured worker or the dependants of a deceased worker cannot maintain a claim in respect of a compensable disability or loss of support against the employer of the injured or deceased worker,any other employer covered by the Act, or any worker of such other employer. While there are certain specific exceptions, notably in the case of automobile accidents, the statutory bar is contained in every province’s workers’ compensation legislation.

Ryan Estate involved the interaction between the provincial workers’ compensation legislation, and matters of federal jurisdiction. The Constitution Act, 1867, divides certain powers into federal and provincial responsibilities. While workers’ compensation falls within in the provincial powers, considered to relate to
“property and civil rights”, there are circumstances where it may interact with
federally regulated industries, that is, those falling within the federal powers such as “navigation and shipping” as was the situation in Ryan Estate. When provincial legislation affects matters of federal jurisdiction (or vice versa), the courts may undertake an analysis of the nature or “pith and substance” of the impugned legislation to determine its applicability. The courts will also assess
the impact of the legislation, sometimes considering doctrines of
“interjurisdictional immunity” (“reading down” legislation which is otherwise constitutional) and “paramountcy” (the principle that federal legislation “trumps” provincial legislation).

Provincial workers’ compensation schemes have been found to be constitutional and to apply to federal undertakings. As well, other courts have found the statutory bar to apply in the context of federal undertakings. In particular, the British Columbia
Supreme Court upheld the statutory bar in Laboucane v. Brooks, a case also involving the fishing industry. Furthermore, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice came to the same conclusion in Dionne v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal), a case considering the issue in the context of a nuclear power plant. Moreover, in an analogous situation, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal concluded that provincial occupational health and safety regulations applied to the fishing industry in that province. This jurisprudence makes the result in Ryan Estate all the more surprising. The Court in Ryan Estate framed the constitutional argument as “simply that legislation relating to navigation and shipping was reserved to the Federal Parliament under The Constitution Act, 1867 and that Parliament had legislated in that field by reason of the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and that neither of these pieces of legislation contained any bar against any action which an injured person was entitled to bring under Canadian maritime law, both statutory and common law.”

The Court held that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (the “WHSCC Act”) impaired the right of injured parties to bring a civil action under the Marine Liability Act, a piece of federal legislation which addresses claims of persons or dependents of persons injured or killed in circumstances involving matters relating to navigation and shipping. The Court decided that liability in a marine context fell within federal jurisdiction, and found that the Marine Liability Act created a “federal right” to bring such an action. The Court further held that the statutory bar impaired the federal power to sue, which is “a core feature of federal legislation governing navigation and shipping” and “an essential element of the requirement for uniformity of legal rights in navigation and shipping situations.” The Court read down the WHSCC Act, holding that in the circumstances, the statutory bar was rendered inoperative.

The employers in Ryan Estate paid into the workers’ compensation regime, and some of the claimants received benefits, but the employers were not protected by the statutory bar. In other words, one half of the “historic bargain” was held not to apply. Further, the case suggests that this would now be true of all employment falling within “navigation and shipping” and, potentially, of any employment falling within the federal domain (aeronautics, fishing etc) where there is federal legislation that, like the Marine Liability Act, can be construed as giving rise to a federal “right” of action.

The Court distinguished Mersey Seafoods Ltd. on the basis that occupational health and safety is essentially one aspect of labour relations, which on fishing boats is generally a provincial undertaking. The conclusion in Ryan Estate has left the somewhat peculiar result that while the fishery is subject to provincial occupational health and safety regulation, it is not subject to at least the statutory bar provisions of the provincial workers’ compensation regime, although the two pieces of legislation are closely interconnected.

The Court did not discuss or consider the Laboucane or Dionne decisions mentioned above. In each of those cases, the respective Courts undertook a perhaps more pragmatic analysis of the interaction of the federal undertaking and provincial workers’ compensation statutory bar.

In Laboucane, the Court held that the statutory bar was solely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. The Court reasoned that the statutory bar was not “integrally connected with maritime matters” and that the fact that the accident happened on a vessel was “not enough to displace the characterization of the claim [of the claimant] as arising out of a workplace incident.” We would suggest the reasoning in Laboucane is equally applicable to, and should have been followed in, Ryan Estate.

In Dionne, the Court held that the statutory bar did not conflict with section 4 of the Nuclear Liability Act. The thrust of the Nuclear Liability Act is similar to the Marine Liability Act. That provision holds nuclear operators absolutely liable for breaches of duties created under that act, without proof of negligence. While the Nuclear Liability Act may outline a cause of action, it does not create a right to sue an employer that the statutory bar takes away. Based on that conclusion, which we would suggest should apply in the circumstances of Ryan Estate, the Court held that no consideration of paramountcy was necessary.

What this case means is that employers in shipping and navigation, and potentially in other federally regulated industries, are more likely to face civil actions resulting from accidents occurring in or connected to the workplace, and are less likely to be able to avail of the protection of the workers’ compensation statutory bar. We are advised that the Ryan Estate case is likely to be appealed.

For more information please contact the practice group leader: Cecily Y. Strickland at cstrickland@smss.com or 709.570.8826.

My question (Wayne Coady ) is this..is the Federal Government a signature to the "Historic Agreement? And can they prove this by producing their signature on the orginal document?

Gunman holding hostages in Edmonton WCB building:

...How The WCB Broke This Man

The interview Hana Gartner form the CBC Current, left out one of the most important players, the injured worker. We have nothing to do with union , so why are they pretending to be our voice, they are not, we are nolonger dues paying members.

Liberal Party of Canada..

... Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity



This Canadian political party should be disbanded and never again to run for political office in Canada. During 1966 , 67 , Canada was under the leadership of Mike Pearson and the Liberal Party , they approved the testing of Agent Orange on Canadian soldiers and civilians who were employed at CFB Gagetown .

Then again in 1968 the governing Liberal party of Canada approved the testing of Mustard Gas on Canadian soldiers at CFB Suffield Alberta. Therefore the Liberal party have never been held accountable for these two crimes committed on Canadian soil, on Canadian citizens, WHY? liberal party of canada, lpc, michael ignatieff, canada, politics, mp, member, parliament, liberal, ottawa