Tories continue attack on NB Liquor CEO's business dealings - Action News
Home WebMail Saturday, November 23, 2024, 10:53 PM | Calgary | -12.1°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
New Brunswick

Tories continue attack on NB Liquor CEO's business dealings

The Opposition Conservatives continue to demand answers on what Premier Shawn Graham knew of Dana Clendenning's business interests before he appointed his close ally as president of NB Liquor.

The Opposition Conservativescontinue to demand answers on what Premier Shawn Graham knew of Dana Clendenning's business interests before he appointed his close ally as president of NB Liquor.

Clendenning is accused of carrying on private business dealings after he was appointed to the liquor corporation's top position, and is facing a hearing in June under the province's conflict of interest law.

Conservative MLA Rose-May Poirier, the Opposition's NB Liquor critic, went after the premier on what he knew about Clendenning's business interests for the second straight question period on Wednesday.

"Are we to be believe ... knowing your relationship and close ties with Mr. Clendenning, whom you hired as the executive director of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick, that you want New Brunswickers to believe that you were not aware of Mr. Clendennings business transactions before his appointment as CEO of NB Liquor?" Poirier said in the legislature.

"Maybe New Brunswickers are more likely to believe, given your track record in these types of situations, that you just did not care."

Barry O'Donnell, a Fredericton businessman, said he hired Clendenning as a lobbyist in 2005 and continued to be invoiced for his services into 2007, after the NB Liquor appointment.

The province's conflict law says the CEOs of Crown corporations can't be involved in other businesses while they're on the job.

The allegation against Clendenning has not been proven true. Clendenning himself has repeatedly refused to comment on the allegations.

Graham stuck to the same answer he used on Tuesday, that a judge is reviewing the case, as the law allows, and he declined any further comments.

"It's my understanding that that review is going to be undertaken sometime in early June, and until that review is completed, I have no further comment," Graham said.