Firds of a bleather: legislature edition

The second Monday in March.

That would be this Monday, March 8.

Why is that an important day?

Well, under the standing orders of the House of Assembly, the legislature is supposed to sit:

“in the Winter-Spring from the second Monday in March to the Friday before the Victoria Day weekend with a break from the end of the sitting day on Maundy Thursday to the third Monday after Easter…”.

Seems pretty clear.

And yet, for some completely inexplicable reason the House of Assembly is not being called back into session on Monday, March 8, it being the second Monday in March.

Anyone care to suggest a rational, sensible, plausible and/or very good reason why the House likely won’t be sitting again until two weeks after it was supposed to be back?

-srbp-

Spending Scandal: when “facts” aren’t true

The agreed statements entered in some of the trials resulting from the House of Assembly spending scandal are remarkable, if for no other reason than by the incorrect information contained in them.

Take this one from the statement entered on Tuesday in the Bill Murray trial:

In simplest terms, that statement is not true.

The finance department’s Comptroller General continued invariably over the whole scandal period to maintain accurate records of the total amounts paid under the allowances budget item each year.  

The Comptroller General’s figures were reported in the provincial government’s financial statements which were – it should be noted – audited each year in the scandal period by first Elizabeth Marshall and then her successor John Noseworthy.

Even a cursory examination of the Public Accounts shows overspending well in excess of what was subsequently reported by John Noseworthy once the scandal story broke.

In fact, as documented at Bond Papers and in Chief Justice Derek Green’s inquiry report, the overspending was obvious.  The BP post from December 2006 indicated that the total overspending amounted to more than twice as much as anything Noseworthy ever indicated.

In the chart from that post (above), red indicates the overspending as reported in the public accounts.  Yellow is the figure reported by Noseworthy for a given fiscal year. It only includes money identified by Noseworthy as being made to four members of the House of Assembly.

No one – least of all Noseworthy – has explained the massive discrepancy between the available evidence and what Noseworthy reported or the consistent failure of any audit officials to make public reference to the evident overspending.

-srbp-

Related:

• “AG reports leave serious unanswered questions” (July 2006) – discusses problems with Auditor General’s reports on four politicians, including inconsistencies in the way travel expenses were allocated by the AG’s office for the four MHAs.
• “Legislature financial scandal bigger than previously revealed” (August 2006)
• “The little things” (September 2007) – Among other things, the Ag did not offer any comment on the diversion of constituency funds for partisan purposes, something which was improper at the least and potentially illegal at most.
• “NL AG hoist by petard of own misleading statements” (February 2008)
• “AG report makes up old recommendation…” (November 2009) – Notes that an auditor general’s update on previous reports included a fake recommendation which he claimed had been acted on instead of the five on which no information was proved.

Mr. Walsh goes to jail

Former Liberal cabinet minister Jim Walsh will be spending a few months behind bars for his part in the House of Assembly spending scandal.

Judge David Orr sentenced Walsh to 22 months for fraud and 12 months for breach of trust.  The sentences will be served concurrently.

By contrast, former provincial Conservative leader, natural resources minister and government leader in the House of Assembly Ed Byrne got two years less a day for fraud and 18 months for breach of trust, also served concurrently, for his part in the affair.

Walsh is the only one of the politicians charged thus far who opted to plead not guilty and face a trial.  That likely had something to do with the sentence. The Crown recommended 18 months while the defence suggested no more than half that time to be served conditionally.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Wally Anderson was sentenced last year to 15 months for forgery and none months for breach of trust.

Former New Democrat member Randy Collins will be sentenced January 15.

-srbp-

No fluff from Dean

Newbie member of the House of Assembly Marshall Dean didn’t waste any time in putting his stamp on things.

While other politicians quickly learned the art of “on-a-go-forward-basis” bafflegab, Dean gave a short and highly accurate comment in reply to a statement by Shawn Skinner.  The innovation minister made a formal statement which restated  events since the seizure of hydro assets in central Newfoundland and then finished with this insightful comment:

I would like to thank the members for their contribution and I look forward to continuing our relationship and working together into the future. Together, we can identify and realize opportunities that lead to a stronger, more diversified central region.

Here’s Dean’s reply:

Thank you, Minister, for providing me with an advance copy of the statement. It is noteworthy that there is nothing new in this statement. It is commendable to acknowledge the people who are involved in this community, who are concerned about their future. The reality is there was a failure by government to secure the mill when it ran into trouble, and what people are clearly worried about now is the long-term security of the area, and this needs to be addressed in a long-term strategy.

Thirty-five million has been paid out to the workers; however, government will be claiming this back through AbitibiBowater. This would never have happened in the first place if government had not reacted into the relentless pressure from the Official Opposition. The question now, Mr. Speaker –

…

The question now, Mr. Speaker, is: what are they going to do for the people to gain some benefit from the resource, a resource that is earning government millions of dollars with nothing going back to the people?

Citizens of Central just want a fair share on their hydro power. Another question we have, Mr. Speaker, is what about pensioners who will be losing approximately 30 per cent of their pensions if the company is declared insolvent.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is much of the statement is fluff, sorry. We need more of a real investment of money in Central and the people of that area need it and deserve it.

Read enough Hansard and you’ll realise how atypical that sort of blunt  - and accurate - talk is.

-srbp-

The Twelve Days of Nothing

Unless Danny Williams plans to expropriate something or unilateral declare independence from Canada, this fall sitting of the House of Assembly will be one of the shortest and least productive in living memory.

That’s counting – it should be noted -  the short and very unproductive fall sittings of the legislature since Williams took power.

Overall, the House of Assembly now sits annually for fewer days than Tom Rideout was Premier.

That’s 43 for those who don’t recall.

That’s also about half the number of sitting days a decade and more ago.  There were plenty of days in the spring and the fall where members sat in the legislature and they had plenty of time to discuss and debate legislation.  Plus the legislation they debated was substantial stuff.

This fall sitting – delayed supposedly to allow for a couple of by-elections -promises to be even shorter and lighter than usual.

For starters, the House only sits for a few hours each afternoon from Monday to Thursday, anyway. It used to sit five days a week but under amendments brought in during Brian Tobin’s tenure, the house added enough hours so that members could shag off home or to sunnier climes for a long weekend.

Wednesday afternoons are still given over to debate opposition motions.  That leaves three debate days per week for government business.  And with about two hours per day, that adds up to a total of six hours a week in which the members of the legislature will discuss whatever happens to come forward from the government benches.

The House will likely sit for no more than three weeks so, all told, there will only be 12 days of the legislature this fall.

And that would be 18 hours of debate time.

Once that’s done, we won’t see them back until after Easter, most likely.

Meanwhile, don’t count on much happening.

Last fall,  the House debated 38 bills.  That included 15 amendment acts, mostly for minor changes to existing legislation.  Another 13 were one-clause wonders that repealed an obsolete statute or one that would be replaced in the spring sitting.  They could have been handled in a single bill or, more likely included as transitional clauses at the end of the new midwives act or whatever the new bill would be called when it came into effect.

The remainder were new statutes.

It’s pretty bad when 73% of the legislation in a sitting is either minor amendments or busy work.  That’s really all it was:  legislation to make it look like government was doing something when, in fact they had nothing at all.

But it’s not like there aren’t plenty of commitments – some dating back to 2003 – that still haven’t seen the light of day or are otherwise in some sort of political limbo.  Your humble e-scribbler has even gone so far as helping out by providing draft legislation on one of the government’s biggest commitments from 2007:  a whistleblower protection law. Still, they wind up resorting to busy work.

Now to be fair, a couple of the amendments last fall had serious implications.  Bills 63 and 64 created a new regime that further shields a whole new class of government records from scrutiny under the province’s open records laws.

For all the implications of the bill, though, it wound up getting only got cursory discussion.  New Democrat leader Lorraine Michael even breathlessly  endorsed the bill as if she was a Tory backbencher:

We have an excellent committee and this committee will be accountable to the minister. This committee will be the committee that will determine how the government records are managed. This committee will be the committee that will establish and revive schedules for the retention, disposal, destruction or transfer of records. They will make recommendations to the minister respecting government records to be forwarded to the Archives, will establish disposal and destruction standards and guidelines for the lawful disposal and destruction of government records and make recommendations to the minister regarding the removal, disposal and destruction of records.

The committee may well be excellent but Lorraine’s grasp of the legislation was evidently limited.

In any event both bills sped through the house over a few hours in December.

And that was it, except for the flurry on December 16 in which the government was able to ram a bill through the House seizing the hydro assets of at least three companies, quashing an active court case – find another such statute in the country – and generally creating as gigantic legal and financial battle which has not yet been settled.

We might only hope that something quite as entertaining come sup again.

But then again, maybe not.  The opposition parties went along with the seizure bill without so much as a question.

Let’s see if the 2009 fall sitting winds up being a productive time or, as past experience shows, winds up being a raft of busy work spread over 12 calendars days.

-srbp-

Changing the frame, at last

Premier Danny Williams may well have lived up to an election promise and brought the auditor general in to look at the books, but until then, not one single "honourable member" involved at the centre of the slimefest thought of taking a principled stand on the issue.

We’ve talked about frames before and that quote from the Saturday Telegram editorial shows just exactly how effective some frames can be in skewing the discussion of a topic.

That idea – that Danny Williams made an election promise and sent the auditor general to the House of Assembly – is one that the governing party and its supporters have pushed since the moment the Premier revealed the existence of the auditor general’s investigation.

It has survived despite countless column inches of news coverage and minutes of electronic reporting.  It has survived despite an extensive investigation by the province’s Chief Justice that shows the full detail of things.

But try and find one single sentence in the entire report by Chief Justice Derek Green that confirms anything even close to the claim that “Danny Williams…  brought the auditor general in to look at the books…”.

You won’t find such a sentence, though, because it never happened.

The second half of that editorial quote is also wrong.

Not one but three members of the House of Assembly “thought of taking a principled stand on the issue” of ethics and accountability in the House of Assembly.

In fact, the three – Danny Williams, Harvey Hodder and Ed Byrne – felt so strongly about the need for stricter financial controls that they held a news conference in order to unveil nearly two dozen commitments designed to address public distrust of politicians.

In the event, the three only got around to implementing about half their commitments, though,  and the ones related to the House of Assembly allowances only came about because there was no way to avoid them. 

The Telly editorial isn’t just satisfied to repeat the official frame;  the writer takes the time to add a myth or two of his or her own.   Take, for example, the view of the role played by the provincial government’s cheque-writer, otherwise known as the comptroller general:

The comptroller-general's office, which issued the cheques, unable to question any of them, no matter how peculiar.

That simply isn’t true, of course. One of the enduring mysteries of this entire affair is how the chief cheque-writer could issue cheques far in excess of maximum amounts that were well known to officials and yet at no point did he or his staff apparently raise any concerns. As Chief Justice Green notes in his third chapter:

During this era, the Comptroller General had full access to all financial documentation in respect of the disbursement of public funds from the accounts of the legislature. Internal audit and compliance staff of the Comptroller General could review transactions of the House of Assembly and test for compliance with policies. In short, while the House and the IEC were understood to have the authority to make management and policy decisions, independent of Treasury Board or Cabinet, various elements of this overall financial control framework of government were deemed to apply to the House of Assembly.

Far from being unable to pose questions, the comptroller general had both the knowledge and the legal ability to ask questions about the chronic overspending.  He didn’t.  Nor did the auditor general raise any questions either even though he and his staff  had access to the same information available to the comptroller general. 

Both offices – the CG and the AG – produced annual reports on government spending and dutifully reported the overages.  Neither said so much as “boo”.  For 2004 and 2005, for example, both the AG and the CG issued the Public Accounts that showed the House accounts for members’ allowances out of whack by roughly a  million each year.  They never once noted that the budget presented the previous spring had claimed that the accounts were exactly on budget

The Telegram editorial illustrates the extent to which the frame applied to the House of Assembly scandal persists despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.  In other words, three years after the people of the province learned of the scandal and after a series of reports and court cases, there is still a marked preference in public comment for fiction over faction, for myth over reality. 

Until commentators reject the frame applied to the scandal three years ago, it will remain a political life unexamined.

-srbp-

More help for Jerome

Finance minister Jerome Kennedy’s not alone.

He’s not alone on a lot of things, but in this case, we refer to his lack of willingness to read the documents relevant to an issue and to understand the plain English meaning of them.

Jerome’s already been poked a bit both here and at the Telegram over his apparent ignorance of the role of the Clerk of the House of Assembly.

But there’s more ignorance, and that has to do with one of the issues the House of Assembly Management Commission discussed at its May 13 meeting.

They were talking about recreating the financial statements of the legislature for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000.  The issue is whether or not to pay an outside audit firm to rebuild the House accounts for those two years and then audit them.

Auditor General John Noseworthy believes this work would be for naught since many of the records are missing and there is no guarantee the accounts would be accurate.  He noted in correspondence dating back to 2007 that his reviews would be sufficient to meet the legislative requirement the management commission is looking at in trying to have this work done. There’s an estimate under discussion of hiring an outside audit firm at a cost of over $600,000 to do the work.

Jerome thinks the work ought to be done.

Without going into all the details, he’s right.

The work ought to have been done and it should have been done by the Auditor General under the task assigned to him by cabinet in 2006. The only problem is that it isn’t clear the work was done.

In the summer of 2006, cabinet directed the Auditor General to do two things as a result of the House of Assembly scandal. 

First, he was directed to go back to 1989 to find any other examples of overspending up to 2004.  He did that and apparently found nothing beyond what he’d already reported.  Note that he didn’t look in detail at the two years up to 2006 when the allowances account was overspent by about $1.0 million and the budget estimates presented in the House were known to be wrong.

Second, the Auditor General was directed to conduct “annual audits of the accounts of the House of Assembly from fiscal years 1999/2000 to 2003/2004.”

So where are those audits?

Good question, since they’ve never been made public. In fact, there’s no public sign that component of the order was ever done even though the Auditor General got extra money and staff in order to do the work.

What we got instead was a report that discussed some inappropriate spending from 1989 to 2005. We can say “some” inappropriate spending  since Noseworthy never went into enough detail to determine where all the cash actually went or if people misdirected money even if they didn’t exceed their allowance totals.

For example, Noseworthy never reported at all – apparently never even noticed – how much money was directed to partisan purposes even for a member now known to have funded party work out of his allowances.  There was a glaringly obvious breach of the Elections Act in there but it went unreported until the Ed Byrne trial.

If Noseworthy didn’t do that for one glaring example, then we have to wonder just exactly how much of a look his team of auditors actually gave any of their reports.  But that’s a digression.

The key point to bear in mind is that the Auditor General himself was tasked with producing detailed audits for 1999 up to 2004.  That’s irrespective of whether or not there was an audit by a private firm.

On top of that, there’s no sign Noseworthy and his team ever did the work they were tasked with by cabinet in 2006.

So what exactly is the House of Assembly Management Commission doing arguing about spending public money to recreate what the Auditor General already got paid to do?

-srbp-

Never let it be said…

That Bond Papers didn’t offer cabinet ministers a bit of help with the demands on their time.

Finance minister Jerome Kennedy had a problem at the House of Assembly management committee’s meeting a couple of weeks ago.  The story made the front page of the telegram on Tuesday of last week.  The story isn’t on line but the committee Hansard record is. 

At issue was a resolution that would, in part, give effect to a commitment made earlier by the provincial government to give former citizen’s representative Fraser March an outside review of the circumstances surrounding his dismissal:

CLERK [of the House of Assembly, Bill Mackenzie]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As this is being drafted, I could ask the Government House Leader, I may be able to assist in the drafting of it. There are factual errors in this, and I think some matters which are not as comprehensive as they might be.

Referring just to travel expenses, this is not accurate in terms of the reasons for his dismissal. It should really refer to the very first item the Auditor General wrote about, which was violations of the Citizens’ Representatives Act, by carrying on a business, trade or profession. That is also what Michael Harrington gave his opinion on, and that was always the primary issue with Mr. March. So it would not be fully accurate just to say travel expenses. It should be more comprehensive; if, indeed, you have to say anything. It may be you do not have to put any of the issues like that. This could be a much condensed resolution in the House.

…

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the document is in the booklet dated May 13, 2009. Perhaps just for clarification, before the Clerk leaves - this is only my second House management meeting. What is the role of the Clerk in these House management meetings? Is it set out anywhere here in the rules or procedure?

He is expressing commentary here. I just wonder, is it appropriate for the Clerk to be injecting himself into, essentially, the debate on a motion, telling us that the motion is not accurate? If it is, so be it, but I would like to see something here in the rules or procedures, something that tells me that is there.

MR. SPEAKER: That is the real role of the Clerk.

The Clerk.

CLERK: Minister Kennedy, you will remember the Speaker and I offered an orientation session for you, but you were unable to avail of it because of your schedule so we sent over materials. This is one of the matters it would have covered.

I am a member of the Commission. I am non-voting, but I am a member as well as acting as secretary, so I come to meetings, I express my opinion, I simply cannot vote.

MR. KENNEDY: Where? I would like to see something that outlines (inaudible) -

CLERK: Section 28 of the act.

MR. KENNEDY: Section 28 of the act allows you to….

CLERK: That is all of the duties of the Clerk. I would also suggest you read section 31. Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 cover it all.

MR. KENNEDY: I will have a look at it (inaudible).

For Jerome’s benefit, here’s the section of the  House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act that lays out what that fellow in the funny black robe who sits at that table in the centre of the rooms does:

28. (1)  The clerk is the chief officer of the House of Assembly with the status equivalent to a deputy minister in the public service and in that capacity the clerk is

(a) the chief parliamentary advisor to the speaker; and

(b) the chief administrative and financial officer of the House of Assembly responsible to the speaker and through the speaker to the commission for the management of the operations of the House of Assembly service and the administration of the statutory offices.

(2) In his or her capacity as chief parliamentary advisor, the clerk is responsible for

(a) advising the speaker, deputy speaker, committee chairpersons and members on procedural matters concerning the rules, privileges and proceedings of the House of Assembly;

(b) directing and coordinating the provision of procedural services by the clerk assistant, sergeant-at-arms and other officers of the House of Assembly;

(c) coordinating all official parliamentary ceremonies and other events involving the House of Assembly;

(d) custody of and safe-keeping of the records of the House of Assembly and all bills, petitions and documents presented to or laid on the table of the House, and shall produce them when required by the speaker or by his or her order on motion of a member;

(e) recording and carrying out all recorded votes of the House of Assembly; and

(f) ensuring and controlling public access to the proceedings of the House of Assembly through the production and distribution of Hansard and the facilitation of electronic access to proceedings by the media.

(3) In his or her capacity as chief administrative and financial officer, the clerk is responsible for

(a) the provision of administrative, financial and other support services to the House of Assembly, its members, and statutory offices;

(b) direction and supervision of the clerks, officers and staff employed in the House of Assembly service and for the establishment of general administrative policies of the statutory offices;

(c) acting as secretary of the [House of Assembly Management] commission and has custody of all records and minutes of the commission;

(d) ensuring that disclosure, as required by law, of the proceedings of the commission and the financial matters pertaining to members and the House of Assembly service is provided for;

(e) the preparation of the estimates of the House of Assembly as required by section 26 and analysis and commentary, to the commission, on the budget submissions of the statutory offices and the office of the auditor general;

(f) administration of all services and payments to members;

(g) the orderly safekeeping of the records of the House of Assembly service;

(h) authorizing and recording all financial commitments entered into on behalf of the House of Assembly and statutory offices;

(i) reporting regularly to the commission and informing the secretary of the Treasury Board regarding the financial and budgetary performance of the House of Assembly and statutory offices;

(j) reporting to the commission and the audit committee on the status of audits of the House of Assembly and the statutory offices and, specifically, reporting if in his or her opinion the audit is not being conducted on a timely basis;

(k) maintaining and periodically assessing the effectiveness of internal controls in the House of Assembly and statutory offices and reporting on that assessment and effectiveness to the commission; and

(l) certifying to the commission as required that the House of Assembly and statutory offices have in place appropriate systems of internal control and that those systems are operating effectively.

[Emphasis added]

That lays out the complete list of duties of the Clerk.

Section 29 doesn’t seem to be directly relevant since it provides that the Clerk is responsible for reporting the status of members’ accounts. Likewise, section 30 provides that the Clerk’s responsibilities are generally similar to those of the Clerk of the House of Commons and section 31 covers the relationship between the Clerk and the Public Accounts committee.

And if Jerome was wondering why this curious fellow was deigning to speak to his betters, here’s the other bit he should have taken time to read before opening his ministerial maw:

18. (1)  The Commission of Internal Economy of the House of Assembly established under the Internal Economy Commission Act is continued under the name of the House of Assembly Management Commission.

(2) The speaker, or in his or her absence, the deputy speaker, shall preside over the commission and when presiding, shall vote in the case of a tie .

(3) The commission shall consist of

(a) the speaker, or, in his or her absence, the deputy speaker, who shall be the chairperson;

(b) the clerk, who shall be the secretary and shall not vote;

(c) the government house leader;

(d) the official opposition house leader;

(e) 2 members who are members of the government caucus, only one of whom may be a member of the Executive Council;

(f) one member who is a member of the official opposition caucus; and

(g) one member, if any, from a third party that is a registered political party and has at least one member elected to the House of Assembly.

All pretty simple really and perhaps it would have been helpful if Jerome had been able to find time in his schedule for the orientation offered to members.  It pays to have some idea what you are talking about and when helpful people actually offer up some of their valuable time to tell you stuff you really could find out for yourself, it’s really a good idea to take advantage of their generosity.

Makes one wonder, though, what the Clerk might have said to provoke Jerome’s ire.  One thing is pretty clear:  Jerome won’t be taking Bill Mackenzie for granted again.  The Clerk did his job with evident competence.  Too bad the same can’t be said of Jerome.

-srbp-

What got up Tom’s nose?

From the Thursday session of the provincial legislature, this odd response by fish minister Tom Hedderson to a question by opposition house leader Kelvin Parsons.

Simply put, the comment that he wasn’t in the House at 5:00 Pm was a useless taunt best ignored.  By answering as he did, Hedderson only raised more questions about what the personal business was;  that’s not a prurient interest.  It’s a natural reaction when someone gets upset to wonder why.  When he refers to "”a personal thing” there’s logically going to be more curiosity.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing concern in the fishing industry that a dispute regarding prices for lobsters and crab could threaten both industries this coming season. The minister, in fact, was supposed to speak on The Fisheries Broadcast yesterday to address this issue, but apparently he says he was in the House until 5:00 p.m.  [Italics added:  here’s where the little jab occurred]

I ask the minister: Is the crab and lobster fishing industry in jeopardy, and what is government, particularly your department, doing to assist in finding some solutions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He was not here at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I take a little bit exception. I was here until 4:45 p.m., by the time I got back to my office it was well past 5:00 p.m., plus I had a personal thing that I had to address after the House yesterday, which is of no business to him. So I will bring it up. Like I said, if you are going to go there, I will go there as well. My business is my business and when I can share it I will, but I am telling you right now is that you have gone over the line on that one. Absolutely! I say too, not the first time, and I am getting kind of tired of it. I am getting a little bit tired of it.

-srbp-

The House of Assembly, condensed

1.  bit courtesy of Courtesy of nottawa.

For the record, the grandstanding was not supplied by the Premier.

He is apparently still on some sort of vacation – yet again – and couldn’t be in the legislature.

2.  Meanwhile, people in the province yesterday learned that – contrary to comments by his supporters – the Premier does collect his salary in full. 

The admission came from finance minister Jerome Kennedy during questioning on the budget estimates:

Mr. Chairman, first, again, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows better in terms of the Premier’s salary. It is my understanding that Finance told him he had to take the salary in order to donate it to charity, which is essentially what he does. To leave any other impression, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is not fair. The Premier’s salary is provided to, I think it is the Williams Family Foundation, which then distributes it to charity. The Premier of this Province does not receive one cent to himself for the benefit of what he does. Unlike the rest of us, or at least unlike me, I use my salary to live.

And by “not one cent of benefit”, presumably the finance minister does not include in that estimate accumulating pension entitlements and taking the tax breaks on the donations which go – it must be pointed out – to the family charity run by his wife, daughter and family friend.

Notice, as well, the construction of Kennedy’s sentence which clearly leaves the impression the goal of the exercise was to make the donation, not avoid taking a salary.

He apparently never heard of a “dollar-a-year” man.

-srbp-

Tory-gate: the PC party election spending scandal

1.  The Chief Electoral Officer’s statement on why he is refusing to investigate.

Note that CEO Paul Reynolds apparently only spoke with unnamed Progressive Conservative Party officials after he told CBC’s David Cochrane that he would not be investigating the matter as he felt the by-election had been conducted properly:

They [unnamed party officials] indicated that they became aware of this issue when the statement of facts relating to the Ed Byrne Constituency Allowance fraud case was brought forward by a CBC reporter, this being the same time that my office was made aware of the situation.

2.  The legal argument against Reynolds:

306. (1) No person other than the chief financial officer of a registered party or candidate shall authorize election expenses for that party or candidate and no election expenses shall be incurred except by a chief financial officer or a person designated in writing by a chief financial officer for that purpose.

So if Mr. Reynolds' assertion is correct, why are there no charges, and why is there no investigation?

3.  The logical argument against Reynolds:

Given the severity of the potential breach of justice, the lack of initial evidence does not constitute a prima facie case against a full investigation into whether stolen money was indeed used to fund a provincial election campaign.

Reynolds' statement contains 4 attempts of negative proof, otherwise known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. For a pithy explanation, see Fallacy Files: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

The case against this type of argumentation is simple: a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

4.  Three years after the House of Assembly spending scandal story broke, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador still do not know the answers to simple questions:

• Who knew?
• What did they know?
• When did they know it?
• Where did the money go?

It’s not like someone didn’t suggest this at the outset:

Make no mistake: AG Noseworthy's inquiries and the police investigation will not root out the answers to all the questions raised by this scandal which itself is without precedent in the province for over 80 years.

-srbp-

Mr. Byrne goes to jail

Danny Williams’ predecessor as Provincial Conservative Party leader and his former right-hand political man is headed to jail after pleading guilty to fraud and bribery charges.

Judge Mark Pike sentenced Ed Byrne today to two years in jail, less a day and ordered restitution of over $100,000.

More:

Video:  source – cbc.ca/nl

The sentencing decision – link from cbc.ca/nl

Canadian Press.

-srbp-

Maybe Santa will bring them...

Financial reports on a string of by-elections, the last provincial general election and annual contribution reports for the three political parties in the province haven't been posted to the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website.

In fact, the data is almost two full years out of date.

We were promised them for the fall.

The again, we were promised lots of things by provincial politicians now safely ensconced in power - and in writing too - that never came to be.

Perhaps the financial reports are someone's list for Santa.

-srbp-

No more midwives and a raft of busy work in front of NL legislature

Take a look below and you'll see the bills on the government order paper for the fall sitting.

Looks like a lot of stuff.

But looking more closely and you can see an unbelievably light sitting.  Now that's amazing- appalling to some - considering this is coming from a government that has been over a year in office on its second mandate and that hasn't sat in the legislature since last spring.

The current administration is planning to repeal a $4000 award for students pursuing pre-doctoral studies in history and political science.  Not replace.  Repeal. The award was established in 1968 to honour jack Pickersgill, one of the architects of Confederation and for many years the province's cabinet representative in Ottawa.

They will repeal - not replace - an act aimed at controlling venereal disease, another allowing midwifery, and two acts separately to repeal the agreement transferring the old Labrador Linerboard Mill to Abitibi.

Most of the agenda is routine and in many cases the repeal of spent statutes, like the ones related to Labrador Linerboard could have taken rolled into one omnibus bill.  In the case of the Linerboard bills, they should have been repealed when the Stephenville mill closed two years ago on Danny Williams' first watch! Likewise, The school boards association act ought to have been repealed when the school boards were abolished by the current administration in favour of the entirely unwieldy school districts.

All these repeals are only separated out into individual bills in order to make it look like more is being done than actually is.

As for the repeal of health statues, that would normally be done by replacing them with another.  A new midwifery act - long overdue in the province - would have a clause at the end getting rid of the old one. Instead, midwives are no more. At one point there was an implementation committee to oversee the introduction of new legislation but clearly that is now dead but as minutes from a 2007 meeting attest, government has been headed down the road of abolishing midwives for some time.

Repealing the statute aimed at combating venereal disease makes no sense on the face of it.  Perhaps there is good reason but there is nothing government has said so far - it has said nothing at all - which suggests that venereal disease is no longer an issue in the province.

This list of bills is a sign the current administration, after only five years in office, has run out of whatever ideas it had.

-srbp-

• An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 (Bill 50) [
• An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 53) [Routine piece of legislation that fixes misplaced punctuation among other things]
• An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry. (Bill 61)
• An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act. (Bill 58)
• An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act. (Bill 57)
• An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act. (Bill 56)
• An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act. (Bill 55)
• An Act To Repeal The School Boards’ Association Act. (Bill 54)
• An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act No.2 (Bill 52)
• An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 62)
• An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, No.2. (Bill 65)
• An Act To Amend The Rooms Act. (Bill 64)
• An Act To Amend The Management of Information Act. (Bill 63)
• An Act Respecting Fire Protection Services in the Province. (Bill 60)
• An Act To Provide For The Organization and Administration of Emergency Services in the Province. (Bill 59)
• An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 66)
• An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 49)
• An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants. (Bill 51)
• An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act, Bill 4
• An Act To Repeal The Memorial University Foundation Act, Bill 42
• An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act, 1979, Bill 47.
• An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement (Amendment Act), 1979, Bill 48.
• An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act, Bill 46.
• An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, Bill 39.
• An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act, Bill 43.
• An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act, Bill 44.
• An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act, Bill 45.
• An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 And To Repeal The Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act, Bill 38.
• An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act. (Bill 40)

That's gotta hurt, privilege version

Government House leader Joan Burke raised a question of privilege in the legislature on Tuesday over comments made by opposition leader Yvonne Jones after the chair of the House management committee - Provincial Conservative member and Speaker - Roger Fitzgerald voted with the other Conservative members of the commission to vote money for the two other parties but deny the Liberals.

Fitzgerald offered no reason for his vote leaving most people to believe he was just following the lead from the government benches.

Burke was stupid to raise the petty partisan issue of the money vote again, let alone ensure the issue got dealt with on Wednesday with opposition house leader Kelvin Parsons giving a pointed one hour speech against the question of privilege.

Fitzgerald ruled against Burke on Thursday.

Maybe he saved Burke's bacon by killing the issue.  Maybe he was jammed up with the argument Parsons presented.

Either way, it must have stung both Burke and Fitzgerald when he ruled against the government.

-srbp-

No sense of shame

From a news release by government House leader Joan Burke in an announcement that the provincial legislature would re-open for its fall sitting on November 25th:

The sitting of the legislature is an important part of our democratic process.

Yes it is.

Well, it would be if the opposition didn't have to shame Burke into making an announcement.  In past years, the party house leaders shared information informally so that they could be properly prepared to engage in, as Burke puts it, "productive session with respectful and healthy debate on the legislative agenda".  That's a pattern of non-partisan co-operation that dates back decades in the legislature.

Word from the hallways of the legislature is that so far Burke has shown her opposition counterparts the same regard as she's given to the Memorial University Act, the Memorial University board of regents and senate and university president Eddy Campbell.  Her approach so far is pretty much in keeping with her small-minded approach to funding the opposition parties, well at least the Liberal one.

No indication would she give of when the House would open and so far no advance warning, in confidence, of what general areas would be coming up for debate.  No indication that is until after opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons issued a news release pointing to "a continuous trend developing in this province that our current government will wait until the absolute last minute to open the legislature and then rush towards closure in the shortest time possible."

Still no word on the legislative agenda apparently nd Parsons is likely not holding his breath.  Burke will probably let him know a couple of days beforehand.

Seems that Burke is playing the petty partisan game just as roughly as her boss does, but then again, contempt  - whether for the traditions of the House or the legislature itself - is a hallmark of the current administration since it first took the government benches in 2003.

That's what makes Burke's references to the democratic process such a nose puller. 

Expect the session to be shorter than normal, since the opposition is likely going to be pushing the government hard.  Under the circumstances, given the stress from the financial hard times cabinet is wrestling with and given that Burke herself will come under scrutiny for her hand in the Memorial University mess,  the government's real lack of regard for the legislature and the democratic process will shine through.

After all, that's what happened in December 2006 when they last faced some serious problems.

-srbp-

...and I'll respect you in the morning.

Remember the three great statements people said but no one believed?

Well, add a new one to that:  the "we don't have a quorum" excuse for cancelling a meeting that every single member knew about weeks ago and committed to attend.

We know they committed to attend because the news release announcing the meeting was issued just this past Monday.

The problem seems to be on the government side.  The last meeting turned into a political fiasco  - a national political fiasco - with the three Provincial Conservatives following orders and playing the pettiest of petty politics with funding for the official opposition.

That bit of nastiness happened when the official government pollster - Corporate Research Associates  - was doing other things so maybe given that CRA is in the field as we speak, the government members don't want anything but the happiest of happy news out there to upset the polling.

We should at least we should be grateful they used the quorum nonsense.  They might have said they couldn't have a meeting because Trevor had to wash his hair that afternoon.

-srbp-

The Blue Shaft

Narrow partisan considerations reared their ugly head in a meeting of the legislature's management committee.

An independent study commissioned by the House of Assembly management commission recommends an increase in budgets for the Provincial Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic causes in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Provide base funding for the Government Members’ Caucus of $100,000 annually.

The Chair is ready for discussion.

Ms Burke.

MS BURKE: That is one recommendation that I support.

Joan Burke, education minister and government house leader may have enthusiastically voted money for her political friends but in the end, the Provincial Conservative members of the legislature's internal management commission support every single recommendation, except one. 

That one allocated $162,000 to the Official Opposition office to ensure a well-funded opposition that would have appropriate resources to carry out its important legislative function in a modern democracy.  The study reviewed legislature budgets across Canada and in several foreign parliaments.

The report included a set of general principles on democratic legislatures and caucus funding. They included, among others:

3. The legislature must be strong vis-à-vis the executive in order for democratic government to be effective.

...

5. In adversarial systems, the Opposition and other parties play important roles and need institutionalized protections.

...

One cannot imagine a more straightforward set of principles.  In order to drive home their point on the importance of a legislature with a properly funded opposition, the authors included an observation on events in several provinces where opposition benches were depleted after an election:

The crucial thing is that there has to be informed opposition, and that takes resources. However, one other consideration is germane here. That is that in first-past-the-post (single member plurality) systems such as those that exist in Canada, there is a danger of opposition shut-outs or quasi shut-outs as the electoral system exaggerates the winner’s share of seats. This has been seen in general elections in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, PEI, New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia. There needs to be a kind of “Opposition Bill of Rights” to deal with such anomalies, since Westminster systems
depend on adversarialism.

The Provincial Conservative members took a decidedly different view. Innovation minister Trevor Taylor put it this way:

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I don’t need to reiterate everything that Ms Burke just said, but I think if you just look at it from a perspective, a base allocation, one would think that a base allocation would be a base for all caucuses. Why the principles of Metrics EFG would differentiate is hard for me to follow, to be honest about it. [Emphasis added]

That last statement could not be more painfully obvious or true.

The extent to which the Provincial Conservative members also picked at petty issues is evident in the transcript of the session.  Education minister Joan Burke seemed concerned either to micromanage issues - as with Memorial University - or to ensure that no one got a few dollars more in his or her budget than she had available in hers:

MS BURKE: I have a question on that, and I think it may be just a clarification.

It says that the assistant to the Opposition House Leader is $49,000 and the assistant to the Government House Leader is $43,000. So, is this simply a case where there is a step progression but it would be the same job?

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that because in the report it kind of stands out as to why and I thought that would have been the explanation.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. My understanding is that the assistant to the Leader of the Opposition has gone through the step progression to reflect that salary, and the assistant to the Government House Leader will do the incremental steps to get up to that particular salary as well.

MS BURKE: In essence what we are saying is, instead of it being, say, $49,000 there, that would depend, I guess – that is only an indication of where an individual would be on a step. If that position changed tomorrow, that $49,000 could potentially be, I do not know, $38,000 or $39,000.

Outside the meeting the Provincial Conservatives defended their actions as being about responsible management of public spending. 

-srbp-

The charge of the light brigade

He just doesn't get it, does he?

Walter Noel, that is.

Determined to wear the House of Assembly spending scandal forever and a day.

Here's a clue, Walter:  it isn't a case of guts, even capelin guts.

It's a matter of sheer stupidity to continue to defend an abuse of public funds (along with the rest of your colleagues).

It's incomprehensibly dumb to claim that "spending was all in keeping with regulations, and approved by the highest officials of the House of Assembly"  when it's pretty clear there were no regulations of any consequence and the "highest officials" would have - and very often did - approve just about any expense claim for anything at all.

Walter Noel clearly doesn't get it, some 18 months after the rest of the world found out about the unmitigated mess in the House of Assembly.

And as long as Noel continues to shoot himself between the eyes, that's not the only thing Walter won't get come the middle of October.

-srbp-

Spot the teacher

There's a decent profile of a fledgling politician in the latest edition of the Advertiser. Many people don't know what the job is like; even people who run for the job get a rude shock when they finally get into office.

Sullivan appears straightforward, sincere and quite engaging. She comes across as typical of the people who get into politics in this province and elsewhere.

Most people would call what Sullivan has been through an orientation session to give her the basic administrative details of her new job. The constant references to "in-servicing" labels her as a teacher. Maybe the writer is but odds are she is just repeating the word Sullivan used.

Perhaps her constant requests for the "rubric" kept some of the presenters smiling and ensured the otherwise boring proceedings were somewhat bearable. Undoubtedly, Sullivan found the "exemplars" to be especially useful since after all, a mere "example" wouldn't suffice if one is engaged in instructional pursuits. (j/k)

On a serious note, isn't it interesting that this MHA has discovered it makes sense to have her constituency assistant in St. John's?