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-

Word from the bunker: Reynolds issues red herring statement

Chief electoral officer Paul Reynolds – under fire over the Progressive Conservative Party election spending scandal - issued a written statement late Tuesday attempting to justify his inaction in the case.

In the statement, Reynolds now claims he conducted a cursory review prior to concluding nothing further needed to be done. The statement contains a series of non sequiturs - colloquially known as red herrings - that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Reynolds, a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party and a district PC party official at the time of his appointment, apparently spoke only to unidentified representatives of the PC party. There is no indication of when he spoke with the unnamed individuals.

The statement bears a time stamp of 4:55 PM, but as of 6:53 PM, the statement was not available on the provincial government website.

More to follow, once the statement is available online.

D'oh Update: Reynolds pulled a real Homer moment with this statement, as will become plain in the days ahead. Let's just start out with issuing the statement at the end of the day. In light of the recent boner play at Eastern Health, this one is sure to earn the scorn of local reporters.

For those who are looking for some evening entertainment, the ever-reliable labradore has posted a copy of the release which - as of almost 9:30 PM Newfoundland time is still not available at the government website.

-srbp-

The ghost of Richard Squires: party work with public money

According to the statement of facts in the Ed Byrne case, members of the House of Assembly were reimbursed for expenses incurred while representing their constituents.

In other words, work for a particular political party wouldn’t be covered by the expense accounts.

Here’s paragraph six of the agreed statement:

6. When MHAs incur out of pocket expenses while representing their constituents, they are later reimbursed for these costs from the House of Assembly’s Financial Accounts. During the time period in question, the IEC set the rules on eligible and ineligible expenses, per diem rates, general expense guidelines and actual expense limits related to Travel and Constituency Allowance (TCA) claims.

As outlined by the IEC in its annual report,

“Each Member (of the House of Assembly) is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, informational material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags, pins, etc.”

That’s one of the reasons why the whole section of the statement dealing with work done by the local law firm White, Ottenheimer, Baker is odd.

Charles White – senior partner with the firm – insists that in 2000 the firm did work for the Progressive Conservative Party for which it billed $10,000. The solicitor who did the work – now provincial Court Judge John Joy also insisted he did work for the party – not the opposition office – on some constitutional issue related to the fishery.

Lawyers aren’t known for being sloppy with their language so when White says that it was the PC Party – and not the opposition office as Byrne is noted as saying – you have to take notice of it.

Charles White confirmed that the law firm did some work for the PC Party in 2000 and that John Joy was the lawyer who did the work. He said they were engaged to do the study by Edward Byrne but the PC Party was their client.

One of the other reasons to look somewhat quizzically at the whole affair is how White says the firm got paid: two personal cheques from Ed Byrne. Not cheques from the party directly; not even cash from the party treasurer, but two personal cheques from the party leader at the time.

Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward
Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000. Charles White stated that this was the only work their law firm did on Edward Byrne's behalf.

When shown two cancelled cheques from Byrne, White confirmed those were the ones received and cashed by the form for work White and Joy say was done for the party.

In the party contributions reports for the calendar year 2000, the chief electoral office shows that Ed Byrne and his wife made donations to the Progressive Conservative Party totalling less than $7,000.

On top of that for the fiscal year ending in 2000, there’s no expense item for the PC Party that comes anywhere close to $10,000, at least not where one might expect to find it.

Now if the report is for the year ending in March 2001 - which would include most of 2000 – there is a PC caucus expense reported of slightly more than $47,000 but that’s pretty clearly attributed to supporting caucus expenses.

It isn’t for what White, Ottenheimer and Baker believed was party work. besides, if the party paid the expense, then why did Byrne bill his legislature accounts for it and pay the tab with a cheque drawn on his own personal accounts.

The line item for professional fees – where you’d expect to find a party expense for legal work – there is only a flat $2,500.

And since we know Byrne billed the $10,000 for White, Ottenheimer Baker to the account covering his constituency and travel bills as the member of the legislature for Kilbride, the whole thing doesn’t appear to be very clear at all.

Now just to be sure, there’s no indication that the old Tory chambers, the PCJ nor any of its barristers and solicitors involved in the firm did anything wrong; nor is there any reason to suspect them of anything.

The problem here is on the party side and the pretty obvious inconsistency with its reports, as presented by the elections office, and required by law under the Elections Acts.

The whole thing looks like something straight out of the old days when political leaders kept their personal accounts in one pants pocket and the party ones in the other.

All this goes a long way to undermining the claim of the current chief electoral officer – and former Tory party president - Paul Reynolds that everything is tickety-boo with election finance reports from his office.

-srbp-

Charlie White/John Joy (Work done by Ottenheimer White and Green)

38. On June 4, 2001, a travel and constituency allowance claim in the amount of $9,000 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt for a payment of $9,000 to Charlie White for contractual work done on behalf of the official opposition of which Edward Byrne's behalf. There was a signature "Charlie White" on the receipt. A recap dated June 4, 2001, shows that Edward Byrne was paid $9,000 for this claim.

39. On September 22, 2000, a Travel and Constituency Allowance Claim in the amount of $10,000 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt dated September 20, 2000, for a payment of $10,000 to John Joy for research conducted on behalf of the Official Opposition. There was a signature "John Joy" on this generic receipt. A recap generated on September 22, 2000, showed a payment of $10,000 to Edward Byrne for this claim.

40. Charles White is a senior partner in the law firm of White, Ottenheimer and Baker. John Joy is now a Provincial Court Judge in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but in 2000 was also a lawyer in the firm.

41. On August 7, 2007, one of the investigators spoke with His Honour Judge John Joy by telephone. Judge Joy advised that when he was a lawyer in the law firm of White, Ottenheimer and Baker he had done some work for the PC Party in relation to a constitutional issue regarding the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Judge Joy said he couldn't recall signing any receipt. The investigator e-mailed Judge Joy a copy of the generic receipt. Judge Joy responded that he had never seen the generic receipt before and that it definitely wasn't his signature on the document. Judge Joy stated that he personally did not receive $10,000.

42. On August 15, 2007, the investigators interviewed Charles White. Charles White confirmed that the law firm did some work for the PC Party in 2000 and that John Joy was the lawyer who did the work. He said they were engaged to do the study by Edward Byrne but the PC Party was their client. Edward Byrne maintains that this work was done for the Official Opposition. Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000. Charles White stated that this was the only work their law firm did on Edward Byrne's behalf.

43. Charles White was shown copies of the two personal cheques from Edward Byrne made payable to White, Ottenheimer and Baker. Charles White confirmed that these were copies of the cheques they had received. Charles White was also shown the generic receipt for $9,000 which was purportedly signed “Charlie White”. Charles White stated that he had never seen that document before and that it wasn't his signature on the document. Charles White was then shown the generic receipt pertaining to the $10,000 amount that John Joy was supposed to have received. Charles White stated that he knew John Joy's signature and the signature “John Joy” on the receipt was definitely not his signature.

44. Edward Byrne received $10,000 as a result of submitting the receipt purporting to bear the signature of John Joy. Although the receipt bearing the signature of Charles White is also apparently false, Charles White acknowledges that there was work done by their firm, and there was a payment of $9,000 as stated in the receipt.

More partisan business with public money ?

It appears the Provincial Conservatives fought two by-elections on the Great Northern Peninsula in 2001 with public money.

CBC News has already reported a payment of $3,000 to a party organizer for work on the St. Barbe by-election. There was another by-election at the same time in The Straits and White Bay North.

Following is another extract from the agreed statements of facts in the Ed Byrne case. This entry came under a section concerning double- and triple-billings for the same expenses.

Note in this case that the invoice involved is for almost $4,000 and covers what appears to be the lease of a helicopter from Canadian Helicopters on January 3, 2001. There may be other helicopter leases; in the agreed statement, note that the CHC officials is said to have confirmed only once invoice for a specific amount. There’s no discussion of other invoices and that’s likely because police investigators were looking for specific types of activities.

The by-elections in the two districts started on January 8, 2001 but the work to prepare was already well under way before that. The Tories had nominees in place by December 2000 and on January 3, 2001 they issued a news release for a nomination vote on the 10th of January.

Here’s that release, for the record, just to give an indication of the level of activity going on over the holidays in late 2000 and early 2001 :

PC nomination meetings in
The Straits & White Bay North

January 3, 2001 — The Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Party and The Straits & White Bay North PC District Association today announced details of the nomination meetings to select the Party's candidate in the upcoming provincial by-election (for which the government has not yet set a date).

Voting will take place on Wednesday, January 10 between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the following three locations:

• the Vinland Motel at St. Anthony;
• the May Flower Motel at Roddickton;
• the Straits Development Association office at Shoal Cove East.

The three people seeking the Progressive Conservative nomination in The Straits & White Bay North are as follows:

• Ford Mitchelmore
• Ward Samson
• Trevor Taylor

For further information, please contact Annette Genge, President of The Straits & White Bay North PC District Association at (709) 454-0062.

- 30 -

Now other than that by-election, there doesn’t appear to have been any opposition caucus activity at the time - other than related to the by-election - that might have warranted a helicopter charter for one day.

While we’ll keep digging into this to see if anyone will confirm the itinerary and other details for the charter, it seems a pretty curious coincidence in timing that CHC billed Ed Byrne, opposition party leader, for a helicopter at around the same time as everyone was gearing up for a by-election fight.

Byrne billed the flight to his travel and constituency allowance account, which he’d be entitled to do as opposition leader at the time the trip took place. Note as well, that in this section of the agreed statement the problem police pointed to was not that Byrne billed for the flight but that he billed for it more than once.

They weren’t as concerned with the propriety of the spending as much as the business of billing for the same service multiple times and thereby committing a fraud.

Here’s the extract from the agreed statement of facts:

Canadian Helicopters

72. On April 25, 2001, a travel and constituency allowance claim in the amount of $6,210.83 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. One of the supporting documents attached to this claim was an invoice in the amount of $3,944.21 from Canadian Helicopters. The invoice was dated January 10, 2001, and the flight date was January 3, 2001. A recap dated April 25, 2001, shows that Edward Byrne received a payment of $6,210.83.

73. An undated travel and constituency allowance claim for the period May 1, 2001, in the amount of $25,086.86 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. One of the supporting documents attached to this claim was a photocopy of the same invoice in the amount of $3,944.21 from Canadian Helicopters that had been submitted with Edward Byrne’s April 25, 2001, claim. A recap dated June 19, 2001, shows that Edward Byrne received a payment of $25,086.86.

74. On October 12, 2001, a travel and constituency allowance claim in the amount of $3,944.21 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached as supporting documentation to this claim was a photocopy of the same invoice in the amount of $3,944.21 from Canadian Helicopters which Edward Byrne had previously submitted on his April 25, 2001, and his May 1, 2001, claims. A recap dated October 12, 2001, shows that Edward Byrne did receive a payment of $3,944.21.

75. Upon review of the personal banking record of Edward Byrne seized from Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union (NLCU), only one personal cheque of Ed Byrne in the amount of $3,944.21 being paid to Canadian Helicopters was located.

76. On October 12, 2007, Janice Tipple of Canadian Helicopters was interviewed.

Copies of the 3 invoices that Edward Byrne had submitted were faxed to her to review.

On October 16, 2007, Janice Tipple of Canadian Helicopters advised the investigators that that there was only one $3,944.21 invoice from Canadian Helicopters to Edward Byrne and that the others were duplicates.

77. Edward Byrne had in effect claimed and was reimbursed for this $3,944.21 invoice from Canadian Helicopters 3 times, resulting in an overpayment of $7,888.42.

-srbp-

For the record: The Tory Organizer and the Swirling Scandal

From the agreed statement of facts in the Ed Byrne fraud and bribery conviction, the sections related to Wayne Clarke, a Provincial Conservative party organizer who figured prominently in David Cochrane’s story about the St. Barbe by-election in January 2001. [Note: bolding is added; SRBP notations are in square brackets]

Wayne Clarke

34. Two receipts were submitted by Edward Byrne as part of Constituency expenses in relation to Wayne Clark.

1) An undated expense claim for the period of May 2001 in the amount of
$25,086.86 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this expense claim was a handwritten generic receipt in the name of Wayne Clarke for an amount of $3,000. This generic receipt stated that it was for payment for work done in the district of Kilbride. The signature "Wayne Clarke" was on this receipt. A recap, dated June 19, 2001, shows payment of $25,086.86 to Edward Byrne as a result of this claim. [SRBP: The by-election finished on 30 Jan 01. This invoicing is at least five months later.]

2) On February 11, 2003, a travel and constituency allowance claim in the
amount of $10,669.75 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt for a payment of $5,000 to Wayne Clarke for a research project. The signature "Wayne Clarke" appeared on the receipt. A recap dated February 14, 2003, shows that Edward Byrne was paid $10,669.75 for this claim.

35. Wayne Clarke was identified as being an individual who had been involved with the PC Party for several years. On August 1, 2007, Wayne Clarke was interviewed by the investigator and shown the first generic receipt for $3,000. He stated it was his signature on the receipt; however, he never did any work in the district of Kilbride.

Wayne Clark stated that around that time in 2001, he was assisting in running a by-election campaign for Wally Young in the district of St. Barbe. Wayne Clark stated that, at that time, he did receive a payment for his services and expenses and it would have been for approximately $3,000. [SRBP: Six months later is not necessarily “around that time” but it is interesting to note the acknowledgement of the signature and the payment for work on the by-election. Notice as well that in this instance, there is no indication of who paid Clarke. He is merely noted as saying that he was paid for his work. In other instances in the agreed statement, the auditors were able to match personal cheques from Byrne to individuals doing political work. In this instance, there is no reference to such a cheque.]

36. Upon next being shown the generic receipt in his name for the $5,000 amount for a research project, Wayne Clark stated that he had never seen that document before nor did he receive $5,000. Wayne Clark stated that he never did any research project for the PC Party at that time. Wayne Clark stated that the signature on the receipt was definitely not his. Wayne Clark did receive $1,700 from Edward Byrne. [SRBP: Note that this incident took place in early 2003 and relates to work done by Clarke for the Provincial Conservative Party at some unspecified time prior. The nature of the work is also unspecified.

37. Edward Byrne was reimbursed for the amounts as a result of these fraudulent claims. Of the $8,000 claimed, $3,000 of this was for work that was actually performed by Wayne Clark, but not as part of constituency work. [SRBP: This is a curious conclusion. The paragraph immediately preceding it confirms that in addition to $3,000, Clarke received $1,700 from Byrne in 2003. That puts the total he received as being $4,700 of the $8,000 billed. we don’t know what the second payment was for.]

-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-

A little help for his friends

So which Progressive Conservative – maybe a member of the current House of Assembly - got the benefit of Ed Byrne’s constituency allowance to get elected?

Some time between August 2000 and April 2004, Ed Byrne used $3,000 of public money that was supposed to go toward Byrne’s constituency-related business to pay a campaign worker for work on a provincial by-election somewhere  in Newfoundland and Labrador.

By-election finance statements before 2005 aren’t available at the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website so someone will have to troop along to Paul Reynolds’ office to get a look at the documents to see if the money was reported.

Plus, we can’t be sure that is the only such payment made out of the money Byrne is supposed to have misappropriated.  His agreed statement of facts recently in answer to fraud and corruption charges only accounted for a fraction  - 25% or so - of the total.

Then there’s things like the building supplies – lumber? – he bought and shipped up to his cabin in the woods. Did anyone check to see if it was dry-wall and  two by fours?  If there was a raft of two by twos in there, as well as washers and roofing nails and the timing was right, that might also turn out to be election-related purchases.  Two by two lumber, washers and roofing nails are used to hold up the ever-popular two foot by two foot election sign.

But what provincial by-elections were held in that time?

Trinity North (April 25, 2000)

Humber West (June 19, 2001)

Port de Grave (June 19, 2001)

St. Barbe (January 30, 2001)

The Straits and White Bay North (January 30, 2001)

Bonavista North (July 24, 2002)

Conception Bay South (November 12, 2002)

At least one of the Progressive Conservatives in those by-elections got a boost from public funds.

Which one was it?

-srbp-

Shovel-ready indeed

If ever there was a shovel-ready project crying out for federal infrastructure spending in the midst of this global economic meltdown, it would be the international tourist attraction that could be built in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The attractions in this cross between Ripley’s, Believe or Not! and Madam Toussaud’s would surely be the raft of colourful characters who are the province’s  public figures.

There is the politician who welcomed the Juno awards to Newfoundland and Labrador on a cold day in January by giving new meaning to the term rhinestone cowboy.

There is the former politician who, 30 years ago this year, was found by a judicial inquiry to have been one of two people responsible for leaking confidential police reports into a fire to some of the leading journalists and editors of the day rather than return the obviously illicit documents to the police.

This former cabinet minister, fittingly 30 years later the host of an afternoon yak-fest for the radio station known colloquially as voice of the cabinet minister, finds no problem, for example,  in offering opinions on the appropriate sentence for another former politician even though the court case is not done.  At the same time, he will chastise those who would call his afternoon radio show and mention the name of a prominent figure or well-known business or organization about which they may have an opinion.

We will not repeat in detail there number of times this fellow speaks of events when he was in cabinet as though he was not there at the time.

Then there is the other voice of the common, man, who now finds himself the host of another radio show at the same station.  He long ago reached conclusions on the Churchill Falls deal long ago, most of them being based on commonly held but often-times unfounded ideas, yet recently gushed about the marvellous book he was reading on the subject.

Said book was written in the mid-1970s.

The centrepiece of this new Mecca would surely be the House of Assembly, the legislature of this place. Roger Fitzgerald, the speaker of the local parliament, answered questions this week about inappropriate payments made to local politicians. The questions came after the auditor general’s latest annual report provided an update on the whole business.

Fitzgerald straight-facedly told reporters that he had a legal opinion that the legislature could not recover money identified as spent inappropriately by province’s auditor general since the money was spent under the rules at the time.

"It was common practice for members to submit claims like donations and in some cases, maybe liquor purchases depending on what it was for," Fitzgerald said.

"I don't think members should have to repay those particular expenses. If they did, they should've been told at the beginning that it was not an acceptable practice."

Never mind the number of current politicians who insisted there were no rules at the time. Never mind, either, that, as Fitzgerald well knows, the people he thinks now should have been doing the telling were the ones who set the rules that said the inappropriate spending was okay in the first place.

The inappropriate spending included public money handed out as donations to all and sundry, as well as purchases of alcohol and double-billings of expenses.

Fitzgerald is one of the few current or former members of the legislature who is paying back some of cash. (He spent only 33 bucks on booze) The $17,942 in public he gave as donations isn’t part of the amount being repaid.  Nor will virtually all the rest of them be required to repay the public for much beyond the double-billings even though in some cases they handed out as much as half the money in their expense allowances in a way labelled inappropriate by both the auditor general and the chief justice of the Supreme Court’s Trial Division.

It’s not like they don’t have the power to order a repayment of the whole shooting match or, in lieu of that, to seize property and other assets owned or controlled by the current and former members to satisfy the debt.

After all, only one day before the House closed last fall, the legislature seized assets of a host of Italian, Newfoundland, mainland-Canadian and American businesses.  They quashed a court case and ordered no compensation for it. They did it based on no other foundation other than that  - legally – they could do so by majority vote.

Such joys may only be found in the notion of parliamentary sovereignty:  the members of the legislature set the rules.

How can it be that the all-powerful are struck suddenly impotent?

Surely it wasn’t a legal opinion that flies in the face of the legal opinion the members themselves rendered last December.

Perhaps we could hand out shovels to the visitors at our new attraction and let them dig about until they come up with the answer themselves.

We won’t need to give Roger and the rest of his political friends a spade.

Nope.

He’s already been shovelling it enough this week for the lot of them.

-srbp-

Simmonds nabs plea deal for Byrne

Former natural resources minister Ed Byrne pleaded guilty to two of the charges against him resulting from the House of Assembly spending scandal.

He pleaded guilty to a count of fraud and another to a count of fraud against the government. 

The Crown dropped other charges as part of a plea agreement worked out with Bryne through his lawyer, Robert Simmonds, Q.C.

Simmonds’ media scrum outside court is available here in ram format.

-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-

AG considers Sept '07 report to cover improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other similar action

In his annual report for 2007, Auditor General John Noseworthy includes his massive September 2007 Report on a Review of Constituency Allowance Claims from 1989-90 through to 2005-06 as a report under section 15 of the Auditor General Act.

As the AG cites, section 15 provides:

Where during the course of an audit, the auditor general becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act, the auditor general shall immediately report the improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other activity to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Under the AG Act, the auditor general is required to provide the report to the minister of finance.

Under a similar provision in the new Green bill on House accountability and integrity - in force in September 2007 - Noseworthy was required to advise six offices of the report, including the Speaker, the Attorney General, the Premier and the Minister of Finance.

The Auditor General has refused all public comment on the September report, citing the provisions of the Green bill. Under section 45, the Auditor General is prohibited from confirming or denying the existence of such a report on a member or other official of the legislature except to include a reference in his next annual report.

Bond Papers contacted the House of Assembly earlier in January asking if the Auditor General had filed any section 15 reports in addition to those related to certain companies, three former members of the legislature and five individuals currently facing criminal charges. The official response was to decline comment on the question. The report does include information on the former members of the legislature, but nothing that had not been included in previous reports since the focus of the report was broader in scope and purpose.

There is no constraint in the Green bill on the six offices receiving a section 15/section 45 report similar to the restriction on the Auditor General.

Under the order in council authorizing the September 2007 report, the Auditor General was detailed to conducted annual audits of the House of Assembly for the periods Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2003 and to review constituency allowance spending from 1989 to 2004 to determine if overspending occurred beyond approved amounts. neither of the two reports cited by the Auditor General as resulting from that order in council appears to meet either term of the order.

-srbp-

Beholder, beheld and beholden

It's always interesting to watch opinions evolve on spending in the House of Assembly prior to October of this year:

1. November 29, "Piggies at the trough"

2. December 17, "Telegram uncovers more special arrangements":

The House of Assembly has come along way in the past year. It is a shame that such a fundamental and common sense change could not have been adopted a long time ago.

3. December 19, "Personal responsibility" which reproduces the Telegram editorial in its entirety and ends with the comment:

It is fairly reflective of my opinion expressed back on November 29th.

Once again hats of to the Tely.

4. Then a mere 24 hours later, under the title "It's all in the eyes of the beholder" this:

If Deputy Premier Tom Rideout had permission from the House of Assembly, and thus a special arrangement, to claim for accommodations in Lewisporte, then what has he done wrong? The accommodations exist, permission was granted to claim a legitimate expense, and he has done nothing illegal.

Many things are in the eye of the beholder. Beauty for one, but there is little of beauty in the administration of the House of Assembly accounts between 1996 and 2006.

Things that were once clearly wrong to some people become perhaps a little less obviously wrong or maybe right and wrong or maybe something.

To quote from the Telegram a section that apparently missed the eye of at least one beholder:

House rules in effect at the time barred MHAs from charging taxpayers the cost of renting a home or apartment in their district — no matter who they rented it from.

Perhaps, though, this comment from a Telegram story prompted the sudden change of views:

From my own perspective, I’m not going to sit down and pass judgment on every single member — whether they’re NDP or Liberal or PC or anybody else — every single time the press decides that there’s a question here of whether this was proper spending of money or not.

Perhaps the caps lock was off on a couple of letters in that last post title.

-srbp-

Be it ever so humble...

... there's no place like the home office, apparently, for deputy premier Tom Rideout, right.

An investigation by The Telegram revealed that Rideout claimed rental for a house in his constituency of Lewisporte and an additional claim for accommodations while in the district between 2004 and 2007. The story, which appeared in the Saturday edition of the St. John's daily, is not available online. A copy is reproduced below.

Rideout, whose 43-day term as premier was ended by the Liberal victory in the 1989 general election, rented the house from the vice-president of his district association.

Asked about the appropriateness of renting from his party's district vice-president, Rideout said he was not aware of Freake's position in the party.

"I don't know if was or if he wasn't (vice-president)," Rideout said. "I couldn't say."

Rex Freake is, in fact, listed as vice-president of the Lewisporte PC district association in the party's 2005 convention booklet - next to a large photo of Rideout.

During the same time period, Rideout operated a rent-free constituency office in a nearby government office building. At the time, House of Assembly rules prohibited members from charging taxpayers for the cost of renting a home or apratment in the constituency.

This is not the first controversy for Rideout related to the constituency spending scandal.

In June, 2007, Bond Papers revealed that key provisions of new legislation designed correct excesses revealed by the House spending scandal would not take effect until after the provincial election in October, despite comments from members of the legislature suggesting the entire Act had come into force in June. Rideout, who was a member of the Internal Economy Commission that barred the auditor general from reviewing the legislature's accounts in 2000, turned time and the English language in knots attempting to excuse the political misdirection:

Since Green didn't say the act comes into effect today, we, in consultation with him, said what can come into effect today comes into effect today, what needs time to come into effect tomorrow comes into effect tomorrow, and tomorrow is Oct. 9, 2007.

He said that in June.

In August, the Telegram reported that Rideout had made a $5,000 donation to a charity in his constituency, long after the controversy over the issue had surfaced. The donation was delivered in Fiscal year 2007 but had actually been held over from the previous fiscal year. The Telegram reported that Rideout used upwards of half of his constituency allowance in 2006 for donations of various kinds in his district.

-srbp-

The Telegram 

15 Dec 07


Rideout rental raises issues
Deputy premier claimed house rent, plus per diems

Rob Antle; Jamie Baker

Deputy premier Tom Rideout claimed more than $23,000 for "rental
accommodations" in his district of Lewisporte from late 2004 to early
2007, while tacking on an additional $53 per day for accommodations
whenever he stayed in the area.

Rideout acknowledged Friday he spent the $23,000 out of his
constituency allowance to rent a house in Lewisporte.

The landlord who received the cash was a key local Progressive
Conservative party organizer.

House rules in effect at the time barred MHAs from charging taxpayers
the cost of renting a home or apartment in their district - no matter
who they rented it from.

Rideout justified the claims by saying that his Lewisporte rental home
contained an office - even though he also operated a rent-free
constituency office in a government-owned building less than a
kilometre down the road.

MHAs were permitted to claim a per diem of $53 without receipts for
accommodations whenever they visited their constituency.

Rideout charged both - a monthly house rental of between $750 and $850,
and $53 each day he stayed in Lewisporte.

That amounted to a minimum of 123 per-diem claims from the fiscal
period of 2004-05 through 2006-07 alone. The MHA pocketed more than
$6,500 in per-diem claims for accommodations in Lewisporte during those
three years, while also charging taxpayers separately for his
Lewisporte house rental.

Arrangement approved

Rideout said the arrangement was approved by the House of Assembly.

"Before I rented property in Lewisporte, I went and sat down with the
staff at the House of Assembly, told them my situation, that I didn't
live in the district," Rideout told The Telegram on Friday.

"I was told I could rent a place that I could use as an office - with a
room in it to sleep in, that's fine too - and that rental would be
covered, and there was a per diem that goes with your travel. You
submitted that as part of your claim too. I went and sat down eyeball
to eyeball, face to face. I never sent an assistant to do it, I went
and did it myself."

Rideout said he met with House staff at the time, but didn't identify
who they were.

But officials at the legislature said Friday they were unaware Rideout
was living at the Lewisporte location he was claiming as his office,
until contacted by The Telegram.

In fact, Rideout's situation appeared to be unique, said William
MacKenzie, clerk of the House of Assembly.

"Office expenses were certainly eligible under the old rules,"
MacKenzie said. "I'm not aware of other instances where the office was
also used for personal accommodations."

MacKenzie said House officials would now review the matter with Rideout.

He suggested the per-diem claims by Rideout for accommodations may not
fall "within the spirit of those rules" in effect at the time.

"If the rental costs that the House was reimbursing for the office also
included private accommodations, it doesn't appear that the per diem
should have been claimed," MacKenzie said.

Under the old expense regime, MHAs could claim $53 without receipts for
accommodations away from their home or other residence. They could file
receipts for amounts greater than $53 - hotel bills, for example.

Rideout paid landlord Rex Freake - a two-time failed Tory candidate and
longtime party supporter - $750 a month for rental accommodations from
October 2004 through December 2005, according to constituency claims
filed by the MHA and obtained by The Telegram under the province's open-
records laws.

The monthly rent payment rose to $800 in January 2006, and again to
$850 in January 2007.

There are 30 monthly claims for rental charges from Freake over the
three fiscal years 2004-05 through 2006-07.

The claims totalled more than $23,000.

Rideout served as Lewisporte MHA from 1999 through October 2007, before
running successfully in Baie Verte-Springdale. The constituency
documents obtained by The Telegram only cover the three fiscal years
from April 2004 through March 2007.

Asked about the appropriateness of renting from his party's district
vice-president, Rideout said he was not aware of Freake's position in
the party.

"I don't know if was or if he wasn't (vice-president)," Rideout
said. "I couldn't say."

Rex Freake is, in fact, listed as vice-president of the Lewisporte PC
district association in the party's 2005 convention booklet - next to a
large photo of Rideout.

Freake is also a party fundraiser in the district. Wade Verge, the
newly-elected Tory MHA for Lewisporte, publicly thanked Freake for
helping with his October election victory. "This couldn't have been
done without fundraisers Don Manuel and Rex Freake as well as all the
financial supporters, poll captions, inside agents and the voters,"
Verge said in the Oct. 17 edition of the Lewisporte Pilot.

Rideout said he previously rented a basement apartment and another home
in Lewisporte before beginning his rental arrangement with Freake in
2004.

Freake could not be immediately reached for comment Friday. The
provincial PC office did not respond to phone calls inquiring about his
current status in the party.

Rideout said his constituency assistant operated out of a nearby
Department of Transportation office from 2004 to 2007.

The MHA said he did constituency work out of an office in his rental
home.

"I still continued to rent and I used part of the house as an office,
part of it to hang my hat in," Rideout said.

He said he is now looking for an office to rent in Baie Verte.

Show us the details, Walter

So Walter Noel wants the Liberal nomination in St. John's east for the upcoming federal election.

And he's indignant at the Auditor General's recent report on inappropriate spending by members of the House of Assembly.

better to suck it up, Walter, and stop whining about reporters showing up at your house.

Settle the whole matter toute de suite and without hiring an expensive solicitor.

If one of the self-described moving forces behind the Vic Young mythology committee wants to re-enter elected politics, he's only got to pass a simple test:

Reveal the names of all the people who received gifts - both in cash through donations and in the various items described by Noel and the AG - which Noel claimed from his public expense accounts both as a minister and as a member of the legislature.

Tell the voters what he bought, where he bought it, who he gave it to and how much it cost.

Noel's original story was that he had handed out gloves and scarves. Now it's supposedly women's golf shirts and jackets. See, if there had only been a couple of gifts, it's hard to imagine how gloves and scarves could be confused with golf shirts. Since Noel served as a cabinet minister for much of his time in the legislature he had access to two expense accounts. Maybe he was getting the two confused when he made his original comment, but since he was able to tell CBC radio on Friday what the invoices said that accompanied his expense claims, that tell us that Noel has a set of copies. So let's see the whole schmeer, Walter.

Send the information to bondpapers at hotmail dot com, Walter, and we'll be happy to tell taxpayers how you spent their money.

Better still, make photocopies of the receipts and claims available and Bond Papers will gladly post scans of them.

Under the circumstances, when you've already spent public money, Walter, and want another shot at spending it, you have an obligation to disclose exactly how you spent the money of a half million other taxpayers the last time you sat in a legislature.

-srbp-

Beth Marshall: Donations by MHAs "are appropriate"

In an interview with the St. John's Morning Show, former Auditor General Beth Marshall blew away whatever credibility she had as a fearless campaigner for accountability of public spending.

Marshall said she had no problem with members of the legislature handing out donations from constituency funds in manner essentially in violation of the system of accountability she used to espouse. In many cases, what the legislature called donations went to purposes for which there were already established government programs.

Among her most amazing comments:

"The Auditor General [John Noseworthy] has no basis to base his opinion on that those expenditures were inappropriate."

The AG based his views on the report by Chief Justice Green and his scathing indictment of the practice of donations. When pressed by Jeff Gilhooley on whether or not the donations were inappropriate, given that they came from an allowance that was never intended to include donations, Marshall was unequivocal: "They are appropriate."

Marshall defended her view on the basis that "discretionary funds" exist throughout government. That's an interesting argument for Marshall to make. As she should know, Green documents the original Morgan Commission recommendation in 1989 on allowances and the manner in which discretionary funds were restricted until that specific type of fund was eliminated by Marshall and her colleagues on the House management committee in 2004.

Had donations in fact been treated like discretionary funds, then members would have been limited to a maximum of $4800 per year. But Marshall knows that donations were not treated like discretionary funds. In the period after Marshall and her colleagues eliminated discretionary funds - and as the AG documented - gifting by Marshall and her colleagues increased compared to previous years. Marshall's colleague the deputy Premier handed out one gift of $5,000 in a single go in 2007.

In another part of the interview, Marshall said that when she was elected, she was provided with a set of rules to be followed. That's blatantly contrary to the line taken by most members that there were in fact no rules and hence abuses and oversights occurred.

-srbp-

Ooops!

The Auditor General's report doesn't contain any information on deceased individuals who were members of the legislature after 1989.

So, you won't find Patt Cowan there, nor will anyone find a reference to Garfield Warren.

So why is Jim Kelland on the lists of members?

-srbp-

The little things

In reading the Auditor General's latest report on inappropriate spending by members of the provincial legislature, there are some little things that pop up at you:

1. The $1,000 then-finance minister Loyola Sullivan paid to Mile One Stadium in 2005. What was that for?

2. The partisan expenditures. Since these things are obviously verboten - no ethical relative defense applies to that one, there Premier - how come the Auditor General didn't expose every single instance of this corrupt practice? It doesn't matter that the amount was only around $11,000.

That might just be the bit that was so obvious the auditors - who buggered up sections of other reports on the legislature - couldn't miss it. Perhaps there is more of the misdirected funding buried in some of the other accounts.

Partisan expenditures relate to supporting a Member's political party and would be considered an inappropriate constituency allowance expenditure. I note that the Green Commission Report indicated that expenses related to politically partisan activities should not be a reimbursable constituency allowance expense.

During the review, we identified only $11,093 during the period 1989-90 through to 2005-06 in claims that could be considered partisan in nature. However, there was no Member who had significant claims relating to partisan expenditures. Some of the items we did identify as partisan included:

• advertisement to thank voters;
  
• refreshments and facility rental for party meeting;
  
• flowers to other Member for election congratulations;
  
• dinner tickets for various party associations;
  
• expense claim to attend party convention;
• players fees for political golf tournament (this same fee was denied on another Member's claim form); and
  
• Federal party fundraising events.

3. The AG's sudden lip-lock. For a man who was prepared to male wild accusations before without a shred of credible evidence to present, John Noseworthy's silence on Friday was interesting. Chief Justice Green didn't suggest the AG couldn't say anything at all, he just strongly hinted that an auditor might want to refrain from making accusing of criminality without having the knowledge or ability to make such a claim.

Then again, if I had to explain why only two people were named in the double-billing scandal but the problem was more widespread, I might be barring the doors and windows too.

4. The $2800 bucks. The current repayment issue for that money is listed in the Auditor General's report as if it was more than just a policy some members adopted. Did the Auditor General include the $2800 on the account as an overpayment made to members before he discovered in the course of another audit that the payments had actually be authorised?

Inquiring minds might want to stick a microphone down the newly dug rabbit hole the AG lives in and see if he actually made at least one inappropriate accusation against a member who received the money, legitimately, since it was approved by the legislature's management committee. Let's not even think about whether it was the right thing for the committee to approve the money in secret. Heck, even the Premier and Beth Marshall weren't prepared to try and stop the hand-out. Let's just see if Noseworthy actually made the accusation before he knew the facts.

5. How can the Auditor General tell us that Kathy Goudie received money for expenses after she resigned when she resigned well after the period covered by this audit?

6. If he can tell us that, why didn't he tell us about the $5,000 of public money Tom Rideout "gifted" in 2007 back-dated to 2006? Not only would that amount change Rideout's "gifting" total, it would also likely attract Noseworthy's attention for the backdating.

7. And while we are looking at "gifting" why did the AG bury the bit on inadequate documentation of "gifts" in the back? (Figure 35, page 64)

Turns out that of the $1.5 million or thereabouts in "gifts", 21% had inadequate documentation. The peak periods?

	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
	$36,875	$50,253	$87,966	$23,991	$41,276

And was there any pattern to the inadequate documentation and who was submitting it? pattern that is beyond the fact that while the total "gifts" went up after the 2003 election, the instances of poor documentation went down.

It's the little things that sometimes really do catch your eye.

-srbp-

The lure of soft money redux

Initial news coverage and most public reaction to the latest report on the House of Assembly scandal will focus on the easy and the obvious.

Wine, artwork, pens, jewelry, cigarettes, travel, and hockey tickets.

On the eve of a provincial general election, Premier Danny Williams is encouraging people to look beyond the scandal now that reforms are supposedly in place:

But at the end of the day, do not lose faith in the political system in this province because our democracy is too important for the electorate to lose faith.

Our democracy is too important for people to lose faith in it and in the people elected to lead. However, we should not be rushed past this latest report with the admonishment of the New York cop to gawkers at a skyscraper suicide: "Move along, there Johnny, nothing to see here. " Nor should we be distracted by the baubles and trinkets that too many focused on already.

Rather, we should focus on the core damage done to our democracy by a decade in which politicians of all shades, new and old, handed out public money as gifts to constituents based solely on their own discretion and almost entirely hidden from wide public view, let alone scrutiny.

Bond Papers has hit this point before - the lure of soft money - and earned the Premier's ire for it. The Auditor General's report on Friday brings home the point once more. Of the $2.2 million in questionable spending John Noseworthy identified, $1,471,108 (63%) went to what have been incorrectly called donations.

No one should miss the point that the highest years of total inappropriate spending identified by Noseworthy were the most recent:

2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06
$217,200	$272,729	$388,948	$284,725	$299,261

As a matter of simple observation one can see that after a peak in the last election year, inappropriate spending did not decline; it increased. For all the assurances of change, even as the scandal broke, clearly something continued to be amiss. Even after the public received the Green report - and its scathing condemnation of the gifting practice - members of the legislature still opted to keep the rules in place that allowed gifting, at least until after the election.

For those who may not be sure of what we are driving at here, let us simply quote Chief Justice Derek Green on the point:

First and foremost, the practice of making financial contributions and spending in this way supports the unacceptable notion that the politician’s success is tied to buying support with favours. Such things, especially the buying of drinks, tickets and other items at events, has overtones of the old practice of treating - providing food, drink or entertainment for the purpose of influencing a decision to vote or not to vote. As I wrote in Chapter 9, it demeans the role of the elected representative and reinforces the view that the standards of the politician are not grounded in principle. In fact, I would go further. The old practice of treating was usually undertaken using the politician’s own funds or his or her campaign funds. To the extent that the current practice involves the use of public funds, it is doubly objectionable.

Related to the notion of using public funds to ingratiate oneself with voters is the
unfair advantage that the ability to do that gives to the incumbent politician over other contenders in the next election.

To put it simply, gifting erodes our democracy in a far more insidious way than does anything else the Auditor General has described. Nothing revealed in his report is acceptable, but it is the widespread nature of gifting that should make it more odious than some of our politicians appear to appreciate.

Beyond that, gifting, as practiced over the past decade calls into serious question the judgements of legislators. The money was given for things that either used to be or were covered by government programs that were as fairly, equitably and impartially distributed as might be possible. These include eyeglasses and medical devices, funding for volunteer fire departments, accommodations and transportation.

Some of money given as gifts actually replaced programs such as medical assistance transportation eliminated from a budget voted by the same legislators. In no small irony, it would seem that just this past election summer, the members on the government side had found a way to continue making gifts of public money, this time through line departments. The lure of soft money has not dissipated; the siren merely sings its tune from another cliff.

Gifting knows no party boundaries.

Look at the top 10 gifters in the study period, by dollar volume. All, coincidentally, are or were cabinet ministers; some served as members of the Internal Economy Commission while on the opposition benches, while in government, or both:

Rank	Name	Party	Amount
1.	Wally Anderson	Liberal	$88,954
2.	Judy Foote	Liberal	$69,131
3.	Ed Byrne	PC	$63,284
4.	Loyola Sullivan	PC	$44,848
5.	Tom Osborne	PC	$44,770
6.	Anna Thistle	Liberal	$43,445
7.	Percy Barrett	Liberal	$43,444
8.	Sandra Kelly	Liberal	$42,398
9.	Paul Shelley	PC	$37,331
10.	John Ottenheimer	PC	$36,868

But to make sure the picture is clear , let us also consider the top 10 gifters by percentage of allowance given as gifts. What will become apparent is that gifting is not merely a hold-over from the days before 2003. They all represent constituencies on the northeast Avalon, arguably the most prosperous portion of the province.

They are almost all some of the newest members of the legislature (other than those elected in recent by-elections) and all embraced the gifting system with an enthusiasm that outshines the ardor of longer-serving members of any political party.

Rank	Name	Party	Percentage
1.	Diane Whelan	PC	49.05
2.	Shawn Skinner	PC	46.96
3.	Kathy Dunderdale	PC	46.90
4.	Bob Ridgley	PC	38.21
5.	Elizabeth Marshall	PC	34.23
6.	Tom Osborne	PC	30.16
7.	Hubert Kitchen	Liberal	30.10
8.	Sheila Osborne	PC	26.30
9.	David Denine	PC	25.96
10.	John Ottenheimer	PC	25.49

The formal election campaign begins on Monday. Many have talked of an election about sweeps by the majority party, unprecedented popularity, the poor performance of the opposition parties and resource deals worth billions. As a result of the Auditor General's latest report, the focus of the campaign for many voters may wind up being questions of ethics, judgment and propriety.

If this report and the practice of gifting it reveals is an indication, those are exactly what we should think about before casting our votes.

-srbp-

No charges for Barrett

Liberal member of the House of Assembly Percy Barrett won't be facing criminal charges over allegations made last year by the province's auditor general, John Noseworthy.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary said today that after an investigation, there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge.

Noseworthy claimed that Barrett had improperly received over $117,000, although Barrett own efforts reduced the amount of alleged overpayments by approximately $30,000. For those doing the math, that's an error on Noseworthy's part of 25%. The actual discrepancy may be significantly higher, suggesting that there are other problems with Noseworthy's audit of the legislature.

Bond Papers has already noted that Noseworthy's review missed entirely substantive discrepancies between budgeted amounts and actual spending in the province's legislature for the period from 1998 to 2006. In the illustration above, the red line represents the actual discrepancy between budget and actual, while the yellow represents the amounts reported by Noseworthy. The numbers used in the red line were confirmed by the Green report.

While directed by cabinet last summer to complete a detailed audit of the period from 1998 to 2004, Noseworthy has reported on other matters instead , including a detailed examination of spending by individual members dating back to 1989. That report is due before October 9.

So far, no word on the detailed audit of the legislature.

-srbp-

Three more charged in House scandal

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary today laid charges against the remaining three individuals named originally by the Auditor General in mid-2006.

Fromer government House leader and natural resources minister Ed Byrne and former Labrador West member of the legislature Randy Collins are both facing one charge of fraud over $5000, one charge of uttering forged documents and one charge of breach of public trust.

Former legislature financial officer Bill Murray faces one count of fraud over $5000, one count of uttering forged documents and three counts of fraud against the government.

Note: There seems to be some confusion about the charge of fraud on the government, arising from an initial comment on Friday that this was a charge of influence peddling. Several news media reported that the Criminal Code had been recently changed.

In fact, the phrase "fraud on the government" appears in a heading to s. 121, a section dealing with public corruption. Some changes were made to the Criminal Code in 2007 to give force to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. This charge has only been laid against two individuals so far.

The section now reads:

Frauds on the government

121. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;

(e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,

(i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or

(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.

Contractor subscribing to election fund

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration

(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or

(b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 121; 2007, c. 13, s. 5.

Aside from fraud, the other charge common to all five charged so far is s. 122:

Breach of trust by public officer

122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

-srbp-