Premier Danny Williams' administration is shutting down the House of Assembly two days early.
In light of this release today from Kathy Dunderdale, noting that a $70,000 contract was let at Bull Arm without any contract, let alone a tender or request for proposals, it would seem the Premier is cutting and running from public scrutiny. The former chief executive officer at Bull Arm - the one doing the illegal contracting - was Danny Williams' hand-picked appointee. She was fired while he was out of the House (out of the province?).
In any other administration in this province, save a few, this sort of activity would usually mean the Queen's Cowboys would be called in.
Today's sudden development means that since 2004, the legislature has sat annually fewer days than at any time since the 1980s. At one point, Brian Peckford went about 18 months without calling the House into session.
Bond Papers already covered the issue of the part-time legislators, if your memory needs refreshing.
12 December 2006
11 December 2006
Today in history: December 11
1997: Kyoto agreement on climate change opened for signature.
1994: Russia invaded Chechnya.
1948: Official signing of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada. (h/t to John Gushue ....
1944: Actress Teri Garr is born. From her early television appearance as a secretary in the Star Trek episode "Gary Seven" (a failed spin-off pilot) to her regular appearances on any show hosted by David Letterman, Teri remains a favourite. She was Dustin Hoffman's girlfriend in Tootsie and, in one of Bond's all-time favourite Garr roles, Teri was Gene Wilder's lab assistant and love interest in Young Frankenstein.
1941: Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
1936: Edward VIII abdicates the British throne.
1931: Britain enacts the Statute of Westminster, establishing legislative equality among the self-governing dominsions of the British Empire, including Newfoundland. The statute applied only if dominion parliaments enacted enabling legislation. Newfoundland never did.
Argentina: Tango day. In celebration, one of the great tango moments in English-language cinema, Por una cabeza from Scent of a woman, featuring Gabrielle Anwar and Al Pacino:
Then there's this version by an unknown young man who has some difficulty with the Spanish lyrics:
1994: Russia invaded Chechnya.
1948: Official signing of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada. (h/t to John Gushue ....
1944: Actress Teri Garr is born. From her early television appearance as a secretary in the Star Trek episode "Gary Seven" (a failed spin-off pilot) to her regular appearances on any show hosted by David Letterman, Teri remains a favourite. She was Dustin Hoffman's girlfriend in Tootsie and, in one of Bond's all-time favourite Garr roles, Teri was Gene Wilder's lab assistant and love interest in Young Frankenstein.
1941: Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
1936: Edward VIII abdicates the British throne.
1931: Britain enacts the Statute of Westminster, establishing legislative equality among the self-governing dominsions of the British Empire, including Newfoundland. The statute applied only if dominion parliaments enacted enabling legislation. Newfoundland never did.
Argentina: Tango day. In celebration, one of the great tango moments in English-language cinema, Por una cabeza from Scent of a woman, featuring Gabrielle Anwar and Al Pacino:
Then there's this version by an unknown young man who has some difficulty with the Spanish lyrics:
Persona inks $30 million deal with MTS Allstream
Reported in The Star.
So why didn't MTS and Persona pony up the cash to expand infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador without provincial government assistance?
And while we are looking at telecom issues, notice that the federal government announced in June that it planned to deregulate telephone service across Canada. The story was confirmed with an announcement today.
Under existing policy, companies like Aliant are regulated in order to prevent them from dropping prices below cost. That was seen as a way of encouraging competition in the local marketplace.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will note that the provincial government started consideration of a proposal from Persona to have the province invest $15 million - $30% of the total project cost - into Persona's construction of fibreoptic links to the mainland around the same time the feds announced plans to deregulate the industry.
So why didn't MTS and Persona pony up the cash to expand infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador without provincial government assistance?
And while we are looking at telecom issues, notice that the federal government announced in June that it planned to deregulate telephone service across Canada. The story was confirmed with an announcement today.
Under existing policy, companies like Aliant are regulated in order to prevent them from dropping prices below cost. That was seen as a way of encouraging competition in the local marketplace.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will note that the provincial government started consideration of a proposal from Persona to have the province invest $15 million - $30% of the total project cost - into Persona's construction of fibreoptic links to the mainland around the same time the feds announced plans to deregulate the industry.
Tom Hann asks
What residents of St. John's would cut to avoid the tax hike he and his fellow councillors voted to stick to the residents of the city of legendarily incompetent municipal politicians?
Bond Papers answers.
For one thing, Tom, we'd hack the $3.0 million in taxpayers cash you and your fellow councillors voted to pour into the great sinkhole known as Mile One.
Used to be Hann was a critic of the folly otherwise known as the Keith Coombs Money Pit.
That was before Hann got elected to council, got suckered into serving on the Mile One board and then was force-fed the Gower Street Kool-Aid. Now he slobbers the stuff up like old-pro Doc O'Keefe.
Now he stands up and tells us that the waste-of-cash is making such great progress on breaking even it needs even more of a taxpayer hand-out than it used to get.
When we are done cutting that, maybe we should hack out a few salaries from city council. So far we haven't been getting anything even close to our money's worth.
Bond Papers answers.
For one thing, Tom, we'd hack the $3.0 million in taxpayers cash you and your fellow councillors voted to pour into the great sinkhole known as Mile One.
Used to be Hann was a critic of the folly otherwise known as the Keith Coombs Money Pit.
That was before Hann got elected to council, got suckered into serving on the Mile One board and then was force-fed the Gower Street Kool-Aid. Now he slobbers the stuff up like old-pro Doc O'Keefe.
Now he stands up and tells us that the waste-of-cash is making such great progress on breaking even it needs even more of a taxpayer hand-out than it used to get.
When we are done cutting that, maybe we should hack out a few salaries from city council. So far we haven't been getting anything even close to our money's worth.
AG misses half, ignores mandate, chases wine and paintings instead
[Revised]
Between Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 and 2005, the House of Assembly budget for allowances and assistance was overspent by a total of more than $3.2 million but Auditor General John Noseworthy's report on alleged overspending by five current and former members of the provincial legislature accounts for less than half that.
The figures come from a comparison of Noseworthy's reports with the Public Accounts for each fiscal year. The Public Accounts are the official financial statements for the provincial government, audited annually by Noseworthy (right, Photo: CBC) and his predecessor Elizabeth Marshall in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Public Accounts are compiled from records maintained by each department and confirmed by the comptroller general, the provincial government official whose office has been issuing cheques on behalf of the House of Assembly since 1999.
Bond Papers corrected the Auditor General's reporting of dates to coincide with the Public Accounts.
Sudden jumps in individual payments
Figure 1 (above) shows the results of Noseworthy's reports on five current and former legislators. Before 2001, payments over budgeted amounts to individual members of the legislature were relatively small. However, they skyrocket in 2001. One member who allegedly received $12,000 more than budgeted in FY 2000 with one member, allegedly received $118,000 the following year, followed by more than $128,000 in FY 2002 and $198,000 in FY 2003 before the overpayments suddenly stopped.
Another member, defeated in the 2003 general election, allegedly received approximately $9,900 in FY 2000, $41,800 in FY 2001 but more than $130,000 in FY 2003.
While three of the five members received no overpayments after FY 2003, two current members of the legislature received overpayments in FY 2004 and FY 2005.
The Public Accounts show that the House of Assembly's allowances and assistance budget - the line item that covers constituency allowances - was overspent in each year from FY 1998 to FY 2005.
Bulk of unexplained overspending occurred after April 2004
Figure 2 (above) shows a comparison of the total overspending on the allowances budget each year (red line) with the total overspending contained in the Auditor General's reports on alleged overspending by five current and former members (yellow line).
Except for two fiscal years, the alleged overpayments to individual members is far below the total overspending on the budget line item. Overspending in FY 1999, for example, totaled more than $529,000 but the Auditor General's reports only account for approximately $78,000.
Similarly, alleged payments to two members in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total slightly over $200,000. Total overspending reported in the Public Accounts for those same years totals more than $1.0 million, about half of the overspending still unexplained by the Auditor General after completing two separate reviews of overspending. Coupled with the questioned suppliers' payments (see below), the bulk of the alleged overspending and questionable payments occurred after 2004.
When he announced results of his first review of spending by Byrne, Noseworthy said that changes to the administrative rules in 2004 prevented overspending after that date.
No explanations; AG and Finance Minister get dates wrong
AG Noseworthy stated recently that his reviews of overspending are completed. His next public report will examine how members of the legislature spent their allowances beginning in 1989. He has not explained how he believes certain individuals received overpayments, nor has he explained the total overspending on allowances.
In releasing his latest report on individual overpayments, Noseworthy did note that the individual overpayments accelerated after the Auditor General's office was barred from reviewing the legislature's accounts, supposedly in FY 2000. In recent media interviews, finance minister Loyola Sullivan, a member of the legislature's internal economy commission since 2002, stated he regretted making the decision in FY 2000.
However, the decision to block the Auditor General's review was taken in 2002, not 2000. Sullivan (left) was a member of the IEC when the decision to block the Auditor general was actually taken. Changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 1999 and 2000 gave the IEC the power, among other things, to determine who would audit the legislature's books.
In April 2004, the Internal Economy Commission removed the bar on the auditor general but stipulated the audits would be from April 2004 forward. That restriction was only removed after Noseworthy's allegation in June 2006 when he was sent back to re-do his original work.
The Auditor General has been legally able to audit the House of Assembly accounts for all but a two year period. Under the Financial Administration Act, the AG cannot legally be barred from reviewing the comptroller general's payment records. Those records form the basis of the Public Accounts and include details of the overspending from FY 1998 to FY 2005 Noseworthy has thus far not discussed.
Neither Sullivan nor Noseworthy has explained the discrepancy in their version of events or why the auditor general's office did not comment on the consistent overspending of the allowances account between 1998 and 2005.
Suppliers' payments don't fill in gaps in story
Noseworthy has also questioned payments to four suppliers made by the legislature between 1998 and 2005.
Figure 3 (above) compares the payments, based on the Auditor General's reports
However, while Noseworthy has alleged some goods purchased from the companies was never received, he has not been able to demonstrate this conclusively. In his initial report, Noseworthy claimed his office had been unable to confirm that items - such as expensive but poorly made signet rings - had been delivered. Within an hour of Noseworthy's news conference last summer, several rings turned up.
As well, Noseworthy has only attributed only a small portion the $2.6 million apparently paid to the companies to the five individual members of the House of Assembly. Most notably, though, the payments to the companies made in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total more than the entire overspending for the period as reported in the Public Accounts.
AG admits definition of "inappropriate" will be highly subjective
Rather than provide a complete explanation of overspending in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General will now focus his attention on how members of the legislature spent money allocated for constituency expenses regardless of whether the members overspent their accounts.
This is actually outside the mandate given him by cabinet in July 2006, while a detailed accounting of the overspending between 1998 and 2005 would be exactly described in his charge to conduct "detailed audits" for the period.
Attention will be focused, some believe, on former finance minister Paul Dicks who allegedly purchased wine and artwork from his constituency budget. According to some reports, Noseworthy and his then-boss Elizabeth Marshall were reviewing Dicks' accounts when they were barred from the legislature books in 2002.
Noseworthy has indicated this portion of his review - which may or may not be completed before the next general election - will examine spending dating back to 1989. Noseworthy's hunt for overspending by individual members found nothing before 1997. Bond Papers predicted as much in June.
At the same time, some members of the legislature, including Liberal opposition leader Gerry Reid and Speaker Harvey Hodder, the Progressive Conservative member of the legislature for Waterford Valley have admitted to providing donations to groups in their districts and purchasing personal advertising from their constituency allowances.
In an interview with CBC television's Debbie Cooper, Noseworthy said he will be basing his assessment of "appropriate" spending by compiling a database of what members were spending allowances on. He told Cooper his definition of "appropriate" would be subjective.
Between Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 and 2005, the House of Assembly budget for allowances and assistance was overspent by a total of more than $3.2 million but Auditor General John Noseworthy's report on alleged overspending by five current and former members of the provincial legislature accounts for less than half that.
The figures come from a comparison of Noseworthy's reports with the Public Accounts for each fiscal year. The Public Accounts are the official financial statements for the provincial government, audited annually by Noseworthy (right, Photo: CBC) and his predecessor Elizabeth Marshall in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Public Accounts are compiled from records maintained by each department and confirmed by the comptroller general, the provincial government official whose office has been issuing cheques on behalf of the House of Assembly since 1999.Bond Papers corrected the Auditor General's reporting of dates to coincide with the Public Accounts.
Sudden jumps in individual payments
Figure 1 (above) shows the results of Noseworthy's reports on five current and former legislators. Before 2001, payments over budgeted amounts to individual members of the legislature were relatively small. However, they skyrocket in 2001. One member who allegedly received $12,000 more than budgeted in FY 2000 with one member, allegedly received $118,000 the following year, followed by more than $128,000 in FY 2002 and $198,000 in FY 2003 before the overpayments suddenly stopped.Another member, defeated in the 2003 general election, allegedly received approximately $9,900 in FY 2000, $41,800 in FY 2001 but more than $130,000 in FY 2003.
While three of the five members received no overpayments after FY 2003, two current members of the legislature received overpayments in FY 2004 and FY 2005.
The Public Accounts show that the House of Assembly's allowances and assistance budget - the line item that covers constituency allowances - was overspent in each year from FY 1998 to FY 2005.
Bulk of unexplained overspending occurred after April 2004
Figure 2 (above) shows a comparison of the total overspending on the allowances budget each year (red line) with the total overspending contained in the Auditor General's reports on alleged overspending by five current and former members (yellow line).Except for two fiscal years, the alleged overpayments to individual members is far below the total overspending on the budget line item. Overspending in FY 1999, for example, totaled more than $529,000 but the Auditor General's reports only account for approximately $78,000.
Similarly, alleged payments to two members in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total slightly over $200,000. Total overspending reported in the Public Accounts for those same years totals more than $1.0 million, about half of the overspending still unexplained by the Auditor General after completing two separate reviews of overspending. Coupled with the questioned suppliers' payments (see below), the bulk of the alleged overspending and questionable payments occurred after 2004.
When he announced results of his first review of spending by Byrne, Noseworthy said that changes to the administrative rules in 2004 prevented overspending after that date.
No explanations; AG and Finance Minister get dates wrong
AG Noseworthy stated recently that his reviews of overspending are completed. His next public report will examine how members of the legislature spent their allowances beginning in 1989. He has not explained how he believes certain individuals received overpayments, nor has he explained the total overspending on allowances.
In releasing his latest report on individual overpayments, Noseworthy did note that the individual overpayments accelerated after the Auditor General's office was barred from reviewing the legislature's accounts, supposedly in FY 2000. In recent media interviews, finance minister Loyola Sullivan, a member of the legislature's internal economy commission since 2002, stated he regretted making the decision in FY 2000.
However, the decision to block the Auditor General's review was taken in 2002, not 2000. Sullivan (left) was a member of the IEC when the decision to block the Auditor general was actually taken. Changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 1999 and 2000 gave the IEC the power, among other things, to determine who would audit the legislature's books.In April 2004, the Internal Economy Commission removed the bar on the auditor general but stipulated the audits would be from April 2004 forward. That restriction was only removed after Noseworthy's allegation in June 2006 when he was sent back to re-do his original work.
The Auditor General has been legally able to audit the House of Assembly accounts for all but a two year period. Under the Financial Administration Act, the AG cannot legally be barred from reviewing the comptroller general's payment records. Those records form the basis of the Public Accounts and include details of the overspending from FY 1998 to FY 2005 Noseworthy has thus far not discussed.
Neither Sullivan nor Noseworthy has explained the discrepancy in their version of events or why the auditor general's office did not comment on the consistent overspending of the allowances account between 1998 and 2005.
Suppliers' payments don't fill in gaps in story
Noseworthy has also questioned payments to four suppliers made by the legislature between 1998 and 2005.Figure 3 (above) compares the payments, based on the Auditor General's reports
However, while Noseworthy has alleged some goods purchased from the companies was never received, he has not been able to demonstrate this conclusively. In his initial report, Noseworthy claimed his office had been unable to confirm that items - such as expensive but poorly made signet rings - had been delivered. Within an hour of Noseworthy's news conference last summer, several rings turned up.
As well, Noseworthy has only attributed only a small portion the $2.6 million apparently paid to the companies to the five individual members of the House of Assembly. Most notably, though, the payments to the companies made in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total more than the entire overspending for the period as reported in the Public Accounts.
AG admits definition of "inappropriate" will be highly subjective
Rather than provide a complete explanation of overspending in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General will now focus his attention on how members of the legislature spent money allocated for constituency expenses regardless of whether the members overspent their accounts.
This is actually outside the mandate given him by cabinet in July 2006, while a detailed accounting of the overspending between 1998 and 2005 would be exactly described in his charge to conduct "detailed audits" for the period.
Attention will be focused, some believe, on former finance minister Paul Dicks who allegedly purchased wine and artwork from his constituency budget. According to some reports, Noseworthy and his then-boss Elizabeth Marshall were reviewing Dicks' accounts when they were barred from the legislature books in 2002.
Noseworthy has indicated this portion of his review - which may or may not be completed before the next general election - will examine spending dating back to 1989. Noseworthy's hunt for overspending by individual members found nothing before 1997. Bond Papers predicted as much in June.
At the same time, some members of the legislature, including Liberal opposition leader Gerry Reid and Speaker Harvey Hodder, the Progressive Conservative member of the legislature for Waterford Valley have admitted to providing donations to groups in their districts and purchasing personal advertising from their constituency allowances.
In an interview with CBC television's Debbie Cooper, Noseworthy said he will be basing his assessment of "appropriate" spending by compiling a database of what members were spending allowances on. He told Cooper his definition of "appropriate" would be subjective.
08 December 2006
Mine is not as small as yours.
VOCM radio listeners were treated a little while ago to a cabinet minister with nothing better to do than compare his political shortcomings to those of the Opposition leader.
Opposition leader Gerry Reid apparently earlier made the observation that the current session of the House is the shortest in some time.
Never and Can't minister John Hickey apparently took some time from finding the signed contract for the Trans-Labrador Highway to go check Hansard to see if Reid's claim was correct.
Turns out there was an eight day session in December 2000 during the brief interlude between Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes.
Ok. So the current session, at a mere 15 days isn't the shortest on recent record. It is worth noting, however, that the session Hickey mentioned was never likely to be a time of great legislation.
Not say like what we would expect from a government in the third year of its mandate and presumably with signed roads contracts to bring before the legislature or anything.
But the really odd thing about Hickey's comment is that it was the opposite of the usual testosterone-fueled competition one expects from some politicians. Rather than arguing that his was bigger than Reid's, Hickey argued that while his session may be small, Reid's was in fact smaller.
Hmmm.
Perhaps we shouldn't remind Hickey and Reid that in the early 1990s the House routinely sat for 90 odd days a year.
That would make mine bigger than both of theirs put together.
Opposition leader Gerry Reid apparently earlier made the observation that the current session of the House is the shortest in some time.
Never and Can't minister John Hickey apparently took some time from finding the signed contract for the Trans-Labrador Highway to go check Hansard to see if Reid's claim was correct.
Turns out there was an eight day session in December 2000 during the brief interlude between Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes.
Ok. So the current session, at a mere 15 days isn't the shortest on recent record. It is worth noting, however, that the session Hickey mentioned was never likely to be a time of great legislation.
Not say like what we would expect from a government in the third year of its mandate and presumably with signed roads contracts to bring before the legislature or anything.
But the really odd thing about Hickey's comment is that it was the opposite of the usual testosterone-fueled competition one expects from some politicians. Rather than arguing that his was bigger than Reid's, Hickey argued that while his session may be small, Reid's was in fact smaller.
Hmmm.
Perhaps we shouldn't remind Hickey and Reid that in the early 1990s the House routinely sat for 90 odd days a year.
That would make mine bigger than both of theirs put together.
Is it just me...
or is there something appropriate in the actor - (Kevin Noble, right, not exactly as illustrated) - who made a career impersonating Joe Smallwood (Below left, not exactly as illustrated, either) now spending his days calling talk shows and using lines spoken - virtually word for word - not so long ago by the current Premier?
If the Premier's publicity department is sending out scripts, it must make sense to have an actor deliver them.And while, we are talking about it, The Telegram editorial makes some choice observations about recent goings-on in the world of talk radio:
Even open-line hosts will admit that few of their callers are everyday people anymore. The shows have become political soapboxes, free political broadcast time for both cabinet members and the opposition.
And when the official politicians hang up, they hand the phone lines over to imaginary man-on-the-street supporters - supporters who are just as organized as FakeMySpace's twice-weekly fake e-mails.
Recognizing this - and not happy to be a tool in someone else's political machine - radio hosts are becoming chippier. The seasoned ones know that when they hear someone parroting the official "messaging" - "Forget about that fibre-optic deal, Bill. I'm just glad we have a leader like Danny Williams with vision ..." - it's time for the gloves to come off.
Let's hope some of the hosts see the value of unmasking those callers who are little more than models with scripted messages. Otherwise, the value of having a public radio forum will be severely diminished.
Williams government announces investment in public cynicism
While Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be a revenue generator for the province, the provincial government will be pumping money into the company two ways in order to keep Hydro rates artificially low during an election year.
The announcement on Friday comes near the end of the most difficult political session the Williams administration has faced since it was first elected in October 2003.
Read the Hydro release here and the provincial government announcement here.
Hydro has withdrawn its original application for a rate increase based on injections of over $10 million by the Williams administration. The $10 million was previously announced. Friday's announcement includes $400,000 in 2007 and another $200,000 in 2008 to keep consumer rates low.
As the government release notes, their cash injection merely forestalls the original rate increase until 2008.
The provincial general election will take place in October 2007.
The announcement on Friday comes near the end of the most difficult political session the Williams administration has faced since it was first elected in October 2003.
Read the Hydro release here and the provincial government announcement here.
Hydro has withdrawn its original application for a rate increase based on injections of over $10 million by the Williams administration. The $10 million was previously announced. Friday's announcement includes $400,000 in 2007 and another $200,000 in 2008 to keep consumer rates low.
As the government release notes, their cash injection merely forestalls the original rate increase until 2008.
The provincial general election will take place in October 2007.
07 December 2006
Cleary sacked
Less than two weeks after defending Bull Arm Corporation boss Joan Cleary over allegations a contract had been improperly let, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale announced suddenly in the House of Assembly today that she had sacked Cleary over questions about another tender.
A hastily drafted news release emerged from the provincial government at 5:35 pm today, over three hours after Dunderdale's announcement.
Dunderdale's announcement is a de facto admission that her previous defence of Cleary wasn't motivated by the facts but by something else like political expediency. Cleary - the former Tory candidate in Bellevue district - was appointed to the president's job despite her evident lack of qualifications and despite the fact Bull Arm Corp has survived for years without a senior executive.
The Liberal comments about Bull Arm being a haven of patronage are a little hypocritical given the record of appointing prominent Liberals to positions at the offshore fabrication site.
But the key point is that the current administration was supposed to do things differently.
So much for the New Approach...yet again.
A hastily drafted news release emerged from the provincial government at 5:35 pm today, over three hours after Dunderdale's announcement.
Dunderdale's announcement is a de facto admission that her previous defence of Cleary wasn't motivated by the facts but by something else like political expediency. Cleary - the former Tory candidate in Bellevue district - was appointed to the president's job despite her evident lack of qualifications and despite the fact Bull Arm Corp has survived for years without a senior executive.
The Liberal comments about Bull Arm being a haven of patronage are a little hypocritical given the record of appointing prominent Liberals to positions at the offshore fabrication site.
But the key point is that the current administration was supposed to do things differently.
So much for the New Approach...yet again.
Rain Man drippy
I'm a strong believer that every cent of money that was received inappropriately should be paid back. It's taxpayers' money.
That's a quote from finance minister Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan (left, looking a tad dyspeptic) speaking about overpayments allegedly made to current and former members of the House of Assembly.But here's the thing: while no sane person would disagree with Sullivan's comments, every sane person in the province wonders about the comment coming from the individual who sat on the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission for a good chunk of the overspending period. Sullivan's tenure included the time of some of the worst overspending, if we accept at face value the Auditor General's reports.
As such he knew or should have known what was going on. If he didn't, then we need to know why he didn't.
Sullivan's comments get a little more odd - if that's possible - considering that for two of the years involved he served both on IEC and as finance minister. As such he had financial reports coming to him from both the House of Assembly and from the province's Comptroller General. Some of us would like to know given that situation how Sullivan was blissfully unaware of the alleged financial improprieties.
Let's not even get into having Loyola explain how he could present grossly incorrect figures to the House of Assembly for two budgets in a row. The real figures - eventually released in the official Public Accounts - showed total overspending in members' allowances in the legislature of more than $1.0 million in 2004 and 2005 combined. Loyola's Estimates showed members' allowances as being exactly on budget.
Methinks the Rain Man is all wet.
Remember...
the talking point drafted by the premier's publicity department and circulated widely among cabinet ministers, government members and the Pitcher Plant callers that used to clog radio call-in shows?
It was the reason not to have a public inquiry into the entire spending scandal at the House of Assembly. An inquiry that would include commissioners with the power to subpoena testimony and documents and basically get to the bottom of everything likely long before the next election.
An inquiry that would stand in contrast to the one by Chief Justice Green - who only appears to have subpoena powers (I read the order in council) - or Auditor General John Noseworthy who will spend more than a year scowering the books and come up about where he already is.
Remember, they all said a public inquiry would cost too much.
I guess they never figured the Premier's approach to managing the crisis would cost more and deliver far less in the way of reliable information on everyone who has some responsibility for the mess than a public inquiry.
It was the reason not to have a public inquiry into the entire spending scandal at the House of Assembly. An inquiry that would include commissioners with the power to subpoena testimony and documents and basically get to the bottom of everything likely long before the next election.
An inquiry that would stand in contrast to the one by Chief Justice Green - who only appears to have subpoena powers (I read the order in council) - or Auditor General John Noseworthy who will spend more than a year scowering the books and come up about where he already is.
Remember, they all said a public inquiry would cost too much.
I guess they never figured the Premier's approach to managing the crisis would cost more and deliver far less in the way of reliable information on everyone who has some responsibility for the mess than a public inquiry.
Payback is a mother
[Originally posted 06 Dec 06.]
Ok.
So if Auditor General John "Baubles" Noseworthy thinks that everyone he has accused should automatically pay back the amounts he has identified, let's up the ante.
Premier Danny Williams had it right. If due process - something Noseworthy clearly knows nothing about - determines facts and responsibility, then there are legal means to recover any money misappropriated. The Premier correctly said that we should all let the process work.
If Noseworthy turns out to be right, then yeah the people involved should make restitution. All of 'em, including the people on the Internal Economy Commission Noseworthy seems reluctant to discuss for some inexplicable reason.
But only after due process.
On the other hand if it turns out Noseworthy conducted as fundamentally flawed a set of audits as Bond Papers would contend - incompetent might be a better word - then let John dig into his bank account and repay to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador every red cent spent since he made his first accusation.
It's only fair.
________________________
Update [07 Dec 06]: Apparently Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan, minister of finance and oddly enough a guy who has much to answer for in this scandal himself, hasn't consulted Danny Williams on recovering money. Sullivan told news media he already has an "office" looking into collecting the cash.
Sullivan was a member of the Commission of Internal Economy during much of the period when overspending took place. Sullivan spoke in support of changes to the IEC legislation in 1999 that Auditor general John Noseworthy has criticized. IEC is an executive committee of the legislature responsible for approving budgets, budget over-runs and generally overseeing House operations.
It is odd that Sullivan wasn't aware not only of the overspending Noseworthy found but also the half million dollars overspent by members of the legislature in each year since Sullivan has been finance and a member of the IEC.
Both Sullivan and Noseworthy knew about that overspending and approved it. Incidentally, Noseworthy only accounted for $200K of the total for '04 and '05. Noseworthy still hasn't explained the other $800K in overspending for those years.
Update Update: And then there's the rest of the cash. Not only has Auditor General John Noseworthy cost taxpayers the better part of a million bucks on his "audits" thus far, CBC Radio is now reporting that Chief Justice Derek Green and his retinue of part-time lawyers and researchers has set the public back about $600,000 for their review designed to recommend a new set of rules for pay and allowances for members.
Green is almost finished his report; he has committed to getting the paperwork handed in by the end of January. Noseworthy said this week the rest of his "audit" will take well into 2008. Noseworthy's office alone will wind up costing taxpayers more than he allegedly found in overspending by members. All told, taxpapers will be lucky if the total tab resulting from Noseworthy's allegations doesn't exceed the $4.4 million he alleges was diddlied.
In the meantime, we still don't have current Public Accounts and Noseworthy still hasn't explained the overspending that occured in 2004 and 2005.
Does the AG get paid by the hour?
Ok.
So if Auditor General John "Baubles" Noseworthy thinks that everyone he has accused should automatically pay back the amounts he has identified, let's up the ante.
Premier Danny Williams had it right. If due process - something Noseworthy clearly knows nothing about - determines facts and responsibility, then there are legal means to recover any money misappropriated. The Premier correctly said that we should all let the process work.
If Noseworthy turns out to be right, then yeah the people involved should make restitution. All of 'em, including the people on the Internal Economy Commission Noseworthy seems reluctant to discuss for some inexplicable reason.
But only after due process.
On the other hand if it turns out Noseworthy conducted as fundamentally flawed a set of audits as Bond Papers would contend - incompetent might be a better word - then let John dig into his bank account and repay to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador every red cent spent since he made his first accusation.
It's only fair.
________________________
Update [07 Dec 06]: Apparently Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan, minister of finance and oddly enough a guy who has much to answer for in this scandal himself, hasn't consulted Danny Williams on recovering money. Sullivan told news media he already has an "office" looking into collecting the cash.
Sullivan was a member of the Commission of Internal Economy during much of the period when overspending took place. Sullivan spoke in support of changes to the IEC legislation in 1999 that Auditor general John Noseworthy has criticized. IEC is an executive committee of the legislature responsible for approving budgets, budget over-runs and generally overseeing House operations.
It is odd that Sullivan wasn't aware not only of the overspending Noseworthy found but also the half million dollars overspent by members of the legislature in each year since Sullivan has been finance and a member of the IEC.
Both Sullivan and Noseworthy knew about that overspending and approved it. Incidentally, Noseworthy only accounted for $200K of the total for '04 and '05. Noseworthy still hasn't explained the other $800K in overspending for those years.
Update Update: And then there's the rest of the cash. Not only has Auditor General John Noseworthy cost taxpayers the better part of a million bucks on his "audits" thus far, CBC Radio is now reporting that Chief Justice Derek Green and his retinue of part-time lawyers and researchers has set the public back about $600,000 for their review designed to recommend a new set of rules for pay and allowances for members.
Green is almost finished his report; he has committed to getting the paperwork handed in by the end of January. Noseworthy said this week the rest of his "audit" will take well into 2008. Noseworthy's office alone will wind up costing taxpayers more than he allegedly found in overspending by members. All told, taxpapers will be lucky if the total tab resulting from Noseworthy's allegations doesn't exceed the $4.4 million he alleges was diddlied.
In the meantime, we still don't have current Public Accounts and Noseworthy still hasn't explained the overspending that occured in 2004 and 2005.
Does the AG get paid by the hour?
Out in the cold
A few years ago, I used to slave in the coalmines of Confederation Building. One of my tasks was dealing with requests for people to hold protests, demonstrations or speeches in the lobby of the building's East Block.
Convention since Joe Smallwood's day was that the East Block was part of the House of Assembly or at least shared with it and as such the lobby was pretty much open to gatherings. Provided of course the stuff was non-violent. Over ths seven years I was there we had a few loud groups and more than few 20s of Lambs or Morgan got passed around at the bigger ones. By and large, though, things went off smoothly.
As much as it might have been painful sometimes, we facilitated the protests. Sometimes, we even earned a few small brownie points for respecting people's right to tell the administration I worked for that we were all the products of successive generations of first cousin intermarriage.
That wasn't a unique put-down, by the way; every Newfoundland government since the year dot is apparently composed of inbreeding the likes of which is unknown outside certain European royal families.
But I digress.
So why was it that the multiple sclerosis people - holding a small demonstration to get help for catastrophic medical costs - had to stage their protest in the cold and snow on the front steps of the Confederation Building?
As Bond Papers got the story, the whole thing was originally signed off and approved to be indoors.
That is until the wonderful crew in Transportation and Works(John "I have a signed contract on my desk in front of me" Hickey, minister) realized these protests were going to criticize the Williams administration, albeit in a polite way. The front line official checked with the powers that be - likely including the comms director -and the people with multiple sclerosis were told that unless they had a sponsoring department, they were SOL.
As it turns out, that's not far off what they have been told anyway by the Department of Health on their request for financial help, but that's another story.
But here's the thing. Departments don't "sponsor" anyone but friendly groups. So unless you are going to stand in the lobby of Confed Building and sing hymns of praise to the current administration, better think again about exercising your right to free speech in a public building anytime at all soon.
According to the department known generally as Never and Can't - never works and can't transport - the public lobby of a public building adjacent to the House of Assembly is no place for political free speech.
Convention since Joe Smallwood's day was that the East Block was part of the House of Assembly or at least shared with it and as such the lobby was pretty much open to gatherings. Provided of course the stuff was non-violent. Over ths seven years I was there we had a few loud groups and more than few 20s of Lambs or Morgan got passed around at the bigger ones. By and large, though, things went off smoothly.
As much as it might have been painful sometimes, we facilitated the protests. Sometimes, we even earned a few small brownie points for respecting people's right to tell the administration I worked for that we were all the products of successive generations of first cousin intermarriage.
That wasn't a unique put-down, by the way; every Newfoundland government since the year dot is apparently composed of inbreeding the likes of which is unknown outside certain European royal families.
But I digress.
So why was it that the multiple sclerosis people - holding a small demonstration to get help for catastrophic medical costs - had to stage their protest in the cold and snow on the front steps of the Confederation Building?
As Bond Papers got the story, the whole thing was originally signed off and approved to be indoors.
That is until the wonderful crew in Transportation and Works(John "I have a signed contract on my desk in front of me" Hickey, minister) realized these protests were going to criticize the Williams administration, albeit in a polite way. The front line official checked with the powers that be - likely including the comms director -and the people with multiple sclerosis were told that unless they had a sponsoring department, they were SOL.
As it turns out, that's not far off what they have been told anyway by the Department of Health on their request for financial help, but that's another story.
But here's the thing. Departments don't "sponsor" anyone but friendly groups. So unless you are going to stand in the lobby of Confed Building and sing hymns of praise to the current administration, better think again about exercising your right to free speech in a public building anytime at all soon.
According to the department known generally as Never and Can't - never works and can't transport - the public lobby of a public building adjacent to the House of Assembly is no place for political free speech.
06 December 2006
Scandal checklist
Scroll down the right-hand column and you will find a set of links to previous posts on the House of Assembly spending scandal.
When the story was new and hot there was plenty to scribble about.
In light of some of this week's events - including AG John Noseworthy's return to an accusation he previously admitted can't back up - it's useful to check on what happened before. You see, Noseworthy likes to accuse people of participating in a criminal conspiracy because he has forms and cheques with signatures at the bottom of them. If the name is yours, he will accuse you of fiddling the Crown out of cash.
Well, not only hasn't Noseworthy checked into the accounts themselves to see where the money went, he also hadn't even bothered to rule out fraud and forgery before he pointed his finger at anyone he felt deserved it.
Cavalier isn't strong enough an adjective to describe his attitude.
When the story was new and hot there was plenty to scribble about.
In light of some of this week's events - including AG John Noseworthy's return to an accusation he previously admitted can't back up - it's useful to check on what happened before. You see, Noseworthy likes to accuse people of participating in a criminal conspiracy because he has forms and cheques with signatures at the bottom of them. If the name is yours, he will accuse you of fiddling the Crown out of cash.
Well, not only hasn't Noseworthy checked into the accounts themselves to see where the money went, he also hadn't even bothered to rule out fraud and forgery before he pointed his finger at anyone he felt deserved it.
Cavalier isn't strong enough an adjective to describe his attitude.
Auditor General missed about a million in recent overspending?
While everyone may have been on holidays when this one broke, here's a Bond Paper from August that notes the House of Assembly overspent members' allowances by over half a million dollars in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
For those who remember, that's two fiscal years after Auditor General John Noseworthy originally contended problems with the House accounts were fixed. It's also considerably more than the amounts Noseworthy alleges were paid to two sitting members of the House during those years.
On top of that, Bond Papers pointed out in August that for two successive budgets, finance minister Loyola Sullivan misreported House of Assembly spending during his term as finance minister. The financial statement released in August also contained columns of figures that were presented in a way that suggested they had previously been released. As such, the presentation diverted attention from the misrepresentations in the spring budgets.
The figures hadn't been made public at all.
The finance minister knew or should have known the correct figures on actual spending. Those figures come from the Comptroller General's office which issues cheques for all departments and the House of Assembly. If accounts were overspent, the Comptroller General caught it or should have caught it and reported it to his boss, Loyola Sullivan.
Has anyone asked Loyola Sullivan why his Estimates numbers for the House of Assembly were wrong two years in a row?
Has anyone asked Auditor General John Noseworthy to explain the discrepancy between his figures and the Comptroller General's numbers?
Incidentally, Noseworthy audits and approves the Public Accounts statements normally published every year in November. So where are the audited public accounts for 2005?
The Financial Administration Act gives Loyola and John until February 1 to produce them, but surely the figures aren't so complex they have to be postponed, especially since Sullivan was able to release what amounts to Volume III of the Public Accounts back in August.
For those who remember, that's two fiscal years after Auditor General John Noseworthy originally contended problems with the House accounts were fixed. It's also considerably more than the amounts Noseworthy alleges were paid to two sitting members of the House during those years.
On top of that, Bond Papers pointed out in August that for two successive budgets, finance minister Loyola Sullivan misreported House of Assembly spending during his term as finance minister. The financial statement released in August also contained columns of figures that were presented in a way that suggested they had previously been released. As such, the presentation diverted attention from the misrepresentations in the spring budgets.
The figures hadn't been made public at all.
The finance minister knew or should have known the correct figures on actual spending. Those figures come from the Comptroller General's office which issues cheques for all departments and the House of Assembly. If accounts were overspent, the Comptroller General caught it or should have caught it and reported it to his boss, Loyola Sullivan.
Has anyone asked Loyola Sullivan why his Estimates numbers for the House of Assembly were wrong two years in a row?
Has anyone asked Auditor General John Noseworthy to explain the discrepancy between his figures and the Comptroller General's numbers?
Incidentally, Noseworthy audits and approves the Public Accounts statements normally published every year in November. So where are the audited public accounts for 2005?
The Financial Administration Act gives Loyola and John until February 1 to produce them, but surely the figures aren't so complex they have to be postponed, especially since Sullivan was able to release what amounts to Volume III of the Public Accounts back in August.
NL government breaking medicare principles
600 MS patients cannot access medically-necessary drug treatments due to lack of government support
December 6, 2006, St. John's, NL -- The Multiple Sclerosis Society took its campaign for universal drug coverage to the House of Assembly today to highlight that Newfoundland and Labrador's lack of drug coverage for MS patients is inconsistent with the principles of medicare.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that does not provide universal coverage of MS drugs. While the provincial government covers the drug costs of people on social assistance, seniors and those in long-term care, the lack of universal coverage has left over 600 Newfoundlanders without access to the drugs they need to manage their disease and slow its progression. Many others with MS have been forced to go on social assistance in order to qualify for drug coverage.
"Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, used to say that no one should have to lose their farm because of an illness," said Sean Kirby, vice chair of the MS SociAtlantictlantic division board. "MS patients in this province should not have to quit their jobs, give up their life savings and raise their families in poverty because of their illness. Nor should they have to do without medically-necessary drugs that are available to patients in every other province. The government's refusal to provide drug coverage to all MS patients is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our health system."
"The sad truth is that MS patients are better off in every other province in the country than they are here," said Kirby. "Patients in Newfoundland and Labrador should get the same care as other Canadians."
Margaret Rideout, a fisherwoman from Burin Peninsula who was diagnosed with MS three years ago, is one of many MS patients in Newfoundland and Labrador who have chosen to continue working to help support their families instead of going on social assistance to get government drug coverage. Ms. Rideout, who is married and has a four year old daughter, cannot afford to pay the cost of the drugs ($17,000-$27,000 per year), so she simply does without. The provincial government would pay for her drugs if she quit work and went on social assistance.
"Someone with MS basically has to be poverty-stricken to get any help from the provincial government," said Ms. Rideout. "Not only would I have to quit work and go on social assistance to get drug coverage, my husband and I would have to get rid of our investments and never save anything for retirement to meet the government's financial rules. Getting government drug coverage would mean committing my family to a life of poverty forever."
"I want to work and set a good example for my daughter. I want to contribute to the province and not be a drain on it," said Ms. Rideout. "It is wrong that the government is forcing me to choose between supporting my family and getting access to the drug treatments I need."
The lack of universal drug coverage also has terrible impacts on the provincial government's finances, the economy and communities. When MS patients cannot take their drugs, their health deteriorates and government health care costs increase as a result. When MS patients are forced to go on social assistance to get drug coverage, the provincial government ends up paying their drug costs plus social assistance payments and other related costs. In other words, it would be cheaper for the government to pay the drug costs for all MS patients than it is force them into poverty in order to meet government drug program rules.
Most MS patients are diagnosed when they are relatively young - between the ages of 15 and 40. With universal drug coverage, most would be able to contribute to the province, the economy and their communities for their entire lifetimes. Without universal drug coverage, they are forced into a life of poverty and deteriorating health.
The MS Society is urging the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish in its 2007 budget an MS-specific drug program that ensures every person with MS receives the drug treatments they need to manage their disease.
-30-
Contact:
Sarah Cowan
Manager of Communications and Government Relations
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 981-4996
Sean Kirby
Vice Chair of the Board
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 222-6930
December 6, 2006, St. John's, NL -- The Multiple Sclerosis Society took its campaign for universal drug coverage to the House of Assembly today to highlight that Newfoundland and Labrador's lack of drug coverage for MS patients is inconsistent with the principles of medicare.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that does not provide universal coverage of MS drugs. While the provincial government covers the drug costs of people on social assistance, seniors and those in long-term care, the lack of universal coverage has left over 600 Newfoundlanders without access to the drugs they need to manage their disease and slow its progression. Many others with MS have been forced to go on social assistance in order to qualify for drug coverage.
"Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, used to say that no one should have to lose their farm because of an illness," said Sean Kirby, vice chair of the MS SociAtlantictlantic division board. "MS patients in this province should not have to quit their jobs, give up their life savings and raise their families in poverty because of their illness. Nor should they have to do without medically-necessary drugs that are available to patients in every other province. The government's refusal to provide drug coverage to all MS patients is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our health system."
"The sad truth is that MS patients are better off in every other province in the country than they are here," said Kirby. "Patients in Newfoundland and Labrador should get the same care as other Canadians."
Margaret Rideout, a fisherwoman from Burin Peninsula who was diagnosed with MS three years ago, is one of many MS patients in Newfoundland and Labrador who have chosen to continue working to help support their families instead of going on social assistance to get government drug coverage. Ms. Rideout, who is married and has a four year old daughter, cannot afford to pay the cost of the drugs ($17,000-$27,000 per year), so she simply does without. The provincial government would pay for her drugs if she quit work and went on social assistance.
"Someone with MS basically has to be poverty-stricken to get any help from the provincial government," said Ms. Rideout. "Not only would I have to quit work and go on social assistance to get drug coverage, my husband and I would have to get rid of our investments and never save anything for retirement to meet the government's financial rules. Getting government drug coverage would mean committing my family to a life of poverty forever."
"I want to work and set a good example for my daughter. I want to contribute to the province and not be a drain on it," said Ms. Rideout. "It is wrong that the government is forcing me to choose between supporting my family and getting access to the drug treatments I need."
The lack of universal drug coverage also has terrible impacts on the provincial government's finances, the economy and communities. When MS patients cannot take their drugs, their health deteriorates and government health care costs increase as a result. When MS patients are forced to go on social assistance to get drug coverage, the provincial government ends up paying their drug costs plus social assistance payments and other related costs. In other words, it would be cheaper for the government to pay the drug costs for all MS patients than it is force them into poverty in order to meet government drug program rules.
Most MS patients are diagnosed when they are relatively young - between the ages of 15 and 40. With universal drug coverage, most would be able to contribute to the province, the economy and their communities for their entire lifetimes. Without universal drug coverage, they are forced into a life of poverty and deteriorating health.
The MS Society is urging the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish in its 2007 budget an MS-specific drug program that ensures every person with MS receives the drug treatments they need to manage their disease.
-30-
Contact:
Sarah Cowan
Manager of Communications and Government Relations
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 981-4996
Sean Kirby
Vice Chair of the Board
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 222-6930
05 December 2006
Another N.B. Premier for Danny to fight
Enter Shawn Graham and the Conference of Atlantic Premiers' meeting in St. John's on December 6.
Will Danny respect a premier standing up for his province or pick a fight with the guy because he doesn't agree with Danny on Equalization?
Will Danny respect a premier standing up for his province or pick a fight with the guy because he doesn't agree with Danny on Equalization?
Any day now
Corporate Research Associates released results of its Prince Edward Island quarterly political polling on Tuesday.
If past patterns hold, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will be next followed by Newfoundland and Labrador on Friday or next Monday. CRA might skip NB this time since the Graham government is so new in office.
No predictions, but it is noticeable that government hasn't really been doing as much poll goosing this time around.
If past patterns hold, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will be next followed by Newfoundland and Labrador on Friday or next Monday. CRA might skip NB this time since the Graham government is so new in office.
No predictions, but it is noticeable that government hasn't really been doing as much poll goosing this time around.
Noseworthy order-in-council [dated 19 July 2006]
Revised: 11:30 AM 05 Dec 06
Following is the text of the order-in-council directing the Auditor General to conduct certain reviews of House of Assembly accounts:
Following is the text of the order-in-council directing the Auditor General to conduct certain reviews of House of Assembly accounts:
MC2006-0366. [Minute of Council 0366 issued in 2006]
Under the authority of section 16 of the Auditor General Act, and consistent with the Resolution of the Internal Economy Commission, the Lieutenant Governor in Council hereby requests that the Auditor General carry out the following:
i) annual audits of the accounts of the House of Assembly from fiscal years 1999/2000 to 2003/2004; and,
ii) a review of constituency allowances between 1989 and 2004 further to the Morgan Commission Report, to determine whether overspending occurred at the constituency level beyond funds which were approved, authorized, or provided for through Internal Economy Commission policy.
//signed//
Robert C. Thompson
Clerk of the Executive Council
______________________
Bond Papers Explanatory Notes
1. As with all similar documents, this one is headed: "Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Executive Council of Newfoundland and Labrador approved by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on..." This is followed by the date for this MC: "2006/07/19".
2. MC = Minute of Council.
3. On the left hand, the document contains an order in council number and a distribution list.
OC2006-295 [Order in council 295 issued in 2006. This is the number cited by the Auditor General]
P[Premier; Bold is used here to distinguish the entry from the explanatory notes]]
Hon T. Rideout (A) [Indicates deputy premier Tom Rideout. (A) normally denotes someone functioning in an acting capacity]
J. Noel [John Noel, former clerk of the House of Assembly, secretary of the Internal Economy Commission]
H. Hodder [Harvey Hodder, Speaker of the House of Assembly, chair of the Internal Economy Commission]
AG [Auditor General (?) John Noseworthy]
Deputy Clerk [of the Executive Council]
File [Denotes a copy is to be retained on file in accordance with normal documents management processes.]
04 December 2006
Latest AG report on Tuesday
Provincial auditor general John "Baubles" Noseworthy will release his latest report on spending in the House of Assembly on Tuesday at 10:00 AM local time.
True to form for Noseworthy, it is unclear from the news release whether Noseworthy will release both portions of his report or just one.
In July Noseworthy was tasked by cabinet with conducting comprehensive audits of the House of Assembly accounts for the period from Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2003.
To be clear, Noseworthy previously confused the dates when conducting his reviews and releasing his information. This should mean that this portion of Noseworthy's report would cover from 01 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.
Part of that period was already covered by previous reports. While it was not previously described this way by government or House of Assembly officials, Noseworthy was given revised terms of reference to offset a procedural problem with his earlier audits.
The second part of his mandate was to review any excess expenditure of constituency allowances by members of the House of Assembly beyond what was approved by the House Internal Economy Commission. This portion of the review would cover the period from 01 April 1989 to the present.
Noseworthy's release describes his report on Tuesday as being about "excess constituency allowance claims by Members of the House of Assembly."
Taken at face value, this would mean he would be releasing the larger and more complex review dating back almost 18 years and involved over 100 current and former members of the legislature. This may turn out to be the easiest to complete, though, since Noseworthy was only tasked with reviewing one of several allowances available to members of the legislature.
Furthermore, he was only tasked with identifying overspending that had not been approved by the IEC. Operating like treasury board or an executive committee, IEC has the authority to approve expenditures beyond budgeted amounts based on agreed-upon criteria. Overspending could occur, but if approved by IEC it would be beyond Noseworthy's mandate to discuss it. Former finance minister Paul Dicks made this point.
Considerable confusion in Noseworthy's earlier reports suggested that the Auditor General and his auditors did not understand the House expenditures. Constituency allowances, as defined by the 1989 Morgan Commission report was one of several district-related allowances available to members of the legislature to cover costs of serving as a full-time elected representative.
In his earlier reports, Noseworthy routinely lumped constituency allowances with travel and other allowances. This occurred despite Noseworthy's including the Morgan Commission report's definition of constituency allowances in each of his reports. See, for example, the report on New Democrat legislator Randy Collins. There were also discrepancies among the reports on all four current and former legislators.
The gold standard of professional public auditing remains the Auditor General of Canada. Her most recent report included allegations against a senior public servant. The allegations were back by both meticulous research and meticulous reporting of the research. Take a look at the report at the AG website, and then compare it to whatever her local counterpart releases on Tuesday.
True to form for Noseworthy, it is unclear from the news release whether Noseworthy will release both portions of his report or just one.
In July Noseworthy was tasked by cabinet with conducting comprehensive audits of the House of Assembly accounts for the period from Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2003.
To be clear, Noseworthy previously confused the dates when conducting his reviews and releasing his information. This should mean that this portion of Noseworthy's report would cover from 01 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.
Part of that period was already covered by previous reports. While it was not previously described this way by government or House of Assembly officials, Noseworthy was given revised terms of reference to offset a procedural problem with his earlier audits.
The second part of his mandate was to review any excess expenditure of constituency allowances by members of the House of Assembly beyond what was approved by the House Internal Economy Commission. This portion of the review would cover the period from 01 April 1989 to the present.
Noseworthy's release describes his report on Tuesday as being about "excess constituency allowance claims by Members of the House of Assembly."
Taken at face value, this would mean he would be releasing the larger and more complex review dating back almost 18 years and involved over 100 current and former members of the legislature. This may turn out to be the easiest to complete, though, since Noseworthy was only tasked with reviewing one of several allowances available to members of the legislature.
Furthermore, he was only tasked with identifying overspending that had not been approved by the IEC. Operating like treasury board or an executive committee, IEC has the authority to approve expenditures beyond budgeted amounts based on agreed-upon criteria. Overspending could occur, but if approved by IEC it would be beyond Noseworthy's mandate to discuss it. Former finance minister Paul Dicks made this point.
Considerable confusion in Noseworthy's earlier reports suggested that the Auditor General and his auditors did not understand the House expenditures. Constituency allowances, as defined by the 1989 Morgan Commission report was one of several district-related allowances available to members of the legislature to cover costs of serving as a full-time elected representative.
In his earlier reports, Noseworthy routinely lumped constituency allowances with travel and other allowances. This occurred despite Noseworthy's including the Morgan Commission report's definition of constituency allowances in each of his reports. See, for example, the report on New Democrat legislator Randy Collins. There were also discrepancies among the reports on all four current and former legislators.
The gold standard of professional public auditing remains the Auditor General of Canada. Her most recent report included allegations against a senior public servant. The allegations were back by both meticulous research and meticulous reporting of the research. Take a look at the report at the AG website, and then compare it to whatever her local counterpart releases on Tuesday.
Kilbride Tories have a battle
Well, at least among themselves for the nomination.
Former teacher and St. John's city councilor John Dinn already declared.
Today, the Telegram reports that 32-year old Sean Hammond, scion of another BFT family in the district, is looking for the Tory nomination to replace Ed Byrne.
Hammond grew up across the street from your humble e-scribbler. He's a smart and aggressive young guy back by impressive Tory connections and credentials.
Meanwhile, the Liberal establishment seems to have already decided on its candidate. District association president Bob Clarke announced his candidacy shortly before the party announced its nomination call would be inexplicably really short.
Maybe, Bond was a little premature to congratulation Dinn. Let's revise our congrats to Dinn or Hammond, depending on which one wins the nomination. Either way, the Libs have already ceded the by-election.
The New Democrats still haven't announced what they plan to do.
Former teacher and St. John's city councilor John Dinn already declared.
Today, the Telegram reports that 32-year old Sean Hammond, scion of another BFT family in the district, is looking for the Tory nomination to replace Ed Byrne.
Hammond grew up across the street from your humble e-scribbler. He's a smart and aggressive young guy back by impressive Tory connections and credentials.
Meanwhile, the Liberal establishment seems to have already decided on its candidate. District association president Bob Clarke announced his candidacy shortly before the party announced its nomination call would be inexplicably really short.
Maybe, Bond was a little premature to congratulation Dinn. Let's revise our congrats to Dinn or Hammond, depending on which one wins the nomination. Either way, the Libs have already ceded the by-election.
The New Democrats still haven't announced what they plan to do.
So what is Potsie doing these days?
Celebrity life is cruel.One day your saying or gesture or hairstyle is making magazine covers across the globe.
Next day, you are doing dinner theatre in Boise with the guy who played Eddie Haskell on Leave it to Beaver while across the street the chick who played whashername on that show that didn't last too long is trying to save souls with stories about the hard life of a child celebrity.
Same thing with politicians.
One day you are hitting 97% support in the polls. (remember the Accord?)
Not so very long later, people are wondering who the frig put the sand in your Vaseline this time? Those stroke moments seem fewer and much farther between no matter how hard the publicity department tries to get your picture out there (right).Like in theatre, taking it on the road is proof the show has had its run in the big halls. Now it's time to bring the Lard of the Dance experience to Wallingford Connecticut with the second team of dancers.
And it isn't like being a cartoon character where your catch phrases just effortlessly morph into cultural icons.
Yosemite Sam? Still funny half a century after he first sputtered after the rabbit.
Yosemite Dan? Same hair, but it's gettin' old Dan.Really old.
Really quickly.
03 December 2006
Congratulations, John Dinn
He'll be the new member of the House of Assembly for Kilbride.
According to the Telegram, the 62 year old retired teacher, former St. John's city councilor and former mayor (prior to amalgamation) is considering looking for the Tory nod in the district to be vacated by incumbent Ed Byrne.
Byrne departs officially January 1 with a by-election to follow at some point over the next three months.
In order to get the Tory nomination in the district, one would have to get the blessing of Bob Aylward. The former member for the area and former Peckford era cabinet minister is still a potent political force. Active, well, known and well-liked, Bob is the Godfather of Kilbride.
Dinn's already got that covered off, being one of the old Tory hands from these parts.
Jack Lee, another name being touted, might be a Danny favourite - Lee runs a hockey school - but he simply won't be able to beat Dinn and the Political Haymaking Machine that forms the core of the old-line Tory camp in the partly suburban and partly rural agricultural district.
The New Democrats haven't said boo about the district so far.
Meanwhile, a day or so before the nomination was announced, Liberal district association president Bob Clarke seems to have taken advantage of his insider knowledge of the impending nomination call and got his name in play before anyone else even knew about it.
The nomination was announced publicly the next day and is open for the suspiciously short period of three business days. Any potential candidates and supporters who spent the week working the federal leader candidates campaigns will be unlikely to reorganize for a needlessly short and early provincial district nomination fight. Heck, Clarke may well have had a hand in going off prematurely.
Congratulations, John Dinn on being almost guaranteed the by-election win.
The only thing thing stopping Dinn from being a shoe-in is the as-yet unnamed New Democrat candidate. Once we know that we can tell if there will be a real fight or if the Premier can stay away from knocking doors and walking in cow manure.
According to the Telegram, the 62 year old retired teacher, former St. John's city councilor and former mayor (prior to amalgamation) is considering looking for the Tory nod in the district to be vacated by incumbent Ed Byrne.
Byrne departs officially January 1 with a by-election to follow at some point over the next three months.
In order to get the Tory nomination in the district, one would have to get the blessing of Bob Aylward. The former member for the area and former Peckford era cabinet minister is still a potent political force. Active, well, known and well-liked, Bob is the Godfather of Kilbride.
Dinn's already got that covered off, being one of the old Tory hands from these parts.
Jack Lee, another name being touted, might be a Danny favourite - Lee runs a hockey school - but he simply won't be able to beat Dinn and the Political Haymaking Machine that forms the core of the old-line Tory camp in the partly suburban and partly rural agricultural district.
The New Democrats haven't said boo about the district so far.
Meanwhile, a day or so before the nomination was announced, Liberal district association president Bob Clarke seems to have taken advantage of his insider knowledge of the impending nomination call and got his name in play before anyone else even knew about it.
The nomination was announced publicly the next day and is open for the suspiciously short period of three business days. Any potential candidates and supporters who spent the week working the federal leader candidates campaigns will be unlikely to reorganize for a needlessly short and early provincial district nomination fight. Heck, Clarke may well have had a hand in going off prematurely.
Congratulations, John Dinn on being almost guaranteed the by-election win.
The only thing thing stopping Dinn from being a shoe-in is the as-yet unnamed New Democrat candidate. Once we know that we can tell if there will be a real fight or if the Premier can stay away from knocking doors and walking in cow manure.
02 December 2006
Dion!
For those of us who supported Stephane Dion from the outset, among a field of great candidates, today is very good day indeed.
Dion will likely bring new ideas and an opportunity for renewal within the party and across the nation.
For those who fear all manner of bogeymen - today is a dark day indeed. Then again, the separatists and their allies and sympathisers across Canada, may rightly feel threatened.
Today, it is especially humourous to see a local separatist scribbling in the local daily after serving as the high commissioner to Ottawa for a government that more than anything else represents exactly the dependence on Uncle Ottawa he supposedly despises.
Dion will likely bring new ideas and an opportunity for renewal within the party and across the nation.
For those who fear all manner of bogeymen - today is a dark day indeed. Then again, the separatists and their allies and sympathisers across Canada, may rightly feel threatened.
Today, it is especially humourous to see a local separatist scribbling in the local daily after serving as the high commissioner to Ottawa for a government that more than anything else represents exactly the dependence on Uncle Ottawa he supposedly despises.
01 December 2006
Lower Churchill not really any closer
While the Lower Churchill project has been registered for environmental assessment with both the federal and provincial governments, the project isn't really any closer to starting than it was six months ago.That's when Premier Danny Williams tossed aside every proposal submitted in the province's expressions of interest process and embarked on an approach which, by his own admission, had not been assessed on any level at all. There was no business plan, that most basic of business planning tools.
The environmental assessment documents are drawn largely from work completed since 1998 under former premiers Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes.
Contrary to Premier Williams' claim today, it appears that he is actually farther from developing the Lower Churchill the province was in 1991 or at any time since.
Biggest, most important issues still unaddressed
Six months after Williams embarked on his go-it-alone approach, all the major elements - market, land claims agreements and financing - aren't even close to settled.
A key point, with political implications, is securing a loan guarantee from the federal government that could run between $6 billion and $9 billion.What Williams didn't say apparently is what that commitment is. In fact, the Premier has consistently misrepresented Harper's written comments at every opportunity. During the election - while Williams pretended to support Harper - he claimed that there was a commitment to a loan guarantee. At the recent provincial Tory convention in Gander - when Williams admitted he secretly distrusted Harper even as he campaigned for him publicly - Williams continued to claim there was a loan guarantee commitment.
Williams is confident that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will come through with such a guarantee.
"I have a commitment in writing from the prime minister, for what it's worth," said Williams, referring to a letter Harper wrote Jan. 4, during the federal election campaign.
Harper's actual comment was substantially different. All committed to do was discuss the issue further.
A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project.Feds would accept ownership stake
Rather than loan guarantees, the Harper administration would be interested in an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill. Putting Ottawa in a position to take a share of revenues from the project would fly in the face of Williams go-it-alone posturing. Then again, if the province was actually able to go-it-alone, Williams wouldn't need the federal government to help finance the project.
However, Williams will need outside financial backing to build the Lower Churchill. According to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Williams tried to raise capital on Wall Street before the go-it-alone announcement but was rejected by financiers.
Williams not welcome in Ottawa
The more significant problem the premier faces in seeking financial help from Ottawa is his abysmal relationship with the prime minister's office. The dust-up in Gander between the president of the federal Conservative Party and the premier's brother is typical of the ongoing scrap. Williams' attack on Bernard Lord is symptomatic of the animosity bordering on full-blown contempt that flows freely between the Langevin Block and the Premier's Office.The Canadian Press story refers to energy experts as being somewhat more cautious than the Premier in his enthusiasm. CP refers to transmission grid issues. Additionally, though, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is behind the curve in finding markets for the power as a direct result of the go-it-alone snap decision. Progress has also been slow on an impacts and benefits agreement with aboriginal peoples.
Great horny toads!
Premier Danny Williams [Left: not exactly as illustrated.] doesn't like any critical comment, as Bernard Lord has learned.Even the innocuous remarks by the former Tory premier of New Brunswick got Danny to come out, guns blazing.
So what does a combative Premier do?
He launches another verbal war; which is what Lord was scolding Williams for in the first place.
How quickly we forget
As we look forward to another report from Auditor General John "Baubles" Noseworthy on spending in the House of Assembly and the fibre fiasco, let's cast our minds back to February 2006 and some of his interesting comments on financial management within the Williams' administration.
Interesting too that at around the same time, the provincial estimates were being compiled showing that spending in the House of Assembly was exactly on budget for every single line item.
Odd, that.
And when you are done with that, consider the ongoing antics at City hall and remember the candidacy of one Simon Lono. The Mayor of St. John's dissed his comments on financial administration at City Hall, the folly called Mile One, the abysmal state of infrastructure in the city and just about everything else going at the downtown bunker.
Next time, Simon.
Interesting too that at around the same time, the provincial estimates were being compiled showing that spending in the House of Assembly was exactly on budget for every single line item.
Odd, that.
And when you are done with that, consider the ongoing antics at City hall and remember the candidacy of one Simon Lono. The Mayor of St. John's dissed his comments on financial administration at City Hall, the folly called Mile One, the abysmal state of infrastructure in the city and just about everything else going at the downtown bunker.
Next time, Simon.
Fibre fact-checker needed
CBC Newfoundland and Labrador is carrying a story on the provincial government's conemtplation of expanding broadband access to Labrador.
Yes, it's important.
Yes, it's expensive - upwards of $80 million, according to Trevor Taylor's comments to CBC.
But it isn't like there isn't already a plan for it.
Check the link to a November 2005 news release in which former innovation minister Kathy Dunderdale announced government would be hiring a consultant to map out an information strategy. They never did; if they did, the person has never been heard of again.
Anyway, the oddly titled "Big Backgrounder" contains a breakout of projects under the federal government's Broadband and Rural and Northern Development (BRAND) project. Two Labrador projects are listed with a total project cost of over $5.0 million, financed 100% by the Government of Canada.
Trevor Taylor's department is listed as having commited exactly zilch to the project.
Nada.
Bupkis.
BRAND is a project in which the province dribbles teeny bits of cash and the feds flood.
So now, Trevor Taylor is announcing further study of extending broadband coverage to Labrador, which will, as he predicts, require provincial funding.
Trevor needs a fact-checker.
Yes, it's important.
Yes, it's expensive - upwards of $80 million, according to Trevor Taylor's comments to CBC.
But it isn't like there isn't already a plan for it.
Check the link to a November 2005 news release in which former innovation minister Kathy Dunderdale announced government would be hiring a consultant to map out an information strategy. They never did; if they did, the person has never been heard of again.
Anyway, the oddly titled "Big Backgrounder" contains a breakout of projects under the federal government's Broadband and Rural and Northern Development (BRAND) project. Two Labrador projects are listed with a total project cost of over $5.0 million, financed 100% by the Government of Canada.
Trevor Taylor's department is listed as having commited exactly zilch to the project.
Nada.
Bupkis.
BRAND is a project in which the province dribbles teeny bits of cash and the feds flood.
So now, Trevor Taylor is announcing further study of extending broadband coverage to Labrador, which will, as he predicts, require provincial funding.
Trevor needs a fact-checker.
Thank you CBC
With one single hire, CBC has crippled the ego-fest known as Out of the Fog.
Officially a light entertainment show, it pretended to cover serious news. You can't do that if there is an official editoral policy that says government ministers get the kid gloves, the Premier gets an ass-kissing and everyone else gets the shaft.
Hard to be objective when The Boss is family, but at least they could make an effort to hide the bias.
Meanwhile, if Krysta's got hard news potential or hard news aspirations, she can realise it if she takes advice from the experienced news people around her at CBC. The shameless on-air boot-licking she practiced at Rogers just won't fly anywhere else.
I'd tell her the same thing if the new show was at NTV.
Let's see how it goes.
As for CBC news, Here and Now does not need more light filler. Let Krysta occupy the afternoon slot unless you need to push audience her way. But keep her appearances to a minimum; Here and Now has enough of the softer, background stuff.
Here and Now is doing better than when it retruned to the hour format but overall it needs to get its old edge back. Finding that balance between edge and everything else is difficult.
Let's just say that more Krysta wouldn't be a whetstone.
Officially a light entertainment show, it pretended to cover serious news. You can't do that if there is an official editoral policy that says government ministers get the kid gloves, the Premier gets an ass-kissing and everyone else gets the shaft.
Hard to be objective when The Boss is family, but at least they could make an effort to hide the bias.
Meanwhile, if Krysta's got hard news potential or hard news aspirations, she can realise it if she takes advice from the experienced news people around her at CBC. The shameless on-air boot-licking she practiced at Rogers just won't fly anywhere else.
I'd tell her the same thing if the new show was at NTV.
Let's see how it goes.
As for CBC news, Here and Now does not need more light filler. Let Krysta occupy the afternoon slot unless you need to push audience her way. But keep her appearances to a minimum; Here and Now has enough of the softer, background stuff.
Here and Now is doing better than when it retruned to the hour format but overall it needs to get its old edge back. Finding that balance between edge and everything else is difficult.
Let's just say that more Krysta wouldn't be a whetstone.
30 November 2006
Separated at birth? Two fish guys
Maybe it goes with the job to tell me to take it or leave it.
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Loyola Hearn to Gander airport authority:
"If the people of Gander want it, and if they don't, well then there's not much we can do."...
"Do you want to buy time or don't you? And we're waiting for an answer."
Minister of Natural Resources John Efford to Premier Danny Williams, on the Atlantic Accord:
"Let me say it, and let me say it clear: the deal is done. Do you want it, Mr. Sullivan? Do you want it, Mr. Williams? There are no more changes."
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Loyola Hearn to Gander airport authority:"If the people of Gander want it, and if they don't, well then there's not much we can do."...
"Do you want to buy time or don't you? And we're waiting for an answer."
Minister of Natural Resources John Efford to Premier Danny Williams, on the Atlantic Accord:"Let me say it, and let me say it clear: the deal is done. Do you want it, Mr. Sullivan? Do you want it, Mr. Williams? There are no more changes."
Connie staffer ID'ed as Williams' diplomacy advisor
Bravo, Aaron Hynes.
We finally know who has been giving the local Tories some bad advice on relationship management.
From da Globe:
**Whizzing back by reply e-mail an hour later, Mr. Hynes, who was a Tory candidate in Newfoundland in the last election, parried with the remark: "That's all we care about. Canadians. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the complexities of this decision. . . . You're a foreign jackass." Responded the money manager: "I'm not sure that this is how Mr. Lauzon wants to be represented." He then sent the e-mail exchange to a number of Canadian energy companies, adding dryly: "I believe his office is not serving in your best interests. As a note I am a large shareholder in all of your companies."
The final e-mail instalment? Mr. Hynes wrote to the four oil and gas companies: "If any of you Canadians have questions or concerns, we will be more than happy to direct them to the [Finance] Minister's office for a thorough reply. However, I am not here to be denigrated or intimidated by self-important non-Canadians."**
Monkey tossing for England: Placentia school "compensation"
Notably absent from an announcement today in Placentia was a representative of Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, the outfit that - according to natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale - is paying "compensation" to Placentia for building the nickel smelter/refinery in nearby Long Harbour instead of nearer-by Argentia.
But here's the thing. VBNC has been providing money just like the stuff Dunderdale mentioned today to a host of communities, including Placentia and Dunville.
The "agreement" announced by Dunderdale today consist of a payment in lieu of taxes to the Placentia town council, a small grant to the town to build a fire hall, upgrading lights at the Dunville ballpark (already committed in 2005, incidentally), and a general commitment to support local business opportunities.
That's basically the sort of thing VBNC has done or would be expected to do anyway as part of maintaining sound relationships with residents of the largest communities close to the new site at Long Harbour.
There's nothing in this announcement - not a single thing - that looks like anything other than sound business practice.
It certainly isn't "compensation" since, as we noted already, VBNC doesn't really have anything to compensate anyone for.
Dunderdale's release looks more like a case of political monkey-tossing than "compensation".
Except, of course for the provincial government's sudden commitment to build a new school in Placentia.
And that's the really big announcement here.
It's a good decision and one that will support the workers at Long Harbour, many of whom are likely to already live in Placentia or who are more likely to locate there rather than in a smaller community somewhere else in the Long Harbour area.
Too bad the government's publicity department had to frame the whole thing around an something that has really been government's fabrication. Instead, they could have just announced the school, included VBNC's work as a good corporate citizen and heralded construction of a massive industrial enterprise at nearby Long Harbour.
Of course, doing that would mean the Premier and his ministers would have to acknowledge - even implicitly - that the agreement he trashed regularly before he was in government has actually delivered the only industrial construction project of his administration thus far.
He killed off the other biggie.
Rather than do that, the whole operation of government, and this release, become nothing more than another exercise in monkey tossing.
But here's the thing. VBNC has been providing money just like the stuff Dunderdale mentioned today to a host of communities, including Placentia and Dunville.
The "agreement" announced by Dunderdale today consist of a payment in lieu of taxes to the Placentia town council, a small grant to the town to build a fire hall, upgrading lights at the Dunville ballpark (already committed in 2005, incidentally), and a general commitment to support local business opportunities.
That's basically the sort of thing VBNC has done or would be expected to do anyway as part of maintaining sound relationships with residents of the largest communities close to the new site at Long Harbour.
There's nothing in this announcement - not a single thing - that looks like anything other than sound business practice.
It certainly isn't "compensation" since, as we noted already, VBNC doesn't really have anything to compensate anyone for.
Dunderdale's release looks more like a case of political monkey-tossing than "compensation".
Except, of course for the provincial government's sudden commitment to build a new school in Placentia.
And that's the really big announcement here.
The government’s commitment to the people of Placentia was also clearly demonstrated today with the announcement of approval to build a new school for Grades 7-12. "I know that people of the Placentia area have been seeking a new school for some time. Government recognized that it was time to replace Laval High School. To that end, we have allocated funds to begin planning the new facility," said Minister [Joan]Burke.
It's a good decision and one that will support the workers at Long Harbour, many of whom are likely to already live in Placentia or who are more likely to locate there rather than in a smaller community somewhere else in the Long Harbour area.
Too bad the government's publicity department had to frame the whole thing around an something that has really been government's fabrication. Instead, they could have just announced the school, included VBNC's work as a good corporate citizen and heralded construction of a massive industrial enterprise at nearby Long Harbour.
Of course, doing that would mean the Premier and his ministers would have to acknowledge - even implicitly - that the agreement he trashed regularly before he was in government has actually delivered the only industrial construction project of his administration thus far.
He killed off the other biggie.
Rather than do that, the whole operation of government, and this release, become nothing more than another exercise in monkey tossing.
Shuttle to fly over North Atlantic
The next shuttle launch is scheduled for December 7 using a launch angle that it will take it over the North Atlantic.
So why isn't Danny Williams screaming about potential threats to offshore oil rigs?
Could it be that the Titan fiasco showed just exactly how hysterical concerns were that the rigs would be hit?
Yeah. Regular Bond Papers readers were never worried in the first place.
So why isn't Danny Williams screaming about potential threats to offshore oil rigs?
Could it be that the Titan fiasco showed just exactly how hysterical concerns were that the rigs would be hit?
Yeah. Regular Bond Papers readers were never worried in the first place.
Plus ca change: Dunderdale tender blunder
For some reason the provincial government has taken to issuing news releases to challenge questions from the opposition during Question period in the legislature.
On Tuesday, it was transportation minister John Hickey who was caught in an advanced stage of pinocchiosis over federal funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway. He supposedly told someone he had a signed contract. As we have all learned this would not be even close to true since the feds are waiting on the province to get a work plan in place.
Today, it was natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale. The blunder-plagued minister was trying to explain why the Bull Arm Corporation cancelled a tender and then re-tendered.
The Liberal opposition claimed the first tender was cancelled when a local Liberal came in with the lowest bid. They argued the project was redefined so that someone else - in this case the future local Tory candidate's campaign manager could get a piece. The future candidate, by the by, is Joan Cleary; Bond Papers discussed her appointment to head the Bull Arm Corporation some time ago.
But in defending the tender, Dunderdale actually provides us with a pretty convincing example of a complete cock-up. Whether it was politically motivated - as the Opposition suggests - or just a case of mismanagement and incompetence, the whole tender should never have been handled the way it was. Around here, Bond Papers would contend it is evidence that - as we noted last November - Joan Cleary isn't qualified for the job she currently holds.
Here's why.
The original tender at Bull Arm was for the complete replacement of the existing security shack. That is a pretty straightforward project involving labour and materials together as one unit. One can logically conclude that if the first tender was for complete replacement, Bull Arm management had made a determination that the building needed complete replacement. It's an important piece of work, even if the shack is relatively small.
While Bull Arm management may have had a cost estimate in mind, they ran a tender process and a low tender duly arrived. Notice that Dunderdale does not say how much Bull Arm originally expected to see as the bids; she does claim, though, that the prices were such that Bull Arm decided to cancel the entire tender and , presumably, do nothing in the meantime.
And that's where it gets hinky. If the existing security shack was in such a state that it needed to be replaced, there simply isn't any reason to cancel the tender and not do anything about it. This approach suggests the original tender was bogus.
According to Dunderdale, Bull Arm only went to a second tender once some harsh weather caused damage to the shack. Nice try as excuses go, but if the original tender had been let or if the project had been re-tendered right away, Bull Arm Corp would likely have avoided the situation caused by weather. There would be no emergency since proper action was taken from the outset.
Instead Bull Arm Corp now had an emergency on its hands, albeit one that evidently resulted from its own poor management practices.
Rather than go to tender - as normally required under the Public Tender Act - now called the situation an emergency. For some completely unfathomable reason, Bull Arm split the project into two tenders: one for materials and one for labour and then went to three specific bidders for quotes.
Under the Public Tender Act, that is permissible - in a genuine emergency. But the legislation's exemption for emergencies is intended to cover real emergencies, not ones caused by dubious management decisions.
Interestingly enough, the original low bidder didn't get the work and the whole project was completed for over $50,000 less than the original tender's lowest bidder. We don't know if the whole shack was replaced, as originally intended, or if the thing was patched up and repaired. We'll never know since the people involved in the process would never make public all the documents and records to justify the situation.
Instead, we should be suspicious of the facts as described by the minister. On the face of it, the minister describes incompetent management of a relatively small project. On top of that the minister provides excuses for the mismanagement by claiming the proper process was followed. Clearly it wasn't: the cancellation of the original tender suggests something was amiss.
And if that weren't bad enough, we see once again the most familiar of all excuses trotted out by the Williams administration when it is accused of something: the rules allow it.
As Offal News put it last month, in another story related to Bull Arm Corp:
What Dunderdale has described is a classic example of shoddy management that led to damage to government property, followed by a clever - but all-too obvious - abuse of the Public Tender Act to divert attention away from poor management. They failed to exercise due diligence, to use a phrase the former InTRD minister herself was fond of abusing.
To make it worse, Dunderdale, as minister responsible for Bull Arm, is effectively endorsing the blunders made by Bull Arm Corp as well as condoning the abuse of the spirit of the public tender statute.
We were all told to expect better from our government three years ago, indeed to expect better from this government.
The case of the Bull Arm shack shows just how little changed in local politics in October 2003.
On Tuesday, it was transportation minister John Hickey who was caught in an advanced stage of pinocchiosis over federal funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway. He supposedly told someone he had a signed contract. As we have all learned this would not be even close to true since the feds are waiting on the province to get a work plan in place.
Today, it was natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale. The blunder-plagued minister was trying to explain why the Bull Arm Corporation cancelled a tender and then re-tendered.
The Liberal opposition claimed the first tender was cancelled when a local Liberal came in with the lowest bid. They argued the project was redefined so that someone else - in this case the future local Tory candidate's campaign manager could get a piece. The future candidate, by the by, is Joan Cleary; Bond Papers discussed her appointment to head the Bull Arm Corporation some time ago.
But in defending the tender, Dunderdale actually provides us with a pretty convincing example of a complete cock-up. Whether it was politically motivated - as the Opposition suggests - or just a case of mismanagement and incompetence, the whole tender should never have been handled the way it was. Around here, Bond Papers would contend it is evidence that - as we noted last November - Joan Cleary isn't qualified for the job she currently holds.
Here's why.
The original tender at Bull Arm was for the complete replacement of the existing security shack. That is a pretty straightforward project involving labour and materials together as one unit. One can logically conclude that if the first tender was for complete replacement, Bull Arm management had made a determination that the building needed complete replacement. It's an important piece of work, even if the shack is relatively small.
While Bull Arm management may have had a cost estimate in mind, they ran a tender process and a low tender duly arrived. Notice that Dunderdale does not say how much Bull Arm originally expected to see as the bids; she does claim, though, that the prices were such that Bull Arm decided to cancel the entire tender and , presumably, do nothing in the meantime.
And that's where it gets hinky. If the existing security shack was in such a state that it needed to be replaced, there simply isn't any reason to cancel the tender and not do anything about it. This approach suggests the original tender was bogus.
According to Dunderdale, Bull Arm only went to a second tender once some harsh weather caused damage to the shack. Nice try as excuses go, but if the original tender had been let or if the project had been re-tendered right away, Bull Arm Corp would likely have avoided the situation caused by weather. There would be no emergency since proper action was taken from the outset.
Instead Bull Arm Corp now had an emergency on its hands, albeit one that evidently resulted from its own poor management practices.
Rather than go to tender - as normally required under the Public Tender Act - now called the situation an emergency. For some completely unfathomable reason, Bull Arm split the project into two tenders: one for materials and one for labour and then went to three specific bidders for quotes.
Under the Public Tender Act, that is permissible - in a genuine emergency. But the legislation's exemption for emergencies is intended to cover real emergencies, not ones caused by dubious management decisions.
Interestingly enough, the original low bidder didn't get the work and the whole project was completed for over $50,000 less than the original tender's lowest bidder. We don't know if the whole shack was replaced, as originally intended, or if the thing was patched up and repaired. We'll never know since the people involved in the process would never make public all the documents and records to justify the situation.
Instead, we should be suspicious of the facts as described by the minister. On the face of it, the minister describes incompetent management of a relatively small project. On top of that the minister provides excuses for the mismanagement by claiming the proper process was followed. Clearly it wasn't: the cancellation of the original tender suggests something was amiss.
And if that weren't bad enough, we see once again the most familiar of all excuses trotted out by the Williams administration when it is accused of something: the rules allow it.
As Offal News put it last month, in another story related to Bull Arm Corp:
That does not mean it's right, correct, proper or ethical; he merely means it's legal. Legal is a long way from appropriate.In the case of the security shack, it doesn't matter if Joan Cleary was involved in the decision or not, or whether the inning bidder was her former campaign manager or even that the low bidder on the cancelled tender call was a Liberal.
What Dunderdale has described is a classic example of shoddy management that led to damage to government property, followed by a clever - but all-too obvious - abuse of the Public Tender Act to divert attention away from poor management. They failed to exercise due diligence, to use a phrase the former InTRD minister herself was fond of abusing.
To make it worse, Dunderdale, as minister responsible for Bull Arm, is effectively endorsing the blunders made by Bull Arm Corp as well as condoning the abuse of the spirit of the public tender statute.
We were all told to expect better from our government three years ago, indeed to expect better from this government.
The case of the Bull Arm shack shows just how little changed in local politics in October 2003.
29 November 2006
Who will fight for you?
It's like Danny Williams never left the legal and monopoly cable business.
First, it was a fibre deal that even he doesn't understand.
Next it will be cabinet ministers announcing "compensation" wrestled from some corporate wrongdoer.
Wait, a minute.
What's this?
Kathy Dunderdale and Joan Burke will be in Placentia on Thursday (psst, Thursday is the 30th, not the 29th) "to announce compensation for the area from Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company for the loss of the commercial processing facility at Argentia, as well as school infrastructure plans for the Placentia area".
Compensation from VBNC for the "loss" of a commercial processor?
Hmmm.
I don't see anything from VBNC saying they'd pay compensation. Their contractual obligations are merely to build a smelter/refinery in the province and they are doing that. At Long Harbour. Argentia and Placentia couldn't lose what they never actually had locked up.
So is this just a poorly written news release or did Danny and his team of crackies wrestle some kind of cash from VBNC? One news outlet is reporting it already as VBNC shelling out. If the cash was from VBNC, then the company should be getting the credit or at least sharing it.
Maybe it's just the tail end of a polling period and someone is getting desperate to goose the numbers.
First, it was a fibre deal that even he doesn't understand.
Next it will be cabinet ministers announcing "compensation" wrestled from some corporate wrongdoer.
Wait, a minute.
What's this?
Kathy Dunderdale and Joan Burke will be in Placentia on Thursday (psst, Thursday is the 30th, not the 29th) "to announce compensation for the area from Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company for the loss of the commercial processing facility at Argentia, as well as school infrastructure plans for the Placentia area".
Compensation from VBNC for the "loss" of a commercial processor?
Hmmm.
I don't see anything from VBNC saying they'd pay compensation. Their contractual obligations are merely to build a smelter/refinery in the province and they are doing that. At Long Harbour. Argentia and Placentia couldn't lose what they never actually had locked up.
So is this just a poorly written news release or did Danny and his team of crackies wrestle some kind of cash from VBNC? One news outlet is reporting it already as VBNC shelling out. If the cash was from VBNC, then the company should be getting the credit or at least sharing it.
Maybe it's just the tail end of a polling period and someone is getting desperate to goose the numbers.
So who will run in Kilbride?
With Ed Byrne's resignation as member for Kilbride, effective January 1, 2006, the question now comes as to who will carry party banners in the district.
The district has had some strong representation over the past decades in the form of both Bob Aylward and latterly Byrne, both Tories.
For the New Democrats and Liberals, the question of a candidate is wide open. The Liberals must contest the seat with a strong candidate. Even if they come in second, they will have to put on a solid performance to hang on to any credibility.
No names have surfaced for either party.
On the Tory side, Bond Papers has suggested - somewhat facetiously - that Danny will be pushing Leslie Galway, currently business deputy minister. We'll see what happens.
Another name has cropped up as being interested, but Bond Papers won't through it out until there is some confirmation. This guy has the advantage of being a hockey player which would automatically put him in Danny's good books.
Unlike Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, there isn't a high profile candidate in play yet.
Let's see what happens.
The district has had some strong representation over the past decades in the form of both Bob Aylward and latterly Byrne, both Tories.
For the New Democrats and Liberals, the question of a candidate is wide open. The Liberals must contest the seat with a strong candidate. Even if they come in second, they will have to put on a solid performance to hang on to any credibility.
No names have surfaced for either party.
On the Tory side, Bond Papers has suggested - somewhat facetiously - that Danny will be pushing Leslie Galway, currently business deputy minister. We'll see what happens.
Another name has cropped up as being interested, but Bond Papers won't through it out until there is some confirmation. This guy has the advantage of being a hockey player which would automatically put him in Danny's good books.
Unlike Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, there isn't a high profile candidate in play yet.
Let's see what happens.
CANARIE in Trev's credibility coalmine
Earnest innovation minister Trevor Taylor is fighting a losing credibility battle.
No matter how hard he tries, someone keeps putting out information that undermines Taylor's arguments that the Persona deal is a good investment of public money and had nothing to do whatsoever with helping out political friends.
Even Trevor can't keep out of the contradictions act...
Like, f'rinstance, last week in the House, on 22 November, Taylor said that one third of the cost of the national network connection for Memorial University to participate in a research computer network - one third of the cost for that - had gone into the line between St. John's and Halifax.
Memorial University is the Newfoundland hub for a series of projects, like CANARIE that ships data around among researchers, albeit not along the public Internet per se.
But notice that comment: one third the cost.
Flip ahead to this week and in the course of debate, Taylor said the cost of CANARIE (paid for by the federal government apparently) at MUN was something around $400,000 annually. Public Internet costs were about the same.
Ok.
The budget for CANARIE's CA*Net4 service for 2006 is $22 million. Now even an old artsman like your humble e-scribbler can tell that $400,000 is not 33% of $22 million.
Maybe Taylor misspoke in the heat of debate.
Maybe we misunderstood him.
Maybe, his comments are - to be exact - wrong.
Like the Premier's claim, backed by his ministers, that this Persona deal will put Memorial University on the research map.
Apparently it isn't connected to any computers now, not even the Internet, if you listen to the Premier.
But of course it is.
With a connection that shunts data at 1 gigabit per second.
That little tidbit is important if you recall one of the Premier's justifications for the Persona deal was the need for people at the university and elsewhere to ship data in one second, versus 16 minutes via dial-up.
Premier Danny Williams, Hansard, 21 November 2006:
Ain't been no dial-up round the university for centuries, man.
Oh yeah. and that's not the only time where Trev said one thing and Gunny Highway said another.
What will the savings be for Memorial on its public Internet service? Taylor pegged the annual costs right now - using 2800 baud modems Danny? - at $400,000.
According to Taylor last week in the House, the savings would be 15% annually.
According to Danny Williams last week in the House the savings would be 50% per year.
That's a pretty big discrepancy. And it isn't a Hansard transcription error. They double check these pesky detail-type thingies.
It gets even worse when you realise that the Premier's number is based solely on a verbal comment by someone from Persona, duly documented as such by EWA-Canada in its hasty assessment of the Persona deal.
That 50% comment and the entire $400 million benefit Premier Dan has claimed will flow from this deal has never been subjected to any independent scrutiny. The original estimate - and the Premier's massive benefits number - were pulled from the same bodily orifice.
The credibility canary laying dead at government's feet should stop us from mining this little deal before it goes any farther.
No matter how hard he tries, someone keeps putting out information that undermines Taylor's arguments that the Persona deal is a good investment of public money and had nothing to do whatsoever with helping out political friends.
Even Trevor can't keep out of the contradictions act...
Like, f'rinstance, last week in the House, on 22 November, Taylor said that one third of the cost of the national network connection for Memorial University to participate in a research computer network - one third of the cost for that - had gone into the line between St. John's and Halifax.
Memorial University is the Newfoundland hub for a series of projects, like CANARIE that ships data around among researchers, albeit not along the public Internet per se.
But notice that comment: one third the cost.
Flip ahead to this week and in the course of debate, Taylor said the cost of CANARIE (paid for by the federal government apparently) at MUN was something around $400,000 annually. Public Internet costs were about the same.
Ok.
The budget for CANARIE's CA*Net4 service for 2006 is $22 million. Now even an old artsman like your humble e-scribbler can tell that $400,000 is not 33% of $22 million.
Maybe Taylor misspoke in the heat of debate.
Maybe we misunderstood him.
Maybe, his comments are - to be exact - wrong.
Like the Premier's claim, backed by his ministers, that this Persona deal will put Memorial University on the research map.
Apparently it isn't connected to any computers now, not even the Internet, if you listen to the Premier.
But of course it is.
With a connection that shunts data at 1 gigabit per second.
That little tidbit is important if you recall one of the Premier's justifications for the Persona deal was the need for people at the university and elsewhere to ship data in one second, versus 16 minutes via dial-up.
Premier Danny Williams, Hansard, 21 November 2006:
The previous speeds that can be talked to, you would have to look at about sixteen minutes for a conversation to take place on a dial-up modem. On high-speed, it can take place in one second. So, I would say a word on a dial-up and I wait sixteen and two-third minutes for an answer from the research analyst who is on the other end. When you put this in place, we can talk simultaneously....The Premier - or should we say Gunny MisInformation Highway - is either freeze-dried or been doin' hard time.
Ain't been no dial-up round the university for centuries, man.
Oh yeah. and that's not the only time where Trev said one thing and Gunny Highway said another.
What will the savings be for Memorial on its public Internet service? Taylor pegged the annual costs right now - using 2800 baud modems Danny? - at $400,000.
According to Taylor last week in the House, the savings would be 15% annually.
According to Danny Williams last week in the House the savings would be 50% per year.
That's a pretty big discrepancy. And it isn't a Hansard transcription error. They double check these pesky detail-type thingies.
It gets even worse when you realise that the Premier's number is based solely on a verbal comment by someone from Persona, duly documented as such by EWA-Canada in its hasty assessment of the Persona deal.
That 50% comment and the entire $400 million benefit Premier Dan has claimed will flow from this deal has never been subjected to any independent scrutiny. The original estimate - and the Premier's massive benefits number - were pulled from the same bodily orifice.
The credibility canary laying dead at government's feet should stop us from mining this little deal before it goes any farther.
Aliant Animus
A snippet from the files:
Nope.
It might have been a few weeks later and it might be sheer coincidence but the correlation is interesting.
Maybe there are some cabinet meeting notes - only to be released decades from now - that document the Premier's endless rantings about the evil Aliant empire and how it must be destroyed.
Maybe, there is a reason some people report seeing sheets and sheets of drywall moved to the 8th Floor after hours and only garbage bags with broken plaster coming out. (Lots of ceilings to replace as The Furor's head goes through them more often than usual these days, methinks.)
Don't underestimate the power of commitment to a petty insult to an old monopolist. Go back over the explanations offered by the provincial cabinet, notice the lack of concrete details being used to support the $15 million in spending, notice the curious timelines and then consider the Sullivan comment.
It all starts to make sense.
March 10, 2006A check with some other sources suggests that the GRAP cable deal may have been kicking around the Confederation Building but it didn't get to cabinet before Rain Man Sullivan made these comments.
Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says Aliant's decision to become an income trust will mean the loss of corporate tax revenues for the province. Some reports suggest the four Atlantic provinces could lose as much as 49 million dollars. Under an income trust, taxes are paid by shareholders who could live anywhere. Sullivan says he knows how much the province will lose, but he can't disclose the figure publicly. Sullivan says they don't know yet when the income loss will be felt.
Nope.
It might have been a few weeks later and it might be sheer coincidence but the correlation is interesting.
Maybe there are some cabinet meeting notes - only to be released decades from now - that document the Premier's endless rantings about the evil Aliant empire and how it must be destroyed.
Maybe, there is a reason some people report seeing sheets and sheets of drywall moved to the 8th Floor after hours and only garbage bags with broken plaster coming out. (Lots of ceilings to replace as The Furor's head goes through them more often than usual these days, methinks.)
Don't underestimate the power of commitment to a petty insult to an old monopolist. Go back over the explanations offered by the provincial cabinet, notice the lack of concrete details being used to support the $15 million in spending, notice the curious timelines and then consider the Sullivan comment.
It all starts to make sense.
28 November 2006
and The Lover in Spanish is El Amador
What means this word "Quebecois"?
From Paul Wells at Macleans, comes this transcript of a q & a with reporters involving Lawrence Cannon and Marjory LeBreton that demonstrates M. Cannon has some difficulty understanding his own point. Like his problem with understanding what is a "federal spending power." Cannon even manages to mangle the explanation in both official languages, virtually simultaneously.
While normally we'd just link, let's give the whole thing and hope Paul is too busy moving his book that he will forgive your humble e-scribbler. [BTW, buy the book.]
Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois
Good figuring this crap out, ladies and gentlemen of Canada:
Question: Why did you use the word Québécois in English? I think we're all wondering why did you use the word Québécois in English and not Quebecer? And my question, especially for Ms. LeBreton, and I guess that's why people are suspicious. Is that a reference to some sort of ethnic identity of what it is to be (inaudible)?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I'm an English-speaking Canadian and I refer to -- I call -- I say Québécois. I believe -- I believe that in the country and certainly we've seen evidence over the past few days as cabinet ministers have been around the country there's a wide degree of acceptance for the prime minister's leadership on this issue.
Question: (Inaudible) with all due respect people (inaudible).
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I know Anglophone Quebecers who call themselves Québécois so you know —
Question: They call themselves Quebecers. I'm sorry, with due respect, I live in Quebec and English people talk to themselves about Quebecers, not Québécois. Why did you use this French word in an English motion? Explain to us the rationale for that. There's a word in English for that and please explain to us why you're not using it.
L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, écoutez, c'est bien clair là , bien clair la motion qui a été présentée par le Bloc québécois parlait de Québécois et de Québécoises dont ne référait pas à autre chose que des Québécois et des Québécoises.
Question: Why in English?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois. Alors il faudrait que vous demandiez à monsieur Duceppe parce que nous on sait —
(...)
Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là , Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là , après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.
Question: Je ne suis pas une descendante de monsieur Champlain et tous ceux qui n'ont pas des noms canadiens-français ne sont pas des Québécois selon votre définition.
L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, pas du tout, madame Buzzetti.
Question: Il y a plein de gens qui sont arrivés (inaudible).
L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé. D'une part faire reconnaître par l'Assemblée nationale l'intégrité du territoire et d'autre part dire que les Québécois ou les Quebecers comme vous dites font partie de ce territoire-là c'est faux parce qu'il y a des gens qui fondamentalement ont opté pour le Canada et c'est ce que nous reconnaissons ce soir. Quand on a demandé au Bloc québécois d'accepter cette chose-là c'est ce qu'ils acceptent tacitement, que les Québécois font partie de la nation canadienne dans un effort d'unité nationale et c'est ce qu'on reconnaît.
Question: (Inaudible) Montrealers why they're not Québécois.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that.
Question: Well, you said that it doesn't — you said it doesn't apply to people that aren't French.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that they're not Québécois. What I'm saying here, and the reference that the Bloc Québécois has made is that they've made the Francophone pure laine. That's the intention. The intention is to be able to divide. We are taking the same words and we are saying no. On two separate occasions - and I'm repeating myself - on four provincial elections Quebecers have said no, we are voting for a federalist government, we are voting no to your proposal, we are part and parcel of Canadian unity and that's what we are indicating here. We're not playing semantics with the words. We are saying that that is a formal decision that was taken by Quebecers years ago and here's the first, first group of sovereingtists that are admitting this fact of life. Mr. Duceppe got up in the House the other day and you heard him talking about il faut reconnaître la réalité. On reconnaît la réalité. Les Québécois vous ont dit non à deux occasions. Et maintenant les Québécois vous ont dit — non seulement ils vous ont dit non, parce que la proposition ne se sépare pas, les Québécois vous ont dit formellement depuis qu'on est ici on chemine à l'intérieur du Canada. On est non seulement partie du processus, we are also making the country and that's what they've been saying to us.
From Paul Wells at Macleans, comes this transcript of a q & a with reporters involving Lawrence Cannon and Marjory LeBreton that demonstrates M. Cannon has some difficulty understanding his own point. Like his problem with understanding what is a "federal spending power." Cannon even manages to mangle the explanation in both official languages, virtually simultaneously.
While normally we'd just link, let's give the whole thing and hope Paul is too busy moving his book that he will forgive your humble e-scribbler. [BTW, buy the book.]
Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois
Good figuring this crap out, ladies and gentlemen of Canada:
Question: Why did you use the word Québécois in English? I think we're all wondering why did you use the word Québécois in English and not Quebecer? And my question, especially for Ms. LeBreton, and I guess that's why people are suspicious. Is that a reference to some sort of ethnic identity of what it is to be (inaudible)?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I'm an English-speaking Canadian and I refer to -- I call -- I say Québécois. I believe -- I believe that in the country and certainly we've seen evidence over the past few days as cabinet ministers have been around the country there's a wide degree of acceptance for the prime minister's leadership on this issue.
Question: (Inaudible) with all due respect people (inaudible).
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I know Anglophone Quebecers who call themselves Québécois so you know —
Question: They call themselves Quebecers. I'm sorry, with due respect, I live in Quebec and English people talk to themselves about Quebecers, not Québécois. Why did you use this French word in an English motion? Explain to us the rationale for that. There's a word in English for that and please explain to us why you're not using it.
L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, écoutez, c'est bien clair là , bien clair la motion qui a été présentée par le Bloc québécois parlait de Québécois et de Québécoises dont ne référait pas à autre chose que des Québécois et des Québécoises.
Question: Why in English?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois. Alors il faudrait que vous demandiez à monsieur Duceppe parce que nous on sait —
(...)
Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là , Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là , après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.
Question: Je ne suis pas une descendante de monsieur Champlain et tous ceux qui n'ont pas des noms canadiens-français ne sont pas des Québécois selon votre définition.
L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, pas du tout, madame Buzzetti.
Question: Il y a plein de gens qui sont arrivés (inaudible).
L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé. D'une part faire reconnaître par l'Assemblée nationale l'intégrité du territoire et d'autre part dire que les Québécois ou les Quebecers comme vous dites font partie de ce territoire-là c'est faux parce qu'il y a des gens qui fondamentalement ont opté pour le Canada et c'est ce que nous reconnaissons ce soir. Quand on a demandé au Bloc québécois d'accepter cette chose-là c'est ce qu'ils acceptent tacitement, que les Québécois font partie de la nation canadienne dans un effort d'unité nationale et c'est ce qu'on reconnaît.
Question: (Inaudible) Montrealers why they're not Québécois.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that.
Question: Well, you said that it doesn't — you said it doesn't apply to people that aren't French.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that they're not Québécois. What I'm saying here, and the reference that the Bloc Québécois has made is that they've made the Francophone pure laine. That's the intention. The intention is to be able to divide. We are taking the same words and we are saying no. On two separate occasions - and I'm repeating myself - on four provincial elections Quebecers have said no, we are voting for a federalist government, we are voting no to your proposal, we are part and parcel of Canadian unity and that's what we are indicating here. We're not playing semantics with the words. We are saying that that is a formal decision that was taken by Quebecers years ago and here's the first, first group of sovereingtists that are admitting this fact of life. Mr. Duceppe got up in the House the other day and you heard him talking about il faut reconnaître la réalité. On reconnaît la réalité. Les Québécois vous ont dit non à deux occasions. Et maintenant les Québécois vous ont dit — non seulement ils vous ont dit non, parce que la proposition ne se sépare pas, les Québécois vous ont dit formellement depuis qu'on est ici on chemine à l'intérieur du Canada. On est non seulement partie du processus, we are also making the country and that's what they've been saying to us.
What mean this...how you say... "Quebecois"?
Nation-hood is, it seems, a moveable feast of meanings.
And in Quebec, with predictable accuracy, media are portraying the results of a recent polls as meaning that the country rejects Quebec once more.
And in Quebec, with predictable accuracy, media are portraying the results of a recent polls as meaning that the country rejects Quebec once more.
When you're in a hole, stop digging
A few days ago, Trevor Taylor admitted government handled communications on the fibre deal badly.
Then someone in the Premier's publicity department must have taken offense at the idea.
So the message shifted to the latest version of the story being used by The Katzenjammer Kids.
Offal News puts it in perspective nicely.
Trevor: put down the shovel.
Then someone in the Premier's publicity department must have taken offense at the idea.
So the message shifted to the latest version of the story being used by The Katzenjammer Kids.
Offal News puts it in perspective nicely.
Trevor: put down the shovel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)