Retilling the much ploughed patch

From the Financial Post, this article on the movement of aluminum production to the Middle East and Asia.

The big attraction is low-cost power and the giant manufacturing markets that need aluminum. In the past decade, China's share of world aluminum production has gone from 9% to 25%. Canada's share has declined by a couple of percentage points; ditto Europe (including Iceland). The American share has dropped as dramatically as China's has risen.

This seems like an opportune time to quote an observation by the late Don Jamieson, left, once deputy prime minister, minister of external affairs and at one time minister of regional economic expansion in the Government of Canada.

He once observed a common trait - a faulty perception really - among so many in Canada. The following excerpt is from his memoir, No place for fools: the political memoirs of Don Jamieson, volume 1, (St. John's: Breakwater, 1989), p. 158:

He [Joe Smallwood] was the victim as well of a delusion I have observed frequently among leaders at many levels. He thought that the area where he held sway was larger and more important than it actually was. Newfoundland was Smallwood's life, his universe and he developed exaggerated, unrealistic expectations for it. If other provinces and regions could have steel mills and similar heavy industries, so could Newfoundland. Likewise for secondary manufacturing and resource upgrading. Smallwood saw himself breaking new ground with this approach; in fact, he was retilling a much ploughed patch and, subconsciously, seeking to outperform previous Newfoundland leaders.

These days some use this sort of delusion to drive an entire blog-worth of posts or calls to talk shows in which, inevitably, Confederation would be blamed for the economic rise of China or for the misfortune of Newfoundland not being adjacent to the Asian giant.

Another kindred spirit runs the province on much the same delusion as some of his predecessors. No wonder the blogger is so critical of the other; they are fighting for same shop-worn turf.

(h/t to Offal News' Simon Lono for recalling Jamieson's wisdom)

The problem for Stock Day

Forget the fractured syntax.

Forget the racial overtones.

Stock Day obviously thinks in Stone Age terms if he refers to "down-east spearchuckers".



Here's what those "down-east" types think of when it comes to missile weapons, political or otherwise:




You keep on living in the past Stock and we'll see you at the polls.

Iceland's miracle: the other side

For some people, Iceland has replaced Ireland as the model du jour that we should be aping as quickly as possible.

Yada yada yada.

None of the proponents of the Iceland model actually talk about the Iceland model as it actually is; they just talk about what they fantasize it means. That's largely just an excuse to avoid dealing with local issues in a practical way, of course.

Well, one of the costs of Iceland's supposed economic miracle is a currency that is dropping against the Euro. As a result, the Icelandic central bank has raised interests rates to 14.25%. It's been about 15 years since we've seen those kinds of interest rates in Canada.

Investors are keeping a close eye on the Iceland situation since the whole economic tension is coming from a government deficit on current account that is running at 27% of gross domestic product in the third quarter.

To put that in context, that's the equivalent of the provincial government here running a deficit - in a three month period just ended - of around $1.35 billion. That's just in one quarter, and assuming the economic output in the economy right at the moment is about $5.0 billion per quarter.

At that rate, Newfoundland and Labrador would add another $5.0 billion or so to its debt in a single year. The current consolidated accrual debt at the moment is estimated at $11.0 billion. The whole government budget this year is in the neighbourhood of $5.0 billion.

Iceland might be able to manage that in short term. For Newfoundland and Labrador, that kind of economic mess would rival the stuff that led to the collapse of responsible government in 1934.

The story has been picked up as far away as Shanghai, based on the Bloomberg story.

This is the 18th time the central bank has raised interest rates since May 2004.

Christmas in Dannyland 5

Christmas in Dannyland 4, an unsolicited contribution by WJM, can be found at labradore.

Here's the next instalment from Bond. Maybe your humble e-scribbler will get a gig writing for Revue '06.

[Tune: Santa Claus is coming to town]

Danny's jaw is clenching again

He's gettin' annoyed.
He's royally upset.
Emotionally,
he's nearly a wreck.
Danny's jaw is clenching again.

He's showin' his angst
at Randy, not Bill.
The blood pressure's up.
He just cannot chill.
Danny's vein is throbbing again.

Refrain:

He's ticked off at the teachers.
He's riled at the PM.
The Opposition's got him miffed
pushin' Dan around the bend.

He's pissed off at Grimes.
Big Oil is bad, too.
He'll tell you
he's got lots better to do.
Danny's temple's throbbing again.

Pachelbel's Canon in D sucks bigtime

This guy has it right on.

As someone who suffered through the canon during his wedding - but managed to sneak "God Save the Tsar!" into the lineup - your humble e-scribbler brings you this hysterically funny take on what many of us feel:

Rig shortage slows exploration

A global shortage of semisubmersible rigs capable of drilling in deep water is affecting exploration and development, according to bloomberg.com.

Rental fees are increasing and order books for new rigs are already backlogged as demand outstrips the ability of the handful of shipyards able to build the behemoths to keep pace. Two new rigs will enter the global fleet in 2007 with another 13 due in 2008. Currently, there are just 18 rigs like Cajun Express [right] capable of drilling more than four miles below the seabed.

All this is a reminder of the highly competitive global marketplace that will likely keep exploration offshore Newfoundland and Labrador at a meagre level for the better part of the next decade. Optimism that the area might become home to renewed global interest were dashed in early 2006 with collapse of the Hebron talks, political grandstanding by Premier Danny Williams and a failure by the Williams government to deliver an energy plan focused on creating a globally competitive environment.

One element to note from Bloomberg is the development of Chevron's Tahiti field. Discovered in 2002, the field contains an estimated $33 billion in oil and will begin production in 2008.

By contrast, the Hebron field was discovered in the early 1980s but was considered commercially non-viable for almost two decades. Engineering studies began in 1999, spurred by a new provincial government royalty regime. A unitization agreement was achieved among the four-company consortium ine arly 2005 followed by talks with the provincial government on royalties and local benefits. Talks with the province collapsed in April 2006 based on demands from the provincial government for super-royalties and an equity position in the development for the Crown-owned hydroelectric company. The latter contained a significant problem since the company had no prior experience in oil and gas work. In addition, the company does not function like Statoil or Norsk Hydro but is controlled very closely by the Premier's Office.

Premier Danny Williams claimed he rejected the companies' proposal for $500 million in tax concessions during the construction phase of the project. Published reportsd estimated Hebron's 500 million-plus barrels of oil was worth between CDN$8 to CDN$10 billion in royalties to the provincial government over the production lifespan. An additional 250 million barrels were not included in the Hebron proposal but were available for subsequent exploitation.

Any new talks on the Hebron field are not likely to begin before Danny Williams quits the premier's office, presumably in 2009/2010.

Squeezing the Hibernia field by rejecting an application to develop 300 million barrels in Hibernia South would be folly that would only deplete provincial government coffers. The oil industry has plenty of opportunities to make plenty of cash somewhere else.

Signed, sealed, delivered and rammed

Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of the province fully informed; there will be no secret documents.There will be no hidden agendas. If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course for the future...

That is what my platform is about: no hidden documents; no hidden agendas.

Danny Williams, Leader of the Opposition,
paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln in debate on the
Access to Information and Protection of Public Privacy Act,
House of Assembly, December 3, 2001.

How times have changed.

Premier Danny Williams will not allow the Auditor General to review certain documents presented to cabinet and related to the fibre optic deal. He defends his decision by pointing to the letter of the law.

This is not the first time Williams has demonstrated that the noble words delivered shortly after his election to the House of Assembly were not matched by his actions once he became Premier. A year into his administration, Williams rejected a request from The Telegram for access to polling conducted for his office out of public funds. He claimed the letter of the access to information law prevented their releases since they would reveal cabinet confidences.

He was proven wrong by a simple reading of the access act itself which explicitly stated that public opinion polling could not be withheld from disclosure. He was also proven wrong in a subsequent decision by the access and privacy commissioner.

In examining the Premier's latest in a long list of efforts to avoid public accountability for his actions in office, it is useful to go back to what Danny Williams argued from the opposition benches.

At that time, the current premier was in favour of open and largely unfettered access to information. He criticized provisions of the access legislation as having been "put in here as a shield to protect the government."

"The people of the province have a right to know what is going on...It [a deal or agreement] should not be signed, sealed and delivered and then rammed down their throats when it is all over."

His belief in openness and transparency appeared undeniable.

That was in 2001.

In November 2006, when faced with questions about the deal, the Progressive Conservative majority in the House of Assembly amended an opposition motion to read simply:

Therefore be it resolved that the House of Assembly, in the spirit of openness and accountability, ask the Auditor General, an independent Officer of the House of Assembly, to investigate all the details and circumstances of the fiber [sic] optic deal.

Note the simple word "all".

Given Premier Williams' position today that the Auditor General is prohibited by law from reviewing cabinet documents (including background reports, recommendations by officials etc), and given that the Premier and his colleagues were clearly familiar with the provisions of the access legislation when they voted in favour of the resolution calling on the Auditor General to review the fibre optic deal, one can only reasonably conclude that the Premier and the members of his caucus had no intention of allowing access to "all" details and circumstances.

What is truly curious about the Premier's position, though, is that the disclosure in this instance is limited to a single official of the House of Assembly in a very specific context. This is no ordinary official in the pantheon of Williams props. The Auditor General holds a revered status akin only to God himself; that is, when Williams wants to attack his own political enemies. Cabinet ministers are slaughter on the AG's word.

And while Danny Williams advocated unfettered information access for the lumpenproletariat - like your humble e-scribbler and you - only a few short years ago, Williams in this instance is denying his own deity the ability to have a confidential review of certain documents directly related to a controversial issue.

Think about that.

And it is not as thought individuals have not been given access to documents. Cabinet is quite able to disclose information based solely on its own discretion. Details of Hydro Corporation expenditures on the Lower Churchill were revealed in 2004, completely contrary to the access act. Cabinet has the legal ability to disclose certain information, at its discretion, and to restrict the subsequent disclosure.

In this case, the twin imperatives of cabinet confidentiality and the need to demonstrate that the fibre deal is "squeaky clean" can be easily balanced. That is, they could be balanced if the Premier was sincere.

By his own actions, evidently, he is not.

Or perhaps there is some other reason for the Premier's willingness to block the Auditor General's review.

It should not go unnoticed that in his news release the Premier drew attention to provisions of the access law that prevent "disclosure of Cabinet confidences and information harmful to law enforcement." In the release the Premier - and his publicist - paraphrased the act in describing cabinet confidences. There was no apparent need to mention the other provision of the act at all since - so far as we know - there is nothing in this Persona deal that is connected in any way to law enforcement. Why did the Premier mention it at all?

Sadly, we will not know, at least until a future administration appoints a public inquiry. Until then, we must be satisfied - according to Danny Williams' actions - with having this deal signed, sealed, and delivered.

For good measure, the Premier rammed the whole thing today but his destination was considerably lower than our throats.

It must be good to be da king, indeed.

Waiting for the other shoe

Hibernia oil production is forecast to drop next year and Hibernia Management and Development is pinning the decline on delay in approving its application to develop the southern Hibernia field.

The development application was held up by wrangling between Danny Williams and Ottawa over the appointment of a new chairman and chief executive officer for the joint board that regulates offshore oil and gas. The board - which now includes chairman/CEO Max Ruelokke and Andy Wells - has taken more than a month to consider recommendations from officials based on their own assessment and results of a public consultation process.

The National Post story linked above notes that no decision had been made as of 16 December 2006. A decision has been made since then. Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the federal and provincial governments now have 30 days to approve or disapprove the offshore board decision. There's no indication of the board's decision.

The local oil patch has long speculated that the provincial government will quash development of the 300 million barrels in the southern Hibernia structures either to try and force a re-start negotiations of Hebron, as one National Post source speculates, or to have the field treated as a new development.

As a new development, the 300 million barrels would require negotiations to set benefits and royalties. Bond Papers contends the southern field is part of the main project and would not meet any objective criteria to establish it as a separate project.

If the provincial government rejects the application, work offshore Newfoundland and Labrador will grind to a virtual standstill outside of the effort needed to produce oil at the existing fields - Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose. Exxon Mobil will drill two exploration holes in the Orphan basin. No other work appears scheduled.

Hibernia is owned by ExxonMobil, Chevron, Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, Murphy Oil and Norsk Hydro. Norsk Hydro's interest will become part of the new Norwegian oil and gas company created by the merger of Statoil with Hydro's offshore assets.

There are duties and then there are duties

Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says the comptroller general has a legal obligation to collect any money that's owed to the province.

Sullivan (right) made the comment when announcing today that the comptroller general would be sending letters to the five current and former members of the House of Assembly demanding repayment of alleged overpayments in the House of Assembly spending scandal.

Perhaps the finance minister should read all of the Financial Administration Act and acknowledge that significant details of the House of Assembly scandal have not been properly investigated and disclosed to the public.

For example, the comptroller general has a legal obligation to maintain the public accounts under terms set out in s. 27:

27. (1) The comptroller general shall keep a ledger in which shall be entered the departmental appropriations by Heads of Expenditure and by subheads and subdivisions in accordance with the subhead and subdivision allocations exhibited in the estimates for the fiscal year concerned, as amended in accordance with this Act, against which shall be charged all authorized expenditures.

(2) The comptroller general shall establish and maintain a record of commitments chargeable to each appropriation in the form that the board may prescribe.

(3) The comptroller general shall furnish to each deputy minister or other officer charged with the administration of a Head of Expenditure a statement of the charges entered against the Head of Expenditure or a subhead or subdivision of a Head of Expenditure and those statements shall be furnished at those periods that the deputy minister may reasonably require and shall show the charges made during the report period together with the balances at the credit of the Head of Expenditure or subheads or subdivisions at the end of each period concerned.

(4) When a subhead or a subdivision is exhausted, the comptroller general shall at once notify the deputy minister concerned and the comptroller general shall not sanction a further charge to be entered against that subhead or subdivision except as provided in this Act.

Notice that the comptroller general is responsible to track expenditures and to advise the deputy minister concerned - in this case the Clerk of the House of Assembly - that a line item has been overspent.

Under s.27.(4), the comptroller general "shall not sanction a further charge to be entered against that subhead or subdivision".

In the House of Assembly scandal we simply do not know what, if anything, the comptroller general did to discharge this responsibility. Had this responsibility been properly discharged, we likely wouldn't be looking at the mess we have today. If the comptroller general did his duty but was overruled by others, then the public has an incontrovertible right to know and to hold accountable those who sanctioned the overspending.

We do know that in from 1998 to 2005, the allowances and assistance budget for the House of Assembly was overspent to a total of $3.2 million. The Auditor General has only identified $1.58 million in excess spending. The table above shows the excess spending compared to the budget (red line) compared to the totals identified by the Auditor General (yellow line). Over half the overspending remains unaccounted for even after two supposedly thorough investigations by the Auditor General.

But wait.

It gets better.

Under s. 29, the comptroller general has further statutory obligations:

29. The comptroller general shall ensure that no payment of public money is made

(a) for which there is no legislative appropriation;

(b) for which no other appropriation has been provided under this Act;

(c) which is in excess of an appropriation; or

(d) which is in excess of sums that may have been deposited with the government in trust for a person,

and the comptroller general shall report to the board a case which comes to his or her notice in which liability has been incurred by a minister, deputy minister or other officer or person which contravenes this Act and the board may take whatever action in the matter that it considers necessary. [Emphasis added]

The comptroller general is specifically enjoined not to disburse money in excess of an appropriation. He is also obliged to report overspending to the treasury board. That is in addition to reporting to the appropriate deputy minister of equivalent.

Even if the deputy minister involved fails to act, there are others above him or her who have legal duties: the members of treasury board, all of whom are cabinet ministers.

One of the key members of treasury board is the president, which for several years is a position occupied by the minister of finance under successive Liberal and now Progressive Conservative administrations.

We know that significant overspending - about $1.0 million - occurred since Loyola Sullivan has been finance minister, president of treasury board and a member of the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission. Over $800,000 of that amount remains unexplained.

We have a right to know what happened.

Loyola has a duty to tell us.

When can we expect that duty to be discharged?

But what did Danny ask for?

Bond Papers has learned that fax machines at Confederation Building have been busily churning out a lengthy diatribe from the Scrappiest Premier in Canada (trademark pending) to each of Newfoundland and Labrador's members of parliament seeking their unequivocal support in the coming holy war between Danny Williams and Ottawa on Equalization.

While Premier Danny Williams likes to talk about Stephen Harper's commitment given in response to a letter Williams wrote to the federal party leaders, Scrappy isn't too keen to discuss his own version of what the Equalization formula should look like.

Well, in the interest of annoying the Premier so much he names Bond Papers next time full debate and discussion on this issue of such public importance, here's the Danny Williams proposal for Equalization reform with notes by your humble e-scribbler.

Get to the end of this post and then see if you can explain why Danny's knickers are in such a knot. Forget the nonsense from the Premier's publicity department. Compare what the Premier proposed the government's official position to what he is now bickering over.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is advocating the following reforms to the equalization program:

(1) return to a formula driven approach to the determination of equalization entitlements, abandoning the "fixed pot" approach introduced in October 2004; [BP: All the first ministers are in agreement with this. The federal proposal and the O'Brien commission report all discuss a return to a formula based on commonly-accepted principles.]

(2) the measurement of fiscal capacity must extend beyond simply revenue raising to include accounting for the impact of debt and debt servicing; [BP: Newfoundland and Labrador is pretty much alone on this one. Debt and debt servicing are a direct result of provincial government fiscal decisions. Taking this approach would commit the federal government to transfer cash to the province but would relieve the province of any obligation to address its own debt problem. After all, if this section were implemented as the Premier intends it, the provincial government could wrack up ever increasing levels of public debt and actually see increases in federal transfers. Don't expect anyone to endorse this or for Williams to admit that what he really wants is the exactly opposite of what he publicly claims to support . His own words say something completely different, though.]

(3) comprehensive revenue coverage (which would include, in full, all renewable and non-renewable resource revenues); [BP: In January 2006, Danny Williams proposed the complete clawback of all resource revenues through Equalization.

Danny Williams is on a new political jihad because the federal government is threatening to include half of all resource revenues in figuring out equalization payments.

Danny Williams now claims he wants the federal government to exclude only non-renewable resource revenues.

Under Williams' original proposal, offshore oil and gas revenues would be protected for a limited period through the offshore agreements (1985 and 2005). All other revenues would be clawed back. The loss to the provincial treasury would be at least as the amount under the current federal proposal.

Under the current proposal the provincial government may lose federal transfers of about $100 to $200 million per year. Oil revenues alone are forecast to grow beyond that amount.

and,

(4) a return to the 10 province national average standard...[BP: This principle is included in the O'Brien report and recent federal proposals.]

Confuddled? I didn't think so.

What Danny Williams says today and what he actually wrote as the official position of the provincial government in January are two completely different things.

On top of that, you should know that Williams isn't only concerned about Equalization. Rather he is also perturbed that the federal government is planning to restrict its spending in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction like education.

The big problem for Danny Williams is that he has absolutely no influence in Ottawa at all. This is a problem entirely of his own making.

On top of that, Williams is suffering from the evident hypocrisy of his earlier positions. On the one hand he relentlessly criticized the federal government yet at the same time sought to increase federal transfers to his own administration.

Contrast this with the position taken by Clyde Wells a decade and a half earlier. Wells recognized the need to change the Newfoundland and Labrador economy and reduce the provincial government's dependence on federal transfers. However, Wells also recognized the important role of the federal government as the national government - something Williams' "Dannyland" pretensions rudely ignore - and specifically in developing the province through the transition period to a properly developed economy.

The dependence was something to be acknowledged but worked against. In Williams case, he has actively sought to increase it.

Of course, Wells and then-prime minister Brian Mulroney may not have been fast friends, but at least Mulroney would return Wells' phone calls and answer his letters.

And Mulroney's communications director never cavalierly dismissed Wells as easily as Harper's did with Williams.

Payback is indeed a mother, isn't it Danny?

Norwegian oil giants merge

Norwegian oil and gas companies Statoil and Norsk Hydro announced Monday they will merge their offshore hydrocarbon operations, thereby creating the largest offshore oil producing company in the world. The announcement can be found at statoil.com and at hydro.com.

The Norwegian Crown will own 62.5% of the new company. Norsk Hydro's aluminum production and electricity generating assets will remain part of a separate company.

Bloomberg describes the transaction this way:

Statoil ASA, Norway's state-controlled oil company, agreed to buy Norsk Hydro ASA's energy business for about $28 billion as supplies from domestic fields peak and competition intensifies for drilling contracts from Russia to Venezuela.

The Norwegian announcement moves the two corporations in a direction opposite to the one taken by the Williams administration which earlier this year expanded the mandate of the Crown-owned hydroelectricity company to allow it to engage in any economic activity approved by cabinet. Williams has stated repeatedly that he has been following the Norwegian model in creating the stated-owned megacorporation.

Implications for the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore are unclear at this time. Norsk Hydro has interests in Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and the stalled Hebron project.

No Hebron until Danny's gone

One of the logical conclusions from Danny's Williams long slow good-bye: Hebron negotiations won't stand a chance of starting until after he's gone, likely 2010 at the earliest.

That would make April Fools out of those who believed this:

"I'm saying to ExxonMobil right now that if you don't want to move on with this project, then we would be prepared to take you out," said Williams, who added his government is prepared to take on a greater equity stake with remaining partners.

Second refinery costed, deemed feasible

[Revised]

Newfoundland and Labrador Refining's proposed Placentia Bay refinery will cost CDN$4.6 billion, according to a news release from the company.

The story made headlines in the United Kingdom over the weekend, including The Sunday Times.

If built, the proposed heavy oil refinery will process 300,000 barrels per day initially with a 15% rate of return. [Note: It isn't clear from the NL Refining statement if the feasibility study concluded that the project is feasible and will provide a base-line 15% ROR or if the project would be considered feasible if it provided a 15% ROR.]

In addition to appointing a vice-president commercial recently, NL Refining has engaged Susan Hollett of Hollett and Sons to conduct consultations on the project.

The long slow good-bye

Premier Danny Williams will seek re-election in October 2007, but won't run for a third term in the election that will likely follow in 2011.

We should all wonder why.

In April, Williams was threatening to hang around as long as he wanted in order to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador received what he thought was a proper return from offshore oil and gas developments.

Williams has been whining publicly and privately since shortly after the 2003 general election about the pressures of being premier. Williams finds it especially difficult that people sometimes criticize his policies. He whined most recently at a party fundraiser in St. John's where he mentioned, among other things, some of the criticisms he receivers from bloggers. He mentioned one in particular but wouldn't mention the blog by name.

Popular speculation has long held that he wouldn't seek a third term, preferring instead to pack it in 2009 if he manages to sign a deal to develop the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project.

But here's the thing. Williams has been pretty slow in implementing the plan he supposedly had ready to go when he was sworn in. Just this past week he finally got around to having proclaimed so-called accountability legislation that was supposedly a key part of his agenda.

Williams also closed the legislature prematurely this past week. It was the shortest sitting of any session of the legislature by an elected premier during a full term. The House of Assembly sat a total of 38 days in 2006, scarcely more than a third of a typical session from the early 1990s.

Contrary to Williams claims of achieving records, the session just ended was marked by an immense number of small housekeeping bills that made modest changes to existing legislation. Even the noteworthy legislation introduced since 2003 have been remarkably few in number.

His great promise of reforming the structure and organization of government - a project begun shortly after the 2003 election - disappeared in silence, never to be mentioned again. Legislation to turn the province's hydroelectric corporation into an oil and gas company took three full years to see the inside of the legislature and while it passed with hardly a notice earlier this year, little if any action has been taken to give it meaning.

Overall, his three throne speeches - outlining the government's agenda have been characterized by a great deal of ego-stroking for the first minister but little else. Most of the economic development agenda merely continues policies that have been in place since 1992. The Rural Secretariat carries on the same work as it did under Williams' immediate predecessor. The energy plan, long awaited since Brian Tobin announced it in 1998 has been delayed and then delayed again under Williams. The fishery has languished under a combination of neglect, mischief and old-fashioned time-wasting "study". Even the offshore revenue deal seems to have been not so much a monumental new initiative as the continuation of a Liberal initiative brought to conclusion by fortuitous circumstances rather than great skill.

On the whole, Danny Williams has talked much but delivered little in what turns out to be the first half of his tenure. Rather than being the father of a New Approach, Williams has become little more than a public policy babysitter.

Even on the issue of federal-provincial relations, Williams promised to develop a more co-operative relationship with Ottawa. Instead, he has reveled in every opportunity to pick a fight. Relations between the 8th floor - home to the Premier's Office in Confederation Building - and the Prime Minister's Office are as dismal as they have ever been.

One wonders why Danny Williams is bothering to continue. Despite all the promises, he seems to lack as many new ideas as he claimed or the ability to deliver on those he does have. This could be an egotistical cry for affection after a very difficult year for a leader who clearly thrives on public adulation. Perhaps he hopes we will all beg him to stay on.

If this is why Williams announced his future plans now, then perhaps he should pack it in now. Clearly, if he needs relentless stroking, Williams lacks the emotional maturity to be first minister.

Perhaps it would better for Danny Williams to resign early in the New Year. That way, he could escape the public scrutiny he evidently loathes. At the same time, his party could select a new leader in time for the fall election or, if need be, postpone the election for a few months beyond October but without going past the five year term limit contained in the constitution.

After all, there's nothing on the public agenda that requires his personal attention. If there was, he wouldn't be announcing his resignation so far in advance. The only thing he has accomplished is winning a record to go beside the ones he already holds for "Most fights with Outsiders by a First Term Premier", "Shortest, lightest legislative session since Responsible Government (1855)" and "Greatest number of petulant outbursts by an incumbent".

By announcing his resignation more than two years before he will leave, Danny Williams has now bested both Jean Chretien and Ralph Klein for the most pointless long, slow good bye by a Canadian first minister.

Christmas in Dannyland 3

[Tune: Hark! The herald angels sing]

Hark! The planted callers sing

Hark! The planted callers sing
praises of their Leader-King.
Kisses aimed at Danny's rear
filling every listening ear.

Minnie, Tony, Todd and Kevin
laud the one come down from Heaven.
Newfoundland to rise again; Far surpass Jerusalem.
Every critic surely damned
for not heeding his command.

Breaking: PMO researches real cause of global warming

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments about "so-called" greenhouse gases are actually just a clue to what all Conservatives know to be the real cause of global warming: bovine flatulence.

Bond Papers has obtained a classified Conservative Party video showing two senior PMO staffers conducting experiments on ungulate intestinal emissions, at the party's top-secret policy research facility (and dude ranch), near Canmore.

Christmas in Dannyland 2

[Tune: Rudolph]

Danny the red-faced Premier

You know Robert and Frederick and Philip and Joey,
Clyde, the two Brians and Frankie and Tommy.
But do you recall, the most pissed-off leader of all?

Danny the red-faced Premier
couldn't take the questioning.
Each time the Liberals asked one,
his thin skin could feel the sting.

All of the Opposition
thought that they were making gains
When they asked 'bout Joan Cleary
And her Bull Arm contract games.

Then one Question Period
Danny turned to say:
"Sullivan , I've had enough!
Get Ed here and stop this stuff."

The all the House was quiet
and Danny let out a sigh:
"Let's get on all the talk shows
and try to keep the polling high."

Christmas in Dannyland

[Tune: We three kings]

We three cable telecom guys

We three cable telecom guys,
seeking cash from public supplies
took a plan to Premier Danny
knowing he would oblige.

Oooh.

Fibre optic cable strands
bound with tape and rubber bands
Trevor Taylor, former sailor,
can't seem to understand.

So we thought for over a year
how to make the deal appear
when a fire and friendly choir
seemed to o'ercome our fear.

Oooooh.

Fibre optic cable strands
bound with tape and rubber bands,
over bog and through the fog,
all black for no demand.

Dung!

That's the sound you hear instead of the ringing of bells as the provincial government issues this laughable news release .

"The Transparency and Accountability Act is a flagship piece of legislation for our government," said the Honourable Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. "This act reflects our commitment to provide the legislative framework for the conduct of fiscal policy, better decision-making processes and most important, strengthened accountability, openness and transparency. We remain committed to ensuring that government is fully accountable to the people who have entrusted us to run the province."

There is such a commitment to accountability that Danny sat on the bill for two whole years until he was publicly embarrassed into proclaiming it by the Auditor General.

Your humble e-scribbler has made note of the gap between Danny's claims on openness, accountability and transparency and the highly secretive way he actually conducts government business. A bunch of other people have made the same observation.

Notice that even though the legislation has been around since 2004, government departments, agencies and Crown corporations have until 2008 (!!!!!) to issue an annual report or a strategic plan.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have yet further proof that it really is good to be the king.

It's good to be da King's servants

The rules of the House of Assembly governing visitors are absolutely clear:

Rules for Visitors:

* Before entering the galleries, visitors must walk through a metal detector at the 3rd floor entrance.

* All cameras, packages, umbrellas, bags (other than small handbags) must be deposited with the attendant.

* Visitors are not permitted to smoke, read books or papers, draw or write, stand in or behind the galleries.

* Use of cameras, tape recorders, radios or electronic devices is prohibited.

* Display of banners, signs or placards is prohibited.

* Visitors must abstain form applause or making any interruption or annoyance.

[Emphasis added]

So why then can government political staffers (including communications staff) not only carry Blackberrys into the galleries but also furiously send and receive text messages while observing House proceedings?

Let's not even talk about the fundamental disrespect they show our democracy by leaning over the railings.

This gives new meaning to contempt for the House, but then again, we can't expect much better given the example set by the Premier and - saddest of all - the Speaker himself.

So long Rona. We hardly knew ye.

If media reports hold true and the Prime Minister shuffles his cabinet, Rona Ambrose is for the high jump.

Too bad.

She gamely tried to tackle a portfolio the Prime Minister and his cabinet clearly have no interest in. It isn't that she couldn't sell the Connie administration's environment agenda: they don't have one worth speaking of.

Changing from Rona Ambrose for someone as eloquent as, say Lawrence Cannon, won't improve the chances Canadians will suddenly accept Stephen Harper as some form of Connie David Suzuki. Heck, we didn't buy Mulroney this past week trying to claim he was the greatest environmentalist ever to occupy 24 Sussex.

Nope.

On environmental issues, the Connies still come across like a band of left-over Reaganites trying to persuade us that ketchup is a vegetable.

Reviving Liberal programs the Connies cut, as the Canadian Pess story linked above suggests, won't cut it either. That will look exactly like what it is: a desperate attempt to reposition the Conservatives in an effort to win votes, not to endorse something they actually believe in.

For that, environmental voters will have to look elsewhere like our man Dion.

Closer to home, the Conservative candidates in the next federal election will once again be in a hard spot. In 2004, they had to wage a campaign without support from the local Progressive Conservatives. That seems likely to be the scenario again, what with Premier Danny Williams needing to wage war against 24 Sussex, regardless of who occupies it.

In addition, the incumbents on the northeast Avalon have got their own baggage to carry around. Norm Doyle has been but a few days away from having his name and face added to a milk carton. Fish minister Loyola Hearn has ticked off many of his supporters with his approach of promising one thing before the election and doing something else once in office.

It's not like somebody didn't warn people of that before:

- Hearn on Hibernia shares.

- Hearn on NAFO.

- Hearn on the offshore revenue deal, an issue that still rankles.

- Hearn on custodial management.

- Hearn on tackling overcapacity in the fishery.

- Hearn on custodial management, federal job presence in the province and immigration cases.

In the past, Hearn speculated about retirement but as the fish minister he really won't be able to walk away from running again.

The only question will be the name of his Liberal opponent.

No substitute for proper senate reform

Supporters of senate reform found out that Stephen Harper's promise of an elected senate was utterly meaningless.

All the Prime Minister intends to do - if the bill passes parliament - is hold a plebiscite so he can gauge public opinion on senate appointments.

Almost a year ago, Bond Papers argued in favour of meaningful senate reform and criticised the measly version offer by Harper as an election ploy. Simon Lono pitched in his two cents worth as well, although his argument in favour of proper senate reform is worth a heckuva lot more than that.

Turns out we over-estimated Harper's commitment to the notion of electing senators, even with his original - and very modest - suggestion of electing them. Turns out that observations made last February turned out to be closer to the truth.

What the Prime Minister is proposing is far short of what is possible, let alone what is desirable. It is no first step in senate reform. It is simply a political dodge that has more to do with appearance than action.

War of the Pee

Some time ago, Bond Papers forecast a war among the provinces over equalization.

As it turned out the clash was fought behind closed doors; sort of a war of the flea approach by some provinces like Saskatchewan.

Now federal finance minister Jim Flaherty is taking a Spanish Inquisition approach to finding a resolution, telling provincial premiers they have one more last chance after all the other last chances he gave them to agree among themselves for face the federal government imposing a solution.

Bond Papers has already covered the Equalization issue, including a post on the feds preferred approach (here and here) , the O'Brien report, provincial finance minister Loyola Sullivan's problems with seeing the writing on the wall, his own significant disagreement with Danny Williams on Equalization, and Danny Williams' impotence in dealing with Stephen Harper.

We must wonder again, though, on that last point. Why exactly is it that Danny Williams seems to have such a hard time making any headway with Stephen Harper? The Premier has a personal emissary who lives in the nation's capital each day going about his business amongst the Bytown powerbrokers.

This is the fellow who now occupies the position Danny Williams once viewed as crucial to the success of our fair province when dealing with the Demons of the Rideau. From the Saturday, October 25, 2003 edition of The House:

Anthony Germain (Host): I notice you remarked that you were going to set up an office here in Ottawa for your province. Tell me about that.

Danny Williams: Well, I think that's critical. It's going to be an office of federal/provincial relations. I think we need to have a base on the ground. The pattern here in Newfoundland and Labrador for years has been as soon as there's a crisis or soon as there's a problem, we go public, we talk about it in the press and then we run off to Ottawa and we try to clean up the damage afterwards and try and control it. I don't think that's the way to go. I think that we need to be proactive. We need to identify problems and solutions in advance and I think that will work to everybody's benefit and make for a more cooperative relationship.

The evident impotence of the Ottawa office is no reflection on its current occupant. His efforts are earnest, even if they do appear ineffectual.

Rather the problem seems to come from his boss, and more particularly his boss' little brother.

The result may well be the lost of a couple of hundred million annually in federal transfers. Your humble e-scribbler can pee on the shoes of the mighty for we of the blog world are mere dribblers.

But when a Premier and his sibling double-hose indulge their fetish for political water sports with the prime ministerial loafers, there are evidently serious consequences.

Loyola tells fibs

If the opposition parties are wrong in their understanding that the House of Assembly would not be closing on December 12th, why then did the Government House Leader rise in his place on Monday, December 11 and solemnly intone the following:

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, as per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn tomorrow at 5:30 o’clock and further, as per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m.

The "nation" speaks

A new Decima poll has the Liberals slightly ahead of the Conservatives nationally and significantly ahead of the Conservatives in Quebec.

So much for those who predicted immediate political doom for M. Dion.

(h/t to Inkless Wells)

The unaccountable government

From the Auditor General's most recent comments on the auditted financial statements for Fiscal Year 2005:

Transparency and Accountability Act – On 29 November 2004, government tabled the Transparency and Accountability Act which received Royal Assent on 16 December 2004. However, nearly two years later, the act has still not been proclaimed and, therefore, is not in force. Mr. Noseworthy stated: "Although government has been diligent in having annual reports tabled for departments and Crown agencies, the reports provide only general information on the operations of the department or agency. The reports do not provide the information necessary to hold each entity accountable for its performance, including fiscal performance, in relation to its approved plans, using established measurable criteria. The Transparency and Accountability Act should be proclaimed." Furthermore, government should require that appropriate accountability information be included in annual reports tabled in the House of Assembly. [Emphasis added]

Interesting how many times the Premier and his ministers insist that, as Danny himself put it, are "all about accountability and transparency and when I say that, I really mean it". Perhaps he should consider being accountable than being - or beating - about it.

The unbearable lightness of Loyola

Government House leader and finance minister Loyola Sullivan is apparently pleased that in one of the shortest legislative sessions in Newfoundland and Labrador history, the House of Assembly dealt with 35 bills.

What Sullivan won't acknowledge is that overall, the legislature currently sits only half the number of days per year than it did a decade and a half ago and that the content of legislation is meagre.

Fully 28 of the 35 bills passed were minor amendments to existing statutes. Among the bills passed in the short session, foreshortened even more than usual for this administration by Sullivan at the last minute:

Bill 66, An act to amend the provincial Court Act, 1991 and the Human Rights Code. In its entirety, the bill said the following:

PROVINCIAL COURT ACT, 1991

1. Subsection 12(1) of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 is repealed and the following substituted:

12. (1) Every judge shall retire upon attaining the age of 70 years.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

2. Section 9 of the Human Rights Code is amended by adding immediately after subsection (6) the following:

(7) The right under this section to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where a judge is required to retire on reaching a specified age under the Provincial Court Act, 1991.

To paraphrase my grandmother, Sullivan doesn't have a job, he has a situation. Or as a good friend put it, being a cabinet minister is obviously a good job: you are in out of the weather and there is no heavy lifting.

Rest well, big guy

Actor Peter Boyle died Tuesday in New York, aged 71.

Most recently, Boyle was known as the crotchety father on the television comedy series Everybody loves Raymond.

Boyle gained early notice as the Robert Redford's campaign manager in every political junkie's favourite movie, The Candidate.

He followed this with a string of smaller parts before being cast against type as the Creature in Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein, a send-up of monster horror films from the 1930s. At left, Boyle reacts as his thumb is set on fire by a blind hermit, played by Gene Hackman in an uncreditted cameo.

Boyle's career was a mixture of television and cinematic films as well as episodic television dramas and situation comedies. X-Files fans will recognize Boyle as Clyde Bruckman. Boyle's character could foretell how people would die. He played Joe McCarthy in a made-for-television account of the life of the Wisconsin senator and his anti-communist witchhunt. Boyle played the corrupt mining boss in the science fiction western Outland with Sean Connery.

In the 1989 comedy The Dream Team, Boyle played a psychiatric patient with delusions of being Christ yet who still retained a New Yorker's natural earthy assertiveness. The part was typical of the quirky roles Boyle sometimes took throughout his career. Following quotes are courtesy of IMDB:

I am the Lord they God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. Out of my way, asshole.

...

Jack: Stop! Who dares to tow the van of the living Christ?
Driver: The city of New York, Tarzan! $50 for the violation, $75 for the tow and $20 a day for storage.
Jack: [Skyward] Father, forgive us for we have sinned! We parked our car in a forbidden zone!

Dishonesty in small details reveals truth

Rarely does one see a cabinet self-destruct in as eloquent a manner as Kathy Dunderdale has done.

Over the past two weeks, Dunderdale first defended former Bull Arm boss Joan Cleary, then suddenly sacked her under pressure from the opposition benches during Question Period.

Throughout, Dunderdale maintained the entire matter first of the security shack contract and later of Cleary's firing revolved around supposedly minor errors of process. Dunderdale attempted to trivialize matters, even as she announced that she had asked for and received Cleary's resignation over what Dunderdale described in the legislature as "oversights."

Dunderdale's news release on December 7, stated that "during the rush to get this work complete before winter set in the proper process under the Public Tender Act was not followed...".

Dunderdale insisted throughout that the Public Tender Act had been followed. Consider this sentence from the December 7 release:

"The proper process was followed under the Public Tender Act, however, administrative and policy requirements of government were overlooked, which I took very seriously and which prompted me to ask for the broader review..."

At the end of this post is a series of extracts from Hansard containing comments by Dunderdale and by her stand-in during one session, John Ottenheimer. Now Ottenheimer is deservedly a widely respected gentleman with a reputation for honour and integrity. His comments here suggest a fellow merely defending his colleagues in good faith. The next sentence in Hansard after the one cited here contain Ottenheimer's admission that he did not have all the details.

But Dunderdale is a different matter. As minister responsible for Bull Arm, she knew or ought to know intimately what was going on at the site. She apparently did have detailed knowledge of exactly what was going on, at least at several key stages as this sordid business became public.

She chose to keep facts from the public for no good reason. Her defense is the weakest of weak excuses typically offered by those who seek to avoid accountability and transparency: "I was not asked in this House on Thursday to present or table any kind of information on the winterization contract that was let at Bull Arm."

Yet while we take it at face value that Dunderdale has many positive qualities, in this instance we can readily conclude that on more than one occasion she deliberately misled the public about Cleary and the problems at Bull Arm.

For that, Dunderdale owes the people of the province her resignation.

Look specifically at the comments on December 7. Then compare them to her comments in the House of Assembly this week. On December 12, for instance, she stated: "I was quite clear last week, on Thursday here in the House, when I said the winterization contract was done completely outside the Public Tender Act." She said no such thing. To the contrary, she did all that she could to conceal the truth.

By her own admission, Dunderdale knew all the details when she took the Cleary matter to cabinet on December 7. As a cabinet minister - leaving aside her pompous and self-serving comments about adhering to the Public Tender Act - Dunderdale had a fundamental obligation to disclose publicly all that she knew as quickly as possible and to take steps to correct the problem.

Her repeated false statements inside and outside the House simply cannot be sanctioned.

She must resign without delay. If Dunderdale does not resign then the Premier must remove her from cabinet immediately if for no other reason than to restore the integrity of his ministry. The public ought not to suffer a minister who willfully and deliberately conceals the truth on such a fundamental matter of ethics and honesty.

Of course, the Premier can keep within cabinet the smart and the stunned as all cabinets are usually comprised. But he cannot keep the false.

We shall all judge him by the company he keeps, if the Premier fails to act. As he well knows, the public is often harsh in its punishments of those who break their trust.

________________________________________

Nov 28

Mr. Ottenheimer: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I can say with a great degree of confidence that there is no circumvention of any law or any procedure or any proceeding that ought to be undertaken by this government.

Dec 4

Ms. Dunderdale: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate to his House that Ms Cleary had no involvement in the call for the second amount of bids, the second number of bids.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, while the Public Tender Act was followed, government's policy of having companies core registered was overlooked in this case. We have taken that very seriously. We are ensuring that all of our boards and agencies are aware of the policy of government, and we will do everything we can to ensure that these regulations are followed in the future.

Dec 6

Ms. Dunderdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I am ultimately responsible for what happens in this department, not Ms Cleary, and I am satisfied in terms of my investigations into this matter that there has been no impropriety.

Dec 7

Ms. Dunderdale: Mr. Speaker, I have been providing information in this House since last Wednesday with regard to the security shed contract. I have maintained, and still maintain, that everything was done within the Public Tender Act, although there were two oversights, which we take very seriously. Because of the uncovering of those two oversights, I instructed my staff to review all recent contracts with the Bull Arm Corporation. As a result of that review, I have found an instance of where work was let at the site and the proper process was not followed, although, I have determined, to my satisfaction, that there was no intentional wrongdoing or political interference. This government is committed to transparency, accountability, openness, and we are fully committed to the Public Tender Act. As a result of the concerns that have been raised on this piece of work, I have asked for and received Ms Cleary's resignation.

Dec 11

Ms. Dunderdale: Honesty is very important, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes when you are honest in small details it will tell you where you are going in the larger picture. I was never asked for information on the winterization contract last week, and when that information becomes available, I have no problem in tabling it here in this House, Mr. Speaker.

...

Dec 12

Ms. Dunderdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The contact was awarded verbally by the President and CEO of the Bull Arm Corporation, and I will have to check back, my documentation, to get the exactly date of that, Mr. Speaker.

...

Ms. Dunderdale: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, we realized that there had not been anpublicic call for bids, tenders, or Request for Proposals. That was a very serious situation outside the Public Tender Act. As a result, there were very serious actions taken.

Mr. Speaker, files were reviewed in the office of the Natural Resources Building in St. John's. Files were reviewed on-site at Bull Arm around any other documentation that might be relevant in terms of scope of work, all of those kinds of things. That review concluded yesterday, that we did not have documentation around the awarding of the contract. In all of our discussions with the people who have the contract, with the site manager, with the former CEO, there was no indication to us, Mr. Speaker - and that is all I can speak to - that there has been any criminal wrongdoing, that there has been any intentional wrongdoing. I can only accept that information as it is put forward. I do not have anything to substantiate any other kind of claim.

...

Ms. Dunderdale: Mr. Speaker, I was not asked in this House on Thursday to present or table any kind of information on the winterization contract that was let at Bull Arm. That is the long and short of it, Mr. Speaker. Once we have information, then I will be happy to table it in the House.

...

Ms. Dunderdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was quite clear last week, on Thursday here in the House, when I said the winterization contract was done completely outside the Public Tender Act. That is why the actions taken were taken.

As far as I understand - and I have reviewed it completely, Justice is having a look at it, as well as the government purchasing agency - there was no intentional wrongdoing or political interference nor is there any criminal intent, Mr. Speaker.

...

Danny Williams: mudslinger

[revised: see note below]

So Premier Danny Williams is threatening to fling mud at the opposition Liberals who are criticizing some of his decisions since taking office.

Ok.

That's normal politics.

No surprise that the five or six planted talk show callers - all of whom deny receiving transmissions from Borg Central - miraculously started spitting out the same sort of things that Danny started spouting. Like Minnie, for example, who recently attacked Judy Foote over traveling with her husband on government expense, something that happened before the last election.

When the host reminded Minnie of the untendered publicity work done after the offshore deal was signed Minnie dutifully chastised the host for bringing up "the past".

Maybe they don't get e-mails or phone calls. Maybe there's a website they all long onto. Or maybe the chips implanted at the base of their skulls receive messages automatically from the Hive. But there's just too much of a similarity in the words and phrases - and memories are way too good - for the attacks to be merely coincidence.

Anyway, the whole thing raises a few obvious points:

1. Danny Williams promised a new approach to politics. Business as usual is not a new approach. Danny Williams' defence of his own actions now typically rests on the fact that he really isn't any worse than The Other Crowd. He told us to expect better. We do.

So where is "better"?

Well, according to the Danny-boys better would be a relative concept. If The Other Crowd let 10 contracts without tender and we let five, then we are relatively better. Promise kept.

Only problem is that ethics in government doesn't work that way. An untendered contract is bad.

Period.

This moral relativism is like the defence mounted of a former deputy premier, later premier, who faced an accusation that members of his staff and his family had accepted gifts from a guy doing business with the minister's department.

Two local commentators took the view that the whole thing was alright since we weren't nearly as corrupt as they are in Nova Scotia.

Form the realm of moral relativism, we wait with bated breath for someone to bring up Alfred Morine and Sir Richard Squires to justify current questionable goings-on.

2. Talk is cheap. The Premier mentioned Lower Churchill spending in the CBC story linked above. Since the Lower Churchill project office - set up by Brian Tobin - continues to operate under Danny Williams and as under Tobin reports to the Premier's Office, would the Premier do something the other guys didn't do: table the expenses in the legislature?

Extra ambulances are standing by for those foolish enough to hold their breath on that one.

[Update: A late afternoon e-mail advised that the Lower Churchill office management arrangement has been changed. Good news says we around here. In reply, your humble e-scribbler asked two things:

1. May we post the e-mail in its entirety?; and,

2. So what are the expenses?

let's see what happens.]

3. Promise made...well...ummm. From da Blue Book:

A Progressive Conservative government will base policies and regulations for the procurement of goods and services and capital works on the following principles:

* Open and effective competition.

* Value for money assessed on the basis of net economic benefit to the Province as well as acquisition cost.

* A simplified tendering process.

* Participation of local business and industry.

* Environmental protection.

* Ethical conduct and fair dealing.

Well, untendered contracts are in fact a simplified process but somehow that isn't what most people would have expected.

Simple answer here is that this is a promise made that isn't being kept and likely won't be kept. Would any other political party be any different?

Likely not.

And that's the issue.

4. But since you raised the idea of untendered contracts...read on in da Blue Book:

Authorize the head of the [Government Purchasing] Agency to issue Certificates of Exemption from the requirement to invite public tenders in accordance with clear criteria that will be specified in the Act.

Designate the head of the Agency as an Accountable Officer with responsibility to report all public tenders and Certificates of Exemption to the House of Assembly on a monthly basis, and to certify compliance with the Public Tender Act.

Check the Public Tender Act and you won't find the promised changes.

Even if the changes weren't made, though, there'd be nothing to stop any administration from reporting exemptions to the Act authorized by...say treasury board or cabinet...to the House of Assembly or to the public at large through the government website.

Nothing except the public comment such an approach would invite.

Now public comment would not be a deterrent to a government committed to accountability and transparency as more than an advertising slogan.

Apparently, public disclosure of untendered contracts has been a deterrent to this administration on at least one occasion. After all, in their first year in office, the Current Crowd awarded a $98,000 contract for opinion research on the branding initiative. It was done without tender. In fact, it was done so quietly, some advertising agencies in town didn't even know the contract had been let in late 2004 until they were informed by your humble e-scribbler. The company that got that job subsequently handled the entire branding job. We found out through an access to information request.

That's four points to get you started. undoubtedly, there'll be more as we wind down to Christmas.

Breaking: Dan on the run

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.