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."
15 December 2006
Christmas in Dannyland 2
[Tune: Rudolph]
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 .
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.
"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:
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.
Rules for Visitors: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?
* 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]
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.
14 December 2006
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.
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.
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.
13 December 2006
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:
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.
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.The evident impotence of the Ottawa office is no reflection on its current occupant. His efforts are earnest, even if they do appear ineffectual.
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.
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)
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
...
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.
...
12 December 2006
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:
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:
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.
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:Well, untendered contracts are in fact a simplified process but somehow that isn't what most people would have expected.
* 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.
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.Check the Public Tender Act and you won't find the promised changes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)