Rideout, meanwhile, said that while the new rules are not yet law, they will be followed anyway — at least within the PC caucus.If the Tories can be ordered to live by The Rules within their own caucus, why weren't The Rules just put in place?
Members were sent an advisory to live by Green's recommendations concerning donations and discretionary spending.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation -Or take, the Opposition House Leader, Kelvin Parsons a former minister of justice and attorney general:
AN HON. MEMBER: Wonderful legislation.
MR. T. MARSHALL: This wonderful piece of legislation has been introduced, has been recommended by the Green report, Chief Justice Green, and I think it is important that this is a first step in the renewal, to renew public confidence in the institution of this House of Assembly and in the Members of the House of Assembly who, as I indicated earlier, the majority of which are dedicated to their Province, they are dedicated to their communities, they are dedicated to this House of Assembly and this legislation will help them to perform their duties and perform their services in a transparent and accountable manner and in the public interest to the people of this Province.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will move second reading of this legislation.
There is no doubt, of course, that we need to have a good foundation. We need to have good rules, and Judge Green, true to form, of course, has made it very detailed, has made it very comprehensive for that very reason. That in the future everything will be absolutely open, transparent and, most importantly I believe, accountable. There will be accountability here - it is fine to have a system, but there is no point in a system that you cannot account for it and you cannot let the people know and the public - particularly in this case, where we are all servants of the public - know what you are doing, how you are doing it, what are the rules you play by, and make sure that you do play it by the rules. That is what this will do on a go-forward basis.He neglected to mention that the basis will go forward from October 9, not June 14.
There is no doubt, as well, that albeit, Bill 33 will pass and become law today, or in the near future. There is no doubt, as well, that there is still certain little tweaking, shall we say, that has to be done in terms of implementation. There are some things that must need to be done. I understand, again, there has been a good rapport with Chief Justice Green in arriving at that decision in terms of implementation, and so it should be. It is good to see. I understand he met, as recently as this morning, with some representatives of all three caucuses represented in this House and answered any questions and concerns they had and so on. So, it is good to see that rapport continues, albeit he has submitted his report, and whatever needs to be done will be done, must be done and it will be done in such a way that it is proper and that, no doubt, there will not be anything done that does not meet with the approval and consent of Chief Justice Green and his committee. It is good to see that we have reached this point.But then Parsons made some other comments that surely would have led people to conclude - as many did - that The Rules would be in force along with the rest of the legislation:
I understand, in fact, that even the rules piece that he recommended, we will be seeing an amendment come forward here today so that even the rules that he suggested, the very detailed, specific rules as to what you can and cannot do, and how you record it and so on, that will be introduced here today as well as part of this bill, a schedule to this bill, and so it should be.Accountability.
I can say to the Government House Leader right now that, on the understanding that amendment is coming forward, we will certainly be in favour of that. As far as we can see there will not be any need for detailed discussions or whatever in Committee with respect to enforcing and having those rules become a part of this bill as well.
There is a bit of an irony, and I think we should acknowledge it, that one of the things Chief Justice Green mentions in his report is the fact that sometimes legislation may get passed very quickly in the House, and sometimes quick passage of legislation can lead to things happening inadvertently, decisions getting made and after the fact recognizing, oh, yeah, well maybe we weren’t on top of that when the decision was made. I have seen some of that in going through some records with regard to the House.Elizabeth Marshall, the former auditor general spoke at considerable length about the new audit provisions of the legislations. On the rules, she said this:
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the new detailed rules were also prescribed by Justice Green. These are laid out in the report and these also have been tabled here today in the House of Assembly. Really, that is a starting point for the Members of the House of Assembly and for the Internal Economy Management Commission, that these are starting rules. Of course, the commission, if they follow a certain process they may change the rules, but the approval process is something that has to be very open and it has to be made public. Also, any changes in the rules, which are made by the commission, have to come forward to the House of Assembly in a public forum for ratification.Not a word, from Ms. Marshall on the delayed implementation of the rules.
Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about the ethics piece for just a moment, because there are a number of things in this bill that speak to the conduct of members and the ethics of members. One of the things that the Chief Justice is recommending is that there be no more donations given out by MHAs, and despite what I wrote in my survey, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to continue to give donations - I will admit it - I am prepared to live by the recommendations that the Chief Justice have laid out for us. I understand his rationale behind it, I understanding his reasoning behind it and I am more than willing to accept that, as I have told him personally myself.Not a word again about why the implementation of the rules was being delayed.
The MHAs will be at a disadvantage this summer, of course, due to the restrictions Chief Justice Derek Green has placed on the cash they get to cover their asses in the districts...Restrictions, Bob?
labradore systematically demolishes the logic - or is that illogic - in claims made by the provincial government's man of a thousand titles Tom Rideout, right in an immortal picture from cbc.ca/nl, and by Paul Oram, cabinet-minister-wannabe.Look that's all poppycock nonsense and dribble from people who don't know what they're talking about. Members have to concur with the, with the ban on donations. Members have to concur with the fact that discretionary spending is gone. All of these matters that was in the rules as brought forward by Judge Green have been accepted and implemented. There's the matter of some mechanisms that can't be put in place overnight.Given that "all of these matters that was in the rules as brought forward by" Chief Justice Green have been accepted but won't actually be implemented until October 9, Rideout's comments are about as accurate as Jim Flaherty claiming that the Atlantic Accords haven't been changed and that the era of federal-provincial bickering is now over.
Well, first of all, let me say that any changes made to the Green Report and the legislation that accompanied the Green Report were made in total concurrence and consent with Chief Justice Green.
Not one T was uncrossed or not one I undotted without, without his consent or his concurrence. There are certain aspects of the Green Report that, that he didn't develop a regulatory regime on. For example, the number of trips that members can take to their district and be reimbursed for, the number of days they can be out of their district and in St. John's and be reimbursed for. He made some general recommendations but no firm conclusions.
So, that matter has to be addressed by a management board, a new management board of the House which has to be, which has to be put in place and report and he concurred that that can't happen, you know, that has to take time to happen an that the recommendation, those recommendations could only come in effect at some time in the future.
And he agreed and we all agreed that the effective date ought to be the election day, which is October ninth. So, there are mechanical matters, there are other matters, for example, like, like a software program that reports automatically on members' expenses. It's in place in some departments now; it's not even, it hasn't even been put in place in the House of Assembly yet. These are mechanical things that have to be put in place and take time to put in place. He agreed to that and he agreed
that those, that it was necessary to reflect that in the schedule of the Act that we passed through the Legislature. So, it was done with his consent and with his concurrence.
Transparency and accountability are the building blocks of public confidence.
To commence a new era of accountability in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislative assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity, and Administration Act was introduced, which is a piece of legislation that incorporates the recommendations of the Green Report.
46 (5) A member, in his or her capacity as a member, shall not make a donation or gift, whether of a charitable nature or not, to any person, group or community except as may be contemplated by subsection (3) and section 27. [Emphasis added]Right behind it is another provision that further restricts what public money can be spent on:
(6) Where a member makes a donation or gift, whether of a charitable nature or not, in a personal capacity, the member shall, in making the donation or gift, stipulate that any acknowledgment of the donation or gift shall not identify him or her as a member.
47. (1) An expense of a type listed in subsection 46(3) may not be
reimbursed if
(a) it is not directly connected with the member’s responsibilities as a member in relation to the ordinary and proper representation of constituents and the public;
(b) it is incurred in relation to partisan political activities or promotion; or
(c) one or more of the following persons has a financial interest in the contract or other arrangement under which the expense is incurred or in a corporation that has a financial interest in the contract or other arrangement under which the expense is incurred:
(i) the member,
(ii) an associated person in relation to the member,
(iii) another member, and
(iv) the spouse or child of another member. [Emphasis added]
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.That's it.
I would like to move that the bill be amended by adding immediately after clause 71 the following: 71.1.(1) "The rules contained in the Schedule shall be treated for all purposes as if they had been made by the commission under section 64 and, to the extent necessary, to have been adopted by the House of Assembly under subsection 20(7)."
Also, subsection (2) "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the rules contained in the Schedule may be dealt with by the commission under section 64 as if they had been made by the commission."
CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 71 be amended. The Chair rules that the amendment as put forward by the hon. Government House Leader to clause 71 is in order.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 71?
All those in favour, ‘Aye’.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.
Carried.
Motion amendment, carried.CLERK: Clause 72.
CHAIR: Clause 72.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move subclause 72(2) of the bill be amended by adding immediately after paragraph (b) the following: (c) "The Schedule comes into force on October 9, 2007."
CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 72 be amended. The Chair rules that the amendment as put forward by the Government House Leader is in order.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 72?
All those in favour, ‘Aye’.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.
Carried.
On motion amendment, carried.
CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 72 as amended?
All those in favour, ‘aye’.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.
Clause 72, as amended, is carried.
On motion, clause 72, as amended, carried.
(a) to provide resources to members to assist them to fulfill their public duties and responsibilities as members of the House, for the benefit of the residents of the province;Basically, all the sections of the bill setting controls on constituency allowances aren't in place and won't be in place until after the next election. One of the strong rules that won't be in effect until after October 9 would hold a member liable for over-runs on his or her allowance. Chief Justice Green's analysis, similar to observations made by Bond Papers last fall, suggests members of the legislature were more inclined to run up their allowance spending in the period immediately before an election.
(b) to promote accountability in, and transparency with respect to, the expenditure of public funds; and, [Emphasis added]
(c) to facilitate public understanding of the use of public funds in fulfillment of members’ obligations.
Update II
Legislature green-lights Green report; House adopts recommendations of report issued by chief justice
The recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green are now black-letter law.
The House of Assembly swiftly passed Bill 33 Thursday. The new law incorporates the recommendations of Green's report into financial arrangements at the legislature. Green provided draft legislation as part of his sweeping review.
It was the last piece of business attended to during the spring session of the House. Lt.-Gov. Ed Roberts gave the new law royal assent.
Bill 33 contains a series of new requirements aimed at fixing financial controls at the legislature.
Those include new layers of audits, a more transparent salary structure for MHAs, stricter ethics and accountability rules for politicians, and a revamped commission overseeing the affairs of the House.
The legislature will also be thrown open to the province's freedom of information laws.
Members from all parties lauded the new law during debate in the House of Assembly.
Finance Minister Tom Marshall said that changes to things like salaries for politicians will be done through the legislature "in full sight of the people of the province."
Liberal Opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons lauded the fact that future dealings in the House will be transparent and accountable.
NDP Leader Lorraine Michael thanked Green for his work.
"All we can do now is move forward," Michael noted. She said Green's recommendations allow the legislature to do that.
Topsail MHA Elizabeth Marshall made a personal observation - she never anticipated becoming an MHA and voting on a piece of legislation that righted the wrongs of the past.
She was auditor general in 2000 when politicians barred her from examining the books of the House.
A series of law and policy changes over the years enhanced benefits for politicians, and reduced public access to information about how tax dollars were being spent.
Auditors were allowed back in to the House after the Tory government took power in 2003.
Auditor General John Noseworthy's subsequent findings sparked a series of ongoing police investigations into current and former MHAs and a key House staffer. Noseworthy found questionable spending of at least $4.4 million. He is still reviewing the appropriateness of all constituency allowance claims back to 1989.
Marshall said the passage of the new law means "transparency, openness and accountability at the House of Assembly probably for the first time ever."
"Transparency and accountability are the building blocks of public confidence," Chief Justice Derek Green of the Newfoundland Supreme Court's Trial Division wrote in a 1,300-page report released Thursday. [From the Telegram]
Recommendation No. 80The House of Assembly actually did something else. The rules governing how members may spend their allowances will not come into force until after the next election.
(1) The draft Bill, styled the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, as set out in Schedule I to this chapter of this report, should be
presented to the House of Assembly as soon as possible for debate and, if thought advisable, enactment;
(2) Upon the coming into force of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the draft set of rules, styled the Members’ Resources and
Allowances Rules, as set out in Schedule II to this chapter, should be forthwith presented to the House of Assembly Management Commission, as reconstituted under the Act, for adoption in accordance with the Act;
A pitiful contract
Jeffrey Simpson
The Globe and Mail
Toronto, Ont.: Jul 3, 1986.
pg. A.6
Come-By-Chance periodically provokes a nibble of interest from some Israeli or Arab consortium, but most Newfoundlanders have consigned it and the other industrial failures to the far corner of their collective memory.
Not so with Churchill Falls, the Labrador hydro-electric project whose iniquitous terms can stir indignation in any Newfoundlander.
Another Smallwood legacy, the Churchill Falls project allows Quebec to make a killing on Labrador power. Quebec buys Labrador power for the laughably low rate of 3 mills and sells it for many times that rate in the United States.
Put simply, Newfoundland is getting shafted by the deal. All legal challenges, presentations to the National Energy Board and appeals to Quebec's conscience, good name, patron saints and anything else Newfoundland could think of have failed.
Quebec, after all, has a 65- year contract freely entered into with an agent of the Newfoundland Government in 1969. The power started flowing in 1976, and Quebec has been raking in the profits ever since.
Worse still, the contract calls for steadily falling rates to be paid by Hydro-Quebec for the duration of the contract.
Every failed legal challenge by Newfoundland merely solidified the sanctity of the contract. The federal Government, knowing that Quebec has nearly 11 times more parliamentary seats than Newfoundland, has been reluctant to intervene.
Quebec is legally obligated to do nothing but keep taking Labrador power at a low price and selling it for what the market will bear. It has argued that without Hydro-Quebec's consent and money, Newfoundland could never have developed Labrador power, since Quebec stands between the Churchill River and potential export markets.
Under Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois Government, Quebec's position remained as unyielding as it was simple - a contract is a contract is a contract. That position echoed the one taken earlier in the 1970s by Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa.
Now Mr. Bourassa, who was returned to power last December, is making modest noises that perhaps Quebec might be flexible. Newfoundland formally presented new proposals to him in March, and Premier Brian Peckford wants a meeting in the coming months. Experts from Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland Hydro have been meeting.
It is too early to know whether Quebec is serious or is merely making polite, inconsequential noises. The Churchill contract, enduringly important news in Newfoundland, stirs barely a flicker of interest in the navel-gazing Quebec media.
Any re-opening of the Churchill contract would have to be part of a broader package of developing the hydro potential of Gull Island, further along the Churchill River.
Whether Quebec is even interested in Gull Island depends, in part, on Mr. Bourassa's hydro priorities.
He is outspokenly wedded to James Bay II, and hasn't tipped his hand about Gull Island.
Mr. Bourassa, an avowed federalist, is not required to do anything to help Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province. He has the province over a barrel, and he can keep it there for as long as he wishes. A sense of decency and the spirit of federalism, however, should make him stop lording it over Newfoundland.
Truth No. 5: The federal government can and it has unilaterally changed the Atlantic accord. It can also claw back Nova Scotia’s gas royalties and it can thumb its nose at our complaints. All these moves are perfectly legal and constitutional. The Atlantic accord is merely an "arrangement" signed by two fairly junior cabinet ministers.First, Brian Mulroney and Brian Peckford don't qualify as junior cabinet ministers.