The Williams Standard of Ministerial Propriety

From The Telegram online edition:

Asked by The Telegram whether that means the standard for ministers is that, as long as their activity is not illegal, it’s fine, Williams said:

"We as a government will get involved (when there is) illegal activity. From my own perspective, I’m not going to sit down and pass judgment on every single member — whether they’re NDP or Liberal or PC or anybody else — every single time the press decides that there’s a question here of whether this was proper spending of money or not."

Was that a "yes"?

-srbp-

MacDonald leaves Hydro

Dean MacDonald left his job as chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board of directors. The reason for the departure was officially undisclosed in the news release.

The Premier revealed in a media scrum that MacDonald was concerned he would not be able to devote proper attention to his Hydro job given that he was spending increasing amounts of time working with a new venture capital company he'd started.

Williams also said there were some critical decisions on the Lower Churchill to be made in the next six months or so.

-srbp-

White Rose observations

The provincial government and the White Rose partners revealed some further detail of the White Rose expansion project on Monday.

Some observations/questions:

1. The bulk of the financial return to the provincial treasury is from the old generic royalty regime established in 1996.

2. There is no real discussion of the "equity ownership" and what it means.

With the exception of a few general references, there is no discussion at all of what is entailed in the "equity". There is no discussion of acquisition costs or other liabilities associated with it, nor is there any discussion of what - if any - management rights accrue to the energy corporation our of this stake.

There is a reference to a processing fee on "its", i.e. the energy corporation's, oil but no indication of what that means in general terms.

3. What is the "processing fee" for?

Under the agreement, the province’s energy corporation will pay a ‘processing fee’ of $3.50 a barrel on its oil.

This is essentially a fee to ensure processing capacity on the Sea Rose FPSO.

The floating production, storage and offloading vessel for the project has the capacity to handle production from the field at the approved rates. It can store and process at established rates. There is no obvious reason for the provincial government to pay a set fee per barrel to ensure capacity exists.

If this fee is one applied to all operators, then this is an operating cost, not a cost related to acquisition of an equity interest, it has been presented.

If it is an operating cost, it certainly isn't clear if the fee represents the total energy corporation share of operations or if it is a specific amount related to a certain aspect of operations. A "processing fee" of this type is sometimes applied on leased FPSOs where the vessel owner is actually reimbursed a lease rate and an additional amount for processing from the company renting the platform.

The fee may be related to a process of "deeming" what part of production belongs to the provincial government, even though the production is co-mingled with the total production. That appears to be the case, given the implication of the next sentence in the backgrounder: "To get the crude to market, there are a number of marketing arrangements already in place with existing facilities, and the province’s energy corporation will be able to tap into those."

Essentially, the energy corporation would receive the value of a quantity of oil less operating, capital and any other costs rather than receive a specific quantity of oil that it could then take to a refinery and market directly. The quantity of oil would be "deemed" or established based on a set of accounting rules.

There's nothing unusual or necessarily problematic about such an arrangement; it would just mean that the energy corporation could not necessarily load up a series of tankers and move the crude to a refinery of its choice.

So what is the fee really all about and what other fees and charges are being applied to the energy corporation?

3. There is no indication publicly of what the energy corporation will pay as part of ongoing operations expenditure or what share it will bear, if any, of phase-out or emergency response costs.

4. Will energy corp pay its portion of the provincial oil royalty on its assets? How will that be handled?

-srbp-

Tom's ongoing expense claim travails

The Telegram's ongoing investigation into spending at the House of Assembly turned up another tidbit on deputy premier Tom Rideout, right, in Sunday's edition.

That's right on the heels of another expense claim story the Telly ran on Saturday starring Rideout.

Between 2004 and the middle of 2006, Rideout claimed travel outside his district of Lewisporte mostly to the west coast and to Baie Verte. in itself, that isn't unusual.

Members of the legislature will travel to parts of the province than their constituency on legitimate constituency business from time to time.  Some will do it quite a bit for legitimate reasons.

There are a couple of odd things about the travel Rideout claimed:

1.   Distances/costs don't match:  Rideout has a pretty simple explanation and apparently a standard charge for travel on a circuit.  You can see it set out with the same destinations and the same totals.

-  Except that Rideout's explanation covers a total bill of 1,050 kilometres per trip not the 3,000 plus billed per trip.

-  Except too that the one charge where the route would have been longer, the total claimed was less. That's the one that included a side trip to Bay de Verde, not the usual Baie Verte. The trip still took Rideout to Corner Brook.

2.  Odd claims:  The one in April 2006 where the information doesn't seem to add up/match up to the claim.

3.  Trips to Baie Verte. It's more than a bit unusual that Rideout found so much constituency business in his old neck of the woods.  After all, the guy is from Fleur de Lys and represented the Baie Verte-White Bay district from 1975 to 1991. Odd that he'd find so many trips to the Baie Verte peninsula and - if the Telly actually got all the claims for the period between 2004 and 2007 - nowhere else.

Now this travel and housing situation is most emphatically not a case of Rideout having some sort of special arrangement just like one that supposedly applied to Oliver Langdon. That argument offered by Kevin Aylward's former executive assistant misses the substance of the matter in order to come to a convenient conclusion in one example, and to a simplistic view in the second kick at it; namely things are so much better now that there are rules for everyone to follow.

Things have changed from the way they used to be. Yes, the house management committee meets in public whereas the one didn't let cameras in the room.

But one would be naive in the extreme or engaged in an effort to mislead the public if one tried to argue that, for example, the members of the committee didn't come to agreements on issues facing the committee before they get to the meeting.  The three government members of the commission surely met privately in advance of the most recent meeting and came to an agreement on how to respond to opposition party demands for more resources.  How else can one explain the similarity in their responses? 

In this specific case, though we have something else. Rideout's housing expenses clearly flouted the rules, and yes, ladies and gentlemen, despite the efforts to say otherwise, there were rules and guidelines before 2007 for expenses in the House of Assembly.

Rideout knew the rules or ought to have known them. After all, he sat on the House management committee that set the rules.  He sat next to Kevin Aylward, incidentally, the year that the committee approved the infamous rules that blocked Beth Marshall from auditing the legislature's books.

Rideout's travel, though, is another matter.  The same rules that applied to Oliver Langdon and Tom Rideout applied to every member of the legislature equally, like say Kevin Aylward. If Oliver and Tom didn't have to submit detailed claims for travel, Kevin didn't either.  There were no special arrangements on travel, at least as they have come to light so far.

In general, we can establish that it was acceptable for members of the legislature to claim expenses for constituency work done outside the specific district the member represented. Yet there are some curiosities in the Rideout claims, some variance from what one would expect to see in the claims to warrant some further digging. 

If the travel claims were all that turned up on Rideout, then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have nothing much to ponder.  There are so many questionable expense claims, though - large donations using public cash, holding donations from one fiscal year to the other, donating half his expense amount in a given fiscal year, renting a house from his district association vice president  - to warrant a more thorough review. 
Incidentally, Rideout's bravado - of the "I marched right down there and sorted this arrangement out myself" variety - doesn't really wash, heck it raises even more concerns.

You see, not only is Rideout a former premier and former opposition leader, he is today the deputy premier and the government house leader.  By any estimate, he is the senior government official on the House management committee overseeing how the rules are to be implemented.  he holds some of the most powerful and influential positions in the legislature and in the administration.

The range of questionable claims coupled with Rideout's apparent indifference to how serious the issues involved are suggest that Rideout is not up to the demands of the jobs he holds.  At the very least, Rideout ought to step down - or be removed - until a more thorough review of the matter can be conducted by an impartial third party.

After all, how can he sit in judgment of others with so many questions swirling around his own actions?

-srbp-

The Telegram 
16 December 2007

Rideout defends travel claims
Deputy premier filed constituency charges outside home district

Jamie Baker; Rob Antle
Deputy premier Tom Rideout charged his taxpayer-funded constituency allowance with more than a dozen trips to the west coastin a 20-month period from 2004 to 2006, even though he represented the central Newfoundland district of Lewisporte at the time.
"My understanding of constituency allowance is that if I was invited to attend some function or be in some place as an MHA, then it didn't matter what district I represented - it would be a charge to my constituency allowance," Rideout told The Telegram.
"If I was invited to go to Baie Verte to take in their summer festival, if I chose to attend, that was a charge against the constituency allowance for Lewisporte."
At least eight of the trips took Rideout to Baie Verte, where he ran in the Oct. 9 provincial election.
Rideout stressed that there was no political aspect to those visits.
"Absolutely not. One was in October 2004 and I didn't run downthere until October 2007. (Then-Tory MHA) Paul Shelley was still the member when those expenses were charged, so I had no idea that Paul Shelley would have been resigning."
The MHA said there was no line on old expense claims for identifying the purpose of a trip.
After first being contacted by The Telegram, he matched up expense claims and his schedule. Rideout said he has explanationsfor all of the trips save two, but expects to have those shortly.
The purposes for those trips included:
Attending funerals;
Going to meetings in Corner Brook related to forestry matters,because the forestry office for the Lewisporte area is in Corner Brook;

Driving to Deer Lake from Lewisporte to catch flights to otherlocations for government business;
Some "co-mingling" of expenses with ministerial business. Rideout said he claimed mileage from Lewisporte and charged it to his constituency account and tagged airfare to ministerial meetings to his department's budget.
Rideout said he also attended Hockey Day in Canada in Stephenville on Jan. 7, 2006, because of local ties to the event.
The west coast trip claims abruptly stopped after Ed Byrne wasfired from cabinet in June 2006.
Byrne was the first casualty of Auditor General John Noseworthy's review of MHA constituency allowance spending.
But Rideout said there was no directive sent out to rein in out-of-district spending at the time.
"I don't recall that being the case," the deputy premier said."I don't think we were ever told that. I think that would be coincidental. I think in my case, you know, from the middle of 2006 on, if you were to look at my ministerial travel, I thinkyou would see I still had west coast travel but it would be easily defined as ministerial."
He cited an August aboriginal women's function as such an example.
Mileage claims
Most of Rideout's mileage claims were for set amounts that appeared to exceed the actual point-to-point distance.
For his west coast trips from the capital city, with a stop inhis district, Rideout generally claimed 3,086 kilometres - just about enough to drive from St. John's to Moncton, N.B., and back.
Rideout said most of his claims contained a good deal of "in-district" travel.
"I think I always put in a standard from St. John's to Lewisporte plus in-district travel of 1,050 kilometres," Rideout noted. "From St. John's to Lewisporte is about a four-hour drive (each way). In-district, if you're out there a few days, it's not much trouble to put a couple of hundred kilometres on goingfrom Lewisporte, Norris Arm, Birchy Bay to Boyd's Cove or whatever.
"The district one we used (was) pretty much a standard going back to 1999, and there was never any question by anybody who we submitted our claims to (at) the House of Assembly on that mileage standard."
On Saturday, The Telegram reported that Rideout spent $23,000 out of his constituency allowance to rent a house in Lewisporte from a local Tory party organizer for a 2-1/2 year period between late 2004 and early 2007.
House rules in effect at the time prohibited MHAs from charging taxpayers the cost of renting a home or apartment in their district - no matter who they rented it from.
Rideout justified the claims by saying his Lewisporte rental home contained an office - even though he also operated a rent-free constituency office in a government-owned building less than a kilometre down the road.
MHAs were permitted to claim a per diem of $53 without receipts for accommodations whenever they visited their constituency.
Rideout charged both - a monthly house rental of between $750 and $850, and $53 each day he stayed in Lewisporte.
He said he had permission to do so. But officials at the legislature told The Telegram they were unaware of the arrangement,and will address the issue with Rideout.
The Telegram obtained Rideout's constituency allowance claims for three fiscal years - 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 - under the province's access-to-information laws.
jbaker@thetelegram.com rantle@thetelegram.com
Box: TOM'S TRAVELS
Deputy Premier Tom Rideout represented the central Newfoundland district of Lewisporte between 1999 and October 2007.
But over a 20-month period - from October 2004 through June 2006 - Rideout charged his taxpayer-funded constituency allowance for more than a dozen trips to Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Baie Verte.
Those journeys took him hundreds of kilometres west of his district's boundaries.
Here is a listing of those trips:
Oct. 8-14, 2004 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
Dec. 30, 2004 to Jan. 9, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
March 23-31, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Corner Brook-Baie Verte-Lewisporte, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
May 26 to June 6, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
June 10-12, 2005 - 980 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook,plus in-district travel. June 17-19, 2005 - 860 km. Corner Brook-Lewisporte-Corner Brook, plus in-district travel. June 28-29, 2005 - 980 km. Corner Brook-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Total - 2,820 km. Mileage claim: $888.30.
July 7-26, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Grand-Falls-Windsor-Baie Verte-Corner Brook-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Total claim: $972.09.
Aug. 18-29, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
Oct. 4-10, 2005 - 2,465 km. St. John's-Bay de Verde-Lewisporte- Corner Brook-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel.Mileage claim: $876.48.
Dec. 23, 2005 to Jan. 8, 2006 - 3,240 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Corner Brook-Stephenville-Corner Brook-Lewisporte-St. John's. Mileage claim: $1,098.36.
Jan. 1-2, 2006 - flight from Deer Lake-St. John's-Deer Lake toattend a funeral. Total claim: $618.87.
April 12, 2006 - flight from St. John's to Deer Lake. Airfare travel claim: $423.97. Avis car rental, April 12-14, 2006. Total distance driven: 496 km. Rental claim: $148.04. This distance is not enough to take him to his district and back; there were also claims for a CanadianTire gas bar in Corner Brook, and the Baie Vista Inn in Baie Verte during the same time frame.
May 4-7, 2006 - flight from St. John's to Deer Lake to St. John's. 
Airfare travel claim: $847.95. Avis car rental, May 4-7. Totalkilometres driven, 360 km. Rental claim: $222.07. This was notfor travel to his district; there is also a Holiday Inn chargein Stephenville for May 5-6. Hotel claim: $227.70.
June 1, 2006 - flight from St. John's to Deer Lake. June 7, 2006 - flight from Gander to St. John's. Airfare travel claim: $729.01. Avis car rental, Deer Lake to Gander. Rental cost: $675.41. Rideout also spent time in Corner Brook on this trip; there is a Canadian Tire gas bar receipt included in this time frame, although the exact date is illegible.
June 16-19, 2006 - Avis car rental, Deer Lake. 1,011 km. Rental cost: $222.07.
On June 21, 2006, Premier Danny Williams turfed Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne from cabinet after the auditor general questioned Byrne's constituency claims.
There is only one subsequent claim made by Rideout for travel to or from the west coast - a July 6, 2006 flight to St. John's from Deer Lake for an emergency meeting of the Internal Economy Commission. That travel claim was specifically approved bythen-House Speaker Harvey Hodder.
Source: House of Assembly constituency allowance claims filed by MHA 
Tom Rideout for fiscal years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Be it ever so humble...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said that in June.

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

-srbp-

The Telegram 

15 Dec 07


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

Rob Antle; Jamie Baker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrangement approved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The claims totalled more than $23,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Tory leader takes government salary and legislature pension at same time

Pension legislation appears to allow situation

Former Tory leader Len Simms is earning more than $130,000 as chairman and chief executive officer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation at the same time as he collects a public sector pension as a former member of the provincial legislature.

According to The Western Star (see story below), Simms has been donating his House of Assembly pension to charities under a clause contained in his employment contract since he was appointed in 2005. The Western Star reports that Simms donated more than $30,000 to charities in or around his former district of Grand Falls in 2006.

Simms, who is 64 years of age, represented the district from 1979 to 1995. He served as Speaker of the House from 1979 to 1982, and as a cabinet minister in several portfolios under Brian Peckford until 1989. Simms was a leadership candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party in 1989 and led the party between 1991 and 1995. Simms replaced Tom Rideout who served as party leader from 1989 to 1991.

The story of Simms being back in his old job isn't really news since the announcement was made intially right after the provincial general election in October. Simms left his job in September saying the contract had expired - right before the election - spent a few weeks running the campaign and then got his old job back right after.

Simms' appointment in 2005 was buried in a flood of other announcements around the time the Premier was embroiled in a controversy over a treasury board secretary (deputy minister) who quit suddenly.

Simm's re-appointment immediately after the general election attracted criticism from the opposition parties. Simms' new contract will last four years, according a news report by CBC on the controversy.

News that Simms is receiving a salary and a pension simultaneously is at odds with testimony given in the House of Assembly by former finance minister Loyola Sullivan in 2006. In answer to questioning before the legislature's government services committee on the appointment of several former members of the legislature to government positions, Sullivan said:

Loyola Sullivan: I am not sure what you are talking about, but I will indicate that anybody who takes up a position here in government and who, I think you said, was an MHA, getting an MHA’s pension -

Anna Thistle: Correct.

Sullivan: - when they are re-employed here with government they would have to forego their pension and just take their salary, unless anybody came in under a contract basis. People may do contract work for a government and there may be situations where pensions would not be affected, but if you are going to take a position in government, the normal course would be that you would forego your pension then. While you are an employee, you could pick up benefits while you are here and then when you retire or leave, your pension would kick in again. I guess, reset at the level of - if you have earned any credits toward that when you are here - some may and some may not, depending on the position you hold, but under a contract you would not gain any benefits of that nature.

So, in answer to your question, a person who takes up employment, yes, would forego their pension and receive their income, unless there is a special circumstance that I am not aware of.

...

Thistle: How about Mr. Len Simms?

Sullivan: From my understanding, Len Simms is the CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. If he is employed there, I would assume that he has taken up a position there and I would assume he is not getting any benefits as a result of that. I would not be aware if he is. I would assume he is getting a salary.

Thistle: Is it a contract position?

Sullivan: If he is under contract, I am unaware if he is. I would not know that. I am assuming he is employed as the CEO and it is a salary position. If it is, it is unaware to me. That reports to the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. That might be an issue you may want to deal with in Estimates, but to my knowledge, that is not the case.

Mr. Simms is an employee.

The provincial public service pension act deals with re-hiring of former employees, including former members of the House of Assembly who are receiving pensions:

Offer of re-employment

21. (1) A pensioner who has retired under the pension plan upon termination of employment but has not reached the age at which a pension benefit is required to begin under the Income Tax Act (Canada) may be re-employed in a pensionable position.

(2) A pensioner who has retired under the pension plan under paragraph 16(1)(b) but has not reached the age at which a pension benefit is required to begin under the Income Tax Act ( Canada ) may, upon proof of good health and with the consent of the minister, be re-employed in a pensionable position.

(3) Where a pensioner accepts an offer of re-employment under this section, his or her pension shall be cancelled, and subject to the making of contributions as required under this Act, the period of subsequent employment shall, in calculating a pension upon subsequent retirement, be added to the years of pensionable service accumulated before his or her 1st retirement and the pension shall be calculated in accordance with section 18 as if the award of the former pension had not occurred.

That section of the Act appears to conflict with section 3. Under that section, a "person shall not be eligible to make a contribution to or participate in the pension plan, if he or she is excluded from this Act by a directive of the minister;... is in receipt of a pension; " or is a temporary employee. Under the Act, pension is defined as "an annual pension payable to a former employee in accordance with the pension plan."

Under the pensions act, a contractual employee is not required to participate in the public sector pension plan. The definition of "employee" "does not include a contractual employee or a person who is specifically excluded from participation in the pension plan by or under [the] Act."

The Western Star
December 12, 2007, p. 11

Simms contract renewed

St. John's - Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation (NLHC) CEO - and former Progressive Conservative leader - Len Simms renewed his employment contract with NLHC in November, including a clause that continues to see his government pension donated to charity.

Simms agreed to a four-year extension on November 16. His annual salary is $132,349.

Simms had stepped down from his position as chairman and CEO prior to the October 9 provincial election to join the Progressive Conservative election campaign.
The Williams administration re-appointed Simms to the job days after its landslide victory.

Simms was the Grand Falls area MHA for 16 years until the mid-1990s. He also served as a cabinet minister and as opposition leader.

Among the contract terms, Simms agrees to donate his MHA pension to several charities.

Last year, Simms says he donated his after-tax total in excess of $30,000 to the Exploits Valley Food Bank, the Lion Max Simms Camp in Bishop's Falls, the Children's Wish Foundation, Daffodil Place and the Exploit's Valley Integrated Breakfast Program.

The Conservative government first appointed Simms to the NLHC post in
February 2005.

-srbp-

Boessenkool: a possible ally for Danny

Ken Boessenkool, author of a series of papers on revamping Equalization, now works for Hill & Knowlton, an international government relations firm.

Nice work if you can get it.

Canadian Press is reporting that Boessenkool registered as a lobbyist representing the makers of the Taser shortly after the death of a Polish tourist in Vancouver brought the police weapon under intense public scrutiny.

Here's a nifty idea:  maybe the provincial government should hire Ken - who is known to be tight with the Prime Minister - to help sort out the Equalization/compensation mess.

The government's approach to date has been, shall we say, less than effective.

-srbp-

Telly gets a mention

Scott Reid and Tim Powers squared on on Mike Duffy's CTV NewsNet show Friday to discuss politics on Parliament Hill.  in the midst of all the friendly jabs, Scott Reid actually referred to the St. John's Telegram.

The context was a discussion of a Conservative astroturf campaign on a public inquiry into the Schreiber allegations.

Check the video at ctv.ca. [opens in new window]

Wonder where Scott found the reference?

-srbp-

Under his thumb

The provincial government released expense reimbursement guidelines for cabinet ministers, as part of an effort to show some transparency in matters related to allowances and expenses.

Two quick points:

1.  The rules are generally similar to those that have existed at least back to 1989.  There isn't any radical change here, except, that is, with respect to the second point.

2.  Count the number of times that members of the Executive Council have to seek the approval of the premier's chief of staff before doing anything.  This creates the entirely unacceptable situation of having members of cabinet effectively under the control of a political staffer.

The approval authority for these cases should rest with the premier or by the president of the executive council.

-srbp-

Something's off: Newfoundland and Labrador political polls

[Update and correction:  1230 hrs.  CRA has still not posted the news release and tables for the regional poll as of the update time.]

A new poll from Corporate Research Associates is making the rounds.  This time, there's supposedly a report on how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel about the Harper Conservatives. The Conservatives and the Liberals are in a dead heat, according to the CRA poll.

You can find a story at vocm.com - although the thing is virtually incomprehensible  - as well as coverage in the Telegram (not online) and CBC News. Let's just take the CBC version, though, as typical of what the poll purportedly contains:

Corporate Research Associates reported Thursday that 39 per cent of decided voters in the province would choose the Conservatives, if an election were held now. That's up from 31 per cent recorded in an August poll.

Right off the bat, there's cause to be a little curious if not downright suspicious.

The undecided, refused or won't vote categories combined apparently showed up as being 45%.  Basically, even if the results are perfectly accurate, we are talking about relatively small movement in the electorate here. With numbers like that, even a party showing at 40% in a CRA poll is actually dealing with numbers less than 25% of the total electorate.  CRA gives it results as a percentage of "decideds", incidentally and not all news reports noted the "undecideds".

But there's something else.

CBC and the Telegram are reporting provincial numbers that are part of the quarterly omnibus survey taken in November, with a sample size of around 400 and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9%, 19 times out of 20.  But vocm.com is reporting a poll of over 1500 people across Atlantic Canada with a margin of error at 2.5%.

The answer to your wonderment is that CRA is reporting both regional and provincial results simultaneously.

But wait a moment, sez you.  Which margin of error do we take?  For the numbers presented, they'd by the higher one if the numbers are actually for the province alone.  For the region, they'd be the lower number.

Go back and look again. There seems to be some confusion among the news outlets over which numbers are which. Both vocm and CBC, for example, purport that Conservative support is on the rise in the province. 

Okay.

The numbers - 31% moving to 39% don't add up to the reported poll results.

Neither of the last two CRA polls are available on the company website, but the earlier one for May is.  Take a look at the numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador on the party support question The Conservatives sure weren't at 31% in this province according to CRA, that is unless their political fortunes were tied to the proverbial dog's stomach. They were at 17% in May and the poll before that  - in February - they were at 49%. 

Hmmm!

They reported regional figures as provincial ones. And if the news organizations had access to the tables of results or had taken the time to search them, they see something else.

[Update, my bad and other observations.  First, the my bad. The numbers are provincial numbers reported accurately by local media in Nova Scotia and in this province.

Second, though, that means the Conservatives have indeed been up and down radically according to CRA numbers.  That's a story in itself.

Third, here's a new point to note:  the provincial numbers have a huge margin of error at plus or minus 4.9%. While CRA is reporting party support in this province at a near dead heat, the actual breakout could have the Liberals 11 points ahead of the Conservatives or the Conservatives could be eight points ahead!]

Look at the regional numbers - the ones reported by the media - and you can see the Conservatives are up where they were in May.  The Liberals are slightly down.   But for the February result, notice that the Liberals have actually gained while the Harper Conservatives?  Well, they're up and down.

But wait.

It gets better, still.

Look at those sample sizes again. Quarterly omnibus.  Newfoundland and Labrador.  Sample size 402.

The quarterly omnibus results for questions on political parties for Newfoundland and Labrador had a sample size of over 800 when it was released last week.

Double hmmm.

That's odd.

Well, it is odd.  It looks like those polls of 800 plus are actually two trips to the field with two separate samples, in essence two separate surveys with the results provincially glued together mathematically for the final tally.  We'll leave it to the mathematicians in the audience to discuss the usefulness of that.

Triple hmmm.

Basically we have a poll here that news rooms are reporting with a jumble of numbers, mixing results for the province and margins of error.  [Correction:  as noted above the media are reporting the provincial numbers as provincial numbers.]

Then we have margins of error which, in the provincial results are high enough to make them of dubious value. Face it, even if you take the Newfoundland and Labrador numbers, the range of variation is 10 percentage points.  That's a wide enough gap you could completely miss real changes in the electorate over time if there's enough systematic error in the polling.

Then we have - apparently - some question about how big the sample is for the omnibus.  Is there one or are there several omnibi?

That gets really important if you're one of those people who follows the news and who accepts the CRA poll results for provincial political support. Tories, Liberals and New Democrat politicians all treat the polls results as gospel.  media commentators and party supporters cite the Premier's overwhelming popularity as having something to do with what they are talking about at the time. CRA poll results have achieved an unprecedented level of currency and validity in local political discussion.

The problem is, you see, the CRA polls might not be accurate. The news reports usually describe the poll results accurately in and of themselves, however, they do not delve into whether or not the polls themselves are accurate.

	CRA (Aug 07)	Telelink (Sept 07)	Poll (Oct 07)	CRA (Nov 07)
PC	62	42	43	67
LIB	13	7.6	13.6	9.8
NDP	5.7	3.7	5	6.6
UND	18	31.7	38	18
Ref	-	14.7	-	-

The table above compares the most recent Corporate Research Associates polls on provincial politics with voting results in the October general election and the only other poll publicly available. That poll was conducted by Telelink for NTV during the election campaign.

The results in this table are presented to ensure that, as much as possible, comparisons are being made to the same sorts of numbers. For the polls, the results are given as a percentage of respondents not, as is usually the case, as a percentage of what are often erroneously called "decided voters".  For the October election, the results are presented as a percentage of all eligible voters, not of voter turnout.

Notice in the table above that the CRA numbers for Liberal and New Democrat party support are almost dead on the actual results in the October general election. Likewise, the Telelink Progressive Conservative number is one percentage point off the actual result. [Note:  as in the original post on the Telelink poll, we've dropped about 4% of the survey, being those who indicated they would not vote, and adjusted the remainder. The PC number from the results as reported by NTV had the PCs at 40.3%, which slightly more than the margin of error reported for that poll.]

As noted here in an October post, the Progressive Conservative voter support in the 2003 general election was 42% of eligible voters.

However, the CRA Progressive Conservative number is 19 percentage points off the actual result. Likewise, the category in the CRA poll that encompasses "undecided", "will not vote", and "no answer/refused" is 18% of those polled while the non-voter population on polling day (roughly analogous) is 38%.

Even if we look at the results as reported, that is, as percentages of decided voters, the results are no more comforting.  CRA's August poll results showed the Progressive Conservative Party support at 76%.  It came in at 70% during the general election, a variation of more than twice the margin of error reported for the poll.

In pollster terms, that's gigantic.  in recent provincial and federal elections, it's not unusual to see polling firms report results of surveys with comparable error margins hitting the real popular vote number within one one percentage point or even one half of a point. Sure, they poll far more close to election day than the CRA or Telelink polls. 

But think about it.

There wasn't anything that occurred between early September and early October that might have caused such a dramatic shift in local Progressive Conservative fortunes.  If anything, the dismal performance by the Liberals and New Democrats should have boosted the Tory numbers.

Don't think the October vote isn't an anomaly either, compared to the CRA poll.  CRA's numbers have been so consistent for so long that it is hard to imagine a CRA poll taken in October would have revealed such a dramatic shift of Tory popularity. 

Nor would it be reasonable to think that there is some greater variation in voter choice between polling periods.  Frankly, even allowing for the goosing, the CRA results have been too consistent with each other to think they peak up some sorts of freakish super-support for the Tories at the most convenient time.

Nope.

There's something amiss.  Obviously.

The most likely explanation are issues in the survey design or in data collection. As good and professional as a firm is, errors do occur.

Given the consistency of the CRA results, it looks like something more than people in the call centre fudging results, guiding answers or falsely filling out forms. Those days are largely gone, given that most call centres are highly automated. Monitoring is strict and even things like question order can be varied by the computer, not the telephone operator. 

It's more likely a structural problem in the way the survey is conducted or some aspect of the sample that skews results.

Something's off in the poll results and it isn't just the reporting of them.

-srbp-

Conspicuous by his absence

Noted across the Atlantic provinces, especially since the Atlantic Gateway trade concept is on the table.

The Guardian" "Williams a no-show..."

Canadian Press: "However, Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador is taking a pass on the meeting due to other commitments,..." with a neat picture in the version channelled by CBC.

Meanwhile, the Nova Scotia premier displays his diplomatic skills.

-srbp-

"Serial exaggerator" an interesting MR tactic for Williams' office

Buried in the exchange between journalist Craig Westcott and the premier's comms director is a reference to a piece that appeared in macleans.ca in April, after Westcott's now (in)famous speech on the Premier.

In a piece titled "Questioning the Williams juggernaut", one finds the following line:

As for Williams himself, a spokeswoman dismissed Westcott as a serial exaggerator who has been "incredibly, incredibly critical" of the premier in the past.

The critical part is accurate, but the use of the term "serial exaggerator" is curious. Try searching for it on the Internet search engine of your choice. Enjoy the hits you get.

It's not like there was any proof that Westcott's reporting - as opposed to his commentaries and opinion pieces - contained any exaggerations or other serious errors.

In the meantime, it isn't like the unnamed spokeswoman's boss isn't a serial exaggerator himself.

-srbp-

Media Relations 101 Meltdown

No matter what people tell you, there is nothing that is ever really, truly off the record.

In the case of this e-mail exchange between Craig Westcott and the Premier's communications director over the course of a couple of years, you'd think that the most simple rule of media relations would be foremost in her mind.

Apparently not.

Then there is this comment from an e-mail dated in the middle of 2006.  it leaps out for two reasons, both of which are discussed below.

I feel compelled to point out that for two and a half years, you did not seek the premier out to gain his perspective on issues (despite the fact that the premier personally called you to offer himself up for a chat).

First, this comment is clearly incorrect  - and the comms director knew it was wrong - since there is a clear record of Westcott seeking interviews with the Premier and being told flatly that the Premier would not be accepting any of Westcott's interview requests. Consider this line from the e-mail sent the day before the comment quoted above:  "As per previous correspondence, the premier is not available for your interview requests."

How could Westcott have failed to seek out the Premier's comments when the same person knew that the office was rejecting all interview requests from the reporter?

Second, take a look at the comment in brackets, namely that the Premier had called Westcott personally for a "chat". There's no discussion of the chat, like what it was about, why the Premier was calling and why they didn't connect. Given that Westcott was trying to get the premier on the phone, but the Premier's Office was refusing Westcott's requests, this seems highly unusual.

Of course, cynics out there would be familiar with this "chat" thing.  A recent, former Premier used to practice "the chat" approach when there was a reporter or editor whose work the Premier of the day didn't appreciate. "The chat" may have started with a bit of charm, but usually it was usually a tongue-lashing that was intended to intimidate the editor or reporter into getting on board with whatever media line the government was pushing at the time.

At the very least, "the chat" made it clear that the highest political office in the province was personally displeased. That's a powerful thing and only the ballsiest of the ballsy wouldn't be impressed by the call. That's why the call gets made.  It's intended to intimidate.

In other instances, the recent former Premier would berate reporters in the course of a scrum. he lashed one reporter for daring to ask if it was true that the Premier's wife had recently been hired in a government-related job during the time of a hiring freeze and layoffs. It was a fair question, but the emotional reaction it gained was a purposeful way of marking territory and showing dominance in a very aggressive fashion.

Media relations (MR) is no place for amateurs, the naive or the faint of heart.  it's also often not a job for former reporters, but that's another story.

At times, MR can be an extremely unpleasant world. Nasty things get said.  Underneath it all, however, must be some kind of mutual respect or at least a mental framework in which the individuals can deal with each other professionally. 

The biggest thing is to keep personalities out of it;  sometimes even when you have to deal with arguably the biggest idiot on the planet (either as the comms person or the reporter/editor) you have to find a way of getting on with the job.

Take a look at the list the Premier's comms director cites as examples of Westcott's supposedly "malicious" reporting. They are editorial comments where opinion is accepted.  The biggest thing, though, is that the comments are personal. The Premier's comms director no doubt took her cues from her boss as to what constituted "malice". That's fair.  People on the receiving end of personal criticism usually get upset. 

The comms director's job in that case is not to act as the instrument of the boss' rage.  Rather the director is a buffer between the understandable, emotional outbursts and the larger interests that need to be managed. It's the director's job to sympathise with the boss but talk him or her off the ledge and keep them from doing something monumentally stupid like picking up the phone and having a 'chat' with the object of his or her anger.

You see, the more personal and the histrionic dominates MR, the more likely it is that one day the long sorry history of the exchanges will wind up in print or on the air somewhere.

And, as in this case, it isn't the reporter who comes off looking like a twit.

-srbp-

The nation's infrastructure burden

Anyone paying attention to the news on a cold December must have felt an extra chill to discover that Newfoundland and Labrador is currently facing an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion.

That's the figure contained in a news release from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador:

The financial needs of municipalities and the $123 billion infrastructure deficit must be addressed in the 2008 budget said MNL President Graham Letto.

Vocm.com faithfully reported the same figure:

Municipalities are putting the pressure on government to address the 123 billion dollar infrastructure deficit in the province.   MNL president Graham Letto says funding must be allocated in the 2008 Budget.  Letto says government should use the surplus to pay down the debt,  but the province must also take responsibility for the safety and comfort of its residents.  He says covering the cost of supplying basic municipal services like water, sewer, waste management, and safe roads is the single most challenging issue facing local governments.

And why shouldn't a news organization accept at face value a statement made by the organization representing towns and cities across the province?

Well, they shouldn't when the figure is wrong.

The infrastructure deficit figure of $123 billion is actually the Canadian number. It can be found in a news release from the Federation of Municipalities, the national organization to which MNL belongs:

Statement from FCM President Gord Steeves in response to comments made yesterday by Finance Minister Flaherty regarding a municipal report on the $123-billion municipal infrastructure deficit.

That release was issued on November 23.

The real figure for Newfoundland and Labrador is buried in paragraph three of the MNL release:

A report released last month by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) found that nearly 80 percent of the Canada’s infrastructure is near collapse – $3 billion of that crumbling infrastructure is in this province.

Of course, we can likely forgive the local municipal leaders given the propensity of the current provincial administration to refer to the province as a nation.

Someone can restart a few hearts in the provincial cabinet.

-srbp-

The only equity that makes sense

A profile of local entrepreneur Rob Crosbie.

This is the kind of equity that provincial government policy should be encouraging, the kind that comes from local entrepreneurship.

-srbp-

So where is Danny, anyways?

Executive Council December 11, 2007

Deputy Premier to Attend Council of Atlantic Premiers Meeting

The Honourable Tom Rideout, Deputy Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, will represent the province at the Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP) meeting this week. CAP will be meeting in Halifax on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

***Premier Williams regrets that he is unable to attend.***

-30-

Danny is somewhere unknown.

Florida, maybe?

Only last week, he confirmed his attendance.

So what happened?  The cave-in on Equalization?

Meanwhile, this guy is in charge.

 

-srbp-

Tom Marshall's Christmas bunkum: the magical appearing, disappearing 2005 Danny Williams offshore cash

There are some upward and downward revisions to federal transfers. Based upon current projections, the province can optimize cash revenues in 2007-08 by electing to move from the fixed framework Equalization formula to the new formula this year. The province expects that Equalization will increase by $255.1 million in 2007-08, offset by a reduction of 1985 Atlantic Accord payment of $188.6, a net cash gain of $66.5 million. This also means that the expected $305.7 million draw down from the balance of the $2 billion 2005 Atlantic Accord advance payment, originally forecast to be recognized as revenue in 2007-08, will not occur this year.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2007-08 Fall Update

How many times have you heard a provincial cabinet minister or government back bencher tell you that there was $305 million in new cash in the 2007 budget thanks to Danny Williams and something they like to call the "Atlantic Accord?"

Forgive me.

That question has been asked before.

Well, the answer is way too many, given that it isn't true.  There is a number "$305 million" in the budget estimates as 2005 Atlantic Accord money but that does not represent new cash. It merely accounts for cash already received and spent in 2005.

But if you accepted the original government version, you might be just a wee bit confuddled by the sudden claim on Monday that the O'Brien formula would deliver $255 million in Equalization, which is a net gain of $66 million over the two Equalization offset payments.

Even in Joan Burke's newest new math, $188 million plus $305 million is $493 million.

And $255 million is less than $493 million not $66 million more than.

So what gives?

Well, two things.

First, that $305 million simply never existed as real cash in the current budget estimates.

Yes, that's right.  The finance minister said things that weren't even close to being correct.

In fact, as recently as his shameful assault on former premier Brian Peckford in late November, finance minister Tom Marshall said:

We got this offset payment that made us whole. And as a result of what Premier Williams did in '05, the Atlantic Accord '05, you know, this year we're showing 305 million, which is allowing us to forecast a surplus of 261 billion, I'm sorry, 261 million and to pay down some debt and that's what's made the difference.

Yes, according to Tom Marshall a mere two weeks ago, the surplus was due to Danny Williams and the $305 million. on Monday, we found out it was due to something else entirely, like say super high oil and nickel prices.

And the $305 million? It went poof because it never really existed.

You see - and this is the second point -  the only new offset cash in the 2007 budget was the bit coming from the 1985 Atlantic Accord - the real Accord.  That was set to be $188 million. Under the amendments to the 1985 deal accepted by the provincial government either in the spring or just this past week - Marshall has never acknowledged when the province really accepted the O'Brien Equalization formula and approved the changes to the Real Atlantic Accord - the 1985 Equalization offset payments are wiped out entirely in favour of $255 million in additional Equalization.

The choice the provincial government faced was between $255 million in new cash and $188 million in new cash.

Logically, the provincial government took the bigger number.

And that making us whole thing was obviously bunkum too, but that's really the subject of another post.

-srbp-

 

 

Flip? Meet Flop.

The changing view of gross domestic product for the provincial progressive Conservatives, as documented by labradore.

-srbp-

Williams caves to Harper on Equalization

There's a reason why Danny Williams has gone to ground in the wake of his meeting with Stephen Harper.

He said "yes to less", yet again.

[Aside: Where is the Premier anyway? ]

Turns out the provincial government is accepting the O'Brien formula and the Nova Scotia Equalization deal Williams lambasted only a few weeks ago.

So much for ABC.

So much for the Prime Minister being "petty and untrustworthy".

In hindsight some of the media coverage and Williams remarks about the Nova Scotia negotiations and agreement are laughable.

Heck, the arguments were laughable at the time, much like the ones put forward organizers of the Rally for Danny who claimed it was non-partisan and were likely planning to fight to the death to defend the honour of the Fatherland.

Guess a few people will be having a large portion of crow instead of turkey this Christmas.

The government's decision to accept the supposedly unacceptable goes a long way to explaining why the finance minister refused to release his own department's analysis of the federal budget impact back in May when the Telegram asked for it.

Interesting, in hindsight, though, how close to the truth some earlier remarks turned out to be:

The provincial government knew generally speaking what was going to happen on Equalization about a year ago when it was first reported publicly.

The Premier knew the 100% option was definitely off the table likely before he laced into Steve Harper last October.

He almost certainly knew what was going on (give or take a few details) last December when Loyola Sullivan came back from a finance minister's meeting and had to attend a news scrum with the Premier standing by his side.

What played out from March onwards has been pure political theatre designed to get people in Newfoundland and Labrador agitated about something 99% of Canadians don't understand.

In the end, the Premier will just do what he planned to do once the feds announced exactly what they were going to do in march: flip from one plan to the other to maximize the cash flows.

There's no way the Prem can lose cash. Under every likely scenario, the provincial government continues to make more. It was only just a matter of how much more. look at the 2005 deal. he settled for way less than he started out looking for. In the end - as he admitted himself - it came down to what the cash advance amount was going to be.

He's a smart guy. That's why he places the angles on the cash and plays the public like a violin.

Why else has he all but given up on the 100% option? He knows it's impossible to get.

Why isn't he looking to get the caps removed from the Accords? That's the part that maximizes the cash to the province. Likely because his administration already consented to amending the 1985 deal and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There really isn't any other explanation for his using the weak "Steve lied" argument instead of taking down the feds with an iron-clad example of perfidy.

In the end, there'll be some extra cash in the provincial treasury and no one will recall the current racket six months after the last polls close.

Playing to the galleries always works in the theatre of Newfoundland politics. That's why so many politicians do it. Danny Williams just does it better than just about any thespian we've elected to the office.

Sadly, though, treating politics like a sordid little melodrama is why the financial ending is always the same.

That's from Bond Papers this past May.

Sometimes, these things are so obvious it's scary.

-srbp-

In a nutshell

1. The finance minister admitted today in comments to reporters that the government had paid scant attention to the provincial debt thus far in its mandate. The government will apparently use the bulk of the 2007 budget windfall (estimated at more than $800 million) to reduce the public debt. Check the video when it comes available. Tom Marshall's comments show the hollowness of his previous claims about debt fighting.

2. Words to watch out for: "Once we account for the change in capital assets, the balance will reduce the province’s net debt." It's a question of assets and liabilities. Since the equity position contains both, let's see how the provincial government accounts for those in its upcoming budget. The windfall might actually go out the door with the debt only appearing to be reduced.

3. The only principle is cash. Not in the media reports by mid-day, but the provincial government is accepting the Harper Equalization deal, as amended by the agreement with Nova Scotia.

There's a gigantic surprise.

Not.

4. The finance minister still likes to pump out nonsense: "It is also important to acknowledge the Atlantic Accord 2005, which was successfully negotiated by Premier Williams, and its remarkable contribution to the overall improvement to the province’s fiscal position."

The improvement in the province's fiscal position is driven entirely by the results of the 1985 Atlantic Accord (the real one), three offshore development deals signed before 2003 and high mineral prices flowing from deals signed before 2003.

As the government statement said: "the change is due to much higher oil prices, increased production from the offshore projects, higher royalties for the White Rose project and higher than expected mineral prices."

Update:

5.  A portion of the finance minister's remarks are available from CBC [ram file].  Marshall refers to the cabinet decision to put $55 million of the last budget against the debt as being "not enough".    That isn't what Marshall said at the time of the budget.  In fact, his budget speech trumpeted the great strides in debt reduction he and his colleagues had made.  Rather than quote the Telegram editorial (even though the words are worth heeding), Marshall might well have pointed to those of us who have been drawing attention to the current administration's debt-reduction nakedness for some months now.

Turns out the Emperor and the entire court had no clothes and knew it all along.

6.  While you're listening try asking yourself a simple question:  who is Marshall trying to convince that paying down the debt is a good thing?  Is his audience inside cabinet or outside?

-srbp-