Breaking news and breaking wind

Loyola Sullivan thinking about running as a federal Conservative. [Update: CBC online story]

News in 2011?*

Try 2008.

Tom Rideout eyeing a Conservative nod.

News in 2011?*

Try 2008.

Unless they’ve made the official announcement – Jerry Byrne did -  it is still just  as much a case of scuttlebutt as it was in 2008.

- srbp -

Addendum:  John Hickey looking at a federal run?  Posted here in December:

Of the crew listed above, John Hickey has had his five best years to fatten up the pension and there’d be no real reason for him stick around anyway.  Future premiers might be less inclined to keep him in cabinet.  Doesn’t matter, though, since Hickey’s apparently got his sights on going federal in the next federal election.

Don’t forget Tommy Osborne, too, in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, another perennial favourite.

* Date fixed

How to be a Tory

The bunker team that ruled on Brad Cabana’s appeal of his rejected leadership bid made a fascinating – and most likely inadvertent – description of what standards they used to determine who might be considered a member of the provincial Conservative Party.

You can hear this in a debrief CBC Provincial Affairs reporter David Cochrane did with the St. John’s Morning Show’s Jeff Gilhooley on Friday morning.

Cochrane reported that the Conservative appeals team found that only three of the names on Cabana’s nomination forms were considered to be party members.  They came to the conclusion after scouring membership lists from district associations, youth groups and other affiliated organizations as described in the party constitution.

Sounds good and official so far, right?

And then Cochrane started listing the three.

The first one he described was a person who may have – note the conditional language – put up a few signs during an election campaign.

Hold the phone.

That’s it?

May possibly have been vaguely recalled to have helped out on a sign crew. 

Okay.

So how many signs do you theoretically have to stick in the ground? 

Is it one? 

A dozen?

Do the signs have to be in the ground or could you have been seen holding one lovingly at some point?

Do you actually have to have done it or is it a function of someone else’s efforts?  After all, maybe this was back in the 1990s when every Tory householder included a sign.  Junior sticks it in the window to piss Dad the Dipper off and presto the whole family is down in some registry of known Tories kept in someone’s basement?

Maybe the whole membership process isn’t even that specific.

Maybe you only have to look like someone who might have erected a sign: Yes, by. That fellow looks like a guy who helped me out years ago.  He’s a member then.

After all, as Cochrane related the tale, the Tories weren’t even sure this guy or gal actually wielded the hammer or got the splinters from holding the two by two. They thought he may have.

And while they weren’t even 100% certain of that they were prepared to say that the person was a member in order to meet the clear and stringent requirements set down in the Tory party constitution.

We know this is such a document since coronation chairman Shawn Skinner – with no real or perceived conflict of interest whatsoever, surely – duly blessed the outcome.

Now that sign guy doesn’t sound like someone whose name wound up on an actual membership list. After all, the party  doesn’t really have membership lists as such since the party doesn’t have members, as such. There are no cards or dues or any formal way of identifying as a member of the party.

In fact, the party considers every person in the district over the age of 18 years to be a member for the purposes of voting in nomination contests.  And under the party constitution only members can vote.

So basically before Cochrane even got that far in this tale, the story totally demolished the bit before it. If the Tories had actual membership lists to scour, they wouldn’t have had to be beggar someone’s failing memory of a sign crew that could have gone off with a van and the dozen bear and a few dozen signs at any time back to 1972, at least.

And if they really had some sort of membership lists with rules that are clear, widely known and fairly applied, they wouldn’t be crediting Cabana with finding a possible Tory sign jockey.

In case you'd forgotten, the same people who are living this tale of membership stupidity are the same people who control about seven billion a year in public money.

it would all be hysterically funny if that were not true.

- srbp -

Connie Leadership 2011: a simple but apparently overlooked point

So now the Conservatives’ appeal team have tossed a decision out of the bunker that says Brad Cabana had only three names they recognised as members of the party.

Appeal denied!

Never saw that coming.

Liberace was gay and now this.

Anyway, while this Cabana-gate fiasco has been dragging on and on, the Conservatives held a nomination to select a by-election candidate.

The requirement to vote in the nomination – as widely reported – was that the person had to be over the age of 18 years and resident in the district.  Bring along a couple of pieces of identification and they let you vote.

Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that such an approach means the party actually recognises any person resident in the district and over the age of 18 years to be, by default, a member of the Conservative party.  If they required someone to sign a statement that they supported the aims of the party, then that’s only a minor additional wrinkle.

And what does the party constitution say about voting in a district nomination fight?  That’s really important because the Conservatives down the bunker are using the party constitution to claim Brad’s list of names doesn’t qualify.

Article 12, Section 6 of the Progressive Conservative Party constitution reads:

Eligible voters entitled to vote for a person to be elected as the Party Candidate are those persons who are members of the District Association, ordinarily resident in the Electoral District at the date of the Nominating Meeting and who are not less than eighteen (18) years of age either at the date of the nominating meeting or at the date of the election, if the date of the election has been set…

read that first bit again.

“Eligible voters”, that is, those people “entitled to vote for a person to be elected as the Party Candidate” in a by-election or general election are… “persons who are members of the District Association”.

Sounds simple.

The people who can vote are members of the District Association.

Okay.

So how can you tell who are member of the association?

Well, look at the official party announcement.

It merely refers to “voters”, as in:

“Voting will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 2011, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in two locations; they are:

• Corner Brook - Elks Club
• Gallants - Town Hall

Voters are reminded to have two pieces of I.D., one of which must include a street address and picture.”

And in that case as in every nomination since 2003, the Conservatives have allowed anyone with an address in the district and matching identification to vote.

Only members of the district association can vote and members means anyone living in the district over the age of 18 and possessing some valid identification.

So how exactly can a party that – by repeated practice – accepts anyone living in a district over the age of 18 years claim that a list of 73 people over 18 years of age and living in the province actually contains 70 names that are not members of the Conservative party?

Sounds like the party has the same legal geniuses on this cases as the ones employed in the AbitibiBowater expropriation, the 1969 contract litigation and the Ruelokke thing.

A clause that says the tribunal decision is binding on both parties actually says a judge can’t rule on the decision.

That one got laughed out of the courthouse and all the way down Duckworth Street.

Uh huh.

Next think the Legal Genius(es) will try and insist that a judge has no jurisdiction over a corporation registered in the province and operating under the Companies Act.

There are judges on Duckworth Street already drawing lots to see which of their numbers get to sort out that little legal turd and the turd-wrangler who gets to lay in in front of his or her bench.

- srbp -

Connie Leadership 2011: Tweet of the Week

…how is it not democratic. [?] A political party is not a democratic institution. Decisions are made by members.

Seen in the twitter-verse from an ardent Conservative supporter in Newfoundland and Labrador in a discussion on the never-ending saga of the Conservative efforts to keep Brad Cabana from upsetting their carefully laid back-room plans.

 

- srbp -

The Double-Dippity-Do

While teachers may be the largest group of people the Auditor General found to be double dipping, the problem isn’t confined to them.

Auditor General John Noseworthy found 60 pensioners drawing salaries from government departments and the House of Assembly in 2009. And while he didn’t check to see if any of the politicians were double-dipping, Noseworthy did find that the pols liked to hire double-dippers:

For 2009, departments indicated that 10 of the 60 (2008 - 7 of the 47)  rehired pensioners were political appointments such as secretaries to a  member of the House of Assembly or research assistants and, as such, Cabinet approval would not be expected.

Cabinet approval might not have been needed but the provincial government’s finance rules should at least be instructive in the legislature especially in the wake of Chief Justice Derek Green’s report on the 1996-2006 slush fund scandal.

This chart from the AG report shows the distribution of double-dippers making more than $25,000 per year, by department:


There’s no indication of what a “private MHA” is in that entry for the education department.

The child and youth advocate appears to be the retired judge appointed to replace Darlene Neville. No surprise there as the province’s justice minister blessed the double-dipper in the House of Assembly in early 2010. Your humble e-scribbler also raised the point around the same time along with the note that the judge’s salary was actually way higher than that of the person he replaced.

Talk about big stamps.

Then there’s the numbers by salary and pension amount:


The problems here are way beyond the idea that people are drawing a pension and collecting a new salary at the same time.  That’s a gigantic one, in itself, but this is an old issue and one that government policy has clearly addressed since 1993, at least.  People aren’t supposed to be collecting a pension and drawing a salary from what is, in essence, the same pot of cash.

The policy is clear on this, but as Noseworthy points out, the policy is honoured more in the breach than in the observance.  At the same time, departments aren’t properly documenting the hiring and the re-hiring.

What there seems to be in this case, as with the ATV issue, is a chronic management problem. responsibility for the problems has to start at the top and that’s the only place that can set both the tone and the general management approach to fix it.

- srbp -

The same old excuses

Seems like the last time double-dipping was a public controversy, proponents of the scheme used exactly the same excuse:  people won’t take the jobs for the money that’s offered.

Wasn’t true then and, given the Auditor General’s report, it still isn’t true.

Maybe the teacher’s association needs to rethink its ancient talking points.

- srbp -

Tentative deal in Voisey’s strike

As reported by CBC.

As reported by the Telegram.

- srbp -

Coo-coo for Connie Puffs

yes, those busy little political beavers in the Confederation Building are still obsessing over certain questions on VOCM’s question of the day.

They learned their Danny-lessons well.

The latest question to get goosifed was one about the Conservative leadership race and the back-room deal Brad Cabana is fighting to bust wide open.

10,616 clicks, 80% of which went in the “no” column for a question asking if Brad should be allowed to run for the Tory leadership.

Now in all likelihood the past practice holds, which means that tax dollars in some government office got spent paying some staffer or bunch of staffers to bust up a computer mouse casting these “votes”.

But aside from displaying a pretty shagged set of priorities, this little display does illustrate the lengths to which the back-room boys over at Connie headquarters are prepared to fight off any attempts at bringing modern democratic ideas inside the Bunker that Danny Built. Hisself’s legacy is apparently too precious to throw away on such frivolities at fair voting, open membership and debate free from intimidation and afternoon visits from executive  assistants.

It’s a pretty sad commentary on how far the once mighty and respected party has fallen lately. The only thing sadder would be the plants clogging up comments sections defending the party’s anti-democratic bent.

- srbp -

Coincidence?

Auditor General criticises a department.

Minister got shuffled in a surprise move in January.

Bear in mind that the provincial government knew the contents of the Auditor General’s report long before the public did.

Department of Child Youth and Family Services: 

As a result of issues with the delivery and monitoring of the [long-term protection] LTP component of the [protective intervention program] PIP we determined that there was an increased risk that harm may occur to children.

Kathy Dunderdale suddenly shuffled Joan Burke, who had headed the new department from its creation two years ago, back to head the education department.

Meanwhile in another part of the report …

- srbp -

Irresponsible Government League: free-wheeling in Dunderdale’s department

From the Auditor General’s most recent report on the provincial government’s handling of public funds, released on Wednesday:

As at 19 March 2010, the EMS identified that 56 (12.0%) of the 465 recreational vehicles were missing.  We also found that 49 of the 56 missing recreational vehicles were assigned to the Department of Natural Resources.  

We note that the 2006 Report referred to 80 missing recreational vehicles and indicated that "To have this number of machines unaccounted [for] is unacceptable and increased monitoring of both ATVs and snow machines is strongly recommended.” The Report noted that 67 of the 80 missing recreational vehicles were assigned to the Department of Natural  Resources and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Yes folks, Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s former department lost 49 snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles and that accounted for 87.5% of the government’s inventory of missing ATVs.

How do you lose a snowmobile or a quad?

Well, sez the purist, the vehicles aren’t really lost. It’s just that the department officials don’t know where they are.

For those of us paying the bills, that lousy record keeping and the poor management practices that go with it still pay for all that waste in government.

Meanwhile, 49 somebodies may well have sweet rides courtesy of your tax dollars.

- srbp -

Same and different: Alberta and NL Conservatives’ leadership issues

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach is leaving politics in the face of a revolt within his caucus, according to the Globe and Mail.

Kyle Fawcett, a first-term MLA from Calgary and one of the more fiscally conservative in his party, acknowledged there were cracks in Mr. Stelmach’s cabinet.

“I do think that there was a bit of an issue in caucus,” he said. “There were some challenges around, obviously, this upcoming budget, and some promises that had been made. And I think the Premier saw that as an obstacle that maybe he didn’t want to tackle at this point in his life of public service.”

The unexpected news on Tuesday makes for some interesting comparisons with events in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past couple of months.

Danny Williams left politics unexpectedly in early December.  

Unlike Stelmach, Williams wasn’t facing any obvious internal political problems although he did drop hints of difficulties within his caucus.

Like Williams, Stelmach left politics with the accusation that the opposition parties would employ American-style political attacks in the upcoming provincial general election. Unlike Williams, Stelmach wasn’t a hypocrite in making such a comment.  Williams used Republican-style politics for his entire political career.

While the Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador cooked up a backroom deal to avoid a leadership contest, their Alberta brothers and sisters can look to a quick contest among several cabinet ministers that could be over by the end of March.

- srbp -

Don’t shoot! They’re short

Of the 16 by-elections since 2003, the provincial Conservatives have set a mere 22 days for campaigns in all but three.  The minimum required under provincial election laws is 21 days.

In two of those, the campaigns lasted 23 days and in one the campaign was 24 days.

The current campaign in Humber West fits the pattern to a tee.

The Conservatives have also been super-speedy in calling by-elections.  In three – Exploits, Port au Port and Humber Valley – the writ for the by-election came the same day the incumbent vacated the seat.

But at 52 days after being vacant, Humber West is the third longest time the Tories have taken to call a by-election They took 61 days to call Cape St. Francis, 60 days to call Baie Verte,

The maximum time to call a by-election under election laws is 60 days.

The others range between three days for the Straits-White Bay North to 48 days for Placentia- St. Mary’s.

- srbp -

One sign of the political Apocalypse

Seen around the Internet:

I am not confident, based on the government's past record that they have a plan to diversify the rural economy and that concerns me. It will take leadership, innovation, commitment and ability. I am not sure that those traits have been applied to the job in a while.

That comment, from one of Danny Williams most strident supporters, is an damning criticism of Williams’ and his Conservative Party in power.

Are the locusts and hailstorms far behind?

- srbp -

The Basenjis of St. John’s

If there are dogs that won’t hunt, the Conservatives members of the House of Assembly representing seats in the metro St. John’s are the kind that won’t bark.

Back-bencher, cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary, they are all sitting idly by as the current administration demolishes the school system in the metropolitan area. 

Thousands of students will suffer as a result of a poorly conceived and clumsily executed backroom deal between Eastern School District and the province’s education department to close schools and move students into lashed up space.

The school district will unveil a bunch of resolutions to implement the department’s plan tomorrow night.  If you go by the versions that have already circulated to test what will get a majority, the school board trustees plan to ignore the thoughtful comments made by parents across St. John’s that oppose the back-room scheme and propose instead the plan already agreed upon by parents themselves in 2008. 

There are huge problems in the scheme.  For example, under the deal, the city core and downtown area will be left without a school of any kind.  Students will have to be bussed across town.  In another area, hundreds of students will be forced to change schools four times in five years until the provincial government finishes a new high school in the west end.

If they finish it.

If the school doesn’t get finished, the students will languish as refugees in sub-standard facilities.

The very idea of those things would be ludicrous even as a response to a disaster.  Parents across St. John’s are gob-smacked that bureaucrats and politicians would deliberately plan to implement such a hare-brained scheme and dare to defend it.

But the fix has been in since well before Christmas. Trustees, the majority of whom are from outside St. John’s, are already in favour of the scheme.

Portable classrooms are reportedly on the way to house students from one junior high school who will be forced into grossly inadequate facilities for an unknown period of time.

Not a single member of the province’s legislature from the metro area will speak out to support their constituents.

That’s not a prediction.

That’s a guarantee.

Just watch.

- srbp -

Chevron announces find offshore Africa

From Chevron’s news release:

“SAN RAMON, Calif., Jan 25, 2011 -- Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) today confirmed discoveries within the Moho-Bilondo license in the Republic of the Congo.

The Bilondo Marine 2 and 3 wells are located approximately 40 miles (70 kilometers) offshore of the Republic of the Congo, in 2,600 feet (800 meters) of water in the central part of the Moho-Bilondo license.

George Kirkland, vice chairman, Chevron Corporation, said, "These discoveries further demonstrate the potential of West Africa where Chevron has made significant investments to develop new energy resources."

Bilondo Marine 2 and 3 were drilled to a total depth of around 6,000 feet (1,800 m). The Bilondo Marine 2 (BILDM-2) well found 253 feet (77 m) of gross reservoir, while the Bilondo Marine 3 (BILDM-3) well, which had a different reservoir as objective, found 144 feet (44 m) of gross reservoir. Both wells were successfully tested and flowed oil.

"We look forward to continuing the work needed to further evaluate these discoveries and potential development options," said Ali Moshiri, president of Chevron Africa and Latin America Exploration and Production Company.

The discoveries follow two previous successful exploration wells, Moho Nord Marine-1 and 2, drilled in the permit area in 2007 and the positive appraisal wells Moho Nord Marine-3 in 2008 and Moho Nord Marine-4 in 2009.

The permit area's deep-water Moho-Bilondo project began production in April 2008 and is currently producing 90,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Chevron's subsidiary holds a 31.5 percent interest in the permit area with partners Société Nationale des Pétroles du Congo (15 percent) and Total E&P Congo (operator and 53.5 percent).

…”

- srbp -

Stelmach bails

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach is leaving politics.

The Alberta Conservative party will hold a leadership convention to replace him before the end of March, 2011.

- srbp -

Unsound public finances: pork-barrelling on steroids

If it wasn’t for oil prices, the provincial Conservatives wouldn’t have anything to crow about when it comes to public finances.

And since they have no control over the price of oil, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that building their budget plans on oil prices is something bordering on insane.

You can see that insanity by looking at a chart from the Auditor General’s recent report showing the provincial government’s budget surpluses and deficits.

Three things:

1. Remember the fiscal year numbering thing – The AG misreports the year. To find the actual fiscal year, knock one off.  In other words what the AG calls 2010 is actually 2009.
2. These are accrual or accounting surpluses.  If you look at the actual cash performance, there are some chunky deficits in these years.  Like 2009 for example when the provincial government had to take about half a billion from its cash reserves to cover that whopper of a deficit. Ye olde e-scribe wrote about this before  - in 2008 - along with a couple of lovely pictures to illustrate the point.
3. Those gigantic surpluses in the chart weren’t planned.  In fact, if they planned anything,  the current provincial government crowd planned on going in the hole.  They came out in the black because oil went to insane prices. Look at the budgets for those years and you will see that Tom Marshall and his colleagues planned gigantic spending deficits.

Take 2007, for example.  According to the budget for that year, Tom Marshall planned to come up short by $1.2 billion.  The year before he actually came up short on cash by $707 million.

While you’re at it, these charts also explode the latest bullshit bomb finance minister Tom Marshall’s been spreading now that the Auditor general’s report is on the street.  According to Tom there was a plan, tons of fiscal responsibility and then temporary deficits to make sure the nasty old recession stayed away from our shores.

If you reflect on the actual budget history of the Williams administration, you will see that only real difference between 2009 and all the years before isn’t that 2009 was a year of “stimulus”.  It actually follows the established pattern of planned overspending. 

What changed was the world price of oil. In 2009, the provincial government’s budget forecast and the actual average turned out to be pretty much the same number. 2010 might not be far off that experience, at least as far as cash flow goes.

And that “stimulus” spending?  Well about half of it was actually stuff the provincial government just couldn’t deliver two or three years before when they first promised it. The packaged it up and called it “stimulus” but it as really something a lot less impressive than it sounded. It was, however, a typical Fernando announcement:  it looked a lot better than it actually was.

The provincial government has spent the last seven years spending public money. 

Lots of it. 

At umpteen times the rate of inflation. 

And they started unsustainable spending long before the world went into a recession.

If they had a plan, it certainly wasn’t to spend responsibly, reduce the public debt and generally look after things for future generations.  In fact, if you look at how much they spent and what they spent it on, it looks like old-fashioned pork-barrelling on steroids.

All that puts the current provincial administration is an especially hard spot.  Politically, they won’t be able to start fixing the problems they’ve created. There’s the election and then, if they win in October, they’ll have to settle the leadership thing.  They can really only carry on with the spendthrift ways they’ve followed for the past seven years.

At the same time, politically, the public is now clued in to the problem, wise to the government torque and looking for the sort of serious leadership decisions that the Conservatives can’t really deliver.

Not exactly the greatest situation to be in with an election coming in a few months time, is it?

- srbp -

A country apart? More like a world apart

In British Columbia, two of the province’s major political parties are holding leadership contests.  There’ll be lots of debate and discussion.

Meanwhile on the other coast, one of the province’s political parties is desperately trying to make sure its secret backroom deal holds together so they can avoid any debate at all.

And the guy the back room boys are trying to keep out of their private clubhouse is vowing to fight what he calls the “feudal“ politics of the province’s ruling Conservatives.

The drama is national news.

Embarrassing national news.

Danny Williams’ successor is busily making sure Newfoundland and Labrador isn’t seen as the youngest, coolest province.

- srbp -

Unsound public finances: Tom Marshall’s travesty

 

"It would be a travesty if we don't use this windfall we have, this oil — which will be gone one day — if we don't use that to get rid of this massive debt that our people and our governments have accumulated."

That was finance minister Tom Marshall late last year when he released the provincial government’s financial update for Fiscal Year 2010. He made the comment to CBC’s Jeff Gilhooley during a live interview.

Auditor General John Noseworthy’s most recent report on the public accounts (for Fiscal Year 2009)  pretty much demolishes Marshall’s claims that he and his fellow Conservatives have been managing the province’s finances in a sound way.

The chart shows debt expenses by fiscal year over the past decade. Incidentally, just to make sure you don’t get screwed up in this and subsequent posts, notice that the Auditor General mislabels every fiscal year.  The period covered in this chart is from 1999 to 2009.  That’s the way your humble e-scribbler will refer to the dates.

This chart shows just exactly how much money the provincial government spends every year to service the public debt.  Very little of that is actually going to pay off a debt.  The overwhelming majority of that money goes just to pay the interest that comes due every year.

Take a good look at those numbers.

In 2009, the provincial government spent the better part of a billion dollars doing nothing but paying interest on outstanding debt.

Those figures also tell you that what the province’s finance minister and even the Auditor General call “net debt” isn’t really the measure of public debt that you should be fixed on. After all, if the provincial government really had reduced public debt by almost three or four billion dollars, we wouldn’t be back paying debt servicing costs the likes of which the government hasn’t seen since 2001.

The number you need to look at is gross debt, or, as the Auditor General labels it in the chart below:  “liabilities”

That shows the total amount owed now and in the future by the government and its corporations and agencies.  When it comes to figuring out interest payments and so on, that’s the figure the banks and other creditors look at.  Think about it for a second:  if you have a mortgage on your house, the bank doesn’t check every year to see how much cash you have in the bank or anything else to figure out the interest payments you need to make on the loan.  They just know how much you borrowed and what rate of interest they are going to apply.

So when you look at that line called “liabilities” you will see that the provincial government had $13.733 billion in 2004 – the first full year the Conservatives were in power – and owed $12.559 billion five years later.  Not surprisingly, the debt servicing costs in 2009 were not far off what they were way back before Tom Marshall, Jerome Kennedy and the rest of the provincial Conservatives worked their supposed financial miracles.

Take a look at these two charts and you’ll know why your humble e-scribbler has been harping on this point for pretty well the whole span of Bond Papers. Paul Oram’s resignation in the fall of 2009  - note the year! -just highlighted the issue.

Take a look at those numbers and you’ll understand why Tom Marshall simply has no credibility when he talks about his administration’s management of public finances.

And if you look at those figures you’ll understand that, even if the Muskrat Falls deal was brilliant – and it isn’t – the provincial government has far more pressing issues to deal with rather than build someone’s political legacy. That deal would take the gross debt from $12.5 billion to between $17 and $18 billion.

Tom Marshall’s already given us a judgment of his own performance as finance minister:  a travesty. They haven’t reduced the public debt to any appreciable degree.

So what would it be if the same guy and his cabinet colleagues then increased the public debt by another 50%?

- srbp -

NL Auditor General notes poor fin mgt practice

From September 2002 until March 2009, Government had been preparing periodic financial statements to show the Province’s results of operations and financial position.  Officials of the Department of Finance indicated that these financial statements were only distributed to the Minister of Finance/President of Treasury Board, other Treasury Board Ministers, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Comptroller General, various officials of the Department of  Finance, and the Auditor General.  Officials of the Department of Finance advised that for the year ended 31 March 2010, periodic financial statements
were only distributed to the Deputy Minister of Finance.

From the Auditor General’s report on Fiscal Year 2009.