‘Ethics and accountability’ report card

More than half not done despite 2003 commitment “to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence”

Of the 23 commitments made by the Progressive Conservative opposition on what a February 2003 news release termed “ethics and accountability”, 11 remain unfilled and in two instances, the action taken went against the stated commitment.

Amendments to the energy corporation act in 2008 and the research and development corporation act in 2009 both increased the restrictions on disclosure.

No action has been taken to impose six new, tougher restrictions on campaign financing.

No action has been taken to reduce restrictions on disclosure of cabinet confidences and no amendments that would “enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.”

Of the 10 commitments actually met, one to impose significant penalties for breaches of the lobbyist registration act turned out to be nothing more than a potential one year de-registration.

At least two significant lobbying efforts were never registered.  One involved a multi-million dollar fibre-optic deal.  in another instance, officials of a tourist project now in bankruptcy protection claimed publicly to have been lobbying but never registered their activities.

In two others where action was taken, nothing appears to have been done to implement the commitment until the House of Assembly spending scandal became public.  The commitments – for a code of conduct for members of the legislature and  new administrative procedures on allowances  - were implemented in 2007 as a result of recommendations by Chief Justice Derek Green following his inquiry.

The policy commitments were made by then-opposition leader Danny Williams.  Ironically, Williams was accompanied at the announcement by Ed Byrne, currently serving a prison sentence for fraud and corruption.
Williams’ words at the time proved to be prophetic:

We've invited you here today to address what I see as one of the greatest challenges facing elected governments today. As a result of recent developments at both the provincial and national level, I firmly believe that the public is losing confidence in their elected officials. 

We've seen blatant abuse of office and taxpayers' money, allegations concerning conflict of interest, questions of fundraising contributions, and suggestions of impropriety during leadership conventions. These are very serious issues that are eroding the people's confidence in government.

Now, we can either choose to ignore these issues and continue with the status quo or we can attempt to deal with them and restore the public's confidence. I'm saying that it's time to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence.

Public confidence likely took a further dip with the revelations of what occurred in the legislature between 1997 and 2006.

Here’s a list of the commitments and notes on the actions taken or not taken.  The complete news release is at the bottom of this post.

Serial	Commitment	Action
1	“We will legislate maximum donations to candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.”	No action taken.
2	“We will set out in legislation that the cash contribution to the party from an individual or corporation shall not exceed $10,000.”	No action taken.
3	“We will also legislate maximum expenditures by candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.”	No action taken.
4	“Furthermore, we will require the full public disclosure of all donations to, and expenditures by, candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.”	No action taken.
5	“With respect to Party leadership races, we will require that donations must be disclosed when they occur, and all expenditures must be independently audited and fully disclosed within three months after the election of a new leader.”	No action taken.
6	“We will also enact provisions governing the ownership of unused contributions donated to candidates in leadership races. These legislative provisions will ensure that all unused donations are returned to the donors”.	No action taken.
7	“We will amend the Elections Act to require that provincial elections be held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly.”	House of Assembly Act amendment, 2004
8	“The legislation will ensure that, if the Premier resigns or the Premier's office is vacated within the first three years of a term, an extraordinary election will be held within twelve months and a new government will be elected to a fixed four-year term.”	House of Assembly Act amendment, 2004
9	“We will also amend the Elections Act to require a by-election to be called within 60 days of a vacancy and held within 90 days of a vacancy, so as to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are appropriately represented in the legislature.”	House of Assembly Act amendment, 2004
10	“We will establish a new procedure to provide for the proper auditing and disclosure of the expenses of Members of the House of Assembly.”	Significant new procedures were not implemented until after the disclosure of the spending scandal and not until passage of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act in 2007.
11	“We will amend the Access to Information legislation to enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.”	Amendments to the Energy Corporation Act in 2008 and the research and development corporation act 2009 significantly reduced access to information related to these two bodies.  There have been no amendments to the ATIPPA to “enhance the transparency of government actions.”
12	“The Access to Information legislation proposed and passed by the Grimes government in 2001 (though it has not yet been proclaimed) allows the government to exclude a great deal of information from release to the public under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences". We will limit that exemption so more information that rightly belongs in the public domain will be accessible to the public.”	No action to limit the exemption. A request for disclosure of polling (specifically listed in the 2002 legislation as not being exempt from disclosure) was denied initially on the grounds it may disclose cabinet confidences.
13	“Also, the legislation will be changed so any information that continues to fall under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences" will be released earlier.”	No action taken
14	“We will enact changes to tighten up the exceptions to the release of information.”	Amendments to two other acts in 2008 and 2009 created new mandatory exemptions.
15	“We will remove provisions that allow the cabinet to override the legislative provisions of the Act by regulation at their discretion.”	No action taken.
16	“Finally, we will shorten the time lines for the release of information so information that rightly belongs in the public domain is available to the people of the province on a timely basis. Access delayed is sometimes access denied.”	No action taken.
17	“A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation directly or through a special committee of the House of Assembly to develop appropriate and strict legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this province.”	Consultation took place in 2004.
18	“The primary objective of the legislation will be to establish a registry so the public can see by whom their Members and their government are being lobbied.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
19	“The legislation will require that lobbyists report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004. Public office holders are not required to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
20	“The legislation may require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
21	“The legislation may differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
22	“The legislation will impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.”	The only penalty that may be imposed is the cancellation of a registration or the refusal to register a lobbyist for period not to exceed one year in duration.
23	“We will also ask the legislature to adopt a strict code of conduct for all Members, to be enforced by the Commissioner of Members' Interests, emphasizing their accountability to the wider public interest and to their constituents, and the need for openness, honesty and integrity in their dealings with the public, constituents and lobbying organizations.”	A code of conduct for members of the House of Assembly was included in the House accountability act in 2007 on the recommendation of Chief Justice Derek Green. Prior to the disclosure of the House of Assembly spending scandal, no action appears to have been taken on this.

-30-

Williams announces policies regarding
ethics and government reform

ST. JOHN'S, February 5, 2003 — Danny Williams, Leader of the Opposition and MHA for Humber West, today announced a number of policies regarding ethics and government reform. His speaking notes follow:


Good afternoon, and thank you everyone for coming out today. Joining me is Ed Byrne, our House Leader, and Harvey Hodder, one of our longest-serving MHAs.

We've invited you here today to address what I see as one of the greatest challenges facing elected governments today. As a result of recent developments at both the provincial and national level, I firmly believe that the public is losing confidence in their elected officials.

We've seen blatant abuse of office and taxpayers' money, allegations concerning conflict of interest, questions of fundraising contributions, and suggestions of impropriety during leadership conventions. These are very serious issues that are eroding the people's confidence in government.

Now, we can either choose to ignore these issues and continue with the status quo or we can attempt to deal with them and restore the public's confidence. I'm saying that it's time to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence.

To that effect, I am today announcing several policies to help modernize the electoral process and the day-to-day operations of the government in Newfoundland and Labrador. These policies concern three separate areas that can be classified under the following general headings: transparency in political fundraising, effective government, and regulation of lobbyists.

Each policy area was developed under the basic philosophy that the public has a legitimate right to be informed of their government's activities.

A. Transparency in Political Fundraising

Let's first look at transparency in political fundraising.

The Elections Act limits election campaign contributions and spending, and attempts to promote electoral fairness by allowing candidates to recover part of their campaign expenses from public funds.

However, the intent of the Act is undermined by loopholes that allow political parties to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money before an election is called, and permit unlimited contributions and spending on leadership contests.

A Progressive Conservative Government will amend the Elections Act to close those loopholes.

• We will legislate maximum donations to candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.
• We will set out in legislation that the cash contribution to the party from an individual or corporation shall not exceed $10,000.
• We will also legislate maximum expenditures by candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.
• Furthermore, we will require the full public disclosure of all donations to, and expenditures by, candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.
• With respect to Party leadership races, we will require that donations must be disclosed when they occur, and all expenditures must be independently audited and fully disclosed within three months after the election of a new leader.
• We will also enact provisions governing the ownership of unused contributions donated to candidates in leadership races. These legislative provisions will ensure that all unused donations are returned to the donors.

The public is demanding transparency in the raising and spending of all funds related to the election of Party leaders, Party candidates and Members of the House of Assembly. It is our obligation and our commitment to deliver the transparency and accountability that the public is demanding.

B. Effective Government


We also have seen problems arise over timely elected representation. There have been numerous situations over the last few years in which the electorate has gone unreasonable periods of time without elected representatives. In fact, one district did not have representation for the entire Voisey's Bay debate, which was one of the most important debates that occurred in this province last year. We have an ongoing situation in which the Premier has governed the province for two full years despite the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not have the opportunity to elect him. And we have situations in which individuals are not able to obtain information from their government because of countless restrictions and excessive wait periods. This is wrong.

A Progressive Conservative Government will address these issues decisively.

• We will amend the Elections Act to require that provincial elections be held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly.
• The legislation will ensure that, if the Premier resigns or the Premier's office is vacated within the first three years of a term, an extraordinary election will be held within twelve months and a new government will be elected to a fixed four-year term.
• We will also amend the Elections Act to require a by-election to be called within 60 days of a vacancy and held within 90 days of a vacancy, so as to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are appropriately represented in the legislature.
• We will establish a new procedure to provide for the proper auditing and disclosure of the expenses of Members of the House of Assembly.
• We will amend the Access to Information legislation to enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.
• Our legislative changes will clearly identify information that should be in the public domain, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the information to the public. The Access to Information legislation proposed and passed by the Grimes government in 2001 (though it has not yet been proclaimed) allows the government to exclude a great deal of information from release to the public under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences". We will limit that exemption so more information that rightly belongs in the public domain will be accessible to the public.
• Also, the legislation will be changed so any information that continues to fall under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences" will be released earlier.
• We will enact changes to tighten up the exceptions to the release of information.
• We will remove provisions that allow the cabinet to override the legislative provisions of the Act by regulation at their discretion.
• Finally, we will shorten the time lines for the release of information so information that rightly belongs in the public domain is available to the people of the province on a timely basis. Access delayed is sometimes access denied.

C. Regulation of Lobbyists


Another activity which must be brought forward for public review involves government lobbying. The governments of Canada and four provinces have enacted legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose their identities, their intentions and their activities. Since there is no such legislation in this province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not know which individuals and groups are lobbying their government to make decisions that will benefit the lobbyists or those they represent. Disclosure reassures the public that their representatives' arms are not being twisted behind the scenes.

• A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation directly or through a special committee of the House of Assembly to develop appropriate and strict legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this province.
• The primary objective of the legislation will be to establish a registry so the public can see by whom their Members and their government are being lobbied. It will not be our intention to impede free and open access to government by individuals and groups, but we will strike the proper balance through transparency and disclosure.
• The legislation will require that lobbyists report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
• The legislation may require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.
• The legislation may differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.
• The legislation will impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.
• We will also ask the legislature to adopt a strict code of conduct for all Members, to be enforced by the Commissioner of Members' Interests, emphasizing their accountability to the wider public interest and to their constituents, and the need for openness, honesty and integrity in their dealings with the public, constituents and lobbying organizations.

Conclusion


In conclusion, I firmly believe that people are losing their confidence and trust in elected government, and that must change. Our Party is committed to that. It is our intention to begin to address these issues and restore public confidence with these policies.

Hebron deal: Big Oil’s new L’il Buddy

A curious extract from the financial agreement that was part of the Hebron development deal:

5.1 Support of Province.

The Province shall, on the request of the Proponents:

(A) assist and support each of the Proponents in seeking modifications for federal fiscal enhancements to the extent that such enhancements do not, in the opinion of the Province, have a negative financial impact on the Province, or where such enhancements do have a negative financial impact, they have been offset to the satisfaction of the Province by the Proponents;

(B) use all reasonable efforts to assist the Proponents in securing commitments from Canada and municipal governments in the Province regarding the legal and regulatory framework applicable to a Development Project; and

(C) support the efforts of the Proponents in responding to any future legislative and regulatory changes that may be proposed by Canada or a municipal government in the Province that might adversely affect any Development Project, provided such action does not negatively impact the Province or require the Province to take any legislative or regulatory action respecting municipalities.

Talk about your little gem of a concession to the oil companies.

This section commits the provincial to support any or all of the proponents on any action taken by the Government of Canada that “might adversely affect any” development project on any of the lands covered by the agreement.

What might we be talking about here?

Well, it’s pretty wide open. If you look up the definition of “Development Project” in the agreement you’ll see it’s broad enough to cover every aspect of the project from start to finish, including environmental considerations. If the proponents think the idea is bad, then the province is obliged to help out. It doesn’t have an option; if the proponents ask, the “Province shall.”

And before you note the little provisos there about the Province and the conditions under which it doesn’t have to lend support, bear in mind that the definition of the Province in the agreement is also pretty tight and tidy:

“Province" means the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the geographical territory of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the context may require.

Now this gets even more squirrely when you consider that the provincial government co-manages the offshore with the federal government through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. The sort of regulatory changes we are talking here are ones that are most likely to come through the offshore board.

Environmental regulations, shipping regulations, changes to safety requirements, that sort of thing: all covered through federal legislation since the offshore is legally in federal jurisdiction.

Even fallow field is covered by this provision. If a future federal government wanted to change land tenure in such a way that it would affect lands covered by Hebron, the provincial government would likely be obliged to toe Big Oil’s line. If the proposed federal regulatory “enhancements” actually worked out well for the provincial government, the Proponents can cut a side deal under this clause to secure their support to fight the “enhancements”.

Not a bad little clause.

Well, not bad for the oil companies, anyway.

This provision is even more squirrely because the provincial government – through the minister of natural resources (Kathy Dunderdale) and the provincial representatives on the offshore regulatory board – will not only carry on all this lobbying at the behest of and on behalf of Big Oil in the first place, they can do it from behind closed doors.

There isn’t a single clause there that would oblige the provincial government to disclose its lobbying on behalf of the oil companies; no disclosure to the public and indeed no disclosure to anyone.

Seems like a pretty big conflict of interest, but not one that should come as any surprise given that government’s policy is to be both a regulator and an operator simultaneously.

That’s pretty much the definition of conflict of interest as we’ve discussed here before, particularly when the talks broke off in 2006. We also raised the issue given the Premier’s curious claim after the recent helicopter crash that – despite the fairly obvious – the provincial government didn’t have a regulatory role in the offshore.

It also shouldn’t come as a surprise given that the Hebron deal sets the local research and development below the levels set by the offshore regulator. Government accepted that low amount - and the pledge to back Big Oil - after the offshore board won a court case against Big Oil over just those sorts of levies set retroactively by the offshore board. Next time out, Kathy Dunderdale or her successor will be working to make sure the regulatory changes don’t get out of the board in the first place.

All of that pales in comparison to the clause in a fiscal deal that obliges the provincial government to back the oil companies whenever the companies ask.

-srbp-

Something’s missing: Powers, Hydro, Danny, Abitibi and The Globe

Tim Powers is a well-known Conservative activist who, in his work-a-day, is a professional lobbyist.  As we’ve noted in this space before, he’s a smart guy and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was well advised to retain his services to help deal with the federal government on Lower Churchill and the national electricity grid.

According to the lobbyist registry in Ottawa, Powers is still lobbying for Hydro, which is, it should be said, a provincial Crown corporation controlled entirely by the provincial government.  It is no more arms length from cabinet and the Premier’s Office than the natural resources ministry.

The lobbyist registration was just renewed a couple of months ago so it is pretty fresh and there’s no indication it has been suddenly cancelled.

That’s a good point to bear in mind when you read Tim’s comments over the past week on the AbitibiBowater expropriation.  Aside from anything else, he writes a regular blog over at the Globe and Mail.

Over the past week, Globe online readers have been getting comments like this, for example:

History provides a great guide into Newfoundland and this Premier's disdain for broken contracts, apparent or otherwise. Was anyone paying attention to the battle between Ottawa and Newfoundland over the Atlantic Accord?

Perhaps one of the reasons Newfoundland is now a "have" province because she does not sit quietly by and accept that a company can abandon its responsibilities regardless of global circumstances.

For those of us who were paying attention back in 2004/05, we know that there were no broken contracts involved, apparent or otherwise.  And that second bit really doesn’t make any sense since there is no evidence that the company involved- AbitibiBowater – has abandoned any responsibilities.  It’s decided to shut an expensive mill in the midst of global recession and in the face of tough financial times within the company. The mill has been operating for 103 years, with Abitibi running the thing since the 1970s.

That all might be a matter for debate for some people but there a subtext to this that just can’t be ignored and that has to do with the relationship between Powers, Hydro and Danny Williams.

The expropriations involved in last Tuesday’s sudden move by the provincial government involved hydroelectric generation.  The new custodian of those assets is the province’s energy corporation  - NACLOR - and its subsidiary, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. 

Subsidiary isn’t the right word, really.  The whole thing is so tightly interconnected, the directorates so tightly interlocked, that it is hard to distinguish one bit of NALCO Reborn form another unless you are a lawyer.  It’s so closely tied to the provincial cabinet that Danny Williams habitually makes all the major announcements for the company. This is not like a Norwegian Crown corporation; it’s more like a Nigerian one for the level of direction it receives from the political end.

At no point, does the Globe point out the connections and Powers doesn’t either, at least not as far as your humble e-scribbler can see.

And just so there’s no mistaking the role Powers’ client is playing in this whole expropriation, let us look no further than the words of Danny Williams himself.

The Premier said it in his statement announcing the unprecedented expropriation:

The Provincial Government will also be taking control of the power plants of Abitibi as without these power plants the hydro power would be wasted. Nalcor Energy will now manage this asset.

The Premier expanded on the point during Question Period the same day:

The Premier:  A good question, Your Honour.

The way that this has been constructed, I indicated in my remarks that the assets, particularly the water assets, would be managed by Nalcor Energy, because obviously Nalcor Energy are now the parent company of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, so our expertise lies at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They would be, obviously, the appropriate ones to move in and to oversee the water assets particularly and then also to work in partnership with Fortis and Enel on the two partnerships that are on the river. The assets themselves actually revert to the Crown, so the Crown, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, is actually standing behind this, so we would basically be repatriating our water rights and also repatriating our land and timber rights back to the Province.

If, at some point in time, on a go-forward basis, then for purposes of the efficient operation and management of the hydro assets, for want of a better term, then, in fact, an arrangement would be done with Nalcor, but the ultimate liability and the ultimate responsibility very clearly rests with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Something’s been missing this week from the Globe and Mail:  it’s the disclosure of this apparent conflict of interest.

-srbp-

Trevor's duck and cover explained

Trevor Taylor, part-time substitute fisheries minister in the Provincial Conservative government has been busily ducking a looming issue in the fisheries world.  In a system already grossly overstocked with processing capacity, Taylor's department has a recommendation under consideration to add a few more licenses.

The local CBC fisheries broadcast has been trying desperately to get Taylor on the air.

He's been unavailable.

Apparently, Trevor's been too busy campaigning against Fabian Manning, not in his free time or anything mind you but during the day time  - normal government working hours - when one might expect he could have found a few hours to devote to his custodial responsibilities in the fish department.

Seems Trevor has been joined on the hustings by attorney general Jerome Kennedy and intergovernmental affairs genius Tom Hedderson. 

You will recall Hedderson as the guy writing letters to Ottawa last June lobbying on a decision that was made...18 months earlier.

Trevor sees no problem with this carrying on partisan family fights during daylight hours.

Trevor also decided on Monday to issue a news release criticizing the federal government for a deal giving 1500 tonnes of yellowtail flounder from Canada's NAFO allocation to the Americans.

But sure Trevor and the boys are supporting the ABC campaign, you say.

Yes, sez your humble e-scribbler, but don't forget the real motivation for all these cabinet ministers to join in the Family Feud.

There's a big cabinet shuffle coming very shortly.  Being seen out there hammering away at The Boss' favourite cause is much better for the old career path than spending time doing other things, like say the job you get paid to do.

Oh.  That's right. 

Trevor did find time in his hectic hectoring schedule to call the Fisheries Broadcast and do an interview.

But that was after one of his predecessors outed him on the Family Feud thing.

-srbp-

An abuse of our men and women in uniform

The federal Conservatives gave Canadians a lesson in Halifax yesterday, a lesson most of them likely didn't want.

A group of Second World War veterans were trotted before the cameras alongside Peter Mackay, the national defence minister as props in a campaign announcement.

The lesson was Manipulation, Cynicism and Crassness 101.

Ostensibly they were there to announce that the Halifax Rifles - a disbanded militia unit - would be reactivated.  The veterans had fought with the Canadian Forces during the Second World War, many of them receiving their initial training with the Rifles.

But here's the thing:

No one knows what this unit will do.

No one knows where the soldiers for this unit will come from.

No one knows where they will train.

In short, there is no Halifax Rifles, any more than there are the various battalions of soldiers promised by the Conservatives to any town and city in the country that wanted one.

The regional commander of the army stated the problems, albeit in the guise of making it sound like this was a good thing that the army was squarely behind:

Simply getting people to join will "be a challenge because there’s a lot of demand on reserve (units for) folks that are very, very good," he said.

"Both industry here as well as the Canadian Forces and all the other units are going to be competing for the same quality folks. . . . That’s why it’s going to take a little bit of time to actually stand up the unit and get the folks in there."

He expects it will take three or four years to fully re-establish the regiment.

You see the Friends of the Halifax Rifles have been lobbying for years to recreate the Rifles.  They've worked every room they can to get the name back on a uniform.  They are well-intentioned and sincere with a justifiably love of their former unit and desire to see their own cherished memories continued.

But up to now both the Canadian Forces and the politicians who over see the military have understood that we cannot create military units for what essentially amounts to sentimental reasons. 

The military cannot and should not be used for anything other than the reasons we have soldiers, sailors and aircrew.  They don't exist to proper up failing local economies.  And they don't exist in the active military force to serve - essentially - as living relics of another time, looking good on parade, chewing up scarce cash and human resources and no really contributing anything to the defence of Canada.

There is a fine reserve infantry unit in Halifax already, one that has to work hard to keeps its ranks full.  It's not so different from the other reserve units for the army, navy, and air force in Halifax and the surrounding areas or anywhere else in the country in that respect.  All of them have well defined missions and they are set up within areas where the competition for talent is already fierce.  They recruit hard and they train hard all year long to do a job. Adding another reserve unit doesn't increase the capability in the area;  it just sets the military to competing with itself for people. 

At one point, the Friends were suggesting that the Rifles could be a reconnaissance unit, an idea that appears in this latest announcement.  What they had in mind at one point was buying a whole bunch of civilian type jeeps.  Soldiers would spend their training time bombing around the coasts of Nova Scotia keeping an eye out - on the weekends only, of course - for enemy submarines or smugglers.  All wonderful ideas a half century ago but all hopelessly out of touch with the current reality.

What makes this announcement crass, cynical and manipulative is that people involved in the announcement on the government side know there is very likelihood the promise will ever come to light. National Defence has already been through the debate between the professional military and the amateurs and wannabes who came into office a couple of years ago over where the Canadian Forces should put its priority for the defence of Canada.  The whole episode wasted valuable time and chewed up valuable cash resources for absolutely nothing except to show seeds of confusion in some cases.  Thankfully that was short-lived.

There will be no Halifax Rifles in four years times just as there will be no rapid reaction battalion in Goose Bay or any of the other hare-brained schemes cooked up in Conservative backrooms to fool just enough naive voters to get the party elected.

In this case, a group of very sincere and well meaning men have been taken advantage of.  They are proud of their service to the country and Canadians should be respectful of them.

Instead, the defence minister has done little more than stick a "Kick Me" sign on their backs.  He could easily have stuck bunny ears up behind their heads for the cameras and been every bit in keeping with the substance of his announcement.

He certainly couldn't have been more disrespectful or abused them - and us - in any greater way.

-srbp-

To infinity, and beyond - redux

Planetspace, Inc., an American company that lost in its bid to develop NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems phase one demonstrations, is lobbying the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for financial assistance for an unspecified venture.

Planetspace was one of 13 companies in the race to develop the commercial orbital system but lost out earlier this year to Orbital.

Mark Doucet, of Cabot Capital Network Projects is the registered lobbyist. Doucet has registered to lobby the Premier's Office, the Business Investment Corporation as well as the business, finance, tourism, innovation and transportation departments for a "financial incentive request".

The Globe and Mail reported last year that Fred Doucet, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, was lobbying the Government of Canada for $45 million to support development of a space tourism venture as part of the Nova Scotia project.

Fred Doucet, president and chief executive officer of Fred Doucet Consulting International Inc (FDCI), is listed in the federal government registry as a lobbyist for Planetspace. Mark Doucet is listed in the registry as a vice president of FDCI.

Fred Doucet's name popped up early in 2008 as the go-between who arranged meetings been Mulroney and German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber. He denied knowing anything about financial transactions alleged to have taken place at the meetings.

Fred Doucet is reported by the National Post to have been a business partner of former Premier Frank Moores in Government Consultants International.

Planetspace signed a deal in August 2006 with the Government of Nova Scotia for 300 acres of land as part of a plan to develop an orbital launch facility. Bond Papers reported the Nova Scotia deal in July 2007.

-srbp-

The politics and challenges of education reform in post-Confederation Newfoundland and Labrador (Part III)

by Philip J. Warren

The 1990s – Reforming the Denominational System

For those who don't recall, let me provide a little more detail about the denominational system. When Newfoundland joined Confederation, the Province had the most denominational school system in the Country, a system that had its beginnings over a century earlier. Five separate church systems -- Roman Catholic, Anglican, United Church, Salvation Army, and Seventh Day Adventist – had emerged, four with representatives in the Department of Education. In addition, there was a relatively small Amalgamated system, largely non-Catholic. Individual denominations had the constitutional right to have their own school boards and schools, to hire and fire teachers, to receive provincial funding on a non-discriminatory basis, and to have denominational colleges. Pentecostal schools were officially recognized in 1954.

After Confederation, the system became the subject of growing criticism. Increasing enrolments, fiscal restraint, and demands for improved programs, facilities, and services highlighted the problems of duplication inherent in the system. One result was a further increase in the number of Amalgamated schools and the integration of five denominations mentioned earlier. The Integrated system served nearly 60 per cent of the Province's enrolment. After that, Integrated, Roman Catholic, and Pentecostal school boards established a number of shared or joint services, in an attempt to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

A new Government was elected in 1989, with a caucus that included several political activists (Hubert Kitchen, Rex Gibbons, Chris Decker, Pat Cowan, Roger Grimes, myself, and later Ed Roberts). After considering all the options for improving education (and we did consider every option), the Government decided to establish another royal commission, to study, among other things, the denominational system. The Commission's main recommendation was the establishment of a single interdenominational system as the most cost-efficient and effective way of dealing with the demographic changes and educational challenges confronting the schools, while retaining many of the benefits of denominationalism,

The Commission also recommended that, where numbers warranted, children should be provided with opportunities for religious activities and instruction in their own faith; that the 27 denominational school boards be replaced by nine publicly-elected boards; that the three denominational education councils be dissolved; and that school councils be established at the local level to encourage local, collaborative decision-making and site-based management. If implemented, these recommendations would, in effect, end the denominational system as it had existed since the mid-1800s.

In what may have been a bit of wishful thinking, the Commission pointed out that, just as, in 1969, five churches joined together voluntarily to form a single Integrated system, now, in 1992, it was possible for all churches to create a new system which would preserve the valued Christian character of schooling, and, at the same time, recognize the educational, economic, and social advantages of participating in a fully co-operative venture. The churches strongly rejected these denominational recommendations.

For six years, following the release of the Report in 1992, there was extensive lobbying, long periods of negotiations, periods of stalemate, two provincial referendums, a provincial election, a change of Premiers, several court cases, and political threats and counter-threats. In 1998, legislation was finally adopted in the House of Assembly, leading to the abolition of the denominational system. The story of that period in our history is a most interesting one.

Forces Influencing the Reforms of the 1990s

There were many interrelated forces that influenced the denominational reforms of the 1990s. Four of the most important were: (1) the growth of secularization and the declining credibility of the churches, (2) the influence of special interest groups and the media, (3) the Royal Commission, and (4) sustained political leadership.

The Growth of Secularization and the Declining Credibility of the Churches

The reform of the denominational system in the 1990s was influenced by a major ideological transition in the Province – the growth of secularization. Secularization is the process by which traditional religion and religious rituals lose their influence over society as a whole, and other institutions take over their functions. In Newfoundland, religion once permeated all aspects of our way of life, even athletic activities, the selection of many government employees, and even the appointment of cabinet ministers.

While in the early 1990s, many citizens considered themselves religious, and identified with a particular denomination or religion, the extent to which religion influenced their lives had declined. This was reflected in the decline in church attendance in most denominations, the difficulty of raising funds for church use, the shortage of students for the priesthood and the ministry, the significant growth of interfaith marriages, and the unwillingness of an increasing number of people to see the church as the preeminent ethical and moral authority in their daily lives.

This growth of secularization, of course, was associated with urbanization, industrialization, and a higher level of formal education. It was also associated with the controversies surrounding abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and the role of women in the churches. More important was the impact of the highly-publicized sexual abuse cases involving priests and other clergy, and the subsequent hearings and reports of the Winter Commission and the Hughes Inquiry. Some say that, at that time, the churches lost their moral authority, in a province in which, until the 1960s, they had retained power almost unknown elsewhere in Canada, even in Quebec.

These forces, among others, resulted in a change of public opinion about denominational schools. That change was reflected in many surveys, particularly those by Mark Graessar of Memorial University and my own studies. While the findings were sometimes ambiguous, and even contradictory, we found growing support for a single, interdenominational system, and almost unanimous support for interdenominational sharing, provided religious education was included. More and more people criticized the traditional system because, they believed, it resulted in too many small schools, the duplication of facilities and programs, excessive school busing, the discrimination of non-Christians and non-religious, and the discrimination of teachers in hiring and firing. These survey results were widely debated, as were publications such as Bill McKim's book entitled “The Vexed Question: Denominational Education in a Secular Age.”

The Impact of Special-Interest Groups and the Media

Many special-interest groups supported the school reform movement in the late 1980s and the 1990s. One such group was the Newfoundland Teachers Association (now the NLTA). With the publication of “Exploring New Pathways” in 1986, the Association launched the first major criticism of the denominational system since the 1964 Royal Commission Report. Roger Grimes was the President of the Association at that time. The criticism was based largely on efficiency and economic grounds, rather than ideological ones.

The fact that the NLTA supported the Government in the 1990s was important because the Association was made up of teachers of all denominations. While Pentecostal teachers had a separate voice within the Association, and sometimes disagreed with the Association's stand on denominational issues, such was not the case for other teachers, including Roman Catholics. I've done some research on why that was so, and will report accordingly in the future.

Another association that became increasingly involved in the debates of the 1980s and 1990s was the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association. During and after the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that Association strongly criticized the denominational system for limiting (1) the lifestyle rights of teachers, (2) the rights of non-adherents of the system, including non-Christians, and (3) the rights of non-adherent parents to run for election to school boards that educated their children.

Other groups, such as the business community and various coalitions of parents, also played an important role in supporting the reform. The St. John's Board of Trade, for example, echoed the views of the 1986 House Commission on Employment and Unemployment, linking education with economic growth and calling for the reform of denominational education. The NL Home and School Federation and the Education First Group, a diverse coalition containing persons of all religious and political persuasions, were very influential during the referendum campaigns. Change which tapped into that kind of public support was likely to be successful.

And, then, there was the influence of the media. For three or four decades after Confederation, few journalists criticized the denominational system, and those who did received little visible public support. That changed over time, for obvious reasons.

The media played a very significant role in the promotion of the work of the 1990 Royal Commission. They gave extensive coverage to the hearings, the recommendations, the negotiations, the referendums, and the court cases, often supporting the Government's position. Through newspapers, radio, television, and films, the media became a powerful influence on how people saw the denominational issue and how they responded. There was no doubt that they helped to set the reform agenda in education, greatly influencing policies, politics and values. Many supporters of denominational education believe, to this day, that they were unfairly treated by certain journalists and certain media outlets.

The 1990 Royal Commission

The Government believed that having a Royal Commission study the very sensitive denominational issue as part of a more comprehensive review would not only demonstrate the Government's commitment to providing a better education, but also its willingness to provide strong leadership in these challenging times. The Government knew that there were political risks associated with the Commission's appointment, but it was prepared to take that risk, knowing that when the report was completed, it could choose to take no action, some action, or accept the recommendations entirely.

Looking back, perhaps the most important contribution of the 1990 Royal Commission was that it provided, at a very important point in time, a vehicle for the public discussion of educational issues. In the process, the Commission captured a surprising amount of public attention and provoked the most lively debate in years. School boards, teachers, students, parents, and the general public were truly engaged. The Commission conducted a considerable amount of research and traveled widely to examine developments elsewhere. In addition to its recommendation on the denominational system, it made recommendations on improving the operation of school boards, the curriculum, instructional time, teacher education, the education of children with exceptional learning needs, and even the way we fund education. In the end, unfortunately, the implementation of many of these latter recommendations was overshadowed by the debate on reforming the system.

Sustained Political Leadership

With few exceptions, politicians and political parties in Newfoundland have been careful in their dealings with the churches. Even after Confederation, a political “understanding” between the churches and politicians remained in tact, where one seldom criticized the other. The churches often remained quiet on social and political issues about which they should have been concerned. And few politicians publicly questioned the authority of the churches.

The Governments of Premiers Wells and Tobin were responsible for providing leadership in the reform of the system. As a rationalist in policy development, Wells, like Trudeau, believed that the state should aggressively promote economic and social justice. He saw a modernized school system as the key to our future in a knowledge-based economy. That philosophy was reflected in the Government's newly-developed Strategic Economic Plan. To achieve the new order, the school system had to be made more efficient, more cost-effective, and more responsive to the needs of children.

While Wells preferred the single, unified, interdenominational system proposed by Williams, and wanted to reach a consensus with the recognized denominations, his Government negotiated what he considered a compromise Term 17 amendment, between what the Commission recommended and what the churches were demanding. That proposed Amendment provided for separate denominational schools where it could be demonstrated that such schools had sufficient numbers of students to provide quality education. Under the proposal, the Province would have both uni- and inter-denominational schools, operated by common school boards. The proposal was unacceptable to the churches.

While the constitutional amending formula did not require a referendum for approval of the compromise proposal, the Government decided to hold one in 1995 to give the public an opportunity to debate the issue and decide. Wells refused to aggressively campaign in the referendum. In the end, the proposed Amendment was approved by a narrow majority -- 53 to 47 per cent -- with a relatively low voter turnout. Much more could be said about the Wells Amendment and the referendum, but I'll leave that for another time.

The essence of political leadership is knowing when to think and act quickly and when not. Building on what Wells had accomplished, Tobin (with Minister Roger Grimes) acted quickly and decisively to complete the reform process. After the Barry court case in 1997, which halted the implementation of the Wells proposal, the Premier sensed that the political mood of the Province had changed, and support for the Government had increased. So, he called a second referendum on a fully public system, eliminating denominational rights entirely, with some provision for religious education.

While not being critical of Wells, Tobin sought to distance himself from the first referendum campaign. He presented a clear and straightforward question to the public, and campaigned aggressively, focusing not only on the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the denominational system, but also the philosophical arguments on which it was based, particularly that Christians should be educated in separate schools. He claimed that the real issue was the correction of a “moral wrong” inherent in the system. By using this argument, he shifted the campaign from primarily economic grounds to the greater welfare of all students and society generally.

With the enthusiastic support of many special interest groups, and individuals of all religious and political persuasions, the referendum was successful, with 73 per cent voting in favour. The Government was assisted by the fact that, unlike the first referendum, the Roman Catholic campaign was not well organized, had few funds, and had lost some of its supporters and enthusiasm.

In my research, I've reviewed the political campaigns of the churches to preserve the system, and the Government to reform it. I will comment on these findings in the future, including the important debate concerning minority rights.

Part 4...

- -

Bandaids, buck passing, a scurrilous personal attack and the possible breakdown of cabinet government

Despite posting record operating surpluses in each of the three years since it received reports on the needed repairs and life safety improvement province's hospitals, the Williams administration planned to increase spending on hospital repairs by just two million dollars in its upcoming budget. 

The plan was to spend $14 million instead of the $12 million budgeted in those three record surplus years.

That is until news broke this week of the problems.

Now, according to Premier Danny Williams , that $14 million will be increased to somewhere between $20 to $28 million. Williams said $14 million of that will go to the four sites in St. John's, including the provincial health centre at the Health Sciences Centre.

You can read about it on the front page of today's Telegram. Williams comments were also reported on NTV News on Friday evening.

Previously secret consultant's reports were released this week by the provincial health department after health minister Ross Wiseman inadvertently referred to them.  The assessments, completed in 2005 showed that four St. John's area health centres required $134 million in required repairs.  over half that amount - $70 million - was classified as currently or potentially critical.

The provincial allocation for St. John's amounts to just 20% of the amount identified as critical or potentially critical just three years ago.  In the meantime, the situations have deteriorated and the costs have increased.  According to CBC, which broke the hospital scandal earlier this week, the bill for St. John's hospitals could top $170 million if all work was done this year.

"It's growing faster than we can keep ahead of it," said Keith Bowden, director of infrastructure and support for Eastern Health, the regional authority that manages all hospitals and clinics in the city area, as well as the rest of eastern Newfoundland.

"I mean, we're not keeping ahead of the curve at all."

The reports on the St. John's hospitals were kept secret despite a written commitment from Williams in his 2003 campaign manual to release government-commissioned reports within 30 days of receipt and to have an action plan made public within 60 days to address the reports.

Reports on other hospitals in the province - so-called facilities reports - may also exist.

According to provincial finance department figures, the Williams administration posted a $524 million surplus on its operating budgets for 2005 (capital and current) and a $141 million surplus in 2006.  In 2007, the surplus is projected to be more than $880 million yet while the finance minister and the health minister knew of the hospitals problem, the surplus was redirected to other spending, including covering some of the costs of creating a government-owned oil and gas company.

In the Telegram, Williams defended his health minister saying that Wiseman didn't create the problems. 'We inherited this and we inherited a mess," Williams said.  While that's true Williams' administration also hasn't done anything to deal with the problem and obviously hadn't planned to do anything until the secret reports were uncovered by media inquiries.

For his part, Williams denied knowing anything about the reports. Given the Premier's penchant for nano-management, his claim seems odd but if we take him at his word - there's no reason not to - Williams has now pointed to a far more sinister problem within his administration. 

If Williams is correct, three successive ministers of health, including the man he just appointed to head the energy company's board of directors withheld crucial information from him and potentially other members of cabinet.

Williams claim suggests a fundamental breakdown in the operations of cabinet government in the province. Ministers cannot properly make crucial decisions, such as government spending, if details of major issues are hidden from them.  The secrecy cloak that apparently kept these reports from the public also applies within government too, if Williams' comments are accepted at face value.

Opposition parties were highly critical of the Williams' administration handling of the hospital scandal this week.

"This report has sat on the desk of three ministers," [Liberal health critic Roland] Butler said.

"Yes, the debt has to be looked after," said Butler, who said Health Minister Ross Wiseman should be lobbying Finance Minister Tom Marshall, "trying to find out if he can get the money to correct those serious issues, sooner rather than later."

New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael called on Williams to relieve Wiseman in light of his performance on a serious of scandals within the department.  In an interview with NTV news, Williams attacked Michael personally, claiming she was being hypocritical to criticize Wiseman when she herself had been looking for a raise from the House of Assembly management committee. 

There's no logical connection between the two issues, but the attack was a trademark Williams' personal smear.

Update:  CBC has other examples of repairs needed in hospitals around the province. Seems there are hospitals without sprinkler systems. 

CBC's Deanne Fleet reported on this in the Friday news cast.  Neither the fire commissioner nor municipal affairs minister Dave Denine were available Friday to take questions on the growing controversy.  Denine and health minister Ross Wiseman dropped the regulatory hammer on 22 personal care homes in the province just three weeks ago for not having sprinklers installed.

Operators, who had been warned of the sprinkler issue in 2003, were given just 30 days to install systems or get signed contracts for installation or face immediate closure.

You can likely figure out Fleet's questions to the fire commissioner and to Denine.

-srbp-

For the record: 2003 Tory commitment on lobbying

From the memory pit of the Internet, recall the Progressive Conservative commitment on lobbying and lobbyists.

Don't try to go to the party website to find the commitments from the 2003 election.  They've vanished as if they didn't exist.  Thanks to the Internet, though, the promises have been preserved for posterity and the occasional use, like this one.

There was a consultation and then new legislation, which came into force on October 11, 2005. What's interesting is how the legislation has worked in practice.  That's the subject of another post coming this weekend.  'Til then, here's the specific commitments from the 2003 general election:

A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation to develop legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this Province.

The primary objectives of the legislation will be to:

• Establish a registry so the public will know who is lobbying and who is being lobbied.
• Require lobbyists to report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
• Require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.
• Differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.
• Impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.

-srbp-

Newfound Group lobbying province apparently without lobbyist registration

Newfound Group has been lobbying the provincial government for assistance with the Humber valley resort yet no lobbyists have been registered, as required by provincial law. [Update: See correction below]

Interviewed by CBC Radio's David Cochrane, Jeremy White, president of Newfound Group said the company has been working with the province to have the province lobby Air Canada to restore a direct flight between St. John's and London.

White also said his company was seeking provincial government assistance with its marketing program. He said the provincial government had offered to help defray some of the company's annual marketing program. White indicated that the company the government had been working closely together to deal with the company's financial issues.

However, the provincial lobbyist register contains no entries for anyone or any company related to Newfound.

The provincial lobbyist registration act requires that a company lobbying the provincial government register within 10 days of starting any lobbying activities. [Correction: The 10 day rule applies if the company is using a consultant lobbyist.] The online registry is current as of 21 November. An in-house lobbyist must register if his lobbying activity constitutes 20% or more of his or her time during a three month period.

In July 2007, Humber Valley Resort hired former tourism minister Paul Shelley as its new general manager. Shelley retired from politics on July 13 and was replaced in cabinet in January, having signalled his intention not to seek re-election in the fall. Shelley was human resources minister at the time of his departure from cabinet.

In addition to any political heights Shelley has scaled, his days at Humber Valley have included the odd rock wall, as this video shows. This and other videos on the resort can be found on the resort blog.

Shelley isn't the only Humber Valley executive with ties to the current administration. Humber Valley chief executive officer Brian Dobbin serves on the provincial government's Irish business partnership board. He is also publisher of The Independent newspaper.

Neither Shelley nor Dobbin is listed in the provincial lobbyist registry.

-srbp-

NL behind NS in space race

With 120 hectares of Crown land to build on, an American company has put Nova Scotia decisively ahead of Newfoundland and Labrador in the race for space.

When will people be organizing protests about this great slight to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

This sort of venture could have put Newfoundland and Labrador on the leading edge of the 21st century's great challenge.

Surely, this is proof that Confederation was a giant conspiracy to oppress the poor, downtrodden people of a poor downtrodden land.

Nova Scotians are already looking down their noses at us as they take away some of the greatest assets of the province in an unprecedented give-away of our resources. Next thing, they'll be looking down on us from outer space.

And while we are at, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be lobbying for federal funding to build a museum to this affront to intelligence.

-srbp-

Lobbyist registration

"We do have probably the best legislation in the country put in place in order to make sure things are done properly," Williams said.

In the CBC story quoted above, Premier Danny Williams was talking about the provincial lobbyist registration legislation in the midst of accusations that representatives of Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream should have registered as lobbyist in relation to the fibre deal.

The federal government and five provincial jurisdictions have legislation dealing with lobbyists, that is with people who communicate with government officials on behalf of clients or companies and organizations in order to influence government decisions.

All describe lobbyists and the act of lobbying in similar terms. It's pretty clear that representatives of those companies were engaged in lobbying the provincial government about the deal. Their activity fits any of the definitions of lobbying used in any jurisdiction.

The question comes around the requirement to register as a lobbyist and therefore make the lobbying activity a matter of public record.

Under the Newfoundland and Labrador law, an in-house lobbyist - someone employed full-time by a company - only has to register if 20% or more of his or her time is spent lobbying.

Think about it.

Someone working a 40 hour week could lobby, but he or she wouldn't have to register and thereby publicly disclose their activity unless they spent more than 8 hours a week lobbying. Someone could lobby government for up to a full day each week in perpetuity and never have to publicly disclose the lobbying. A senior executive working more hours could spend even more time each week lobbying and keep the whole thing from public scrutiny.

Of the six jurisdictions across Canada with lobbyist registration laws, only Newfoundland and Labrador makes it possible to lobby as though there was no legislation at all.

The companies and organizations that have registered their in-house lobbyists either exceed the 20% rule or they have opted to register in order to live up to the spirit and intention of the lobbyist registry. That is, they comply with the idea that people lobbying government should publicly disclose their activities.

Newfoundland and Labrador's lobbyist registration law ensures things are done properly.

The only question is what things we are talking about.

Certainly it doesn't necessarily mean that all lobbying is publicly registered, as it would be in just about all the five other provinces and the federal government that have laws governing lobbying.

Too cute by half

Dean MacDonald's defence of his lobbying to gain a $15 million government buy-in for his cable deal doesn't hold water.

Here's the Offal News take on it.

When is lobbying not lobbying?

Apparently Premier Danny Williams does not consider that representatives of Persona, Rogers (TSX:RCI) and MTS Allstream were engaged in lobbying the provincial government on what ultimately became the GRAP fibre deal.

For the record, here are some extracts from Danny Williams' own Lobbyist Registration Act:

2 (1)...

(c) "lobby" means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence

(i) the development of any legislative proposal by the government of the province or by a member of the House of Assembly,

(ii) the introduction of any bill or resolution in the House of Assembly or the passage, defeat or amendment of any bill or resolution that is before the House of Assembly,

(iii) the making, amendment or repeal of any subordinate legislation as defined in the Statutes and Subordinate Legislation Act ,

(iv) the development, amendment or termination of any policy or program of the government of the province,

(v) a decision by the Executive Council to transfer from the Crown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the Crown or to the public,

(vi) a decision by the Executive Council, a committee of the Executive Council or a minister of the Crown to have the private sector instead of the Crown provide goods or services to the Crown,

(vii) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of the Crown,

(viii) the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of the Crown,

(ix) arranging a meeting between a public-office holder and any other person,

(x) public-office holders relating to the procurement of goods and services,

(xi) public-office holders relating to the terms of a tender or request for proposals or other procurement solicitation prior to the awarding of that tender or the acceptance of the request for proposals or other procurement solicitation,

(xii) public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract, or

(xiii) the appointment of any public official;

Political lobbying trying to reconcile Gulf drilling bills

Lobbyists are hard at work trying to reconcile to bills passed recently by the United States Senate and House of Representatives that would open significant oil and gas reserves to development.

Businessweek online reports that industry watchers are adopting a waiting posture to see if the political issues in the bills will ultimately kill the initiatives.

Sue Kelland Dyer - come clean on your political lobbying

When will some intrepid reporter ask Sue Kelland Dyer, local political gadfly and radio call-in regular, what she was doing on Stephen Harper's advance bus during his recent campaign visit?

She is turning up on local radio praising the Conservatives and defending Connie incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle. It's noticeable given that Dyer hasn't had a good thing to say about Connies since she was on their payroll in the 1990s.

Dyer used to advise the local provincial Connies, once ran under the banner of her own political party (but bombed at the polls), was a senior advisor to Liberal premier Roger Grimes and in her last publicly confirmed gig was trying to keep smoking in bars.

So far though, Dyer hasn't indicated if she is a volunteer on the Connie campaign or a paid worker for Steve Harper. She appears to be just another citizen calling in to talk to Randy or Bill. But if she has any other connections, then the public has a right to know, even if they are unpaid ties.

In the interests of full disclosure, Dyer needs to come clean and admit to any official relationship with the Connie campaign.

After all, the Moon Man doesn't get to lounge on the Harper advance bus while waiting for The Man to come and save Petty Harbour.

Poll dancer - update

Update: a faithful reader sent me a quick e-mail to point out that Tom Rideout is actually a graduate of Ottawa U law school not the Halifax legal temple. I double checked Tom's online biography and yep, I goofed. Then I noticed Tom used to work in Fisheries and Oceans in the international directorate. Anyway, I corrected the law school mistake.

That just makes what I will post tomorrow all the more interesting.

For those with a passionate interest in access to government information, there is a curious story on the front page of today's Telegram. It's also online here.

For those who may not be able to access it, here's the complete text courtesy of The Telegram and reporter Rob Antle.

As someone who has dealt with access to information issues from boths sides in the course of my 16 year career, I have a few thoughts and observations on this story. I'll save them for tomorrow morning's post, along with some links to the legislation itself and the recent rulings by privacy commissioner and former finance deputy minister Phil Wall.

Transportation Minister Tom Rideout is quoted in the story that follows. he is currently acting justice minister. In a previous life, he was premier of the province, even if it was only 43 days in the spring of 1989. After leaving politics, Mr. Rideout went off to Ottawa U law school and was a practicing lawyer before he went back to politics again.

The only other thing I'll say here, before letting you get to the full story by Rob Antle, is that I'd be dumbfounded if The Telegram didn't take this one to the Supreme Court.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Page A1 (above the fold)

Polling data stays secret
by Rob Antle, The Telegram


Opinion polls are secret cabinet documents not to be released to the public, the Williams administration has decreed.

The decision overrules the findings of a report issued Tuesday by the province's information commissioner.

"We disagree with the interpretation that's been put on this by the information and privacy commissioner," said Tom Rideout, who is acting justice minister while Tom Marshall is out of the province.

"We don't feel that his interpretation is within the confines of the spirit and intent of the legislation. Š Based on that belief, we will not be releasing the information."

The province says releasing public-opinion polling commissioned over a 14-month period would reveal cabinet confidences.

Information Commissioner Phil Wall ruled Tuesday that the government should release the documents under new open-records laws, with some small exceptions.

"Quite simply, Section 18 of the ATIPPA cannot be treated as a 'blanket' exception to disclosure," Wall wrote, referring to the part of the act dealing with cabinet confidences.

"It specifically states that only those items which would reveal the substance of deliberations of cabinet can be severed from the record, and it gives examples of what such items might be, such as advice and recommendations."

Rideout said Wall is wrong.

"There are still certain protections for the system, and one of the protections has to do with the confidentiality of cabinet documents," he said.

"That's one of the underpinnings of our whole system, and we're certainly not prepared, at this stage of the game, based on what we think is an error in interpretation by the privacy commissioner, to undermine that process."

The commissioner has the ability to make recommendations to the government, but cannot force the province to act upon them.

In making his ruling, Wall cited case law and precedents in Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

"We feel that case law is fairly clear in its conclusions," Sandy Hounsell, executive director of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, told The Telegram Tuesday.

Government officials now have 15 days to respond to Wall's report.

The only recourse after that is Newfoundland Supreme Court.

The information commissioner can decide to take the matter to court. The applicant - in this case, The Telegram - can also decide to do so.

"We will wait until we get formal representation from Executive Council on their position, and then make a decision as to what we will do with this particular report," Hounsell said.

That decision will likely be made within days of receiving the final response from the government, he said.

On Jan 18, a Telegram reporter requested a list of public-opinion polls done by, or on behalf of, Executive Council between November 2003 and January 2005.

Executive Council is the wing of the public service which oversees government policy and decision-making.

A month later, the province supplied a list of 12 polls, broken down by pollster and date.

However, the government refused to disclose the subject of the polls, or their content.

On March 10, the province decided to provide two of the polls in question.

Several weeks ago, after fighting for nearly five months, the province released two other polls. Both dealt specifically with the Atlantic Accord.

Wall had recommended the release of that information.

But the other eight polls must remain secret, the province maintains.

Comfortable with stand

Rideout said Tuesday the government is "very comfortable" with that position, even though Premier Danny Williams campaigned on a policy of openness and transparency in 2003.

"My government will provide real financial management, real transparency, and real accountability," Williams said in the Conservative pre-election "blueprint" of promises.

"Ours will be a new approach, and one which will benefit every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in a positive and powerful way."

The Tory campaign document said that "a comprehensive and effective freedom of information act is the best safeguard against the tendency of governments to descend into official secrecy and elitism."

In December 2004, the Williams administration tabled its "accountability and transparency agenda," updating laws governing lobbying, government purchasing and the tendering process.

"In our blueprint, we committed to set the bar on transparency and accountability much higher, so that government is truly open and transparent in decision-making and accountable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador," Williams said in a statement issued Dec. 2.

In January 2005, the Williams administration finally enacted new open-records laws - laws which had languished on the books since 2002, and the days of the previous Grimes administration.

The premier's office steered inquiries about Tuesday's decision to Rideout.

rantle@thetelegram.com

Now stop that! It's silly

While looking for a Canadian Press story on a death overseas, I came across this column by Sun defence writer Peter Worthington.

Apparently, Liberals are to be blamed for the purchase of the Upholder class submarines from the United Kingdom.

Ok.

But then Worthy adds a litany of other fiascos, some from the Chretien era and others - much larger ones - from Brian Mulroney to bolster is argument.

And what is that argument? That defence decisions are inherently overly political. Therefore the subs are another reason to vote out the Liberals.

Apparently, this isn't the first Worthy missive against the subs. Here's a letter from a retired admiral from 1997 responding to one of his earlier columns.

Worthy rightly points to the overly political nature of Canadian defence procurement decisions. We buy stuff for reasons other than military necessity or operational requirements. Hunt around long enough and you'll find a paper I wrote a decade or more ago that carried a litany of asinine procurement decisions. They were asinine for a variety of reasons. The chief one was that the item bought was either inferior to other stuff available for the task, took too long to get into the system or was just flat out too costly when other stuff was available that was better and cheaper.

That said, voting out Liberals won't change that. In 1993, voting out the Tories who were responsible for some of the idiotic equipment purchases and a whole bunch more Worthy didn't find worthy of mention didn't change anything. That's because the roots of the defence procurement problem are much deeper than Worthy's superficial appraisal shows.

In order to tackle defence procurement you need to sort out priorities. Figure out the defence tasks, then buy accordingly. Resist the lobbying from interested parties and get the right tools once you have figured out the tasks.

If Worthy took a step back and off the soap box he'd notice the massive changes within National Defence in the past 10 years. New management, and real leadership from guys like Rick Hillier, have given us a much better military force and a solid set of plans to give Canada the defence capability it needs. Oddly enough, that is oddly if you adhere to Worthy's logic, National Defence is actually in better shape now than in was in 1990. I'd say that's actually a powerful reason to keep people like Bill Graham where they are.

Worthy thinks subs are useless. Ok.

Well, a lot of people thought tanks were useless in the 1970s when we bought Leopards, but more to the point today there are people advocating we buy tanks again. Maybe Worthy is among that group pushing for tanks, given his family background. Maybe Worthy favourably quotes the Conservative defence critic because Gordon O'Connor is... wait for it... a former tank guy.

Of course, Worthy forgets to mention that Canada was offered Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks in 1990 yet the Mulroney government turned the idea down on cost grounds. That sure doesn't fit into Worthy's rant today in which Liberals are to blame for everything including stuff they didn't even do.

But guess what, guys? Tanks aren't needed either.

Let's see Pete write a column that argues against buying tanks.

I am not holding my breath waiting for that one.

Moving CHHC offices: all that is solid melts into air

"Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air. " Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto

Purists will rightly point out that Marx and Engels are talking about the impact of bourgeois economies in producing the conditions necessary for the political awakening of the proletariat.

However, the notion can be applied in another context, namely that constantly disrupting established relationships - whether of people to work, or ideas to the material world - produces the effect of unsettling the foundations on which human society functions.

Political dialogue is no exception.

Modern political discussion, especially as we have seen locally in recent months, often relies on pure emotion divorced from history and any other meaningful context.

Newfoundland nationalists and many others can be easily roused by the symbol of the Upper Churchill without most of them ever appreciating the long history and the particular context in which the Upper Churchill hydroelectric project was developed. Similarly, the Real Atlantic Accord can be assailed on the basis of myth and misrepresentation and even those who authored the agreement can simply discard established fact in the face of current expediency. On this point see anything written or said by John Crosbie in the past five years.

There is more to this than the abuse of history. It removes events from a human context which can be appreciated and assessed and in the process serve as a guide to deeper understanding of current problems or issues. As some wit once remarked, history is not so much what occurred as what we remember. In Newfoundland and Labrador, our memories are exceedingly dim. In a place where so much of our history remains unexplored, the record of what occurred transmogrifies into mythology and in some instances it is deliberately transmogrified by those wishing to influence wider public opinion in favour of or against one cause or another.

Ours is largely an oral culture, as it has been for centuries. There is a well-known communications exercise of whispering a message to one person who whispers it to the next in a long series. The humour comes in hearing first what was said at the beginning and then what emerges at the end after the message has passed through umpteen "listening and repeating" iterations. Such is oral history and oral culture.

Recall how easily Brian Tobin evoked the Upper Churchill in his sham-fight with INCO, or how readily Danny Williams whispered the same words during his recent offsets campaign against the federal government.

All this may overload a simple news release with too much political theorizing but I will take the risk.

Consider the second news release in two days from Liberal Opposition leader Roger Grimes on the federal shares in Hibernia. Grimes states:

"I call upon government to update the people of the province as to what actions have been taken to ensure this important asset is secured. Lobbying efforts should also continue to have the headquarters of the Canadian Hibernia Holdings Corporation (CHHC), the crown corporation that operates this 8.5 per cent share, moved to this province from Calgary. It is an insult that a federally run corporation that makes their profits from our resource is based in Alberta, not Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not acceptable and government should fight to have this office, and the jobs that go with it, transferred to the province."

Grimes is continuing his pseudo-nationalist posturing from his days as Premier. It was Grimes, after all, who funded the expensive and largely vacuous Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. The Royal Commission's final report is, in many respects, merely a summary of the standard nationalist complaints about what former Tory cabinet minister Bill Marshall called "the rack of Confederation". Little effort was expended to provide a deeper understanding of this province in its current context or to offer a richer understanding of events like the Upper Churchill contract negotiations. The Accord offset section of the final report is a particularly odious example of fact being twisted and distorted for a purpose other than the furtherance of understanding.

That said, Grimes' releases on the federal Hibernia shares pander to the misunderstanding of a simple subject. Grimes transmogrifies the location of an office, of all things, into an insult, into yet another wound on the scarred psyche of Newfoundlanders (but not necessarily Labradorians) The reality of the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation (CHHC) office becomes air for Grimes' purposes.

CHHC staff comprise a handful of people, four of whom are traders who, to the best of my knowledge, are engaged in the business of selling oil to generate the revenue from the federal shares of Hibernia production. They work on the Calgary exchange, again as far as I know, but even if that were not true, they are simply located in a city which is the centre of the country's oil and gas industry. Pretentions by Halifax and St. John's are obviously to the contrary.

So what value, beyond the purely symbolic, comes from relocating this tiny office? The answer, in short, is none. The office may bring a handful of new salaries to an already prosperous city and the office itself may generate some modest rental revenue. It would bring no great economic benefit and may well disrupt the simple - and cost-effective - functioning of the office where it is.
As a rule, government salaries produce no substantive economic benefit, as the Tobin experiment of dispersing provincial government offices around the province showed. Relocation was a symbol, but merely of the government's inability to foster economic development outside the metropolitan St. John's region. The expansion of government - as advocated in the revamped Independent - merely serves to increase the taxation burden on the whole society and, more often than not, stifles the imperative to deliver needed services effectively. After all, if the mere presence of the salary is the valuable commodity, then that is all the government need produce. What incentive exists to do something actually?

As for Grimes other issue, acquisition of the federal shares themselves, the overall context needs greater examination to determine if the idea is even feasible. The corporate partners may not be willing to see the simple transfer take place. They might insist that it be transferred but at fair market value. This is something which the provincial government simply cannot afford - without using the new offset money and given that the Hibernia project is halfway through its productive life the chance of recovering the purchase cost plus produce a real profit is slim. Were we somehow to engineer the transfer for a token sum, one can only imagine the national repulsion at such a generous gift on top of what is widely perceived as an already overly generous gift in the January deal.

What we might find, in a detailed analysis, is that acquisition of the shares would produce no substantive financial benefit. In the last scenario mentioned above, it might come at a more significant political price in the long term. Such is the history of this place: long on symbols, short on the practical.

Then we wonder why we are not more prosperous than we are, either economically, or politically.

The simple answer is that we reduce everything to air.

Air is free.