While everyone may have been on holidays when this one broke, here's a Bond Paper from August that notes the House of Assembly overspent members' allowances by over half a million dollars in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
For those who remember, that's two fiscal years after Auditor General John Noseworthy originally contended problems with the House accounts were fixed. It's also considerably more than the amounts Noseworthy alleges were paid to two sitting members of the House during those years.
On top of that, Bond Papers pointed out in August that for two successive budgets, finance minister Loyola Sullivan misreported House of Assembly spending during his term as finance minister. The financial statement released in August also contained columns of figures that were presented in a way that suggested they had previously been released. As such, the presentation diverted attention from the misrepresentations in the spring budgets.
The figures hadn't been made public at all.
The finance minister knew or should have known the correct figures on actual spending. Those figures come from the Comptroller General's office which issues cheques for all departments and the House of Assembly. If accounts were overspent, the Comptroller General caught it or should have caught it and reported it to his boss, Loyola Sullivan.
Has anyone asked Loyola Sullivan why his Estimates numbers for the House of Assembly were wrong two years in a row?
Has anyone asked Auditor General John Noseworthy to explain the discrepancy between his figures and the Comptroller General's numbers?
Incidentally, Noseworthy audits and approves the Public Accounts statements normally published every year in November. So where are the audited public accounts for 2005?
The Financial Administration Act gives Loyola and John until February 1 to produce them, but surely the figures aren't so complex they have to be postponed, especially since Sullivan was able to release what amounts to Volume III of the Public Accounts back in August.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query loyola sullivan. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query loyola sullivan. Sort by date Show all posts
06 December 2006
27 March 2005
Loyola's Latest Lamentations
Oh, my.
With Parliament closed for Easter, seems like Loyola Hearn has nothing better to do than bombard VOCM with his cryptic comments that are more motivated by advancing his own political interests than anything else.
Flip over to the revamped and much improved VOCM website to see Loyola pledging to vote "in the best interests of the province" when it comes to Bill C -43. That's the one he was complaining about the other day, although a closer inspection revealed he was actually complaining about his own lack of juice and his own party's stance on offshore revenues.
Now, Loyola, what exactly does it mean to vote "in the best interests of the province"?
That is the sort of meaningless drivel that old-fashioned politicians like Hearn love to throw out in utter contempt for their constituents' ability to think. It gets their name in the news without having to actually do anything or say anything. I'll bet Loyola actually thought about pledging to support the bill "in the fullness of time" and see if he can separate the offshore bits so this can be dealt with "on a go-forward basis".
Does it mean Loyola will buck his party and thereby jeopardize his chances of a cabinet seat in a future Harper government? Does it mean he will vote with his party, defeat the government and try to get himself in the cabinet in that future Harper government? Bonus points to anyone who can tell what Loyola will do based on his comments.
My money would be on the whole thing being more empty posturing on Loyola's part. There would have to be a conjunction of all Opposition parties voting against the bill or parts of it simultaneously to bring down the government. Loyola knows full well that none of the Opp parties want an election when the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are running ahead in the polls. They also have some cash problems left from the last election. Until all that gets into a better position, the Opposition would be a little wonky to force an election at this point.
So, Loyola spins out some gibberish comments and gets some coverage without having to take a clear position on anything.
When you have finished looking over Loyola's Latest Lamentation, have a look at two other sites.
One is Loyola's own website, particularly his news releases, out-of-date though they are. Go through them and count the number of times Hearn attacks John Efford even though Hearn isn't the Natural Resources critic. Remember what I said about Loyola planning to run against John next time? Don't forget that the chief provincial architect of the "Attack John" movement was Loyola Sullivan, Hearn's old buddy and campaign manager.
Of course the February 18 release is just hysterically funny: Loyola Hearn who doesn't even understand the Accord he voted in favour of in the House of Assembly 20 years ago criticizes John Efford for not getting it.
Maybe I need to post the series of Loyola-isms on the Accord.
The second link is to the text of Bill C-43, the one that has Loyola lamenting everything he can think of and more besides. It makes for some interesting reading, despite Loyola's moaning from Renews.
The next post will walk through the Bill to see what horrendous things Loyola might be opposed to other than the offshore revenue bits.
With Parliament closed for Easter, seems like Loyola Hearn has nothing better to do than bombard VOCM with his cryptic comments that are more motivated by advancing his own political interests than anything else.
Flip over to the revamped and much improved VOCM website to see Loyola pledging to vote "in the best interests of the province" when it comes to Bill C -43. That's the one he was complaining about the other day, although a closer inspection revealed he was actually complaining about his own lack of juice and his own party's stance on offshore revenues.
Now, Loyola, what exactly does it mean to vote "in the best interests of the province"?
That is the sort of meaningless drivel that old-fashioned politicians like Hearn love to throw out in utter contempt for their constituents' ability to think. It gets their name in the news without having to actually do anything or say anything. I'll bet Loyola actually thought about pledging to support the bill "in the fullness of time" and see if he can separate the offshore bits so this can be dealt with "on a go-forward basis".
Does it mean Loyola will buck his party and thereby jeopardize his chances of a cabinet seat in a future Harper government? Does it mean he will vote with his party, defeat the government and try to get himself in the cabinet in that future Harper government? Bonus points to anyone who can tell what Loyola will do based on his comments.
My money would be on the whole thing being more empty posturing on Loyola's part. There would have to be a conjunction of all Opposition parties voting against the bill or parts of it simultaneously to bring down the government. Loyola knows full well that none of the Opp parties want an election when the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are running ahead in the polls. They also have some cash problems left from the last election. Until all that gets into a better position, the Opposition would be a little wonky to force an election at this point.
So, Loyola spins out some gibberish comments and gets some coverage without having to take a clear position on anything.
When you have finished looking over Loyola's Latest Lamentation, have a look at two other sites.
One is Loyola's own website, particularly his news releases, out-of-date though they are. Go through them and count the number of times Hearn attacks John Efford even though Hearn isn't the Natural Resources critic. Remember what I said about Loyola planning to run against John next time? Don't forget that the chief provincial architect of the "Attack John" movement was Loyola Sullivan, Hearn's old buddy and campaign manager.
Of course the February 18 release is just hysterically funny: Loyola Hearn who doesn't even understand the Accord he voted in favour of in the House of Assembly 20 years ago criticizes John Efford for not getting it.
Maybe I need to post the series of Loyola-isms on the Accord.
The second link is to the text of Bill C-43, the one that has Loyola lamenting everything he can think of and more besides. It makes for some interesting reading, despite Loyola's moaning from Renews.
The next post will walk through the Bill to see what horrendous things Loyola might be opposed to other than the offshore revenue bits.
15 December 2007
Former Tory leader takes government salary and legislature pension at same time
Pension legislation appears to allow situation
Former Tory leader Len Simms is earning more than $130,000 as chairman and chief executive officer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation at the same time as he collects a public sector pension as a former member of the provincial legislature.
According to The Western Star (see story below), Simms has been donating his House of Assembly pension to charities under a clause contained in his employment contract since he was appointed in 2005. The Western Star reports that Simms donated more than $30,000 to charities in or around his former district of Grand Falls in 2006.
Simms, who is 64 years of age, represented the district from 1979 to 1995. He served as Speaker of the House from 1979 to 1982, and as a cabinet minister in several portfolios under Brian Peckford until 1989. Simms was a leadership candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party in 1989 and led the party between 1991 and 1995. Simms replaced Tom Rideout who served as party leader from 1989 to 1991.
The story of Simms being back in his old job isn't really news since the announcement was made intially right after the provincial general election in October. Simms left his job in September saying the contract had expired - right before the election - spent a few weeks running the campaign and then got his old job back right after.
Simms' appointment in 2005 was buried in a flood of other announcements around the time the Premier was embroiled in a controversy over a treasury board secretary (deputy minister) who quit suddenly.
Simm's re-appointment immediately after the general election attracted criticism from the opposition parties. Simms' new contract will last four years, according a news report by CBC on the controversy.
News that Simms is receiving a salary and a pension simultaneously is at odds with testimony given in the House of Assembly by former finance minister Loyola Sullivan in 2006. In answer to questioning before the legislature's government services committee on the appointment of several former members of the legislature to government positions, Sullivan said:
Under the pensions act, a contractual employee is not required to participate in the public sector pension plan. The definition of "employee" "does not include a contractual employee or a person who is specifically excluded from participation in the pension plan by or under [the] Act."
Former Tory leader Len Simms is earning more than $130,000 as chairman and chief executive officer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation at the same time as he collects a public sector pension as a former member of the provincial legislature.
According to The Western Star (see story below), Simms has been donating his House of Assembly pension to charities under a clause contained in his employment contract since he was appointed in 2005. The Western Star reports that Simms donated more than $30,000 to charities in or around his former district of Grand Falls in 2006.
Simms, who is 64 years of age, represented the district from 1979 to 1995. He served as Speaker of the House from 1979 to 1982, and as a cabinet minister in several portfolios under Brian Peckford until 1989. Simms was a leadership candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party in 1989 and led the party between 1991 and 1995. Simms replaced Tom Rideout who served as party leader from 1989 to 1991.
The story of Simms being back in his old job isn't really news since the announcement was made intially right after the provincial general election in October. Simms left his job in September saying the contract had expired - right before the election - spent a few weeks running the campaign and then got his old job back right after.
Simms' appointment in 2005 was buried in a flood of other announcements around the time the Premier was embroiled in a controversy over a treasury board secretary (deputy minister) who quit suddenly.
Simm's re-appointment immediately after the general election attracted criticism from the opposition parties. Simms' new contract will last four years, according a news report by CBC on the controversy.
News that Simms is receiving a salary and a pension simultaneously is at odds with testimony given in the House of Assembly by former finance minister Loyola Sullivan in 2006. In answer to questioning before the legislature's government services committee on the appointment of several former members of the legislature to government positions, Sullivan said:
Loyola Sullivan: I am not sure what you are talking about, but I will indicate that anybody who takes up a position here in government and who, I think you said, was an MHA, getting an MHA’s pension -The provincial public service pension act deals with re-hiring of former employees, including former members of the House of Assembly who are receiving pensions:
Anna Thistle: Correct.
Sullivan: - when they are re-employed here with government they would have to forego their pension and just take their salary, unless anybody came in under a contract basis. People may do contract work for a government and there may be situations where pensions would not be affected, but if you are going to take a position in government, the normal course would be that you would forego your pension then. While you are an employee, you could pick up benefits while you are here and then when you retire or leave, your pension would kick in again. I guess, reset at the level of - if you have earned any credits toward that when you are here - some may and some may not, depending on the position you hold, but under a contract you would not gain any benefits of that nature.
So, in answer to your question, a person who takes up employment, yes, would forego their pension and receive their income, unless there is a special circumstance that I am not aware of.
...
Thistle: How about Mr. Len Simms?
Sullivan: From my understanding, Len Simms is the CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. If he is employed there, I would assume that he has taken up a position there and I would assume he is not getting any benefits as a result of that. I would not be aware if he is. I would assume he is getting a salary.
Thistle: Is it a contract position?
Sullivan: If he is under contract, I am unaware if he is. I would not know that. I am assuming he is employed as the CEO and it is a salary position. If it is, it is unaware to me. That reports to the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. That might be an issue you may want to deal with in Estimates, but to my knowledge, that is not the case.
Mr. Simms is an employee.
Offer of re-employmentThat section of the Act appears to conflict with section 3. Under that section, a "person shall not be eligible to make a contribution to or participate in the pension plan, if he or she is excluded from this Act by a directive of the minister;... is in receipt of a pension; " or is a temporary employee. Under the Act, pension is defined as "an annual pension payable to a former employee in accordance with the pension plan."
21. (1) A pensioner who has retired under the pension plan upon termination of employment but has not reached the age at which a pension benefit is required to begin under the Income Tax Act (Canada) may be re-employed in a pensionable position.
(2) A pensioner who has retired under the pension plan under paragraph 16(1)(b) but has not reached the age at which a pension benefit is required to begin under the Income Tax Act ( Canada ) may, upon proof of good health and with the consent of the minister, be re-employed in a pensionable position.
(3) Where a pensioner accepts an offer of re-employment under this section, his or her pension shall be cancelled, and subject to the making of contributions as required under this Act, the period of subsequent employment shall, in calculating a pension upon subsequent retirement, be added to the years of pensionable service accumulated before his or her 1st retirement and the pension shall be calculated in accordance with section 18 as if the award of the former pension had not occurred.
Under the pensions act, a contractual employee is not required to participate in the public sector pension plan. The definition of "employee" "does not include a contractual employee or a person who is specifically excluded from participation in the pension plan by or under [the] Act."
The Western Star
December 12, 2007, p. 11
Simms contract renewed
St. John's - Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation (NLHC) CEO - and former Progressive Conservative leader - Len Simms renewed his employment contract with NLHC in November, including a clause that continues to see his government pension donated to charity.
Simms agreed to a four-year extension on November 16. His annual salary is $132,349.
Simms had stepped down from his position as chairman and CEO prior to the October 9 provincial election to join the Progressive Conservative election campaign.
The Williams administration re-appointed Simms to the job days after its landslide victory.
Simms was the Grand Falls area MHA for 16 years until the mid-1990s. He also served as a cabinet minister and as opposition leader.
Among the contract terms, Simms agrees to donate his MHA pension to several charities.
Last year, Simms says he donated his after-tax total in excess of $30,000 to the Exploits Valley Food Bank, the Lion Max Simms Camp in Bishop's Falls, the Children's Wish Foundation, Daffodil Place and the Exploit's Valley Integrated Breakfast Program.
The Conservative government first appointed Simms to the NLHC post in
February 2005.
-srbp-
25 July 2006
This sure ain't Denmark, but...
So there's a scandal in the House of Assembly in which it is alleged that about $4.0 million in public money has been spent improperly and in some cases illegally.
The group that oversees the House expenditures - its executive committee - is called the Internal Economy Commission.
The IEC made decisions in 2000, 2002 and 2004 that both facilitated the scandal to one extent or another and, in April 2004 created a situation where the Auditor General was somehow constrained in his actions that revealed said spending scandal.
There is also the hint of a problem within the Department of Finance involving the Comptroller General either being asleep at the switch or having his hands tied.
One name that runs through the IEC for the entire period?
Loyola Sullivan.
Former Opposition House leader, finance critic and lately the minister of finance and member of the IEC for the enitre period of the detailed audit being conducted by John Noseworthy.
The guy who sided with the Liberals in 2002 against Danny Williams over giving the Auditor General access to the House accounts.
Taken altogether, Loyola Sullivan's work on the IEC would make him a major person of interest to a public inquiry trying to figure out how the scandal occurred and why the response by government has been disjointed, to say the least.
That is, if there was a public inquiry.
Taken altogether, it makes one wonder why the cabinet is adamantly opposed to any public inquiry, the AG is being sent on a snipe hunt...and Loyola Sullivan is suddenly appointed Government House Leader.
and therefore the senior cabinet representative on the IEC.
by the Premier himself, no less. Complete with words of high praise for Sullivan from Danny Williams.
It's enough to make one look about on the parapets for a ghost, eh Marcellus?
The group that oversees the House expenditures - its executive committee - is called the Internal Economy Commission.
The IEC made decisions in 2000, 2002 and 2004 that both facilitated the scandal to one extent or another and, in April 2004 created a situation where the Auditor General was somehow constrained in his actions that revealed said spending scandal.
There is also the hint of a problem within the Department of Finance involving the Comptroller General either being asleep at the switch or having his hands tied.
One name that runs through the IEC for the entire period?
Loyola Sullivan.
Former Opposition House leader, finance critic and lately the minister of finance and member of the IEC for the enitre period of the detailed audit being conducted by John Noseworthy.
The guy who sided with the Liberals in 2002 against Danny Williams over giving the Auditor General access to the House accounts.
Taken altogether, Loyola Sullivan's work on the IEC would make him a major person of interest to a public inquiry trying to figure out how the scandal occurred and why the response by government has been disjointed, to say the least.
That is, if there was a public inquiry.
Taken altogether, it makes one wonder why the cabinet is adamantly opposed to any public inquiry, the AG is being sent on a snipe hunt...and Loyola Sullivan is suddenly appointed Government House Leader.
and therefore the senior cabinet representative on the IEC.
by the Premier himself, no less. Complete with words of high praise for Sullivan from Danny Williams.
It's enough to make one look about on the parapets for a ghost, eh Marcellus?
29 December 2006
Williams spreads thin, thinner
In the wake of Loyola Sullivan's sudden resignation, Premier Danny Williams issued:
- this short political good-bye note; and,
- this announcement of changes to the ministry.
- this short political good-bye note; and,
- this announcement of changes to the ministry.
Tom Marshall moves to head finance and treasury board.
Tom Rideout [left] becomes acting minister of justice and attorney general in addition to being deputy premier, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs and minister of fisheries and aquaculture. The deputy premier thing got left out of the release.The Canadian Press version of the Sullivan story doesn't shed much light on Sullivan's motivation. No fault of CP; Sullivan was pretty cryptic. The CBC online story has a bit of added information but it, too, doesn't shed light on Sullivan's motivation beyond the unusual answers Sullivan offered.
The explanation Sullivan offered is unusual since none of the points he made necessitated an immediate resignation today.
In a scrum today, Williams apparently spoke of his looking forward to injecting new blood into his party and cabinet. Sullivan didn't really leave him much of a chance to do that; Williams learned of the resignation on Thursday night around 9:00 PM, according to Sullivan.
The hurried departure means Williams will have to call two by-elections early in the new year. One will be to find a replacement for Ed Byrne in Kilbride. The other will now be held to replace Sullivan whose old seat in the legislature abutts Byrne's riding.
30 March 2006
The 48 seat budget - updated
Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan delivered his budget for Fiscal Year 2006 this afternoon, with a 10% increase in government spending and cash poured into just about every existing demand in the province.
Consider this the first of two budgets aimed at winning every seat in the province for Danny Williams in the next election. By October 2007, the entire electorate will be asking "What other choice is there?" except to vote for Danny Williams. Judy Foote, the member for Grand Bank district and former cabinet minister, may rue the day she uttered the same phrase when talking about her motion yesterday calling for an "independent" public inquiry in Fishery Products International.
Total spending is projected to be $5.6 billion. The provincial government's own-source revenues are higher than the entire provincial budgets delivered less than a decade ago.
Biggest cash increase came from oil and gas which generated almost $1.0 billion dollars last year in revenues. Government deliberately low-balled the numbers last year.
Some preliminary highlights and observations:
1. The budget for Danny's own Department of Business has more than doubled going from $1.7 million last year to $3.8 million this year.
Still no word on the main departmental initiative, namely the Young and Cool rebranding initiative.
Question: who got the rebranding contract?
2. $100,000 to design and implement a communication strategy to support the sealing industry.
Question: Who will get that contract and how will it be awarded?
3. Oil and gas royalties in 2005 were more than double last year's budget projections. Last March, Bond Papers noted the budget spin control deployed by government for last year's budget.
This year's budget shows just how much Rain Man spun his numbers last year, especially on oil and gas revenues.
4. Loyola Sullivan's revenue projections were out of whack yet again. In 2005, Loyola Sullivan projected a deficit of almost $500 million. His actual position at year-end showed a surplus of over $70 million. That's a pretty big shift. But then again, he was off in his first budget as well, by an equally horrendous amount.
If we use the past to guide our projections, expect that this budget will see revenues about $500 million higher than Loyola is allowing. Oil and gas revenues plus the full production impact of Voisey's Bay will be the drivers.
5. Look back at the March archive for the Bond Papers and you'll see Loyola was musing about huge deficits for the foreseeable future and investing the offshore cash in a way other than what he did. They dropped it all into the unfunded pension liabilities.
6. Equalization dropped this year by about $191 million even though oil revenues grew by more than that. At the same time, the combination of the Real Atlantic Accord (1985) and the January 2005 deal produced "offsets" of $329 million.
When Danny Williams claimed "We got it" what he supposedly meant was "we got the original plan" in which the offsets were supposed to equal oil revenues. By my rough calculation, the "offsets" are roughly $142, 800, 000 less than the actual royalties from 2005, much less the total revenues for that year. They 2006 offsets are about 50% of the total royalties projected for FY 2006.
7. While provincial own-source revenues are higher than total government spending a decade ago, the federal transfer portion remains about the same in dollar terms as it has been for some time. The Government of Canada will send Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.6 billion in FY 2006 to help make ends meet.
Consider this the first of two budgets aimed at winning every seat in the province for Danny Williams in the next election. By October 2007, the entire electorate will be asking "What other choice is there?" except to vote for Danny Williams. Judy Foote, the member for Grand Bank district and former cabinet minister, may rue the day she uttered the same phrase when talking about her motion yesterday calling for an "independent" public inquiry in Fishery Products International.
Total spending is projected to be $5.6 billion. The provincial government's own-source revenues are higher than the entire provincial budgets delivered less than a decade ago.
Biggest cash increase came from oil and gas which generated almost $1.0 billion dollars last year in revenues. Government deliberately low-balled the numbers last year.
Some preliminary highlights and observations:
1. The budget for Danny's own Department of Business has more than doubled going from $1.7 million last year to $3.8 million this year.
Still no word on the main departmental initiative, namely the Young and Cool rebranding initiative.
Question: who got the rebranding contract?
2. $100,000 to design and implement a communication strategy to support the sealing industry.
Question: Who will get that contract and how will it be awarded?
3. Oil and gas royalties in 2005 were more than double last year's budget projections. Last March, Bond Papers noted the budget spin control deployed by government for last year's budget.
This year's budget shows just how much Rain Man spun his numbers last year, especially on oil and gas revenues.
4. Loyola Sullivan's revenue projections were out of whack yet again. In 2005, Loyola Sullivan projected a deficit of almost $500 million. His actual position at year-end showed a surplus of over $70 million. That's a pretty big shift. But then again, he was off in his first budget as well, by an equally horrendous amount.
If we use the past to guide our projections, expect that this budget will see revenues about $500 million higher than Loyola is allowing. Oil and gas revenues plus the full production impact of Voisey's Bay will be the drivers.
5. Look back at the March archive for the Bond Papers and you'll see Loyola was musing about huge deficits for the foreseeable future and investing the offshore cash in a way other than what he did. They dropped it all into the unfunded pension liabilities.
6. Equalization dropped this year by about $191 million even though oil revenues grew by more than that. At the same time, the combination of the Real Atlantic Accord (1985) and the January 2005 deal produced "offsets" of $329 million.
When Danny Williams claimed "We got it" what he supposedly meant was "we got the original plan" in which the offsets were supposed to equal oil revenues. By my rough calculation, the "offsets" are roughly $142, 800, 000 less than the actual royalties from 2005, much less the total revenues for that year. They 2006 offsets are about 50% of the total royalties projected for FY 2006.
7. While provincial own-source revenues are higher than total government spending a decade ago, the federal transfer portion remains about the same in dollar terms as it has been for some time. The Government of Canada will send Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.6 billion in FY 2006 to help make ends meet.
24 December 2005
Santa might skip Norm's house this year
St. John's east Connie candidate and anti-equal marriage campaigner Norm Doyle has a slick new website.
It's a nice piece of work.
Except for the bits Santa might have some problems with.
The claim: "Norm Doyle stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador."
During last spring's efforts to pass the Atlantic Accord bill, Norm put Party before Province. Oh yeah, I know he pounded away at everyone else to do the same, but when push came to shove, Norm just couldn't shy away from Stephen Harper.
When given the choice, Norm, like his old pal Loyola Hearn put Harper before Hamilton Avenue.
In order to get some of the heat off, Stephen Harper came up with a two step, so that Norm and Loyola could vote for the Accord before they voted against it by bringing down the government.
So intense was the heat on Norm last spring that he even resorted to blaming the whole thing on unnamed "Liberal spin doctors in St. John's". You can find a lengthy post on Messrs. Hearn and Doyle and their offshore two-step in the May 2005 archives under the title "The why incision".
Things got so bad that Norm was running from spin point to spin point trying to escape the pressure put on him by the Fair Deal people. He claimed the offshore bill would have been delayed five weeks if Harper had forced an election in the spring.
At the same time, Harper himself said it would be more than a year to get the bill back on the table.
Even Danny Williams turned against Hearn and Doyle over the whole fiasco.
Norm Doyle stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Except when Stephen Harper tells him to sit down.
The claim: That Norm attended negotiations between the Government of Canada (of which he is not a part) and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (of which he is not a part).
Specifically, Norm quotes his old pal, provincial finance minister Loyola Sullivan:
"I attended just about all the meetings in St. John's and Ottawa on the Atlantic Accord file and I can assure you that few people worked harder to make this a reality than Norm Doyle."
Now the Connie typing pool will quickly point out that Loyola Sullivan doesn't actually say that Norm was at the meetings. But ya know, for all Norm accuses other people of using "spin" - another word for lies and bullsh** - he sure can play cute with the English language when he wants to.
There's a pretty clear implication in Sullivan's words and, as they did back in May, Doyle is hoping people won't notice the truth as he spreads something other than the truth.
Norm didn't attend any of the official meetings on the Accord. He wouldn't be allowed in the room. Other than that all he did was wrant and rave about what a great job he was dooing standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Then Steve told him to sit and he sat.
Truth is, Norm had nothing to do with getting the offshore money.
Not a thing.
His only role in the Atlantic Accord was in 1985. That's when he and Loyola Hearn voted in favour of the clawbacks contained in the original deal.
Everything else, as Norm would say, is spin.
I'd call it bullsh**, but then I'm funny that way.
It's a nice piece of work.
Except for the bits Santa might have some problems with.
The claim: "Norm Doyle stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador."
During last spring's efforts to pass the Atlantic Accord bill, Norm put Party before Province. Oh yeah, I know he pounded away at everyone else to do the same, but when push came to shove, Norm just couldn't shy away from Stephen Harper.
When given the choice, Norm, like his old pal Loyola Hearn put Harper before Hamilton Avenue.
In order to get some of the heat off, Stephen Harper came up with a two step, so that Norm and Loyola could vote for the Accord before they voted against it by bringing down the government.
So intense was the heat on Norm last spring that he even resorted to blaming the whole thing on unnamed "Liberal spin doctors in St. John's". You can find a lengthy post on Messrs. Hearn and Doyle and their offshore two-step in the May 2005 archives under the title "The why incision".
Things got so bad that Norm was running from spin point to spin point trying to escape the pressure put on him by the Fair Deal people. He claimed the offshore bill would have been delayed five weeks if Harper had forced an election in the spring.
At the same time, Harper himself said it would be more than a year to get the bill back on the table.
Even Danny Williams turned against Hearn and Doyle over the whole fiasco.
Norm Doyle stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Except when Stephen Harper tells him to sit down.
The claim: That Norm attended negotiations between the Government of Canada (of which he is not a part) and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (of which he is not a part).
Specifically, Norm quotes his old pal, provincial finance minister Loyola Sullivan:
"I attended just about all the meetings in St. John's and Ottawa on the Atlantic Accord file and I can assure you that few people worked harder to make this a reality than Norm Doyle."
Now the Connie typing pool will quickly point out that Loyola Sullivan doesn't actually say that Norm was at the meetings. But ya know, for all Norm accuses other people of using "spin" - another word for lies and bullsh** - he sure can play cute with the English language when he wants to.
There's a pretty clear implication in Sullivan's words and, as they did back in May, Doyle is hoping people won't notice the truth as he spreads something other than the truth.
Norm didn't attend any of the official meetings on the Accord. He wouldn't be allowed in the room. Other than that all he did was wrant and rave about what a great job he was dooing standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Then Steve told him to sit and he sat.
Truth is, Norm had nothing to do with getting the offshore money.
Not a thing.
His only role in the Atlantic Accord was in 1985. That's when he and Loyola Hearn voted in favour of the clawbacks contained in the original deal.
Everything else, as Norm would say, is spin.
I'd call it bullsh**, but then I'm funny that way.
14 March 2005
Loyola Sullivan's Credibility Gap: Welcome to the Grand Canyon
It is possible the CBC story actually misquotes Loyola, but I don't think so.
Let's compare the claims Loyola makes and compare them to the facts
Claim 1: "Starting with its first budget last March, the Williams government has changed the way it reckons its books.
Last year's projection, for instance, included the cash or current account deficit of $362 million, which traditionally has been the only figure governments have reported as its deficit.
However, the Tories now included all liabilities, including pension deficits."
This is CBC background but it reinforces the general tone of Loyola's comments. These aren't Loyola's errors directly but they increase the errors of Loyola's actual comments by putting them in a false context.
Fact: The provincial government switched to accrual accounting two fiscal years before the Williams administration took office. Those projections included all liabilities, including pension deficits.
Fact: There was nothing new in last year's budget figures.
Fact: The $362 million cash shortfall Loyola predicted was wiped out by economic growth including oil price windfalls.
Fact: The 2004 accrual deficit will be closer to $500 million, almost half the amount projected in March 2004.
Claim 2: "Sullivan says it would be impossible to balance the budget in the next three to four years without deep cuts to government spending.
Instead, he expects the deficit to hover at around $500 million for at least a few more years."
Fact: Provincial government revenues will increase annually for the foreseeable future.
Fact: The provincial government's own projections show oil revenues in Fiscal Year 2006 will be at least $600 million. That's three times current annual revenues.
Therefore, it should be possible to balance the province's books on an accrual basis without "massive cuts" to spending.
Claim 3: "That could change, he says, if oil prices soar and government revenues increase.
However, Sullivan says the debt will continue to grow, no matter what happens."
Fact: the ONLY way that the debt will continue to grow despite revenue increases will be if the provincial government fails to address the deficit and debt as it pledged in the Blue Print AND it increases spending in the meantime.
Fact: Oil prices are expected to remain at high levels, therefore increasing provincial government revenues beyond the projections used in the first six months of 2004.
Fact: The federal government has already announced increases to federal transfers in addition to the January offshore deal.
Fact: Voisey's Bay and White Rose will begin production within the next three years increasing government revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Fact: Hebron-Ben Nevis will likely be brought onstream before 2010, further increasing government revenue. Development spending will increase government revenue before the field comes on stream.
Claim 4: "In particular, he says the government needs to spend money on infrastructure to help the economy and to boost government revenue."
Fact: There is a need to spend money on infrastructure like roads and schools.
Fact: This spending is designed to correct previous neglect, not to help the economy. The economy is thriving largely due to resource developments that are not dependent on infrastructure spending.
Fact: Government spending on infrastructure will not boost government revenues. [Let's allow that this sentence is an error by the CBC webpage writer. Maybe the increased government revenues is something else the government needs to do besides spend on infrastructure. As anyone can see, though, government revenues will increase anyway.]
Let's compare the claims Loyola makes and compare them to the facts
Claim 1: "Starting with its first budget last March, the Williams government has changed the way it reckons its books.
Last year's projection, for instance, included the cash or current account deficit of $362 million, which traditionally has been the only figure governments have reported as its deficit.
However, the Tories now included all liabilities, including pension deficits."
This is CBC background but it reinforces the general tone of Loyola's comments. These aren't Loyola's errors directly but they increase the errors of Loyola's actual comments by putting them in a false context.
Fact: The provincial government switched to accrual accounting two fiscal years before the Williams administration took office. Those projections included all liabilities, including pension deficits.
Fact: There was nothing new in last year's budget figures.
Fact: The $362 million cash shortfall Loyola predicted was wiped out by economic growth including oil price windfalls.
Fact: The 2004 accrual deficit will be closer to $500 million, almost half the amount projected in March 2004.
Claim 2: "Sullivan says it would be impossible to balance the budget in the next three to four years without deep cuts to government spending.
Instead, he expects the deficit to hover at around $500 million for at least a few more years."
Fact: Provincial government revenues will increase annually for the foreseeable future.
Fact: The provincial government's own projections show oil revenues in Fiscal Year 2006 will be at least $600 million. That's three times current annual revenues.
Therefore, it should be possible to balance the province's books on an accrual basis without "massive cuts" to spending.
Claim 3: "That could change, he says, if oil prices soar and government revenues increase.
However, Sullivan says the debt will continue to grow, no matter what happens."
Fact: the ONLY way that the debt will continue to grow despite revenue increases will be if the provincial government fails to address the deficit and debt as it pledged in the Blue Print AND it increases spending in the meantime.
Fact: Oil prices are expected to remain at high levels, therefore increasing provincial government revenues beyond the projections used in the first six months of 2004.
Fact: The federal government has already announced increases to federal transfers in addition to the January offshore deal.
Fact: Voisey's Bay and White Rose will begin production within the next three years increasing government revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Fact: Hebron-Ben Nevis will likely be brought onstream before 2010, further increasing government revenue. Development spending will increase government revenue before the field comes on stream.
Claim 4: "In particular, he says the government needs to spend money on infrastructure to help the economy and to boost government revenue."
Fact: There is a need to spend money on infrastructure like roads and schools.
Fact: This spending is designed to correct previous neglect, not to help the economy. The economy is thriving largely due to resource developments that are not dependent on infrastructure spending.
Fact: Government spending on infrastructure will not boost government revenues. [Let's allow that this sentence is an error by the CBC webpage writer. Maybe the increased government revenues is something else the government needs to do besides spend on infrastructure. As anyone can see, though, government revenues will increase anyway.]
28 March 2014
The Whizzo Quality Assortment #nlpoli
On the outside, the spring budget for 2014 looks like a delicious assortment of goodies for everyone. You can tell it is delectable because everyone is shouting for joy and drooling over their good fortune.
There is not a single group who have had their hands out for government money that did not get something. And they are telling anyone who will listen just how happy they are.
Once you bite into one of sweetmeats in the Conservative Quality Assortment budget, though, the result might be a wee bit less tasteful.
17 October 2012
Loyola Sullivan and conflict of interest #nlpoli
From the report by federal conflict of interest and ethics commission into certain actions by former fisheries ambassador Loyola Sullivan:
In June 2011, after consulting with my Office about whether he could take the position, Mr. Sullivan took up the position of Vice President of Resource Management and Sustainability at Ocean Choice International (Ocean Choice). In that position he had several interactions with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada related to matters of interest to Ocean Choice during his one-year post-employment cooling-off period. He also attended a consultation organized by Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council.
During my examination I found that several of these interactions were made in order to persuade federal government officials to make a decision to the advantage of Ocean Choice and, in one case, to change a policy in accordance with the position of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council. In my view, these interactions involved making representations. I have therefore found that Mr. Sullivan contravened subsection 35(2) of the [Conflict of Interest] Act.
-srbp-
29 March 2005
Blarney - the Green Dinosaur from the Southern Shore
The ongoing whining about Bill C-43 reached a predictable pitch over the past 24 hours as more news media picked up the story and the Open Line shows displayed yet again that anyone can call and say anything without the hosts being able to correct misinformation and sometimes sheer bull****.
The spin, especially the Open Line spin, has been that the dastardly Liberals are jeopardizing the offshore revenue deals by lumping them with a bunch of other bits of controversial legislation. Loyola Sullivan, provincial finance minister and close ally of the future candidate for the federal riding of Avalon (i.e. the Whiner from Renews Loyola Hearn) has written to the federal government seeking reassurances that the offshore money bill deal will pass.
Well, let's just look at a few things:
1. Last year, like every year, the Official Opposition voted against the government budget bills. What would be different if they did the same thing this year?
2. Last year, Loyola Hearn voted against a government bill that changed the Atlantic Accord so that Newfoundland and Labrador would always be able to chose the offset mechanism that gave it the most cash. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Whiner voted against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
3. In a minority parliament, the Opposition parties actually have to make principled decisions, not reflexively vote the party line. Hence their quandary this time. As I noted before, Hearn's real complaint is two fold: first, he knows his party doesn't support the offshore revenue deal so that after an election, a Tory government would kill the cash. Second, in the short-term, Loyola Hearn lacks the political power to ensure his colleagues vote the right way on Bill C-43.
4. Rather than reflexively supporting his Tory Twin, the local Loyola should be writing to his federal leader, one Mr. Stephen Harper seeking his assurances that the federal Cons will support the provincial Tories and vote to pass C-43. Hint for the Loyolas: the Liberals are already behind this bill.
5. The dastardly bill C-43 includes 24 sections. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 23 and 24 all provide improved financial benefits to individuals, corporations and the provincial governments. Three sections, namely 5, 8 and 11, are ones that Loyola Sullivan should be very concerned about if the Cons vote against the bill and in so doing force an election. The Local Loyola should be screaming for Mr. Harper to hold his nose and pass the bill since those sections alone provide more cash for children, municipalities and, yes Loyola's own coffers from the offshore.
Basically, the only thing the federal Conservatives are upset about are three sections that make changes to environmental legislation. There is way more good in this bill than bad. Rather than threaten to defeat the bill maybe the Cons could try some old-fashioned political bargaining and see if they can cut a deal on the environmental provisions. Maybe a deal can be made that meets the needs of all Canadians and reflects the range of opinion in the country and in the Commons.
I'd strongly suggest Mr. Harper contact his Republican friends from the U.S. and ask them how to handle the kind of bargaining that is commonplace in the US federal congress and any state legislature.
Bottom line: Mr. Hearn and his colleagues are playing the worst kind of old-fashioned politics with this bill trying to blame others for their own lack of imagination and genuine political skill. Hearn has even taken to criticizing John Efford in an effort to divert attention away from his own impotence. Talk about playing the same old sound-track over and over again.
I won't engage in the sort of shameless hyperbole that Hearn has been using.
Nope.
I'll just say what I have heard since last Friday is sadly typical of the b/s Mr. Hearn has been spouting for the 23 years he has been a politician.
That he has a ready audience on Open Line is also sadly typical. If anyone - especially Linda or Bas - bothered to look at C-43, they'd see through the Blarney from Renews in a heartbeat.
The spin, especially the Open Line spin, has been that the dastardly Liberals are jeopardizing the offshore revenue deals by lumping them with a bunch of other bits of controversial legislation. Loyola Sullivan, provincial finance minister and close ally of the future candidate for the federal riding of Avalon (i.e. the Whiner from Renews Loyola Hearn) has written to the federal government seeking reassurances that the offshore money bill deal will pass.
Well, let's just look at a few things:
1. Last year, like every year, the Official Opposition voted against the government budget bills. What would be different if they did the same thing this year?
2. Last year, Loyola Hearn voted against a government bill that changed the Atlantic Accord so that Newfoundland and Labrador would always be able to chose the offset mechanism that gave it the most cash. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Whiner voted against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
3. In a minority parliament, the Opposition parties actually have to make principled decisions, not reflexively vote the party line. Hence their quandary this time. As I noted before, Hearn's real complaint is two fold: first, he knows his party doesn't support the offshore revenue deal so that after an election, a Tory government would kill the cash. Second, in the short-term, Loyola Hearn lacks the political power to ensure his colleagues vote the right way on Bill C-43.
4. Rather than reflexively supporting his Tory Twin, the local Loyola should be writing to his federal leader, one Mr. Stephen Harper seeking his assurances that the federal Cons will support the provincial Tories and vote to pass C-43. Hint for the Loyolas: the Liberals are already behind this bill.
5. The dastardly bill C-43 includes 24 sections. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 23 and 24 all provide improved financial benefits to individuals, corporations and the provincial governments. Three sections, namely 5, 8 and 11, are ones that Loyola Sullivan should be very concerned about if the Cons vote against the bill and in so doing force an election. The Local Loyola should be screaming for Mr. Harper to hold his nose and pass the bill since those sections alone provide more cash for children, municipalities and, yes Loyola's own coffers from the offshore.
Basically, the only thing the federal Conservatives are upset about are three sections that make changes to environmental legislation. There is way more good in this bill than bad. Rather than threaten to defeat the bill maybe the Cons could try some old-fashioned political bargaining and see if they can cut a deal on the environmental provisions. Maybe a deal can be made that meets the needs of all Canadians and reflects the range of opinion in the country and in the Commons.
I'd strongly suggest Mr. Harper contact his Republican friends from the U.S. and ask them how to handle the kind of bargaining that is commonplace in the US federal congress and any state legislature.
Bottom line: Mr. Hearn and his colleagues are playing the worst kind of old-fashioned politics with this bill trying to blame others for their own lack of imagination and genuine political skill. Hearn has even taken to criticizing John Efford in an effort to divert attention away from his own impotence. Talk about playing the same old sound-track over and over again.
I won't engage in the sort of shameless hyperbole that Hearn has been using.
Nope.
I'll just say what I have heard since last Friday is sadly typical of the b/s Mr. Hearn has been spouting for the 23 years he has been a politician.
That he has a ready audience on Open Line is also sadly typical. If anyone - especially Linda or Bas - bothered to look at C-43, they'd see through the Blarney from Renews in a heartbeat.
19 November 2014
When the budget comes… #nlpoli
We’ve got a provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador that has been budgeting for years to spend more than it brought in.
Way back in the beginning, way before the oil money cut in suddenly and largely unexpectedly, Loyola Sullivan said that people should expect the Conservatives to run deficits annually of half a billion dollars or more. The logical implication of what he’d said in 2005 was that it might have been 2014 until the Conservatives balanced the budget.
Now to be fair, Sullivan was speaking about the magnitude of the provincial government;s financial problem as he and his colleagues found it in 2004. But at the same time, by 2005, we were also talking about how the Conservatives intended to run things themselves.
They were clearly not as concerned about public debt as they had been in 2003. Part of that might have had something to do with this idea they had of making a killing selling cheap electricity into the United States, but frankly, Sullivan’s forecast of a debt of about $17 billion – which the Conservatives delivered on – suggests they really had something else in mind.
01 December 2014
Rational. Disciplined. Principled. #nlpoli
Back at the start of the current Conservative administration in 2003, they were very sharply aware of the problem with using one-time revenues for day-to-day spending.
They were so concerned about using that one-time money that they tried to get the federal government to do the impossible, namely give the provincial government here a permanent handout equal to oil revenues, in addition to the oil revenues that the provincial government collected.
Then they tried to get the federal government to exclude those one-time revenues from the Equalization formula so the provincial government could get the oil money and the hand-out at the same time. That didn’t work either.
The one thing the Conservatives didn’t do – for all their rhetoric about independence – was to act like a responsible, independent government. They didn’t manage public finances for the long haul.
02 January 2007
Sullivan spec update
As one might expect, New Year's parties across the province were abuzz with speculation about Loyola Sullivan's surprise resignation on Friday.
The one thing everyone agreed on: his official reasons are bogus.
The weekend spec ranged from Loyola is running to replace Norm Doyle as Connie member of parliament in St. John's North to spec that Loyola will be replacing the Other Loyola in St. John's South Mount Pearl.
Possibly... but there was no reason to resign so abruptly if that was the goal. If - and it is a big if - Rain Man wants to head for Ottawa, he'll do that as a separate issue from his surprising resignation from cabinet and the House of Assembly.
Some other speculation held that Loyola's name will turn up prominently in future House of Assembly reports.
Again, possibly.
But that issue wouldn't require his resignation in the middle of the holidays.
Nope.
So far, the speculation hasn't been able to come up with a plausible explanation for the dramatic departure which even Danny Williams admitted caught him by surprise. Yes, the man who stated relentlessly that he respected Loyola got one up the political back passage. And on the other side, the guy who insisted his relationship with the Boss was great, managed to leave office in the way calculated to fuck up The Boss big time.
Yessirree. A phone call at 10 o'clock the night before to say little more than: "Danny, boy... I am blowin' this popsicle stand and you have less than 12 hours to figure out how to cope with it".
Sod you, mate.
Surprised Loyola didn't flip Dan the electronic finger via crackberry, in the manner common among young people these days who find their current relationship has lost its pizazz.
"Deer D, f u. Luv Rnmn"
Handful of characters.
Broadband, so it would appeal to the fibre-optician in The Man.
Instantly delivered.
Around Bond Papers, where we consider a five year old cell phone to be cutting edge technology, the stories making the rounds - including the ones offered by "The Panel" onInto the Fog Here and Now - just didn't cut it.
Maybe it was what Loyola said it was?
Yeah. Right.
The one thing everyone agreed on: his official reasons are bogus.
The weekend spec ranged from Loyola is running to replace Norm Doyle as Connie member of parliament in St. John's North to spec that Loyola will be replacing the Other Loyola in St. John's South Mount Pearl.
Possibly... but there was no reason to resign so abruptly if that was the goal. If - and it is a big if - Rain Man wants to head for Ottawa, he'll do that as a separate issue from his surprising resignation from cabinet and the House of Assembly.
Some other speculation held that Loyola's name will turn up prominently in future House of Assembly reports.
Again, possibly.
But that issue wouldn't require his resignation in the middle of the holidays.
Nope.
So far, the speculation hasn't been able to come up with a plausible explanation for the dramatic departure which even Danny Williams admitted caught him by surprise. Yes, the man who stated relentlessly that he respected Loyola got one up the political back passage. And on the other side, the guy who insisted his relationship with the Boss was great, managed to leave office in the way calculated to fuck up The Boss big time.
Yessirree. A phone call at 10 o'clock the night before to say little more than: "Danny, boy... I am blowin' this popsicle stand and you have less than 12 hours to figure out how to cope with it".
Sod you, mate.
Surprised Loyola didn't flip Dan the electronic finger via crackberry, in the manner common among young people these days who find their current relationship has lost its pizazz.
"Deer D, f u. Luv Rnmn"
Handful of characters.
Broadband, so it would appeal to the fibre-optician in The Man.
Instantly delivered.
Around Bond Papers, where we consider a five year old cell phone to be cutting edge technology, the stories making the rounds - including the ones offered by "The Panel" on
Maybe it was what Loyola said it was?
Yeah. Right.
23 March 2005
Some of that big debt jump
Remember I mentioned that big jump in the provincial direct debt yesterday?
Well Loyola did throw out something on it yesterday in the House of Assembly that explains at least part of it, although not that well. A phone call and some e-mails to one of the people who understand these things put me on the trail of the cash.
Following is what Loyola said - word for word. I am going to cut the man some slack since he was turning beet-red yesterday dealing with Opposition questions. If the strategy works, Roger, keep piling on the pressure and see if you can cause a stroke. But man, it is a hard way to do politics.
Also, I am going to check on this in greater detail since Loyola's explanation is just nutty. If I read Loyola correctly, we were supposed to be given Equalization at a steady rate and to do that we get a loan of almost $400 million that we have to pay back. Equalization comes with no strings attached. This shows up on our books as a debt, even if it is interest-free.
More to the point though, this whole line of questioning was about whether or not the government "cash" deficit was real or not. Mr. Sullivan appears to be saying that we don't have to borrow to make up a shortfall. What colour is the sky in your world, Loyola? Now if that $14 million shortfall this year is coming from that loan, we still wound up borrowing it - from the Government of Canada!
He also said there is only one deficit. Then he proceeds to talk about a "cash" deficit and how government will balance the books on a "cash" basis. But Loyola, if that was true, then your budget speech wouldn't have made a distinction between the "cash" deficit and the accrual deficit. That last one is one you talk up whenever you want to throw around a frightening number. Get your story straight, Loyola.
"Loyola Sullivan: When money collapses as a surplus it goes to our debt, that is automatic; besides, we are not in the position where we are going to have to borrow. In fact, we just received a cheque from the federal government for $378 million, a ten-year interest free loan, because prior to the Budget 2004, the Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada indicated that no province would get less than the four year average for equalization. So, if we got a loan - we have a cash flow now that would necessitate borrowing for that. He should understand - if he asked these questions, Mr. Speaker, I will explain them to him. We are not in a position where we are going to borrow that. He should understand that. He was Premier of this Province for two-and-a-half years."
Stay tuned for more. I don't think I am going to be eating any crow on this one.
Well Loyola did throw out something on it yesterday in the House of Assembly that explains at least part of it, although not that well. A phone call and some e-mails to one of the people who understand these things put me on the trail of the cash.
Following is what Loyola said - word for word. I am going to cut the man some slack since he was turning beet-red yesterday dealing with Opposition questions. If the strategy works, Roger, keep piling on the pressure and see if you can cause a stroke. But man, it is a hard way to do politics.
Also, I am going to check on this in greater detail since Loyola's explanation is just nutty. If I read Loyola correctly, we were supposed to be given Equalization at a steady rate and to do that we get a loan of almost $400 million that we have to pay back. Equalization comes with no strings attached. This shows up on our books as a debt, even if it is interest-free.
More to the point though, this whole line of questioning was about whether or not the government "cash" deficit was real or not. Mr. Sullivan appears to be saying that we don't have to borrow to make up a shortfall. What colour is the sky in your world, Loyola? Now if that $14 million shortfall this year is coming from that loan, we still wound up borrowing it - from the Government of Canada!
He also said there is only one deficit. Then he proceeds to talk about a "cash" deficit and how government will balance the books on a "cash" basis. But Loyola, if that was true, then your budget speech wouldn't have made a distinction between the "cash" deficit and the accrual deficit. That last one is one you talk up whenever you want to throw around a frightening number. Get your story straight, Loyola.
"Loyola Sullivan: When money collapses as a surplus it goes to our debt, that is automatic; besides, we are not in the position where we are going to have to borrow. In fact, we just received a cheque from the federal government for $378 million, a ten-year interest free loan, because prior to the Budget 2004, the Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada indicated that no province would get less than the four year average for equalization. So, if we got a loan - we have a cash flow now that would necessitate borrowing for that. He should understand - if he asked these questions, Mr. Speaker, I will explain them to him. We are not in a position where we are going to borrow that. He should understand that. He was Premier of this Province for two-and-a-half years."
Stay tuned for more. I don't think I am going to be eating any crow on this one.
18 December 2006
There are duties and then there are duties
Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says the comptroller general has a legal obligation to collect any money that's owed to the province.
Sullivan (right) made the comment when announcing today that the comptroller general would be sending letters to the five current and former members of the House of Assembly demanding repayment of alleged overpayments in the House of Assembly spending scandal.Perhaps the finance minister should read all of the Financial Administration Act and acknowledge that significant details of the House of Assembly scandal have not been properly investigated and disclosed to the public.
For example, the comptroller general has a legal obligation to maintain the public accounts under terms set out in s. 27:
27. (1) The comptroller general shall keep a ledger in which shall be entered the departmental appropriations by Heads of Expenditure and by subheads and subdivisions in accordance with the subhead and subdivision allocations exhibited in the estimates for the fiscal year concerned, as amended in accordance with this Act, against which shall be charged all authorized expenditures.
(2) The comptroller general shall establish and maintain a record of commitments chargeable to each appropriation in the form that the board may prescribe.
(3) The comptroller general shall furnish to each deputy minister or other officer charged with the administration of a Head of Expenditure a statement of the charges entered against the Head of Expenditure or a subhead or subdivision of a Head of Expenditure and those statements shall be furnished at those periods that the deputy minister may reasonably require and shall show the charges made during the report period together with the balances at the credit of the Head of Expenditure or subheads or subdivisions at the end of each period concerned.
(4) When a subhead or a subdivision is exhausted, the comptroller general shall at once notify the deputy minister concerned and the comptroller general shall not sanction a further charge to be entered against that subhead or subdivision except as provided in this Act.
Notice that the comptroller general is responsible to track expenditures and to advise the deputy minister concerned - in this case the Clerk of the House of Assembly - that a line item has been overspent.
Under s.27.(4), the comptroller general "shall not sanction a further charge to be entered against that subhead or subdivision".
In the House of Assembly scandal we simply do not know what, if anything, the comptroller general did to discharge this responsibility. Had this responsibility been properly discharged, we likely wouldn't be looking at the mess we have today. If the comptroller general did his duty but was overruled by others, then the public has an incontrovertible right to know and to hold accountable those who sanctioned the overspending.
We do know that in from 1998 to 2005, the allowances and assistance budget for the House of Assembly was overspent to a total of $3.2 million. The Auditor General has only identified $1.58 million in excess spending. The table above shows the excess spending compared to the budget (red line) compared to the totals identified by the Auditor General (yellow line). Over half the overspending remains unaccounted for even after two supposedly thorough investigations by the Auditor General.But wait.
It gets better.
Under s. 29, the comptroller general has further statutory obligations:
29. The comptroller general shall ensure that no payment of public money is madeThe comptroller general is specifically enjoined not to disburse money in excess of an appropriation. He is also obliged to report overspending to the treasury board. That is in addition to reporting to the appropriate deputy minister of equivalent.
(a) for which there is no legislative appropriation;
(b) for which no other appropriation has been provided under this Act;
(c) which is in excess of an appropriation; or
(d) which is in excess of sums that may have been deposited with the government in trust for a person,
and the comptroller general shall report to the board a case which comes to his or her notice in which liability has been incurred by a minister, deputy minister or other officer or person which contravenes this Act and the board may take whatever action in the matter that it considers necessary. [Emphasis added]
Even if the deputy minister involved fails to act, there are others above him or her who have legal duties: the members of treasury board, all of whom are cabinet ministers.
One of the key members of treasury board is the president, which for several years is a position occupied by the minister of finance under successive Liberal and now Progressive Conservative administrations.
We know that significant overspending - about $1.0 million - occurred since Loyola Sullivan has been finance minister, president of treasury board and a member of the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission. Over $800,000 of that amount remains unexplained.
We have a right to know what happened.
Loyola has a duty to tell us.
When can we expect that duty to be discharged?
03 December 2005
The smell of fear
Check out the telegram today on page A5.
Bottom of the page.
Big ad by Loyola Hearn with the headline "Provincial MHA's endorse Loyola Hearn".
There's Loyola in a posed picture surrounded by all the Conservative House member's from within his riding. There's even Loyola Sullivan looking a tad like something's up his backside that shouldn't be there, and Speaker Harvey Hodder.
There's two things about this ad that scream Loyola's fear of losing:
1. Last time out, Loyola couldn't get the endorsement of any Tories. People wouldn't work for him.
Then after the whole thing was over, Loyola got into a pissing match with Danny.
2. The ad talks about "Standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador".
Here's Loyola's record on the offshore:
1985 - As cabinet minister in Peckford, voted in favour of what he would later denounce as revenue clawbacks for Equalization.
2004 - Issues householder at taxpayer expense with factual errors about deal he voted for in 1985.
2005 - Encouraged to vote for offshore deal and put province before party
2005 - Gets exceedingly pissy when people expect him to live up to the same standards he used to politically bludgeon others.
2005 - In the final votes, supports the offshore bill and then votes to bring down the government. Hearn voted for the Province before he voted against it.
When choosing between party and province, Hearn chose party.
He took Harper over Hamlyn Road.
I smell fear in St. John's South-Mount Pearl. And it's coming from the little fellow from Renews.
I wonder if this time he will be willing to debate his opponents.
Bottom of the page.
Big ad by Loyola Hearn with the headline "Provincial MHA's endorse Loyola Hearn".
There's Loyola in a posed picture surrounded by all the Conservative House member's from within his riding. There's even Loyola Sullivan looking a tad like something's up his backside that shouldn't be there, and Speaker Harvey Hodder.
There's two things about this ad that scream Loyola's fear of losing:
1. Last time out, Loyola couldn't get the endorsement of any Tories. People wouldn't work for him.
Then after the whole thing was over, Loyola got into a pissing match with Danny.
2. The ad talks about "Standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador".
Here's Loyola's record on the offshore:
1985 - As cabinet minister in Peckford, voted in favour of what he would later denounce as revenue clawbacks for Equalization.
2004 - Issues householder at taxpayer expense with factual errors about deal he voted for in 1985.
2005 - Encouraged to vote for offshore deal and put province before party
2005 - Gets exceedingly pissy when people expect him to live up to the same standards he used to politically bludgeon others.
2005 - In the final votes, supports the offshore bill and then votes to bring down the government. Hearn voted for the Province before he voted against it.
When choosing between party and province, Hearn chose party.
He took Harper over Hamlyn Road.
I smell fear in St. John's South-Mount Pearl. And it's coming from the little fellow from Renews.
I wonder if this time he will be willing to debate his opponents.
23 February 2008
A mixed reaction
On the one hand, it's an awesome local-boy-made good story whereby a - well - local boy created the largest helicopter company in the world.
It's rags-to-riches.
It's all sorts of other stuff that is worth celebrating and holding out as an example of what can be done when you put your mind to it.
Then, after his death, his family sold it and made a mint.
The family contributed mightily to the community in many ways and selling the company is as sound a business decision as the family made in building it. CHC stands as an example of what local entrepreneurs can do.
But then on the other hand, it's kinda hard not to notice that the guy heralded as a "patriot" packed up his company and relocated it out of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, he deprived the provincial treasury of untold millions in corporate tax revenue, personal income taxes of the headquarters employees and likely a few other bits of miscellaneous revenue.
There was nary a boo about it from the provincial banker at the time, Loyola Sullivan. Nor was there boo from Sullivan's boss.
Nope.
But when a supposedly evil telephone company, not previously owned by Danny Williams, did something supposedly evil to the provincial treasury, now that was another story. Loyola Sullivan issued a news release about the impact Aliant's income trust restructure would have on the bank accounts of a province then only three years away from "have" status.
If we banned hypocrisy, some politicians would have nothing to say.
So bravo, progeny of Craig Dobbin and the share-holders of the now publicly traded CHC, for making a mint.
So bravo Craig for building a company up from nothing but a few provincial government contracts and parlaying it into being the largest helicopter outfit on the planet, bar none.
Look down from heaven and likely wince at the irony John Crosbie was right after all: you can tell the Newfoundlanders in Heaven; they're the only one's complaining what a crime it is they have to be "here" instead of "home".
Yes, the hallmark of the great "patriot". Discuss the glories of Newfoundland while you earn a living out west.
And as a last note in this rambling Saturday morning opener, let's try some trivia:
- What was the name of Craig Dobbin's helicopter company, the one that started it all?
- Where did he get the inspiration for the name?
- What's the connection between that name and the Danny Williams logo (which the provincial government still thinks is a "brand")?
There are no prizes, yet but we'll likely soon start a serious set of contests with bondpapers giveaways.
-srbp-
29 March 2005
More offshore goings on - what is happening.
Flip around the net today and you'll see some stories on the offshore bill currently before parliament in Ottawa.
CBC Radio has Loyola Sullivan writing the feds, as noted in the Blarney post. This story also has Roger Grimes criticizing Danny Williams for not seeing this problem and negotiating a separate piece of federal legislation.
VOCM is quoting a number Bill Matthews encouraging his [former (?)] political soulmates Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle to pressure their party to vote the right way on the offshore bill.
So what is it all about in as few words as possible?
1. On one level, the federal Opposition parties are flexing their muscle to see what they can get the government to do to make them happy. It is a cosmic game of chicken among the parties in Ottawa, the Libs included.
Even Jean LaPierre's musing about not wanting an election feeds into the game since it is possible the Opposition types would be dumb enough to defeat the government and head to the polls. Since the Liberals are on an upswing and all the Other Guys are not, it isn't the government that stands to lose. LaPierre's comments about losing seats in Quebec is almost laughable; the Blocheads know full well they are about at their peak - they have to wonder if it's worth gambling their huge winnings last time on picking up a handful of new seats next time.
Contrary to appearances, the Cons still have some deep internal divisions, especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Everyone might blunder into an election, but no one should feel smug about the outcome. Expect the Martinites to fight a slightly better campaign than their last one.
2. On another level, the federal Conservatives are playing to their money base with the play against Kyoto. Irony of ironies, even though the provincial government here doesn't like some aspects of Kyoto either, the local take on this pits oil money against oil interests and oil interests are losing in popular opinion. The Harperites might be emboldeneed by some internal polling and their supposed convention bounce; personally if I were a Con strategist, I'd count on a few policy meltdowns on the trail. That is, unless you manage to dump every single one of your old Reform/Alliance members of parliament.
3. The Libs are trying to hide their Kyoto tardiness. Big announcement, but so far no plan and no progress. The measures in C-43 are little bits of Kyoto that look like action without being substantive moves forward. They will play well across the country, except in some segments of Alberta opinion. Truth is, health care is more important to Albertans than Kyoto. Ask any polling firm. The Martinites are looking strong on health and toher key issues.
4. On an individual level, Loyola Hearn is using this for his own purposes, aided and abetted by his buddy Loyola Sullivan and the letter to John Efford. They are identifying the wrong problem (it isn't the government, guys) and the jabs at Efford suggest the Loyola Twins are still setting one or both of the pair up for a run at federal politics next time out. It's a pretty crass game, boys. Be ashamed.
5. The provincial government stopped working before the fight was over. I had some government sources telling me a few months ago that no one on The Hill had bothered to do a count and see if the offshore bill would pass. They took it for granted; I was floored. Now we have the proof that the provincial government wanted to declare victory and start the floor show long before the job was actually done.
6. Roger Grimes scores big on other issues; flubs the offshore. Despite a strong and effective performance in the budget aftermath, especially on the Grand Falls cancer clinic, Grimes is just throwing something at the wall when he talks about negotiating some kind of deal beforehand on how the bill would proceed.
No government is going to stand for having its running of the House a subject for negotiation with the outside world. I don't tell you how to speak to your wife at breakfast, Roger. There are some things that are just none of anyone's business. If someone had suggested to Roger the format for government legislation, I would hope Roger would have told them to sod off.
More to the point, though: Look up, Roger, at point 4, and see a stronger argument.
7. Efford is shocked; Who cares? The CBC Radio story says Efford is shocked at this situation - that's their starting comment. Who cares how you feel John? Make a substantive comment. Too many politicians, Efford and Grimes included, like to start their media comments with phrases like "shocked", "dismayed" or "appalled" as in 'The politician in question is shocked at recent media reports..."
Short answer from the news rooms of the world: who gives a flying toss about your mental state? If you are feeling something try taking a pill, getting some exercise or seeing a psychiatrist. Your moods aren't news. Give me some substantive comment or get lost.
8. Efford may be sleeping. As I have noted, in Nova Scotia, their federal cabinet rep took the lead on the story. Here it was Blarney, the Dinosaur. Efford was unseen and unheard until a couple of days into the story. John needs to revamp his office in a big way. Start with yourself. When it comes to any staff changes, just make sure you hand out the pink slips correctly the first time, John.
9. Last but not least, VOCM needs new talk show hosts who actually understand current events. If Open Nite Line is actually pure entertainment, then by all means replace the current talking heads with actors and other performers. Brian Tobin is looking for work. Maybe you can cut a deal with Rogers to borrow their Out of the Fog team now that they have a stronger call-in show on Sunday nights to handle news and current events.
CBC Radio has Loyola Sullivan writing the feds, as noted in the Blarney post. This story also has Roger Grimes criticizing Danny Williams for not seeing this problem and negotiating a separate piece of federal legislation.
VOCM is quoting a number Bill Matthews encouraging his [former (?)] political soulmates Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle to pressure their party to vote the right way on the offshore bill.
So what is it all about in as few words as possible?
1. On one level, the federal Opposition parties are flexing their muscle to see what they can get the government to do to make them happy. It is a cosmic game of chicken among the parties in Ottawa, the Libs included.
Even Jean LaPierre's musing about not wanting an election feeds into the game since it is possible the Opposition types would be dumb enough to defeat the government and head to the polls. Since the Liberals are on an upswing and all the Other Guys are not, it isn't the government that stands to lose. LaPierre's comments about losing seats in Quebec is almost laughable; the Blocheads know full well they are about at their peak - they have to wonder if it's worth gambling their huge winnings last time on picking up a handful of new seats next time.
Contrary to appearances, the Cons still have some deep internal divisions, especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Everyone might blunder into an election, but no one should feel smug about the outcome. Expect the Martinites to fight a slightly better campaign than their last one.
2. On another level, the federal Conservatives are playing to their money base with the play against Kyoto. Irony of ironies, even though the provincial government here doesn't like some aspects of Kyoto either, the local take on this pits oil money against oil interests and oil interests are losing in popular opinion. The Harperites might be emboldeneed by some internal polling and their supposed convention bounce; personally if I were a Con strategist, I'd count on a few policy meltdowns on the trail. That is, unless you manage to dump every single one of your old Reform/Alliance members of parliament.
3. The Libs are trying to hide their Kyoto tardiness. Big announcement, but so far no plan and no progress. The measures in C-43 are little bits of Kyoto that look like action without being substantive moves forward. They will play well across the country, except in some segments of Alberta opinion. Truth is, health care is more important to Albertans than Kyoto. Ask any polling firm. The Martinites are looking strong on health and toher key issues.
4. On an individual level, Loyola Hearn is using this for his own purposes, aided and abetted by his buddy Loyola Sullivan and the letter to John Efford. They are identifying the wrong problem (it isn't the government, guys) and the jabs at Efford suggest the Loyola Twins are still setting one or both of the pair up for a run at federal politics next time out. It's a pretty crass game, boys. Be ashamed.
5. The provincial government stopped working before the fight was over. I had some government sources telling me a few months ago that no one on The Hill had bothered to do a count and see if the offshore bill would pass. They took it for granted; I was floored. Now we have the proof that the provincial government wanted to declare victory and start the floor show long before the job was actually done.
6. Roger Grimes scores big on other issues; flubs the offshore. Despite a strong and effective performance in the budget aftermath, especially on the Grand Falls cancer clinic, Grimes is just throwing something at the wall when he talks about negotiating some kind of deal beforehand on how the bill would proceed.
No government is going to stand for having its running of the House a subject for negotiation with the outside world. I don't tell you how to speak to your wife at breakfast, Roger. There are some things that are just none of anyone's business. If someone had suggested to Roger the format for government legislation, I would hope Roger would have told them to sod off.
More to the point, though: Look up, Roger, at point 4, and see a stronger argument.
7. Efford is shocked; Who cares? The CBC Radio story says Efford is shocked at this situation - that's their starting comment. Who cares how you feel John? Make a substantive comment. Too many politicians, Efford and Grimes included, like to start their media comments with phrases like "shocked", "dismayed" or "appalled" as in 'The politician in question is shocked at recent media reports..."
Short answer from the news rooms of the world: who gives a flying toss about your mental state? If you are feeling something try taking a pill, getting some exercise or seeing a psychiatrist. Your moods aren't news. Give me some substantive comment or get lost.
8. Efford may be sleeping. As I have noted, in Nova Scotia, their federal cabinet rep took the lead on the story. Here it was Blarney, the Dinosaur. Efford was unseen and unheard until a couple of days into the story. John needs to revamp his office in a big way. Start with yourself. When it comes to any staff changes, just make sure you hand out the pink slips correctly the first time, John.
9. Last but not least, VOCM needs new talk show hosts who actually understand current events. If Open Nite Line is actually pure entertainment, then by all means replace the current talking heads with actors and other performers. Brian Tobin is looking for work. Maybe you can cut a deal with Rogers to borrow their Out of the Fog team now that they have a stronger call-in show on Sunday nights to handle news and current events.
13 December 2006
The unbearable lightness of Loyola
Government House leader and finance minister Loyola Sullivan is apparently pleased that in one of the shortest legislative sessions in Newfoundland and Labrador history, the House of Assembly dealt with 35 bills.
What Sullivan won't acknowledge is that overall, the legislature currently sits only half the number of days per year than it did a decade and a half ago and that the content of legislation is meagre.
Fully 28 of the 35 bills passed were minor amendments to existing statutes. Among the bills passed in the short session, foreshortened even more than usual for this administration by Sullivan at the last minute:
Bill 66, An act to amend the provincial Court Act, 1991 and the Human Rights Code. In its entirety, the bill said the following:
To paraphrase my grandmother, Sullivan doesn't have a job, he has a situation. Or as a good friend put it, being a cabinet minister is obviously a good job: you are in out of the weather and there is no heavy lifting.
What Sullivan won't acknowledge is that overall, the legislature currently sits only half the number of days per year than it did a decade and a half ago and that the content of legislation is meagre.
Fully 28 of the 35 bills passed were minor amendments to existing statutes. Among the bills passed in the short session, foreshortened even more than usual for this administration by Sullivan at the last minute:
Bill 66, An act to amend the provincial Court Act, 1991 and the Human Rights Code. In its entirety, the bill said the following:
PROVINCIAL COURT ACT, 1991
1. Subsection 12(1) of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 is repealed and the following substituted:
12. (1) Every judge shall retire upon attaining the age of 70 years.
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
2. Section 9 of the Human Rights Code is amended by adding immediately after subsection (6) the following:
(7) The right under this section to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where a judge is required to retire on reaching a specified age under the Provincial Court Act, 1991.
To paraphrase my grandmother, Sullivan doesn't have a job, he has a situation. Or as a good friend put it, being a cabinet minister is obviously a good job: you are in out of the weather and there is no heavy lifting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)