Word Clues

According to the St. John’s Board of Trade, “Newfoundland and Labrador’s considerable assets include …[a] captive consumer market worth over $10 billion annually.”

Interesting choice of words that.

“Captive”.

Prisoner.

Hostage.

As in can’t go anywhere else or do anything else.

At the mercy of others.

Take a look at a survey the Board did of a four member panel that they included with that news release.  Now bear in mind the panel is four members of the Board of Trade and only four. But still, if you look at the responses, you get another curious bit of information.

Top federal/provincial priorities:  “Building the Lower Churchill” got a vote from one of the four as the top priority.  But two others put “Building the Lower Churchill” as their second choice.

Not surprising really, that the Lower Churchill would be the favourite in this question and in another one later on about what the federal government needs to do for the province.

Many members of the Board of Trade have done very well as a result of the enormous increase in public spending over the past four years.  it may be fiscally unsound for the province, but for the Board of Trade members it’s been boom times.  The Lower Churchill would guarantee those booms for another decade.

Makes sense.

Makes sense too that the party currently in power is pushing something that means they can trumpet the jobs and the growth that will flow.  There’s a wonderful meeting of mutual interest, political and commercial. 

This alignment of interests is easily seen in the pattern of political giving in the province last year.  80% of donations come from corporations.  Most of that is focused on the northeast Avalon. Individual contributions make up a mere 20% and in some districts nobody  - other than the local member of the legislature - contributed anything at all to any political party.

Not surprisingly, either, the companies who have been doing perhaps the most phenomenally well from capital works spending have given in huge gobs to the Conservatives.

Nothing sinister or criminal.  Just a matter of common interests.

Meanwhile, the average ratepayer, err consumer,  err taxpayer in the province isn’t quite so positive about Muskrat Falls and the Lower Churchill.  In polls done by Corporate Research Associates for the provincial government over the past year, Muskrat is the top priority of a mere four percent of the population.

Consistently four percent.

Health care and jobs are way out in front as the major concern of 20-odd and 30-odd percent of the people surveyed.

Huge difference.

Now look at that word “captive” again.

Interesting choice.

Almost Freudian in its implications when you consider that having a captive market is the entire basis for Muskrat Falls.

The local consumers will be forced to pay for it all, carry the whole debt load and make sure that the companies directly involved don’t lose a copper.

They have no choice.

They are captive.

- srbp -

Traffic for September 5 – 9, 2011

ya know that something is going on when the traffic at ye olde e-scribbles starts jumping up by 25% from the previous month.

And that’s a real 25%, not an hyper-torqued NDP 25% that is actually just one percent. 

If you want to see more on  the story of the NDP’s deceptive news release on small business taxes, it hit the Number 8 slot on the top 10 Bond posts for last week, as chosen by the readers themselves.

Lots of “D”s in the Top 10 last week, including Danny, Desperation,  Donations,  Duff and Doyle, as in Republic of.  Even without putting the words in the headline lots of people found it and likely had a little chuckle as they went.

The week after Labour Day turned out to be highly charged politically and if the trend holds this will be one of the more interesting fall seasons in recent times.

So in case you missed these posts during the week, settle in and enjoy what caught everyone’s attention here at SRBP last week.

1. RCMP investigating SNC Lavalin officials over corruption allegations
2. And he is known by the company he keeps…
3. Democracy Watch:  Duff’s guff
4. Dateline:  Desperation, Newfoundland
5. The Joy of Political Giving:  punch in the bake edition
6. Danny, Gary and Steve:  old inconsistencies die hard
7. Rideout tags Tories for election pork-fest
8. The Politics of Cynicism;  even worse than thought edition and What you can see at the horse race…
9. The Joy of Political Giving:  Look for the union label
10. The Joy of Political Giving:  If you want to build it, they will give

- srbp -

The Joy of Political Giving: Look for the Union label

The single biggest political donation, bar none in 2010 did not come from any private sector business.

It came from the United Steelworkers of America (Toronto, On).

$20,000.

That’s from the most recent figures released by the chief electoral office for the province. They gave the same amount in 2009 while in 2008, the United Food and Commercial Workers, of Washington DC gave the provincial NDP $10,000.

If you barred corporate and union donations to political parties in Newfoundland and labrador and forced the parties to raise money from individuals, the entire political party system would collapse.

At least then we could rebuild it an an infinitely more democratic basis than the one that sits there today.

- srbp -

The Joy of Political Giving: if you want to build it, they will give

Construction, design and engineering companies gave the provincial Conservatives $239,725 in political donations in 2010, according to figures from the province’s chief electoral office.

Companies in the design, engineering and construction field gave a mere $3, 950 to the Liberal Party and none to the New Democrats.

- srbp -

The Joy of Political Giving: punch in the bake edition

It’s always interesting to see who gives to political parties. 

The province’s chief electoral office quietly released the 2010 summary of political donations by individuals and corporations.

Interesting to see that the production company for Republic of Doyle – doing business as Republic Season II Inc. – coughed up $250 for the provincial Conservatives.

And zip for everyone else.

The provincial government – currently managed by the Conservatives – coughed up much better for Jake and Malachy.  The province’s tourism department has dropped $7.5 million into the series since it started.

 

- srbp -

Traffic Flow: August 29 – September 2, 2011

1. Robots in dead heat (poll goosing)
2. NL ratepayers to carry full load for Muskrat falls plus more
3. The Politics of Cynicism, NDP style
4. Uniting the Left:  a reminder
5. Nalcor royalties:  yet more information
6. Muskrat Falls:  lost opportunity
7. Court docket now online
8. Paving the way (political donations by paving companies)
9. Political Reporting 2011
10. About SRBP

 

- srbp -

Paving the way

Paving and asphalt companies in the province gave $52, 575 in political contributions to the provincial Conservatives between 2004 and 2009, according to figures available from the province’s Chief Electoral Officer.

But the same companies gave a mere $500 to the provincial Liberal Party and not a penny to the New Democratic Party.

By contrast between 1996 and 2003, paving companies gave $52,565 to the provincial Liberals.

But unlike their tight-fisted way with the opposition after 2004, the companies gave $35,150 to the province’s Conservatives while they were in opposition. 

They gave nothing to the New Democratic Party.

What’s also noticeable when you chart the donations by party and year is the second dramatic shift after the Conservatives came back to power in late 2003.

The biggest donation periods before 2004 were in the election years of 1996, 1999 and 2003. In other years, the total politically donations dropped off dramatically.

But under the Conservatives, spiked in the 2007 election, but they also stayed relatively high in 2006 and 2009.  They jumped again in 2009 to almost $15,000. 

Road paving and politics became an issue last week when former Conservative Brad Cabana publicly recounted what he said were comments made by tourism minister Terry French at last fall’s provincial Conservative Party convention.  Cabana told a local talk show audience that French suggested Tory party volunteers hit up local paving companies for campaign donations.

French called the same show and said that he did not remember saying any such thing.  He also called Cabana a scumbag and a political prostitute.

After that episode, your humble e-scribbler scanned the official election contributions records available from the Chief Electoral Office for records of donations by any companies with the words “paving” or “asphalt” in the company name.

Other companies may be involved in the road paving business.  They may or may not have made political contributions in the period for which records are readily available.

While the information above doesn’t support or refute Cabana’s contention, the pattern of the contributions and the changes after the Conservatives came to office are curious.

This isn’t the first time someone has drawn a connection between provincial road paving and politics.  labradore has blogged extensively on the pattern of paving contracts and road construction work that has tended to favour Conservative districts over Liberal ones since 2004.

- srbp -

Nurturing a democratic revolution

Public life in Newfoundland and Labrador remains as fundamentally undemocratic as it ever was.

Paternalism remains the order of the day.  As three sitting members of the House revealed, they they are the face of government in their districts. 

Never mind that neither of them is actually in government.  As members of the legislature, each member has but one job:  to hold the government to account for its actions.  They do so on behalf of their constituents. Doesn’t matter if they sit on the government back benches or the opposition benches.  Their job is to serve the people of the province and the House.

By that measure, none of the current members do their jobs very well. 

The House of Assembly sits  - on average - the least number of days of any legislature in the country.  Members have little time to study any legislation the government proposes.  From the government side, members usually read prepared speeches full of officially sanctioned drivel.

The opposition members of the legislature are no better.  Liberal and New Democrat alike, they tend to rely heavily on official government statements for what they know and say about a bill.  Their comments in an afternoon sitting of the House are often laughable paraphrases of what officials told them in a morning “briefing”.   One need only look at the Hansard record of speeches by Lorraine Michael and Yvonne Jones on the day their rolled over and helped the government in the Abitibi expropriation fiasco to see this situation plainly.

The House has no functioning committees to review legislation. The Committee of the Whole remains nothing more than a hollow exercise in form over substance. The public accounts committee – once the means by which the legislature reviewed all public spending – remains as dead as it was during the darkest days of the recent patronage and corruption scandal. 

As amazing as it is to say, the House of Assembly in the early 21st century has reverted back almost to what it was before the collapse of Responsible Government in 1934.

The House of Assembly is reduced to a form of Punch and Judy show. And to compliment it, recent changes to the provincial access to information laws have systematically reduced public knowledge of government actions when the legislature is not sitting.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have turned their backs on politics in increasing numbers.  Voter turn-out in recent general elections and by-elections is at historic low levels.  They know that they have little control so there is no incentive to take part. 

Even the appointed House officers – the Speaker, and the watchdogs of privacy, children’s interests, elections and public accounts – are bumbling and useless. Some offices have been or are filled by political hacks who do not even pretend to be impartial.

A modern, prosperous province deserves a healthy thriving democracy.  Nothing short of a spiritual revolution can reform public life in Newfoundland and Labrador and raise it to the standards that the ordinary men and women of the province deserve.

Here are some ways to do that.

For starters, we need election finance reform:

• Ban corporate and union donations.
• Only individuals should be able to contribute to political parties to a maximum of $5,000 a year.
• Ban “in kind” contributions to parties and candidates.
• Limit election, by-election and leadership campaign fundraising and spending.
• Limit spending by political parties and third parties during elections and during the years between general elections.
• Require full disclosure of donations when they occur, with additional monthly updates on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website.

Piece-meal and largely unnecessary changes to elections in the province from 2004 onward have produced an electoral system that is an embarrassment in a democracy worthy of the name. Electoral reform should include the following measures to break the influence of money and to restore some power to the backbenchers and opposition members:

• Remove the provision that the resignation of a premier triggers a general election.  Overbearing ego created it and it serves no useful purpose.
• Eliminate mail-in ballots and the current system that allows voting before an election writ is actually issued.
• Restore the mandatory 90 day period in which a by-election must be called to fill a vacancy.  The 2004 change to 60 days proved unnecessary and, as in 2007, produced the laughable case of a by-election that was called but never actually held.
• Cut off incumbent expense charges, cell phones and other perks of office 45 days in advance of a fixed election date. This will discourage campaigning at public expense by incumbents.
• Compel members not seeking re-election to vacate their offices and cut off their expense accounts 45 days before a fixed election date or 30 days after they announce their intentions publicly, whichever saves the public more money.
• Introduce amendments to the House of Assembly Act that set mandatory sitting days (for example 50 days in the spring and 40 in the fall) for the House of Assembly with cash penalties for each member if the House does not sit the prescribed number of days.
• Introduce amendments to the House of Assembly Act to establish legislative committees, set the number of hearing days they must sit.
• Make the membership on the committee a function of House seniority regardless of whether a member is on the opposition benches or government back benches.
• Give the committees research and administrative staff to be hired by the Speaker.
• Update:  To go along with this, some other changes to funding would follow:  the office of the leader of the opposition would get funding for administrative positions such as chief of staff, executive assistant and communications director.  Caucuses would no longer get funding for staff and research positions.  Instead, every member would get a standard allotment for a constituency assistant, a travel budget etc. to support individual work as members.
• Update:  The Public Accounts Committee should be the only one with an opposition majority and an opposition chair. 
• Cabinet minister would only be allowed to serve on the House of Assembly management committee.
• Introduce legislation to limit the size of cabinet and the number of government party members who may draw extra payments for government duties.  Exclude those members drawing extra pay from committee work.
• Strengthen the conflict of interest rules for politicians to limit their business and other interests while serving in the House. 
• Add charities to the list of prohibited interests that members may have, especially once they sit in cabinet.
• Extend the prohibited period for doing business with government after leaving office to five years for all politicians and political staff.
• Former cabinet ministers should be barred from any dealings with all government departments, not just the one for which they last served as minister.

To restore the integrity of the House of Assembly officer appointments, nominees should be vetted during public hearings by a House of Assembly committee on appointments.  Nominees should come from a publicly advertised competition, although the list of potential candidates may include recommended nominees from cabinet.

Existing legislation should be amended to allow that officers can only be removed by the Speaker with the concurrence of the committee.  Any suspension or removal from office while the House is not in session must be the subject of a public hearing at the next sitting of the House.

And that’s just the start of it.

In future posts in the series, we’ll look at changes to the province’s access to information laws and reforms to senior appointments.

There are more than 15 good ideas for a stronger Newfoundland and Labrador.

- srbp -

People unfamiliar with the legislature might not understand how some of these changes could produce a dramatic difference in the House.  Let’s see if this helps:

• Banning corporate and union donations breaks the influence of big money on party policy and shifts power back toward individuals.
• Adding charities to the conflict of interest guidelines closes a gigantic loophole in the current conflict guidelines that has proven to be a major problem in the United States. 
• The new committee structure is intended to restore some power to the legislature and to individual members of the House and help break the centralization of power in the first minister. Among other things, it breaks the patronage hold that Premiers have on perks and bonuses that are often held out as a way of influencing members unduly. 
• Individual members should be able to develop a profile, reputation and a power base that would make them contenders for cabinet based on merit rather than obsequiousness and pliability.
• Funding committees instead of caucuses prevents majority parties coupled with a biased Speaker from doing as the Conservatives did in the current legislature with funding for the official opposition.
• Cutting off expenses before a fixed election levels the playing field between incumbents and challengers at the district level.

A rose by any other name would still stink to high heavens

Pity Clayton Forsey.

He’s the Conservative member of the provincial legislature from the district of Exploits. Like many of his colleagues, he visited a town in his district recently and handed out a cheque from the provincial government as a “donation” toward the town’s up-coming tourism festival.

The regional weekly newspaper covered the event and described it this way:

Denise Chippett is the chairperson of the Come Home Year committee. She said the celebrations was enjoyable for all; what also helped were substantial donations from Exploits MHA Clayton Forsey and the town's volunteer fire department.

This week the Telegram picked up that line and started poking into it. The story appeared in the Saturday edition this weekend but sadly it isn’t available on line. The Telegram noted that Chief Justice Derek Green’s report into the House of Assembly spending scandal recommended that members of the legislature not make “donations” from their constituency allowances or with other government money.  If they did so out of their own pockets,  the politician is supposed to make it clear where the money came from.

Forsey is clearly bothered by the Telegram’s questions and, as the Saturday quotes him,  Forsey is quick to distance himself from that scandal.  The money is from a government department, Forsey says.  There’s a small fund in the municipal affairs department to help out with anniversary celebrations, as in this case.

"I've always presented cheques on behalf of departments. Ministers
don't always get out to these districts," Forsey said.

Of course you have to pity Forsey on two counts.  On the the first, he is merely getting nailed publicly for what his fellow government caucus members do on a regular basis.  As Forsey says, he “always” hands out government cheques. it isn’t really fair that he gets singled out in this way.

On the second, you have to pity Forsey for not appreciating that what he and his Tory buds are doing is exactly what the House of Assembly mess was really all about;  they are just using a different means to get there. You see, the main problem with the spending scandal was not that a few fellows defrauded the Crown, although that was bad enough.  The allowances system that existed in the House between 1996 and 2006 allowed individual members to engage in the old political practice of doling out goodies to constituents.

In his report, Green calls it “treating – providing food, drink or entertainment for the purpose of influencing a decision to vote or not to vote.”  That’s not exactly what this is, but the idea is related to the term more people know:  “patronage”.

As George Perlin described it nearly 40 years ago, “the dominant factor in Newfoundland politics has been the use of public resources to make personal allocations or allocations which can be perceived in personal terms….” The objective of this exercise is to connect the politician personally with the distribution of government benefits and garner political support in the process.

Consider that in this example, Forsey holds no government office and therefore has no right to hand out a cheque for government funds in preference to anyone else. Do opposition politicians get the same consideration?  Doubtful.  It’s more likely that a backbencher from the majority party caucus would carry the cheque.

In truth, the money did need to come in a cheque at all.  These days, the money could just as easily have come in a bank transfer from the department to the town.  Nor was there any need for a politician to have anything to do with it.  After all, as Forsey explains, there is a small fund available to any town holding some sort of anniversary celebration.  All the town had to do was fill out a form and wait for the bureaucrats to process it. The same thing should happen no matter where the town is, that is, no matter the political stripe of the person sitting in the legislature for that district.

But there’d be no political value in that, hence Forsey and his colleagues carry right on in the fine old tradition of pork.

The real value – the political value  - of the whole set-up, after all,  can be easily seen in the comment the chairperson of the anniversary committee gave to the paper.  It tied the money to Forsey.  And as Forsey noted he does this sort of thing all the time. Of course he does; so do his colleagues.  The money comes from municipal affairs or from the tourism, culture and recreation department where a bunch of small grant programs keep Tory politicians busy with cheque presentations.

There is absolutely no difference in what Forsey and his colleagues are doing and what virtually all of his predecessors  - leave the convicted criminals out - did with their constituency allowances between 1996 and 2006. All that happened in 2007 was that the pork-barrelling and patronage became the exclusive domain of the majority party in the legislature.

And in the end, that wasn’t really much of a change at all.

- srbp -

Jacks and the Auditor General

What is it about Dipper leaders named Jack and their problems with having the Auditor General check over their expense claims?

Here’s Jack Layton using a worn out excuse that hasn’t been tried since well before the spending scandals in legislatures in St. John’s, Halifax and among Jack’s political brethren in Westminister:

"Well, those are already audited, so I don’t know why wasting money on a second audit of something that has already been audited would make sense," he said.

Yep and there were audits in the House of Assembly too during the peak of the spending scandal.  Layton should ask his defence critic Jack Harris who, as it turns out, is the former leader of the New Democrats in Newfoundland and Labrador. Here’s what he had to say in voting for a government bill that proved to be a key foundation stone for the spending scandal:

Similarly, we have a new provision which requires an annual audit of the accounts of the House of Assembly which I think is appropriate; that there be accountability through an annual audit.

That proved to be so incredibly effective, as a subsequent review by an Auditor General revealed. Heck, Jack Harris’ old bench mate wound up going to jail for his part in the whole business.

The days of the kind of unaccountable political privilege the two Jacks  and the rest of the Ottawa Dippers are clinging to is long over.

A little sunshine in dark corners goes a long way to killing off any untoward activity that is taking place, the glare of public scrutiny also helps to keep it from taking root.

Imagine what might have been prevented if political donations were scrutinised more closely.

-srbp-

Why…

1.  Does Ron Ellsworth, wannabe mayor, keep referring to himself in the plural as in “we” received information or when “we” got into politics when he is referring to himself, singularly and personally?

The “we”, something he copied from his model’s speaking pattern along with referring to things as this “piece” or that “piece”, sounds pompous, arrogant or – worse – deranged.  [word replaced;  see note below]

And while we are at it, why…

2.  would Ron Ellsworth, wannabe mayor, bring up optional blind trusts for city councillors when there are other ethics issues he’s clearly ignoring.

Like campaign finance reform.

Far better for people to know which monied interests in town are backing candidates than giving councillors the option of putting their interests at arms length.

But in the spirit of disclosure and accountability, maybe Ron could disclose publicly his own local business interests for starters and a complete accounting of his campaign donations and expenses for the past two elections.

We are not talking about the ones required by the laughable city election rules.  We are talking about full and complete disclosure using – for example – the federal campaign spending and reporting rules.

Ellsworth has made a rod to beat his own back, but his rival for the mayor’s chair – Doc O’Keefe  - isn’t likely politically swift enough to use it. 

Others might not be.

-srbp-

Change update:  There are two parts of that post that require correction, elaboration and clarification.

The first is the use of the word “mentor” in reference to Ellsworth.  That wasn’t the right word since it could suggest a conscious collaboration by both parties. The word “model” is better since it merely suggests what seems to be obvious, namely that Ellsworth is modelling himself on a certain well-known politician.

The second is to replace the words “but Doc is too stunned to use it, most likely”.  Stunned is a common enough local word and while that phrase would come across to someone who got the point using dialect, the potential for misunderstanding is too great to leave it alone.

The phrase could be taken the wrong way so best to change it to one that more accurately reflects the meaning intended:

As it now reads, the sentence should convey the point that while Ellsworth has essentially handed his rival with a political rod to beat him about the head with, Ellsworth’s rival hasn’t displayed the sort of political savvy and moxie – the political swiftness – to capitalize on his opponent’s blunder.

Now for those who think your humble e-scribbler got calls, be assured that there were none.  Also be assured that Doc’s crowd won’t like the revised version any better than the one before.  Nor will Ellsworth and his crowd.

This just makes plain what was meant.

‘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.

The ghost of Richard Squires: party work with public money

According to the statement of facts in the Ed Byrne case, members of the House of Assembly were reimbursed for expenses incurred while representing their constituents.

In other words, work for a particular political party wouldn’t be covered by the expense accounts.

Here’s paragraph six of the agreed statement:

6. When MHAs incur out of pocket expenses while representing their constituents, they are later reimbursed for these costs from the House of Assembly’s Financial Accounts. During the time period in question, the IEC set the rules on eligible and ineligible expenses, per diem rates, general expense guidelines and actual expense limits related to Travel and Constituency Allowance (TCA) claims.

As outlined by the IEC in its annual report,

“Each Member (of the House of Assembly) is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, informational material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags, pins, etc.”

That’s one of the reasons why the whole section of the statement dealing with work done by the local law firm White, Ottenheimer, Baker is odd.

Charles White – senior partner with the firm – insists that in 2000 the firm did work for the Progressive Conservative Party for which it billed $10,000. The solicitor who did the work – now provincial Court Judge John Joy also insisted he did work for the party – not the opposition office – on some constitutional issue related to the fishery.

Lawyers aren’t known for being sloppy with their language so when White says that it was the PC Party – and not the opposition office as Byrne is noted as saying – you have to take notice of it.

Charles White confirmed that the law firm did some work for the PC Party in 2000 and that John Joy was the lawyer who did the work. He said they were engaged to do the study by Edward Byrne but the PC Party was their client.

One of the other reasons to look somewhat quizzically at the whole affair is how White says the firm got paid: two personal cheques from Ed Byrne. Not cheques from the party directly; not even cash from the party treasurer, but two personal cheques from the party leader at the time.

Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward
Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000. Charles White stated that this was the only work their law firm did on Edward Byrne's behalf.

When shown two cancelled cheques from Byrne, White confirmed those were the ones received and cashed by the form for work White and Joy say was done for the party.

In the party contributions reports for the calendar year 2000, the chief electoral office shows that Ed Byrne and his wife made donations to the Progressive Conservative Party totalling less than $7,000.

On top of that for the fiscal year ending in 2000, there’s no expense item for the PC Party that comes anywhere close to $10,000, at least not where one might expect to find it.

Now if the report is for the year ending in March 2001 - which would include most of 2000 – there is a PC caucus expense reported of slightly more than $47,000 but that’s pretty clearly attributed to supporting caucus expenses.

It isn’t for what White, Ottenheimer and Baker believed was party work. besides, if the party paid the expense, then why did Byrne bill his legislature accounts for it and pay the tab with a cheque drawn on his own personal accounts.

The line item for professional fees – where you’d expect to find a party expense for legal work – there is only a flat $2,500.

And since we know Byrne billed the $10,000 for White, Ottenheimer Baker to the account covering his constituency and travel bills as the member of the legislature for Kilbride, the whole thing doesn’t appear to be very clear at all.

Now just to be sure, there’s no indication that the old Tory chambers, the PCJ nor any of its barristers and solicitors involved in the firm did anything wrong; nor is there any reason to suspect them of anything.

The problem here is on the party side and the pretty obvious inconsistency with its reports, as presented by the elections office, and required by law under the Elections Acts.

The whole thing looks like something straight out of the old days when political leaders kept their personal accounts in one pants pocket and the party ones in the other.

All this goes a long way to undermining the claim of the current chief electoral officer – and former Tory party president - Paul Reynolds that everything is tickety-boo with election finance reports from his office.

-srbp-

Charlie White/John Joy (Work done by Ottenheimer White and Green)

38. On June 4, 2001, a travel and constituency allowance claim in the amount of $9,000 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt for a payment of $9,000 to Charlie White for contractual work done on behalf of the official opposition of which Edward Byrne's behalf. There was a signature "Charlie White" on the receipt. A recap dated June 4, 2001, shows that Edward Byrne was paid $9,000 for this claim.

39. On September 22, 2000, a Travel and Constituency Allowance Claim in the amount of $10,000 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt dated September 20, 2000, for a payment of $10,000 to John Joy for research conducted on behalf of the Official Opposition. There was a signature "John Joy" on this generic receipt. A recap generated on September 22, 2000, showed a payment of $10,000 to Edward Byrne for this claim.

40. Charles White is a senior partner in the law firm of White, Ottenheimer and Baker. John Joy is now a Provincial Court Judge in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but in 2000 was also a lawyer in the firm.

41. On August 7, 2007, one of the investigators spoke with His Honour Judge John Joy by telephone. Judge Joy advised that when he was a lawyer in the law firm of White, Ottenheimer and Baker he had done some work for the PC Party in relation to a constitutional issue regarding the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Judge Joy said he couldn't recall signing any receipt. The investigator e-mailed Judge Joy a copy of the generic receipt. Judge Joy responded that he had never seen the generic receipt before and that it definitely wasn't his signature on the document. Judge Joy stated that he personally did not receive $10,000.

42. On August 15, 2007, the investigators interviewed Charles White. Charles White confirmed that the law firm did some work for the PC Party in 2000 and that John Joy was the lawyer who did the work. He said they were engaged to do the study by Edward Byrne but the PC Party was their client. Edward Byrne maintains that this work was done for the Official Opposition. Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000. Charles White stated that this was the only work their law firm did on Edward Byrne's behalf.

43. Charles White was shown copies of the two personal cheques from Edward Byrne made payable to White, Ottenheimer and Baker. Charles White confirmed that these were copies of the cheques they had received. Charles White was also shown the generic receipt for $9,000 which was purportedly signed “Charlie White”. Charles White stated that he had never seen that document before and that it wasn't his signature on the document. Charles White was then shown the generic receipt pertaining to the $10,000 amount that John Joy was supposed to have received. Charles White stated that he knew John Joy's signature and the signature “John Joy” on the receipt was definitely not his signature.

44. Edward Byrne received $10,000 as a result of submitting the receipt purporting to bear the signature of John Joy. Although the receipt bearing the signature of Charles White is also apparently false, Charles White acknowledges that there was work done by their firm, and there was a payment of $9,000 as stated in the receipt.

Moores linked to Airbus before 1984?

That’s the gist of documents found by CBC [ Globe’s got it too.], according to a story on the cbc.ca website:  former premier turned lobbyist Frank Moores dealt with KarlHeinz Schreiber about Airbus and political donations as far back as 1983.

Expect to see the Gin and Tonic Biographer – whose biography of Moores has a few gaps and errors in it as it is – in the media sounding more like an old friend of the family than the person who wrote the book on Frank.

It’s not like this situation hasn’t arisen before.

-srbp-

The joy of giving

The new chair of the board of governors at College of the North Atlantic – headquarters in Stephenville – just happens to be the top contributor to the past two election campaigns of Joan Burke, education minister and member of the provincial legislature for Stephenville.

There’s a story on the front page of the Saturday Telegram.

Appalachia Distributing – the company listed as making the donations - has a record of political giving:

Year	Party	Candidate	Annual/ Election	Amount
1998	Liberal		Annual	450.00
1999	Liberal		Annual	450.00
	PC	Leonard Muise	Election	150.00
2000	Liberal		Annual	450.00
2001	Liberal		Annual	450.00
2003	Liberal	Gerald Smith	Election	170.00
	PC	Joan Burke	Election	1,000.00
	PC	Joan Burke	Election	192.50
	PC	Jim Hodder	Election	200.00
2004	PC		Annual	375.00

The Telegram also reports election contributions for 2007 - $1,000 to Joan Burke’s campaign - but those still aren’t available on the provincial elections office website.

Government corporate registry records show the company was dissolved in 2005 and revived a year later. The corporate registry lists Appalachia Distributing Limited with two directors, Terrence Styles and Darlene Styles.

That makes the political giving totals (including the grand listed by the Telly for 2007) as follows:

Liberal (ended 2003) : $1,560.00

PC (1999, 2003-current) $2,577.50

-srbp-

Shovel-ready indeed

If ever there was a shovel-ready project crying out for federal infrastructure spending in the midst of this global economic meltdown, it would be the international tourist attraction that could be built in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The attractions in this cross between Ripley’s, Believe or Not! and Madam Toussaud’s would surely be the raft of colourful characters who are the province’s  public figures.

There is the politician who welcomed the Juno awards to Newfoundland and Labrador on a cold day in January by giving new meaning to the term rhinestone cowboy.

There is the former politician who, 30 years ago this year, was found by a judicial inquiry to have been one of two people responsible for leaking confidential police reports into a fire to some of the leading journalists and editors of the day rather than return the obviously illicit documents to the police.

This former cabinet minister, fittingly 30 years later the host of an afternoon yak-fest for the radio station known colloquially as voice of the cabinet minister, finds no problem, for example,  in offering opinions on the appropriate sentence for another former politician even though the court case is not done.  At the same time, he will chastise those who would call his afternoon radio show and mention the name of a prominent figure or well-known business or organization about which they may have an opinion.

We will not repeat in detail there number of times this fellow speaks of events when he was in cabinet as though he was not there at the time.

Then there is the other voice of the common, man, who now finds himself the host of another radio show at the same station.  He long ago reached conclusions on the Churchill Falls deal long ago, most of them being based on commonly held but often-times unfounded ideas, yet recently gushed about the marvellous book he was reading on the subject.

Said book was written in the mid-1970s.

The centrepiece of this new Mecca would surely be the House of Assembly, the legislature of this place. Roger Fitzgerald, the speaker of the local parliament, answered questions this week about inappropriate payments made to local politicians. The questions came after the auditor general’s latest annual report provided an update on the whole business.

Fitzgerald straight-facedly told reporters that he had a legal opinion that the legislature could not recover money identified as spent inappropriately by province’s auditor general since the money was spent under the rules at the time.

"It was common practice for members to submit claims like donations and in some cases, maybe liquor purchases depending on what it was for," Fitzgerald said.

"I don't think members should have to repay those particular expenses. If they did, they should've been told at the beginning that it was not an acceptable practice."

Never mind the number of current politicians who insisted there were no rules at the time. Never mind, either, that, as Fitzgerald well knows, the people he thinks now should have been doing the telling were the ones who set the rules that said the inappropriate spending was okay in the first place.

The inappropriate spending included public money handed out as donations to all and sundry, as well as purchases of alcohol and double-billings of expenses.

Fitzgerald is one of the few current or former members of the legislature who is paying back some of cash. (He spent only 33 bucks on booze) The $17,942 in public he gave as donations isn’t part of the amount being repaid.  Nor will virtually all the rest of them be required to repay the public for much beyond the double-billings even though in some cases they handed out as much as half the money in their expense allowances in a way labelled inappropriate by both the auditor general and the chief justice of the Supreme Court’s Trial Division.

It’s not like they don’t have the power to order a repayment of the whole shooting match or, in lieu of that, to seize property and other assets owned or controlled by the current and former members to satisfy the debt.

After all, only one day before the House closed last fall, the legislature seized assets of a host of Italian, Newfoundland, mainland-Canadian and American businesses.  They quashed a court case and ordered no compensation for it. They did it based on no other foundation other than that  - legally – they could do so by majority vote.

Such joys may only be found in the notion of parliamentary sovereignty:  the members of the legislature set the rules.

How can it be that the all-powerful are struck suddenly impotent?

Surely it wasn’t a legal opinion that flies in the face of the legal opinion the members themselves rendered last December.

Perhaps we could hand out shovels to the visitors at our new attraction and let them dig about until they come up with the answer themselves.

We won’t need to give Roger and the rest of his political friends a spade.

Nope.

He’s already been shovelling it enough this week for the lot of them.

-srbp-

Maybe next time we can make s'mores

Walter Noel is becoming something of a legend as a political pyromaniac.

He's seems intent on constantly setting fire to himself or, to be accurate, the smoldering remains of his political reputation.

His staunch defense of spending his constituency cash on gifts of perfume, crystal and clothing serves as gasoline which Noel insists on pouring over himself throughout this campaign.

He'll happily splash anyone else within reach, as well, as he did this week with both his opponent Jack Harris and his fellow Liberal candidate Judy Foote. Those two have been able to douse any fires with simple, straightforward explanations. 

The problem for Noel - and the flamethrower he brings to his self-roasting  - is his repeated excuse that his spending was within the rules and approved by the "highest officials of the House of Assembly."

Sure, Walter. 

We already know the "rules" were all but non-existent and one of those "highest" officials is currently facing criminal charges.

Noel has even gone so far as to claim his bone-headed actions in defended the misspending are brave or some such bit of silliness.

Well, the flames were barely fading from his latest round of bravery when the Telegram dutifully reminded everyone in the Saturday edition that Noel managed to blow an entire year's worth of public money in a single six month spree between April and October 2003. The genesis of this latest story was a news release Noel issued defending himself on the whole issue which itself resulted from some other media story generated by yet another brave defence by Noel

Amazing.

Noel's top expense that year was advertising: $3,261. He spent nearly $2,950 on over 50 restaurant and food claims - an average of about two per week. Brochures cost Noel just over $2,000; donations, nearly $1,800 more. Noel was also reimbursed for $1,367 in alcohol-only purchases at liquor stores.

Bear in mind that at the time Noel was a provincial cabinet minister with access to another sizeable expense account. We can only wait for the juicy revelations that come from the Telegram's investigation of that spending as well.

In itself, the spending is something voters might possibly have been able to get over in time.  Noel's repeated use of what amounts to easily refutable excuses - the "highest officials" crap - calls into question his judgment.

And his vehemence doesn't just make one a little uncomfortable. 

Coupled with his ludicrous plan to study building a tunnel to Bell Island, his unsubstantiated claims about his part in the 2004/05 offshore transfer deal, his pseudo-separatist dalliances, and his ranting about the "socialist" hordes in the New Democratic Party and their overspending way, his repeated defence of his own overspending suggests Noel is completely out of touch with anything vaguely resembling reality, political or otherwise.

Three things follow from all this:

First, the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador needs to tighten up its candidate vetting process and candidate selection process.  Big time.

Second, Noel's political future is deader than dead to the point that his vote count in this federal election might wind up being barely above his 1974 first effort.  Incidentally, that's when he ran on behalf of the "socialist" hordes.

Third,  Noel's only political value to this race - and it is sad to see it happen - is to give the only bit of light entertainment to a race otherwise made boring now that Danny Williams has abandoned his Family Feud campaign entirely.

If Noel wants to keep setting his own political ass on fire, there's not much any of us can do except sit back and shake our heads.

Oh, yes.

And maybe next time we can make s'mores.

That's about the only way Noel's candidacy can be said to have contributed anything to the current election.

-srbp-

Tom's ongoing expense claim travails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-srbp-

The Telegram 
16 December 2007

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

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

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