Will Noseworthy Dicks this up too?

As noted here recently, Auditor General John Noseworthy's review of constituency accounts in the House of Assembly dating back to 1989 may prove to be much ado about nothing that he can criticize.

That isn't to say there wasn't bags of inappropriate spending after 1996 when the Internal Economy Commission changed the rules governing spending of these accounts.

Rather, as former finance minister Paul Dicks noted in his recent news release, the spending was approved, receipted, within budget and in keeping with the guidelines.

The guidelines were - and are - set by the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission. That's the very group the cabinet appears to want to shield from scrutiny by avoiding a public inquiry into the whole financial mess.

John Noseworthy increasingly appears hell-bent on getting Paul Dicks as pay-back for having the AG's office shut out of the legislature back in 1999/2000.

Why hell bent? Well, despite the admission of two current and one former cabinet minister and the Speaker of the legislature that all have engaged in appropriate spending of their accounts over a considerable period of time, Noseworthy singles out Dicks alleged purchases of wine and artwork as what he wants to uncover.

Here's the condundrum though:

If Noseworthy tries to nail Dicks, then he has to nail every other single example of inappropriate spending.

Otherwise, he'll be tagged as being on a vendetta, not an audit.

If he spreads out to cover inappropriate spending generally, then he'll be exceeding the brief handed to him by the cabinet - at least if we are to accept the version of the brief given by Speaker Harvey Hodder and the abysmal news release he issued last week.

That brief was limited to a hunt for over-spending, pure and simple and it certainly didn't even hint at the power to criticize the Internal Economy Commission. After all, the IEC is technically Noseworthy's employer and he'd be in a spot of bother were he to take them on.

Remember, if he tackles the IEC, the Noseworthy will be criticizing none other than the current Minister of Finance. Loyola Sullivan has been on the IEC through most of the period under detailed review and he is the guy Noseworthy has been reporting to on all the problems he has found to date.

For all his protests about impartiality and being unmoved by outside influences, we'd all be rightfully suspicious that AG Noseworthy won't come within a seven column pad of even hinting at that Sullivan even sat in the legislature during the period under review.

Basically, AG Noseworthy is screwed no matter what he does.

If anyone was genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of the entire scandal and avoiding the constraints and conflicts the AG is obviously operating under, then government would have long ago appointed a public inquiry into the whole mess and called in outside auditors to do the grunt work.

One wonders whose interest is served by the unproductive grunting of Noseworthy and others instead?

It certainly isn't the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Anderson cops to 90K; Walsh files for bankruptcy

Another spending scandal player has copped a plea.

Wally Anderson, the former Liberal member for Torngat Mountains admitted to fraudulently receiving about $90,000.  That’s a fraction of the total he was accused of obtaining and there is no admission he engaged in bribery like former Tory cabinet minister Ed Byrne.

There’s another difference.  Anderson claims he never pocketed any of the cash himself.  Byrne funded his party with the illegal gains in addition to funnelling the money to his own benefit.

Anderson will be sentenced on Friday.  The Crown is seeking up to two years less a day, a sentence on par with the Byrne plea agreement.  The Crown’s rationale for sentencing is interesting:

"Mr. Andersen is clearly a respected individual in the area he represented," said lawyer Frances Knickle. "But that's what makes this so troubling. We are not talking about a crime of impulse but something that was done deliberately over many years."

That’s interesting because in Byrne’s case, he was the leader of the party and leader of the opposition at the time of the crimes. Some of his activity involved illegally funded his party, and the scope of Byrne’s illegal activity isn’t known.  How much money was directed to his party simply hasn’t been revealed and may never be known.

Meanwhile, former Liberal cabinet minister Jim Walsh  - another one of the spending  scandal accused - has filed for bankruptcy in an Alberta court.  Walsh apparently now resides in Alberta.  Bankruptcy would frustrate efforts to recover any of the money in the event Walsh is found guilty.

During his trial, Walsh has acknowledged receiving thousands more than permitted by his allowance limits but is claiming he isn’t responsible.

His trial continues in November.

-srbp-

Spending scandal widens

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary laid charges today against a man identified as owning one of three companies involved in the House of Assembly spending scandal.

John William Hand, aged 68, is facing charges of fraud, fraud against the government and breach of probation.  According to CBC Here and Now, the breach of probation charge stems from a previous conviction related to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Telegram has details online.

Hand had not been previously identified as connected to the three companies:  Zodiac Agencies, JAS Enterprises and Cedar Scents International. 

The companies supplied souvenirs, pins, fridge magnets and other similar items to members of the legislature. Auditor General John Noseworthy alleged the companies received $2.65 million improperly in the period from 1998 to 2005.

-srbp-

The lure of soft money redux

Initial news coverage and most public reaction to the latest report on the House of Assembly scandal will focus on the easy and the obvious.

Wine, artwork, pens, jewelry, cigarettes, travel, and hockey tickets.

On the eve of a provincial general election, Premier Danny Williams is encouraging people to look beyond the scandal now that reforms are supposedly in place:

But at the end of the day, do not lose faith in the political system in this province because our democracy is too important for the electorate to lose faith.

Our democracy is too important for people to lose faith in it and in the people elected to lead. However, we should not be rushed past this latest report with the admonishment of the New York cop to gawkers at a skyscraper suicide: "Move along, there Johnny, nothing to see here. " Nor should we be distracted by the baubles and trinkets that too many focused on already.

Rather, we should focus on the core damage done to our democracy by a decade in which politicians of all shades, new and old, handed out public money as gifts to constituents based solely on their own discretion and almost entirely hidden from wide public view, let alone scrutiny.

Bond Papers has hit this point before - the lure of soft money - and earned the Premier's ire for it. The Auditor General's report on Friday brings home the point once more. Of the $2.2 million in questionable spending John Noseworthy identified, $1,471,108 (63%) went to what have been incorrectly called donations.

No one should miss the point that the highest years of total inappropriate spending identified by Noseworthy were the most recent:

2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06
$217,200	$272,729	$388,948	$284,725	$299,261

As a matter of simple observation one can see that after a peak in the last election year, inappropriate spending did not decline; it increased. For all the assurances of change, even as the scandal broke, clearly something continued to be amiss. Even after the public received the Green report - and its scathing condemnation of the gifting practice - members of the legislature still opted to keep the rules in place that allowed gifting, at least until after the election.

For those who may not be sure of what we are driving at here, let us simply quote Chief Justice Derek Green on the point:

First and foremost, the practice of making financial contributions and spending in this way supports the unacceptable notion that the politician’s success is tied to buying support with favours. Such things, especially the buying of drinks, tickets and other items at events, has overtones of the old practice of treating - providing food, drink or entertainment for the purpose of influencing a decision to vote or not to vote. As I wrote in Chapter 9, it demeans the role of the elected representative and reinforces the view that the standards of the politician are not grounded in principle. In fact, I would go further. The old practice of treating was usually undertaken using the politician’s own funds or his or her campaign funds. To the extent that the current practice involves the use of public funds, it is doubly objectionable.

Related to the notion of using public funds to ingratiate oneself with voters is the
unfair advantage that the ability to do that gives to the incumbent politician over other contenders in the next election.

To put it simply, gifting erodes our democracy in a far more insidious way than does anything else the Auditor General has described. Nothing revealed in his report is acceptable, but it is the widespread nature of gifting that should make it more odious than some of our politicians appear to appreciate.

Beyond that, gifting, as practiced over the past decade calls into serious question the judgements of legislators. The money was given for things that either used to be or were covered by government programs that were as fairly, equitably and impartially distributed as might be possible. These include eyeglasses and medical devices, funding for volunteer fire departments, accommodations and transportation.

Some of money given as gifts actually replaced programs such as medical assistance transportation eliminated from a budget voted by the same legislators. In no small irony, it would seem that just this past election summer, the members on the government side had found a way to continue making gifts of public money, this time through line departments. The lure of soft money has not dissipated; the siren merely sings its tune from another cliff.

Gifting knows no party boundaries.

Look at the top 10 gifters in the study period, by dollar volume. All, coincidentally, are or were cabinet ministers; some served as members of the Internal Economy Commission while on the opposition benches, while in government, or both:

Rank	Name	Party	Amount
1.	Wally Anderson	Liberal	$88,954
2.	Judy Foote	Liberal	$69,131
3.	Ed Byrne	PC	$63,284
4.	Loyola Sullivan	PC	$44,848
5.	Tom Osborne	PC	$44,770
6.	Anna Thistle	Liberal	$43,445
7.	Percy Barrett	Liberal	$43,444
8.	Sandra Kelly	Liberal	$42,398
9.	Paul Shelley	PC	$37,331
10.	John Ottenheimer	PC	$36,868

But to make sure the picture is clear , let us also consider the top 10 gifters by percentage of allowance given as gifts. What will become apparent is that gifting is not merely a hold-over from the days before 2003. They all represent constituencies on the northeast Avalon, arguably the most prosperous portion of the province.

They are almost all some of the newest members of the legislature (other than those elected in recent by-elections) and all embraced the gifting system with an enthusiasm that outshines the ardor of longer-serving members of any political party.

Rank	Name	Party	Percentage
1.	Diane Whelan	PC	49.05
2.	Shawn Skinner	PC	46.96
3.	Kathy Dunderdale	PC	46.90
4.	Bob Ridgley	PC	38.21
5.	Elizabeth Marshall	PC	34.23
6.	Tom Osborne	PC	30.16
7.	Hubert Kitchen	Liberal	30.10
8.	Sheila Osborne	PC	26.30
9.	David Denine	PC	25.96
10.	John Ottenheimer	PC	25.49

The formal election campaign begins on Monday. Many have talked of an election about sweeps by the majority party, unprecedented popularity, the poor performance of the opposition parties and resource deals worth billions. As a result of the Auditor General's latest report, the focus of the campaign for many voters may wind up being questions of ethics, judgment and propriety.

If this report and the practice of gifting it reveals is an indication, those are exactly what we should think about before casting our votes.

-srbp-

Be it ever so humble...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said that in June.

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

-srbp-

The Telegram 

15 Dec 07


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

Rob Antle; Jamie Baker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrangement approved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The claims totalled more than $23,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former cabinet minister charged in spending scandal

Update: The Telegram's full story is now available. CBC online is also reporting.


Former provincial cabinet minister Jim Walsh is facing three charges arising out of a police investigation into the House of Assembly spending scandal.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary charged Walsh on Friday with one count of fraud over $5000, one count of breach of trust by a public official and one count of frauds against government, according to The Telegram.

Walsh left provincial politics in 2003 and was appointed to the federal Transportation Safety Board.

-srbp-

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?

‘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 Bow-Wow Parliament lacks bark and bite #nlpoli

In the wake of the latest revelations of financial mismanagement in the provincial government, SRBP has been looking at some of the possible contributing developments over the past decade or more.

Last week, SRBP noted that it appears the provincial government broke up the treasury board secretariat around 2007.  They sent some of its bits off to one department and put the rump of its administration  – about the size it had been in 1968 -  under the finance department, as it had been before the 1973 reforms introduced by the Moores administration. 

At around the same time, the provincial cabinet started a series of massive annual increases in public spending that Premier Kathy Dunderdale admits is unsustainable.

And the same cabinet also ballooned the size of the provincial public service. Again, it’s something that Kathy Dunderdale admitted was something she and her colleagues now had to sort out.

These three things are connected. 

Even if the government loosened the constraints of its internal financial controls, there are other agencies that have a role to play in keeping an eye on the public treasury.

The Stacked House Filibuster #nlpoli

Democracy is a beautiful thing. 

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are witnessing its full beauty in the filibuster against the Conservative government’s latest assault on openness, transparency and accountability. 

Accountability and Transparency

Transparency and accountability are the building blocks of public confidence.

Chief Justice Derek Green

In his comprehensive report, Chief Justice Green made a simple observation that conceals a much more profound truth for the members of the House of Assembly.

The public must have confidence in its legislators, confidence that has been seriously eroded by the House of Assembly spending scandal after a year of revelations.

No one doubts the sincerity of the Premier and the other members in addressing the matter. We all may take them at their word.

However, at this point, intentions and words are not as important as actions in restoring that public confidence.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "trust but verify".

The verification in this case is contained in the schedule to the Green bill passed by the House of Assembly on the last day of its session before the general election.

The schedule set down rules for reporting of spending in the legislature and for public disclosure of that spending. It also set down specific rules for spending constituency allowances, something many members said had been absent.

The action that would have given full and unquestionable proof of the members' intentions would have been the immediate adoption of the schedule to Green's bill. If there were concerns about specific sections - such as the transportation ones - those may have been set aside to be addressed later.

Fundamentally, however, transparency and accountability is the core of the current problem in the House of Assembly, as Chief Justice Green noted.

The core of transparency and accountability is telling the public what is being done and why.

In the case of the Green bill, the members of the House of Assembly didn't do that. In fact, they left the impression that the rules were in place already, not, as it turned out, that they would come into force after the next election. Take a look at Rob Antle's Telegram story and one sees just that impression.

At no point, did any member of the legislature tell the members of the public clearly what was being done and why. All members knew or ought to have known. Certainly the senior leaders - the House leaders from each party - knew what was going on. Yet, in the House they said nothing.

This was not a decision of the Williams administration alone and no one should direct an attack or criticism specifically at the premier's administration.

Rather the failing here is one to be borne collectively by all members of the House from all parties.

On their first step on the road to restoring public confidence, all members of the House of Assembly stumbled and stumbled badly. They will undoubtedly try and offer some excuses, as Paul Oram has attempted already.

Fundamentally, however, Mr. Oram's explanation simply calls into question the decision to postpone adoption of The Rules. If caucuses have already agreed to be bound by the rules, then they ought to have been given full force of law. Why pussyfoot around, especially since a clear and unequivocal action would have left no doubt as to members' intentions?

And for members attempting to deal with the issue individually, a clear set of rules would relieve them of the pressure from groups long used to receiving various donations from public money in a way Chief Justice Green unequivocally denounced. They do not have to set arbitrary rules about which donations to grant and which to reject or to face the potential questions when some of their colleagues might be found to have done something different from what they have done.

One set of rules would bind them all to the same standard. After all, the absence of rules is the excuse offered by so many members of the House and the creation of clear rules set by Chief Justice Green is what so many of those same members pined for.

Why then, did they postpone adopting The Rules?

Why then, didn't they tell the people of the province what they were doing and why?

Why, after a year of revelations and the repetition of the words "accountability" and "transparency" does it appear that all the members of the legislature don't seem to understand what those words actually mean?

-srbp-

For the world is hollow…

Okay so a bunch of people are spilling ink or pixels or whatever over a bunch of new members of parliament elected in Quebec as if they were somehow a special breed of politicians significantly different from any others anywhere else in the country.

Bar managers who have never visited their ridings and don’t speak the dominant language of the riding.

Four university students.

All New Democrats elected in Quebec.

You know the story.

And now a bunch of other people are pointing out that they really aren’t such an odd bunch after all.

Lysiane Gagnon has a column in the Globe that Bill Rowe would crib if he was still column-writing.  She rattles off the rather impressive credentials of some of the newly minted politicians.

Susan Delacourt has a blog post over at the Star that is a wee bit more cynical:

Forgive me for dashing any lingering  illusions, but the CV has almost nothing to do with winning and losing elections. And it has even less to do with how well MPs fare once they arrive on Parliament Hill.

Geography and gender are equal, if not more important considerations in choosing cabinet.  Good looks and an ability to repeat party talking points  will score MPs  those  sought-after spots in Question Period and on TV panels. Doing what you're told counts more than talking about what you know.

Gagnon and Delacourt and all the people who are gobsmacked at the greenness of some of the new MPs are each correct, in their own way.

Anyone out there who thought politicians have all been budding Nobel laureates are basically as full of crap as the cynics who dismiss them all as the progeny of several successive generations of first cousin intermarriage.

Hello, Canadians, these are the sorts of people you’ve been electing to represent you since at least 1867.

They are – not surprisingly  - no better than the rest of us. 

Nor are they any worse.

Bit of a shocker, eh?

They also aren’t necessarily any different from the politicians we’ve been electing at the provincial or federal level in the past decade or so, at least.  Since 2003 in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, we’ve had a steady stream of politicians whose previous interest in or knowledge of major issues affecting the province has been a bit sketchy.  Former cabinet minister Paul Oram demonstrated that pretty clearly in a couple of interviews during a trip to Georgia. 

He really isn’t alone.  You can find similar displays of fundamental ignorance from former finance minister Loyola Sullivan talking about Equalization or Danny Williams and Charlene Johnson discussing Abitibi’s history in the province or any of a number of pols talking about hydro-electric development in Labrador.

This is not like missing a question on Jeopardy. Politicians get to vote on the laws that govern our lives. Government spending. Criminal code.  Access to information.  If these politicians don’t really know how things work in the world, then you can figure out that – at least for a while – they are going to make a few mistakes.

Big mistakes, maybe.

Or they’ll be more likely to go with the flow rather than challenge dodgy ideas, like say spending public money without any accountability.

Like in the infamous House of Assembly spending scandal.  How many of the newbie politicians took to the improper spending like ducks to the proverbial water only to claim that the rules they found didn’t say you couldn’t do those sorts of things?  Pretty much all of them.

Now the people just elected to the House of Commons are, for the most part, a clever bunch.  Odds are that they’ll learn.  Odds are that many of them will successful politicians.

And in four years time, many of them will be ex-politicians looking for a new job. 

Just as they reach the point they should have been at when they started.

- srbp -

Stupid is...?

Transportation minister John Hickey is suing former premier Roger Grimes for defamation over comments Grimes made about Hickey's double-billing of expenses to the legislature.

Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.

Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.

Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.

If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.

On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.

The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.

Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.

And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.

Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.

Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.

Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.

On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.

The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.

Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.

That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.

The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.

Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.

Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.

In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.

But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.

When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.

To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.

The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.

The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.

By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.

In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.

No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.

Old habits die hard: legislative expenses version

In the United Kingdom, an inquiry into the expenses scandal at Whitehall is running into members of parliament griping about their quality of life.  The MPs want improvements, so it seems, despite the excesses which have been revealed in the past few months.

Meanwhile, the Bow Wow parliament has a committee holding hearings before the committee submits recommendations on a new pay and allowances scheme for local politicians to the House of Assembly management committee. 

Ostensibly, the committee wants to get public input. So far only five people have turned up to offer views to the committee at hearings held across the province.

  That’s hardly surprising given that the committee is holding hearings during the time when most people in the province  - including most politicians - take a nice long break from the business of politics.

But here’s the question no one seems to have asked in Newfoundland and Labrador:  why is the committee out there in the first place?

The politicians will tell you they appointed the committee because it is in the Green bill, the legislation that came after the local spending scandal hit daylight. Now that is true, but there was considerable discretion available to the legislators. 

Since they got their salaries set in 2007 at the time of the last election, they could have amended the legislation so that the next salary committee wouldn’t be appointed until after the next general election 2011.   They also could have delayed appointing the current committee until some time in early 2011, thus giving members of the legislature a full four years at their old pay scheme before they would look at an increase.

Either of those approaches would have shown some restraint on the part of members.  This might have been prudent given that the public is more than a wee bit soured on them after listening to the litany of miss-spending and excuses for same that poured forth from the honorable members.

And it’s not like the poor darlings wouldn’t have seen any pay hikes in the meantime.  Under section 15(3) of the Green bill, they would have collected the same percentage increases the executive of the public got in any given year.  That’s not bad for a crowd making a hefty wage anyways and given that almost half of them or more are drawing extra pay allotments, members of the legislature can hardly claim they’ve been hard done by. 

Rather than do either of those things, the members of the legislature  - most or all of whom are members of the successor to the old internal economy commission - decided to go for a restructuring of their pay and allowances scheme in addition to the annual percentage hikes a mere two years after the system came into effect in the first place. 

They decided to do it at a time when the public are – for the most part – simply not paying attention to things political. The politicians discussed postponing things until the fall, incidentally,  but decided to carry on such that the bulk of the work was being done at the worst possible time of the year. 

Well, worst possible time if one was serious about getting public input.  The resolution appointing the committee went through the House in May.  The committee must report no later than the end of October. The hearings will be over and done – save for one – by the end of August. 

Their report will then find its way back to the House of Assembly where it will be passed, one expects, as quickly and as quietly as possible in what has become a notoriously lightweight and very short fall sitting of the House.

That’s pretty much how most things involving pay and allowances for members have been handled over the past decade.  Despite all the public furor, despite all the revelations of miss-spending, the members of the provincial legislature are carrying on much as they have always done when their pay and allowances are involved.

Old habits -  it seems -  die very hard indeed.

-srbp-

Williams afraid of whistleblower law

Forget all the excuses offered by cabinet ministers before about a whistleblower protection law being complex.

The real reason the provincial government hasn’t introduced whistleblower protection legislation as promised by the Premier is because the Premier is worried about what happens afterward.

Danny Williams told reporters on Friday he wants to make sure the law isn’t used by people who have “a personal vendetta against government.”  You’ll find that quote in a Telegram story from the Saturday edition that sadly isn’t on line.

Williams promised whistleblower protection two years ago during the last provincial general election campaign.  He apparently promised it swiftly suggesting it would turn up in the first session of the new legislature. 

In his report on the House of Assembly spending scandal, Chief Justice Derek Green called for whistleblower protection.  Green described such protection as “internal [government] policies designed to encourage internal enforcement of ethical behaviour.” 

Green linked disclosure to public confidence in government and cited federal legislation introduced in the wake of the sponsorship scandal. Green also linked whistleblower protection with open records laws as a means of promoting public confidence in ethically sound government.

Two years after Green’s report and Williams’ promise and three years after the House of Assembly scandal first broke, there’s no whistleblower protection laws.

Williams linked whistleblower protection to access to information laws but not in a positive way.  Williams told reporters that his senior staff are consumed with vetting access to information requests Williams termed “frivolous”.  He said he was concerned that whistleblower protection could “create another situation where we're going to put a stranglehold on government.”

Whistleblower statutes like the one proposed by Bond Papers specifically define the types of incidents covered by the disclosure and provide a mechanism for investigation allegations by an independent third party. 

Under the Bond Papers bill, based on the 2006 Manitoba public interest disclosure law, the legislation would apply “to the following wrongdoings in or relating to the public service:”

(a) an act or omission constituting an offence under an Act of the Legislature or the Parliament of Canada, or a regulation made under an Act;

(b) an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the duties or functions of an employee;

(c) gross mismanagement, including of public funds or a public asset;

(d) knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing described in clauses (a) to (c)…

There is no room for a personal vendetta.  The acts subject to disclosure are all in the public interest and it’s hard to see how anyone could consider disclosure of such lawbreaking as part of a personal attack by the whistleblower. of course, attacking the motives of the whistleblower is part of the climate frequently used to discourage disclosure in the first place.

The draft law allows for disclosure of wrongdoing to an official designated in each department or to the Citizen’s Representative.  Green used the Manitoba legislation in drafting his report.

Green noted the potential that whistle blowing laws could lead to some risk for politicians.  However, Green said that a thorough and independent investigative process “should, however, screen out unfounded allegations of a vindictive nature.” 

Green also said the public value of restoring confidence in government outweighed such issues:

I do not believe that a concern of this nature is sufficiently strong to overbalance the other benefits of implementing such a policy, particularly the removal of public suspicion that MHAs have something to hide and the bolstering of public confidence in the open and transparent nature of the political system.

Williams disdain for public access to government information isn’t new.

Early in his administration, Williams tried to withhold polling results even though provincial open records law specifically listed them as being subject to disclosure.

More recently, government officials successfully stymied a request for e-mails by essentially inventing excuses based on how much information was covered by the request and how much time it would take to process the request.

In another example, requests for specific documents were denied on the grounds that the documents didn’t exist even though government officials acknowledged the records actually did exist.

In that case, Williams went so far as to call personally the reporter making the request to complain about the fact the request had been appealed to the province’s information and privacy commission.

In January 2009,  a survey by the Canadian Newspaper Association showed that the provincial government didn’t fully respond to any of six specific information requests used in the study. A request for information in electronic format (Excel or a similar spreadsheet program), netted a bizarre but increasingly typical response:

The letter from the Transportation and Public Works department in Newfoundland stated that the information “does not exist in electronic form within this department,” even though the record released was a computer printout.

The provincial government is also sitting on information related to a review of inland fisheries policy that has been ongoing for an unknown period.

Even requests for information not handled through access to information laws have run into stone walls.

The natural resources department refused to answer questions about compensation talks with Abitibi over expropriated assets because there were compensation stalks with Abitibi over expropriated assets.

The same department also refused to give any details of the minister’s trip to Ottawa last winter.

As for the claim about how much time is consumed vetting requests, testimony last year at the Cameron inquiry into the breast cancer testing scandal revealed that some of the reasons staff spend so much time on access requests involves vetting public information. 

In one notorious example, the name of a judge presiding over a case which had been reported in the news media was redacted for an access request. The same approach came to light in a report on the provincial prisons service only because government officials mistakenly released a copy of the document electronically with faulty redactions.  None of the information blacked out actually met the disclosure exemptions under the provincial access law, but they were blacked out any way.

If there is a “stranglehold” on government, it seems to be coming from intense and persistent efforts to avoid public disclosure of government information under provincial laws.  Adding whistleblower legislation wouldn’t add to that and the provincial government itself can avoid getting strangled by reducing its self-imposed efforts at secrecy.

Perhaps they should take a cue from Chief Justice Green.  After all, he did say that implementing open records laws and protecting whistleblowers would bring benefits, “particularly the removal of public suspicion that MHAs have something to hide.”

All the foot-dragging and such does make one wonder.

-srbp-

Update:  The online CBC version of the story with a link to a David Cochrane report.  This is by no means as complete as the Telly story and the interpretation is more than a bit generous to the Premier.  His juicy quotes about access to information, for example,  are clipped in favour of his throw-away line about how important ATIPPA is.

Telegram: Legislature exempt from FOI law until after election

The Telegram
p. A1

Legislature exempt from FOI law until after election
Quiet addition to Green report

Rob Antle
The Telegram

The House of Assembly has quietly exempted itself from the province's freedom of information laws until after the October general election.

And The Telegram has learned there is confusion over whether taxpayers will be able to access any House information generated prior to that Oct. 9 implementation date.

Chief Justice Derek Green recommended in his "Rebuilding Confidence" report that the House be covered by FOI laws.

Those laws allow members of the public to obtain government documents and information.

The legislature is currently exempt - a situation Green suggested played a contributing role in the constituency spending scandal.

It will remain that way for at least a few more months.

The delay in FOI access was added without fanfare to the text of Green's suggested legislation, passed June 14. There was no news release announcing it. And figuring it out requires stitching together a number of subsections of two pieces of law.

Government House Leader Tom Rideout defended the decision, and the transparency with which it was made.

Rideout characterized it as not being a delay at all, as Green did not cite a specific implementation date. The FOI decision was made in consultation with the chief justice, Rideout said.

He denied an inaccurate impression was left with the public, and said it was unnecessary issue a news release about the later date.

"There was no recommendation (from) Green as to when it came into effect, so nobody, including myself, read anything into this," Rideout said Friday.

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

Rideout said he thought everyone was aware of that date for certain elements of the Green report's implementation.

The chief justice was not available for comment Friday.

Here is how the FOI delay became law.

On June 14, the legislature unanimously passed Bill 33, the act implementing Green's stringent new accountability, ethics and spending rules for the House.

The delay is tucked away in Sec. 72 (2) (b) of Bill 33. It simply notes that Sec. 67 of the legislation will be put off until after Oct. 9.

Sec. 67 concerns amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Those sections of the existing FOI law deal with the public's right to access legislative documents.

It is unclear whether or not the FOI provisions will be retroactive.

Rideout said it is his understanding that they will.

But House Speaker Harvey Hodder suggested the new commission of politicians set up to govern House affairs will decide. "That has not been clarified," Hodder told The Telegram. "The intent of the legislation is that it would be on a go-forward basis."

When the new FOI law was brought into effect in 2005, however, it did apply retroactively.

But maybe not so for the House, the Speaker suggested. "To what extent it can be retroactive before Oct. 9, that has not been discussed in my presence," Hodder said.

The delay in FOI provisions is in addition to another last-second amendment that put off tough new spending rules for MHAs until after Oct. 9.

Internet blogger Ed Hollett unearthed the existence of that information two weeks ago.

There was also no news release announcing that delay.

Bill 33, including the amendments, whooshed through the House in less than two days, just before the legislature broke for the summer.

rantle@thetelegram.com

-srbp-

House of Assembly overspending known and approved?

Budget documents and reports on the provincial government's public accounts contain glaring discrepancies, a review of financial statements revealed.

Beginning in Fiscal year 2004, members of the House of Assembly had their constituency and similar allowances capped at a total of $5, 090, 800.

However, Volume III of the Public Accounts, an annual compilation by the Comptroller General shows the account was overspent that year by more than $479, 000. (page 43) The next year, the accounts were overspent by over $550, 000 according to a new report introduced by finance minister Loyola Sullivan purportedly to improve budgeting and accountability of government spending.

"This government is committed to accountability and transparency and this is just another mechanism to keep the people of the province in tune with our province's financial picture," Sullivan said in a news release.

Despite the details contained in the Public Accounts, both Budget 2005 and Budget 2006, the estimates - which contain reported actual spending for the previous year - the House of Assembly spending is shown as being exactly on budget.

The Public Accounts are released some time after the budget period, however, the figures should match since the data used comes from the same sets of records in the Department of Finance, including records maintained by the Comptroller General.

The discrepancy is too great for two years in a row to suggest mere coincidence or problems in addition.

Under section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, the Comptroller General is required to maintain the records of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and under s. 29, to ensure no payments are made in excess of appropriations by the House of Assembly. The Comptroller General is also required under that section to report instances of overpayments to the treasury board for action. Treasury board is an executive committee of the cabinet responsible for the financial administration of government.

One of the continuing mysteries of the current scandal is how $3.9 million of public money could be disbursed by the Comptroller General over a five year period without being noticed.

Details contained in the Public Accounts suggest that some individuals were aware of the discrepancies and that the overspending was sanctioned either by treasury board, the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission or both. The Internal Economy Commission is the executive committee of the legislature that, like treasury board for government, handles the financial administration of the legislature itself.

The Comptroller General obviously was aware of significant budget overpayments since they are reported faithfully for FY 2004 and FY 2005. The finance minister and president of treasury board would ordinarily also be aware of the overpayments since he or she typically sits on both IEC and treasury board.Itt would beunusuall - especially under the current circumstances - if the finance minister was not briefed on these specific discrepancies.

None of the reviews approved by cabinet will examine the operations of treasury board, the Comptroller General and the Internal Economy Commission to determine what, if anyapprovalss were given during FY 2004 and FY 2005 for overspending.

The Auditor General's previous reports suggest that at least half of the $3.9 million in questionable spending took place after April 2004. Under Order in Council 2006-295, Auditor General John Noseworthy's second review will not examine accounts after March 2004. The order in council directs Noseworthy "to determine whether overspendingoccurredd at the constituency level beyond funds which were approved, authorized or provided for through Internal Economy Commission policy." [emphasis added]

If overspending was approved by IEC , treasury board or both, then the spending is legal unless other criminal acts took place such as fraud or forgery.