Reconciling accounts
Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan has protested too much about his role
on the Internal Economy Commission (IEC). He does not want his leader
to believe he participated in any way in the ongoing controversial
affairs of the IEC. Ironically the minister has sat on the IEC for all
periods currently reviewed and reported on by the auditor general.
Sullivan claims he did not vote to keep the auditor general out of the
House of Assembly's business.
Let's look at the facts in this somewhat tragic tale. In 2000 there
were amendments to the Internal Economy Commission Act which solidified
the powers of the IEC to do a couple of things. The first is to
independently determine what, if any, documentation the commission
would give to the comptroller general. The second is to state
categorically that the IEC will appoint an auditor of its choosing
under their direction and control.
Ed and Loyola did not say much during debate over the Bill. In fact, it
was unusually quick in its passage.
For the record, here's a partial quote from Loyola: "I think as members
of the House we have no problems with being subject to an annual audit
here, and as elected representatives I guess we should be accountable
there."
He didn't say, "I protest and believe the auditor general should be the
one checking the books."
He also didn't say, "All documents should be available to the
comptroller general."
In 2001 when former auditor general Elizabeth Marshall conducted her
audit, she pointed out that as a result of the amendments made to the
act in 2000 the IEC decided not to submit any supporting documents for
the constituency allowances to the comptroller general.
What did Byrne and Sullivan say to that? They unanimously complained
that the auditor general was essentially being picky when she noted to
the Speaker of the House, the chair of the IEC, that she found
paintings and wine among items purchased under the MHA allowances.
This surprise and disappointment was outlined in a news release issued
by the IEC in February, 2002. I say unanimously because the IEC does
not require solidarity like cabinet — Sullivan or Byrne could have put
out a news release of their own and could have quit the commission over
it.
Keep an open mind here. If the auditor general was about to reveal that
a government member — a cabinet minister at that — misused or at the
very least squandered their MHA allowance, members of the official
Opposition would be salivating to reveal it to the public.
But no, Byrne and Sullivan remained silent and allowed the Liberals to
walk — yeah right. Why did they allow that Liberal member to walk? Why
did they sit silent in the bowels of Opposition and not reveal the
irregularity to the public?
The final nail in the coffin of our departed minister occurred in 2004.
From the Tory Blue Book of pre-election promises, Ed knew that Danny
would change relevant acts to achieve more accountability for public
money.
He knew the auditor general would be looking at the books of the House
of Assembly. The last of Ed's questionable cheques were written in May
of 2004, just a few short months before Bill 39 placed the auditor
general squarely in the jealously guarded confines of the House of
Assembly. That must have made Ed a little queasy, right? During the
debate on the Bill, Ed put in his two cents worth. Was he really
worried about the auditor catching up with him?
Here's part of his contribution to the debate: "To be honest, the
impetus for this piece of legislation came from the Speaker of the
House, no more to it than that … there was obviously a piece of work
that we needed to do in the House of Assembly to define our precinct
and it was absolutely fundamental on a go-forward basis …"
That last comment was telling —Ed was OK with the auditor general
coming in on a go-forward basis, but not before.
His concern, I believe, can be found in his passionate debate that day:
"… and those within government continue to understand how important the
House of Assembly functions are, whether it be its precinct, which we
have defined tonight, whether it be amending our own act as it relates
to government objectives, that we just do not automatically fall in, that we
have our own business to partake in and that we must continue to
jealously guard that."
Whether Sullivan knew anything is really not the issue. The IEC process
satisfied him for at least six years. We must question the competence
of a minister of Finance who did nothing in full knowledge of what his
current colleague, Beth Marshall, the former auditor general, told him
and other members of the IEC.
We have only just begun with this whole fiasco. As taxpayers, do you
think Beth Marshall is qualified to watch your money? A cabinet shuffle
may help bring credibility back to politicians and our system.
So then Finance Minister Sullivan tells CBC that "Nobody ever indicated to us that the Auditor General had found something and got stopped in her tracks." He went on to talk about if they knew things might be different now.
FOR THE RECORD MINISTER SULLIVAN
In the 2001 Report of the Auditor General "Reviews of Departments and Agencies" AG Overview, Item #12 found on pages 13-14, the AG, your colleague, Beth Marshall explains to you and the whole world in this public document that, On October 4th 2001 she met with the Speaker of the House, (CHAIR of the IEC) and identified issues with the constituency allowances which included artwork and entertainment expenses.
In the event Loyola as a member of the IEC was not told by the Chair - What did he think was going on when the AG sat outside the closed doors of a meeting by the IEC - in which he participated, only to be told that she was not allowed in and could not review all the allowances?
Now Minister are you suggesting you did not read the AG's Report of 2001? I find that impossible to believe and here's why; you used it as your question period bible all the while you were in Opposition.
Simply put you were the only consistent member on the IEC from 2000 to present; everybody else has come and gone. You are currently the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board. It is possible that a Police Investigation may wish to include interviews with all those sitting on the IEC during the time periods. Do the honourable thing and step aside until all is said and done.
Either you are misleading the public or you are incompetent.
audit, she pointed out that as a result of the amendments made to the
act in 2000 the IEC decided not to submit any supporting documents for
the constituency allowances to the comptroller general.
What did Byrne and Sullivan say to that? They unanimously complained
that the auditor general was essentially being picky when she noted to
the Speaker of the House, the chair of the IEC, that she found
paintings and wine among items purchased under the MHA allowances.
This surprise and disappointment was outlined in a news release issued
by the IEC in February, 2002. I say unanimously because the IEC does
not require solidarity like cabinet — Sullivan or Byrne could have put
out a news release of their own and could have quit the commission over
it.
Keep an open mind here. If the auditor general was about to reveal that
a government member — a cabinet minister at that — misused or at the
very least squandered their MHA allowance, members of the official
Opposition would be salivating to reveal it to the public.
But no, Byrne and Sullivan remained silent and allowed the Liberals to
walk — yeah right. Why did they allow that Liberal member to walk? Why
did they sit silent in the bowels of Opposition and not reveal the
irregularity to the public?
The final nail in the coffin of our departed minister occurred in 2004.
From the Tory Blue Book of pre-election promises, Ed knew that Danny
would change relevant acts to achieve more accountability for public
money.
He knew the auditor general would be looking at the books of the House
of Assembly. The last of Ed's questionable cheques were written in May
of 2004, just a few short months before Bill 39 placed the auditor
general squarely in the jealously guarded confines of the House of
Assembly. That must have made Ed a little queasy, right? During the
debate on the Bill, Ed put in his two cents worth. Was he really
worried about the auditor catching up with him?
Here's part of his contribution to the debate: "To be honest, the
impetus for this piece of legislation came from the Speaker of the
House, no more to it than that … there was obviously a piece of work
that we needed to do in the House of Assembly to define our precinct
and it was absolutely fundamental on a go-forward basis …"
That last comment was telling —Ed was OK with the auditor general
coming in on a go-forward basis, but not before.
His concern, I believe, can be found in his passionate debate that day:
"… and those within government continue to understand how important the
House of Assembly functions are, whether it be its precinct, which we
have defined tonight, whether it be amending our own act as it relates
to government objectives, that we just do not automatically fall in, that we
have our own business to partake in and that we must continue to
jealously guard that."
Whether Sullivan knew anything is really not the issue. The IEC process
satisfied him for at least six years. We must question the competence
of a minister of Finance who did nothing in full knowledge of what his
current colleague, Beth Marshall, the former auditor general, told him
and other members of the IEC.
We have only just begun with this whole fiasco. As taxpayers, do you
think Beth Marshall is qualified to watch your money? A cabinet shuffle
may help bring credibility back to politicians and our system.
So then Finance Minister Sullivan tells CBC that "Nobody ever indicated to us that the Auditor General had found something and got stopped in her tracks." He went on to talk about if they knew things might be different now.
FOR THE RECORD MINISTER SULLIVAN
In the 2001 Report of the Auditor General "Reviews of Departments and Agencies" AG Overview, Item #12 found on pages 13-14, the AG, your colleague, Beth Marshall explains to you and the whole world in this public document that, On October 4th 2001 she met with the Speaker of the House, (CHAIR of the IEC) and identified issues with the constituency allowances which included artwork and entertainment expenses.
In the event Loyola as a member of the IEC was not told by the Chair - What did he think was going on when the AG sat outside the closed doors of a meeting by the IEC - in which he participated, only to be told that she was not allowed in and could not review all the allowances?
Now Minister are you suggesting you did not read the AG's Report of 2001? I find that impossible to believe and here's why; you used it as your question period bible all the while you were in Opposition.
Simply put you were the only consistent member on the IEC from 2000 to present; everybody else has come and gone. You are currently the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board. It is possible that a Police Investigation may wish to include interviews with all those sitting on the IEC during the time periods. Do the honourable thing and step aside until all is said and done.
Either you are misleading the public or you are incompetent.
