Former AG John Noseworthy - Special Assignment?

My vote to lead an independent review of the proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls is John Noseworthy.

First - he has spent a portion of his professional career being "independent", second his audit abilities are fine tuned, and third he has proven his worth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a watchdog.

Now the deal would be that Mr. Noseworthy has unfettered access to ALL the information - including the ability to test ALL assumptions and look at ALL alternatives.

As people who are being asked to spend 6 billion dollars of our money - our children's and our grandchildren's money - we want to do our due diligence.

Noseworthy may not be an energy expert - but he can employ that expertise.

Let Mr. Noseworthy hold public meetings and conduct individual interviews to establish what the outstanding issues and concerns are. Let Mr. Noseworthy review the processes used by Nalcor and Government to achieve this proposed deal with Emera. Let Mr. Noseworthy employ the experts  he feels necessary to review energy potentials and the costs and benefits of each.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine costs and benefits or pitfalls of a deal with Emera and let him examine whether other potential partnerships or contracts for supply of power could bring the people who own the resource - us - a better rate of return.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine the Island's "real" need for power - not based on Hydro's assumptions but based on thorough research of the situation and the installed assets we currently own.

Let him do an audit of our installed capacity and look at efficiency potentials and review whether all capacity is being used.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine industrial potentials for the power in Labrador and compare the price of power delivered to a customer in Labrador versus doubling the cost from lengthy and complicated transmission routes.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine tenders already awarded and determine whether the process used was fair and provided the best value for our money.

Let. Mr. Noseworthy determine if it is necessary for Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers to subsidize costs for power delivery to other provinces.

Let Mr. Noseworthy determine what the costs of the Muskrat development would be - as part of a complete development of the Lower Churchill - including Gull Island and then compare that to the current proposal.

Let. him determine if developing Gull Island first would bring a better return.

Let Mr. Noseworthy review the proposed deal under Premier Grimes and compare it to the proposed deal of Premier Williams - to determine which of the two provided the best return to us - the owners - and best deal to us - the ratepayers.

Then as the kicker let Mr. Noseworthy and his team review the past 5 years of Nalcor operations - all books - all contracts - and all assumptions.

Let him determine what the cost-overruns might be. 

Then he can provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the information we need to ensure we never repeat past mistakes and to ensure we are using our natural resources for the maximum benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For Premier Dunderdale's peace of mind - he just ran as a PC candidate - so she can be assured he would not be a Liberal or NDP naysayer.

I vote for John Noseworthy - on Special Assignment.

One issue Campaign for many Tory Incumbents. What is it?

I have - never seen such tripe coming from Dannyless PC MHA's - particularly in rural areas.

I have heard considerable talk about one issue in their campaign. The vital issue is "vote to be on the government side".

This is the most important issue - for them - not so much for the electorate.

They are not concerned about the fishery, collapsed forestry sector, Muskrat Falls fiasco, unemployment over 20 per cent in many rural communities. They are concerned that you and me MUST vote to be on the government side.

Okay so if I vote PC - what industry will we lose - and how will they try and manage that failure?

The fact that two Ministers shepherded the loss of two historic and significant paper mills under their watch - from primarily what looked like a war between Williams and Weever - should be enough to shove them out the door. But no - they want people to elect them based on being on the government side.

Tell the Great Northern Peninsula - that was promised by Williams and Taylor - they would not be forgotten. No they were not forgotten - they were remembered by the most significant cuts ever witnessed.

Please voters - elect us - rural communities can continue to die - we will manage it. Make you feel good because we are on the government side.

Even John Noseworthy - Mr. Accountability - got into the action. He tried that when announcing his candidacy to oust the Leader of the NDP.

They are a disgrace - and if elected they promise to act on this issue - we promise to stay on the government side. That is unless the tide turns and Ross Wiseman might trot back to the other side.

This issue in short - opportunists first - representatives last.

The former Auditor General Ignores Rules and Process and Scoffs at Democracy

John Noseworthy ruined his announcement regarding his political debut today in several ways.

First - he tried the same old line of electing a member on the "government side". Mr. accountability and transparency would have all of Newfoundland and Labrador vote one way with all the MHA's sitting on the government side. So much for accountability and so much for transparency - if you follow Noseworthy's logic to the end - there would be no opposition.

Listening to the above slip and slide from his mouth should be enough to end any chance he has politically.

Second - he explained how he was offered the Liberal leadership and it was a "done deal" if he said yes. Now we hear that the Executive Board of the Liberals did not offer this to Noseworthy - so who did it?

It does not matter - the man is an experienced Chartered Accountant and as he says he knows the rules and processes. That is what he was paid to do for many years. The Liberal Party as with all parties has a Constitution and there is a process for any leadership. The Party Executive is charged with the responsibility to deal with emergency situations - as was the case with the unexpected retirement of Yvonne Jones from the leadership position. Noseworthy knows this and as a result he knew that he could not be offered - deal done - the position. What was his real purpose then to say what he said? The simple answer - to fit into the PC style of misleading and spinning.

Too bad Mr. Noseworthy - the people you helped to lock-up did not follow rules either.

Minister Susan Sullivan takes on Broadband - Good Luck with That

Yes let's try again Minister Susan Sullivan says of Rural Broadband access.

Let's do something local hey?

So when Tobin is in power he turns contracts over to Cable Atlantic then owned by Danny Williams - who then almost immediately flipped it to Rogers. (local argument gone)

Then Williams comes to power and gives Persona then owned by Dean Macdonald many millions for a new fibre-optic line. Macdonald then flips almost immediately flipped it to East Link (local argument gone).

In the meantime Newfoundland Tel (Aliant) is the loser in both scenarios - and as a result backs away from continued investment in the province.

You see we are a limited population - there is no room for two or three players. If you bring competition into an underpopulated area - you lose the main service provider. It would be the same if the government decided to let another power distributor in to compete against Fortis. The dollars available to be made would be reduced and investment commitments would be lost.

I know we are creating a lot of millionaires - without any real plan to deal with these communications issues.

What a bloody mess, Minister Sullivan - and the lack of infrastructure and investment is starting to show. Wait till the poles have to be dealt with. Wait until the systems fail without proper investment in maintenance.

Meanwhile - business and tourism will continue to stall without a proper plan.

The government says this time the RBI will be better than the GBI (government broadband initiative) - really Minister Sullivan - and you guarantee this how?

Lit and unlit were the terms then Minister of Duct Tape Trevor Taylor used during the GBI fiasco. No control of funds. Complete mess according to the Auditor General John Noseworthy.

What Tory business faithful have their hands out now?

By the way Minister Sullivan - why do the hospitals in the metro area use a SASKATCHEWAN CROWN corporation to provide cable TV to our patients?

If you want to review the past on this flipping PRESS HERE

Marshmallow Report from the AG

The latest special Report of the Auditor General on the fibre-optic deal is a marshmallow.

I am frankly surprised that the man who likes to dig deep has barely scratched the surface on this particular task.

It does nothing to convince me that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians got the "best" deal for its investment - and is particularly weak when it comes to the Lobbyist Act.

First of all the project or "investment" of 15 million was not tendered and there was no request for proposals to achieve the government's stated objectives. On that basis alone we cannot determine if we got the "best" deal our money could buy.

Secondly - the financial assessment of whether or not our 15 million was needed was based on the cost of construction and did not include potential markets and revenues which could be generated for the companies involved. That is not acceptable.

Third - the Auditor General has a radio and a television and presumably keeps up with current affairs - he would then have known that this project was sold to the people as a "consortium" of companies - that did not have a name - as the party that needed the 15 million not Persona alone. In fact when the Electronic Warfare Associates report was - in part - made public - people questioned why Persona's finances could not be investigated - the response was that Rogers was a public company while Persona was private. This supposed consortium did not really exist as Persona is the owner of the system.

Fourthly - the AG determined that officials of Persona were not in violation of the Lobbyist Act as the Act states that 20% of the individuals time had to be spent lobbying. Clearly MacDonald could argue as the President of Persona - he did not spend 20% of his time lobbying for this project. However the Act provides for 2 types of lobbyists - in house - and consultant - The AG and according to him the office responsible for the lobbyist registry - found therefore there was no violation. They apparently ignored the possibility that MacDonald was acting as a consultant lobbyist which has no % of time associated with it.

MacDonald claimed he met with government officials on behalf of the consortium - Rogers - Persona - and MTS. This clearly makes MacDonald a consultant lobbyist as he was not only representing Persona - but a consortium. I therefore continue to believe the Act was violated.

Finally while there has been much fanfare from the AG office over the past year or so concerning the "spending scandal" and while the AG has been quite available for the camera - holding his own News Conferences - this report was floated out following the constituency allowance report on appropriateness of spending which had all taxpayers losing their stomachs and as such went under our radar.

This was a marshmallow report - which in the end did not provide taxpayers value for their money. In fact an imaginary News Release from the so called "consortium" probably would have looked very similar.

No recommendations - no concern about the lobbyist act - and no concern about the "best" value for our dollar.

Between the election call - the constituency spending - and conferences - and regular news events - the media did not have time to blink. I hope when the dust settles this report gets more scrutiny and more questions are asked.

Remember now - one of the key reasons government gave was that one partner of the "consortium" was a local company. Well Persona just as Cable Atlantic before it has been flipped to out-of-province interests.

For further background material on the Lobbyist Act refer to these previous posts:

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Summary

The Tale of Loyola Sullivan - and Danny's Team

Danny surrounds himself with the best people. That's what he says.

When the PC's were in Opposition Ed Byrne and Loyola Sullivan were like Danny's pit bulls - attack when they were tormented or challenged.

Sullivan would go on and on about financial mismanagement - bad deals - inappropriate spending like travelling with spouses. Sullivan would speak endlessly to budgets and publicly review the Auditor General's reports.

Do you remember when the House of Assembly fired Frasier March? These holier than thou MHA's passing judgement on others and their poor accounting methods.

Then Loyola's party won and they were government. He ended up with his dream job - Minister of Finance. He then began the "preach" of fiscal management - accrual accounting - tightening the belt - spend only what we have to spend.

He tortured citizens with decade old school tax accounts - with compounding interest. He was holding the Premier's fiscal hand when public servants hit the streets and then threatened to legislate them back. We just don't have the money he'd say - we are almost bankrupt.

That's when Loyola should have brought in a Chartered Accountant and asked - if we are almost bankrupt what should we spend the little money we have on. I bet he/she would not have said Seasons Tickets to the St. John's Maple Leafs.

Then there was the Premier - going off his head at the mere mention that Loyola Sullivan might appear to be in conflict of interest when Cabinet discussed the RMS system for the fishery or the sale of FPI (parts of which did end up under a couple of his brothers). Do you remember Danny saying - how dare you question the integrity of somebody like Loyola Sullivan. The man's reputation is impeccable.

Then we move to Loyola "knockout punch" Sullivan who took on the feds over equalization and won. He took on the mean old Liberals and brought home the bacon. Remember him standing next to Williams - puffed up with pride. Well that fellow has ended up taking an appointment from Newfoundland and Labrador's mortal enemy - Stephen Harper - while running away from the FPI fiasco - the Auditor General's latest expose and yet to come report on the fibre-optical illusion. Where is Loyola now that Harper has lied to us about equalization? Not a peep from Sullivan.

To top it all off - the big spending scandal - the one which resulted in criminal charges - took place during a time where Sullivan was the longest continuous sitting member of the Internal Economy Committee.

Where is he now? He's now named in the latest AG's report as being one of only 9 MHA's who had not paid back or made arrangements to pay back the $2875 special payment - by August 16 of this year.

He is named for buying season hockey tickets for the St. John's Maple Leafs from his constituency allowance. $4800 + $1000 to Mile One.

Now can those of you looking for potential life saving drugs - or a house without mold - or a retired public servant looking for indexing really blame the "scrooge" for wanting some hockey tickets? As you pay back your thousands of dollars in interest on a school tax bill of a couple of hundred - remember the drop of the puck at Mile One.

So Danny's two "best of" team members should make you question if Danny has a problem in identifying the "best we have" for things like the Lower Churchill development or the spending of 15 million to Persona to lease some strands.

True it was not Danny Williams that did these things - but he picked these two as his lead team members.

From one AG to another...tsk tsk tsk...

If we are to accept that one MHA - Elizabeth Marshall - above all others was the catalyst for the Auditor General to gut the financial operations of the House of Assembly - and there's no shortage of people who would claim that to be true - then Elizabeth Marshall's constituency spending and accounting should be perfect.

Let's look at this MHA's record - as prepared by the AG - for three of the four years she has been in office.

Of 115 MHA's that served the people (yah right) over a 17 year period - almost 25% had no double billings. Their average years of service was about 5 years. Elizabeth Marshall double billed.

Despite that the current Auditor General John Noseworthy states and the former Auditor General Elizabeth Marshall should know - that alcohol only purchases are inappropriate and represented part of the concern then AG Marshall had with former Cabinet Minister Paul Dicks - Marshall managed to make alcohol only purchases in the few short years she has been sitting. This despite that fact that 50% of her colleagues did not.

When the $2875 special payment was given to the MHA's as a "top-up" of their constituency allowances - although the former AG did not take it - she did not make it public either and waited for the current AG to get his hands on it and report.

I would also like to know whether or not the donations made by Marshall over the past 4 years have in any number or amount been claimed on her personal income tax return. Given the amounts reported and averaged and working with the latest taxation information - Marshall could have benefited in access of $2000 per annum personally.

The question is - will she tell us?

Given the Member for Topsail has only been in office for 4 years - the bar set by this former AG is not very high.

I hope the MHA's watch the Tele polls...

The Telegram usually has an interesting poll online everyday - and there are some patterns that are noteworthy.

Let's look at a few and then watch the MHA's to see if they are clued in at all.

Should the media slack off on its coverage of MHAs who took $2,875 of taxpayers’ money for no reason because these MHAs are complaining of how badly it reflects on them? (February 24, 2007)
Yes 15%
No 85%

Were you surprised by the low voter turnout in recent provincial byelections? (February 20, 2007)
Yes 10%
No 90%

Should the Internal Economy Commission (whose MHA members oversee the operations of the legislature) hold its meetings in public in the future? (February 12, 2007)
Yes 87%
No 10%
Undecided 3%

Should MHAs — including those who claim they can defend their spending of constituency funds — be forced to release their receipts publicly? (February 10, 2007)
Yes 90%
No 9%
Undecided 1%

Should MHAs be able to disassociate themselves from the scandal surrounding the receiving of the $2,875 secret constituency payment in 2004 simply by paying it back? (February 8, 2007)
Yes 18%
No 81%
Undecided 2%

Were you surprised by the findings in Auditor General John Noseworthy’s latest report? (February 4, 2007)
Yes 14%
No 86%

Though he says otherwise, do you think Loyola Sullivan knew he may be offered the job of Canada’s ambassador for fisheries conservation before he left provincial politics? (February 3, 2007)
Yes 91%
No 7%
Undecided 2%

Should any politician who took part in a decision to consciously request a coverup of additional funds handed out to MHAs be allowed to continue to hold office in this province? (February 2, 2007)
Yes 8%
No 87%
Undecided 6%

Do you think the House of Assembly should release every single constituency allowance receipt and claim when asked so the public can see exactly what those tax dollars are being spent on? (January 10, 2007)
Yes 81%
No 16%
Undecided 3%

Are you surprised with the apparent lack of spending controls within Newfoundland’s legislature that has led to double expense account payments for politicians? (January 9, 2007)
Yes 40%
No 60%

Is it possible there is a message here? The House of Assembly must be gutted out - and new faces put in. Further where is that Public Inquiry? The rats are still in the nest - and who do you think they are likely to let in?

Go have your say at the Telegram online...

Solid Gold comments - with big hockey stick in tow...

The Premier's eye may be watching me or you or you ....


Thank you to Offal News for bringing to my attention - the discussion by the Premier made about about me and Ed (Bond Papers)today.

The quote was:

"That goes for Roger Grimes, that goes for Sue Kelland-Dyer and that goes for Ed Hollett. That goes for anybody who may attempt to disparage the reputations of people."I'm serving notice on people now that if there's people out there that are going to take away the good reputations of people in public life, then they're accountable to the courts."

This must be a new strategy designed to take the focus off the Premier and the fact - he said nothing about the $2875 2004 constituency (or other name) top-up to all MHA's.

No the Premier did not take the payment - so what? It was offered to him.

On the issue of John Hickey using taxpayer dollars to sue Roger Grimes - sure - another great move by the IEC.

Hickey double-billed - he has admitted to that and paid it back - what are the costs associated with the double-billing?

Costs of the Auditor General
Costs of Cabinet time reviewing
Costs of the Department of Justice reviewing
Costs of RNC investigation...

all because John double-billed....

Who is paying the costs for all the investigative measures?

All the overspending - lost accounting records - forensic accounting - and these guys are on their high horse checking the comments of citizens?

Maybe Danny should start a class action where all MHA's can join in and sue the citizens together. Be much cheaper on us that way.

Honestly the comments are Solid Gold - and I look forward to talking about the chat in the hockey locker-room.

What's next Premier - suing the Auditor General?


Rather than condemn the actions of MHA's who are costing the taxpayers untold millions before the final count is tallied - the Premier chooses to attack private citizens passing legitimate comment and asking legitimate questions regarding the HOA scandal.

What's most interesting about this is the local TV news and VOCM news chose not to report the Premier's unsubstantiated threats to sue both myself and Ed Hollett. The Premier's obvious attempts to silence critics should be reported by the news - and by not doing so - is failing to allow the citizens of the Province to make their own decisions on his behavior. Kudos to The Telegram and the Current and Randy Simms (Open-Line) for reporting what the Premier said - that's the news!

Failure of politicians on all sides of the House to condemn the Premier's attempts to block criticism of his government - is failure to protect our freedom of speech and our democracy. So what's next - conversations at Tim Hortons to be monitored - or maybe each community can have a spy to monitor those political debates around the kitchen table. What's new? It's all about them anyway.

The anti-seal activists can say what they want and run misleading commercials all they want - no law-suit from the Premier. But Newfoundlanders and Labradorians interested in and concerned about our own province will be closely monitored by the Premier? Last question Premier - how is shutting up Sue Kelland-Dyer and Ed Hollett in the best interests of the people or the Province?

House of Assembly - Pigs still at the Trough

No lessons learned yet!



At the House of Assembly the Pigs are still at the trough. No lessons have been learned yet and unlikely to be learned if the people do not demand a Public Inquiry.

Think for a minute - there have been 5 by-elections in the Province over the past 5 months - and each time leaders - Danny Williams - Gerry Reid - and Lorraine Michael have been spending our money out on the campaign trail - the PC and Liberal caucuses have followed suit. Our province has significant economic challenges with extreme outmigration - continued failure of the fishery - rural Newfoundland and Labrador collapsing - mill closure in Stephenville - problems with Gander Airport - continued loss of federal presence - and the abhorrent spending at the House of Assembly and these guys are spending our time and money to get themselves elected.

Our leaders are tied up - our MHA's are tied up - the Cabinet is tied up and they are not finished yet - with Labrador West around the corner. Then there is the general election October. Here they are door to door telling people what they will do if elected - when those elected are spending too much time on by-elections.

The Premier is here - house by house - trying to make sure he beats the Liberals in every race while the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers are holding a meeting on energy and the environment.

Now John Hickey who double-billed the taxpayers dozens of times - and he is going to sue Roger Grimes for commenting on that incompetence. None of these MHA's however want to grant a Public Inquiry on the mess at the House of Assembly - which has cost and will cost millions of dollars.

They have learned nothing - how much time do you think these people are spending on dealing with our problems and opportunities?

If the spending scandal only affected one party - do you think the other two would demand a Public Inquiry?

How much time do you believe was spent by MHA's over the past 5 months on by-elections?

Don't forget the time spent in Exploits when Roger Grimes resigned in 2005 and Placentia-St. Marys in early 2006.

All in all they want your vote - they want to spend your money - they will promise the moon - but cannot deliver because they spend too much time trying to get elected. Democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador is all but dead - and the only media giving it a real hearing is the Telegram.

Fraser "sue" Them....

DOUBLE STANDARD HICKEY
YOU SHOULD DO THE HONOURABLE THING AND RESIGN - REMEMBER FRASER?


So Hickey is going to court. Okay how are you going to prove you are not incompetent?
How do you prove you were not stupid or dumb? You double-billed - admitted it - and paid it back. So what were you when you provided invoices twice?

Now let's get back to double standards - Fraser March was fired by these people that double-billed - overspent - and gave themselves $2875. The provincial politicians always visit this blog - so comment - why was Fraser March fired by you?

How do you justify the double standard being applied here.

And for all the members of NAPE and CUPE - why won't your leadership call for a public inquiry?

We must get to the bottom of all this....

Fraser you must be able to get some standing in the Hickey versus Grimes case. That would be good.

My how the almighty pure Hickey has risen - I hope you spend as much time on trying to be accurate with taxpayer dollars as you have already spent complaining about Roger.

So John Hickey - why did you vote to fire Fraser March?

I wonder can Roger's lawyer subpoena the Office of the Auditor General?

Remember Saskatchewan?

My how quickly we forget - but the people of Saskatchewan will not:

The Tories were responsible there - the NDP - Liberals - and Tories are involved here. They need to be removed.
The people need a cleansing of the House both some that are sitting and those that have "retired".

Here's a tidbit from the Saskatchewan Scandal:

The seeds of the current controversy were planted in 1987, when Devine's caucus agreed to pool 25 per cent of the communications allowances that MLAs are entitled to receive from the legislature into a central account. The CROWN has alleged that some members of the Devine government signed expense allowance claims that were submitted to the legislature along with invoices from four shell companies set up by John Scraba, then the caucus communications director. Many of the invoices were for services never rendered, or for expenses that were illegitimate. After the invoices were approved by the legislature's finance offices, cheques were issued to the phony companies. That money was then funnelled back to several caucus members and Scraba in the form of cash and merchandise.

Police were first alerted to the scam in July, 1991, when legislature clerk Gwenn Ronyk reported some suspicious invoices. The investigation received a break in April, 1992, when a Regina bank branch opened a safety deposit box after its registered owner failed to respond to a notification that the bank was moving. Inside the box were 150 $1,000 bills. The owner's name proved to be bogus, but his address was quite revealing: Room 203, Saskatchewan legislature, aka the Tory caucus office. After contacting other banks, police uncovered a second safety deposit box, under the same phony name, that contained 90 $1,000 bills.

To read more visit the Canadian Encyclopedia

It is time for a Public Inquiry

So you want the public to vote?

Really!

Let's see how serious the politicians are when they feign disappointment at the severely low percentage of electors showing up to the polls.

While it is true you can't govern every issue by referendum - there are times when one is definitely needed.

We elect people to objectively deal with our subjective "wants". Every "want" is subjective and "wants" come from all sectors of society - our politicians are always dealing with "wants" and in being responsible they must weigh the "wants" objectively. There has emerged from various sectors of our society a "want" for a Public Inquiry - each and every MHA without exception cannot objectively make a decision on this "want" - which leaves a democratic paradox which only a referendum can solve.

Kilbride is an excellent example of why we need to do something about voting.

Shawn Skinner has suggested fines for those who do not vote - the Government of Nova Scotia says paying the voter might help. I suggest if people are not voting there are problems that a fine or tax credit will not fix.

See if we can agree on the following:

If the politicians will not call a Public Inquiry into the PPP (spending scandal) let them put the question of such an Inquiry to the people in October.

Let's develop a referendum question:
Should a Public Inquiry be held into matters of the House of Assembly Finance covering the period from January 1989 to October 2007?

Please send your suggestions for other wording.

You see the people need a reason to vote - something to vote for. Many people feel they cannot vote for any party while this mess is not fully exposed and dealt with - that was evident in the by-elections.

Even if they only vote on the question and do not vote for a candidate - the message will be sent - loud and clear.

You see Shawn if we were to fine people for not voting because they feel all parties were involved in wrong-doing - that would be ridiculous.
If we were to pay them to vote - well that makes it worse.

The integrity of the House of Assembly must be restored - and to many people this can only happen after a Public Inquiry. Do you know how many politicians - currently retired may try a comeback if we can't figure out what they were all doing during that period of time?

Regardless of what you generally think about referendums - one is necessary on an issue where the elected are those needing to be questioned - because they will not allow independent and public investigation of themsleves.

Let's use this most direct form of democracy in an attempt to restore it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Simon is Right - Russell is Right - Bill is Right

There must be a Public Inquiry into the whole House of Assembly Affair. Sue's Blog is going to call it the - PPP Politicians Plundering the Public and in some morbid respects public - private - partnership.

The issue of PPP is out of control and needs a real hearing. Russell Wangersky is correct when he writes the politicians want this to go away too quickly - especially the Premier.

Bill Rowe is right when he says that Marshall and Williams not taking the $2875 is either elitist or another attempt to cover - "sucking and blowing" at the same time is an appropriate analogy for those two intelligent people trying to skirt the scandal by saying they didn't take the cash.

Simon Lono is absolutely right when he says a Public Inquiry is the only way to go - to "clean the House".

Here are three astute people and are people who have been around politics in one way or another for many years. They know that fundamentally some politicians are going to have to be wiped out and exposed for this PPP mess to truly go away and deter it from happening again.

In our democracy we have a multi-party system - this is designed to bring light to positions so they may be fully exposed - debated - and resolved. When our democracy is faced with all parties being involved in questionable activities at the same time - the role of Opposition must fall to the media and the people - if not we are in a banana republic.

There are many viewpoints out there - many partisan - but many more reflect the disgust over the PPP. We must get to the bottom of this - and the public should make educated choices when voting - this cannot be done without all the information.

Some of the politicians have run for cover - with many more about to do the same.

Chief Justice Greene - with the stated mandate cannot get to the bottom of it.

The RNC with only some of the file cannot get to the bottom of it.

The Auditor General cannot call public witnesses nor release some of the information we need.


We need to hear from all MHA's and others from 2000 - 2007.
Call to the stand Beth Marshall (AG in 2000) - question her on the findings and why she requested to audit the books of the House of Assembly.

You must understand that when she was blocked - those who blocked the Office of the Auditor General are now administratively responsible for costing us millions in overpayment's - special investigations (forensic audits) - the cost of the Chief Justice (special review) - the cost of the RNC and its investigations. All of it may have been prevented if Beth Marshall had been permitted to audit in 2000.

On that note - all MHA's from 2000 should be called to a stand and publicly tell us why they voted for legislation that effectively removed the Auditor General.

Bring back Tobin - make him talk on a stand - under oath.
Bring back Furey - Dicks - Shelley - Byrne and yes Loyola Sullivan - make them talk under oath.
Bring back Lloyd Snow - Tom Lush - Lloyd Matthews - bring them all back.

If we do not hear all of the unfettered evidence from our elected officials - we will never know the truth and we will not deter similar behavior.

The 2004 PPP is the same - the IEC rendered that proposal (#) be approved and every MHA gets the $2875. We know that 2 did not take it - one sat on the IEC and was the former AG that supposedly wanted to bring these types of things to light - and the other is the Premier who claims he wants it all cleaned up.

What we have here are the politicians blocking the use of our taxpayer dollars to investigate them. After the fortune they have cost us to date - under their control - shouldn't we have the same right to answers under our rules?

Let me use this example:

We all remember the vote in the House of Assembly to boot Fraser March our of the position of Citizens Representative - we know there were some expenses that were questionable. They were not questionable enough to have the AG file a 15.1 on him. That's the part of the Act where the AG feels a recommendation for further investigation is warranted.

15.1 's have been issued for:

Ed Byrne
Wally Anderson
Randy Collins
Jim Walsh
Percy Barrett
John Hickey
Kathy Goudie

All but one of these MHA's were sitting in the House of Assembly when they fired Fraser March.

Then John Hickey upon being exonerated from any criminal wrong-doing forgets his incompetence which caused the numerous cases of double-billing and comes out swinging at Roger Grimes. Give me a break John - you are still responsible for too many cases of double billing - all that has changed is that you are incompetent - not corrupt.

Let me say that again - John Hickey you are incompetent not corrupt. Now sue me!

Now the 2006 budget is overspent - and nobody is going to deal with it.

I do not care what rules are put in place "on a go forward basis" it will not be a real deterrent to this type of activity - unless some measurable consequences come to all MHA's that were either incompetent or corrupt.

All MHA's are in a position of conflict regarding the calling of such a Public Inquiry - because it is they that will be examined. For instance - if you had a bank robber and those who watched it - participated in it - knew about it - determine whether or not they should be charged and face trial - we could close the courts.

All the MHA's say they are really concerned about this situation and being "under a cloud" of suspicion - when they are innocent - funny not one of them have said - let's have a Public Inquiry - and that way I can be removed from the pack of others guilty of incompetence or corruption.

The Liberals asked for a Public Inquiry on the fibre-optic deal yet will not demand a Public Inquiry over this - I can assure Gerry Reid the people who will not get out and vote are not deterred by the fibre-optic fiasco - they are deterred by an inability to vote for a perceived dirty house - and it's all about perception right?

Danny will do everything other than an Inquiry which will bring into the limelight more of his own members than he wants - and then there's also the reason he did not take the cash. Let's find out if Beth Marshall and Danny Williams tell the same story.

Let's see who is really serious here! Let's see which organizations will call for the Inquiry.

NAPE?
CUPE?
Federation of Municipalities?
Federation of Labour?
FFAW?
St. John's Board of Trade?
Canadian Federation of Taxpayers?
the Media?
how about the people?

The St. John's Board of Trade can go lie down out of it - if it's calling for the reduction of taxes - when it does not demand to know what the dollars went to and why.

The public service Unions are not that mad over the $2875 if they are not interested in what really took place.

And John Hickey - remember this - you were allowed to stay in Cabinet while after you double-billed expenses and were under investigation by the RNC. If all you had to do was pay back the money - will you stand and demand that Fraser March be returned to Office? Go on hypocrite - show your stuff! Do you think you look any less ridiculous as your former colleague Kathy Goudie because she cried and you yelled?

An RFP for MHA's

Why not put out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for our MHA's?

Let's review this - we need rules - we didn't know the rules - we did what the IEC said - I was new and didn't know - in hindsight it was a bad decision - wait for the process to finish.

In 2000 the Auditor General - Elizabeth Marshall informed the IEC (Internal Economy Commission) of some potentially inappropriate spending of constituency allowances regarding art and wine.

The IEC at the time were:
Lloyd Snow - Beaton Tulk - Paul Dicks - Kevin Aylward - Gerald Smith - Loyola Sullivan - and Tom Rideout

The response to that was to bar the Auditor General from the accounts of HOA and to seek legislative amendment. This would mean the AG had to be invited in - in order to do an audit.

On May 11th of 2000 - the Bill was tabled and by leave went to second reading at which point 2 members spoke 4 lines each and passed the legislation. All members supported the Bill.

What has been the result of this one piece of as Loyola Sullivan put it at the time "pretty straightforward and pretty routine" legislation?

Tom Rideout is the only survivor of that group.

In 2004 the IEC received a proposal and approved that proposal - which was the $2875 payment to MHA's. The Auditor General says there was no reason given in the minutes for the payment. Harvey Hodder has said it was done to replenish the constituency allowances - as some of the members newly elected had their constituency allowances disproportionately depleted as at the election of October of 2003.

Since then Kathy Dunderdale and Roland Butler say that these new members were given a 6 month top-up of their allowances in addition to this blanket $2875 payment.

The members of the IEC at the time were:

Harvey Hodder
Roger Fitzgerald
Ed Byrne
Loyola Sullivan
Beth Marshall
Percy Barrett
Kelvin Parsons

These individuals have not yet told the public - with the exception of Hodder anything about this event.
None of them have told us where the money was found - and what other budgets it was taken from.
Beth Marshall - who was in Cabinet at the time - chose not to say anything despite her own protestations as an Auditor General for a decade.

The IEC represent the MHA's and are MHA's they have been deliberately responsible for their own rules. Now they all are waiting for Chief Justice Greene to tell them what the rules will be.

The MHA's proceeded to overspend their budget in 2006.

Considering all the foregoing - let's just put out a request for proposals for a group to propose the provision of 30 people who can sit in the legislature and follow Justice Greene's rules. Of course we the people reserve the right to reject any or all bids - but it is most likely the lowest bidder will be accepted.

Gerry Reid enters the discussion....

Begins by congratulating the Liberal candidates - muses about low voter turnout.

Talks about his campaign trail - while the fishery collapses - rural outmigration continues - the Premier reneges again on the Energy Plan - on and on and on...

Any movement would be a breakthrough - hang on he's going to talk about the ferry rates - he does not buy the feds "rising" the ferry rate or the fact the provincial government says it is concerned because the province has done it for provincial ferries.

That service is written into the "confederation document" - huh? Ah Gerry that's the Terms of Union OK.

We should not have to pay for it and we would let the feds off the hook if we paid for it. Let the feds off the hook Gerry? How ironic! What about the feds on/off the hook for the fishery? Where are you on that? Same place you've been for 12 years? Are you honestly suggesting that the fishery was not hurt under "your watch"?

You may have provided for your children - but your policies and leadership have prevented others from providing for theirs. Do you appreciate that?

Gerry found his way to a wharf in Petty Harbour (during a by-election) - I'm impressed.

What about that hindsight - do you take any responsibility for the absolute mess the HOA books and accounts have been in since 1989? Who should we blame? Did it happen on its own - around you? No comment on that hey? What's important to you are the by-elections where we the voters get to go out and elect people under the same pathetic leadership?

This Nova Scotia Blogger has some real issues

with the "private club" in Nova Scotia's legislature...

Some interesting points on John Risley - payment to vote - and grants to the elite...

Here's a taste of the post:

The Regressive CONservatives of Nova Scotia have a long list of issues they intend to debate this weekend, they claim. It makes their pissup sound more important than it really is.

They need as much positive publicity as they can get, after all of the dirt that has come to light on them over the past few months, so, this event won’t be as SECRET as most of their dealings usually are. Of course, the media will be out in full force to report the goings on … after they have a few free drinks and hit the buffet table.

Have a Read Press Here

The Department of the House of Assembly

Any member elected before the last general election in November of 2003 must be booted out this October or they will not learn a lesson from this costly and despicable year of scandal.

Maybe that's the best way to put it. It is a Department which has budgetary authority over the Office of the Auditor General - Office of the Child and Youth Advocate - Office of the Citizens Representative - Office of the Chief Electoral Officer - the Speaker's Office - and MHA affairs and finance.

The Department of the House of Assembly has a Minister of sorts - it is the IEC (Internal Economy Commission).

First of all it is important to note that these offices are and should be independent of Government and Cabinet and as non-partisan as possible. It would not be acceptable for a Premier or Cabinet to dictate to either of these offices - for the loss of that independence could further damage the integrity of our democratic system.

As a result the budgets of these agencies are managed by a group of MHA's representing 2 parties of the HOA. In this way no government or Premier can bully or interfere with the integrity of these essential democratic institutions.

The leaders of the Liberals and Tories designate their reps on the IEC with the Speaker and Deputy Speaker traditionally appointed.

We hear from the MHA's who are not participants in the IEC - that they relied on their colleagues to do right by them and guide them appropriately. They only do what the IEC says they can. Alright - I ask the readers this question - if the IEC decided that MHA's should take a cut in pay of 20% or reduce pension and health benefits - do you think the MHA's might have questioned that? You bet.

Currently on the IEC the Speakers Office is represented by the Speaker who is the Chair and represents the non-partisan rep - and the Deputy Speaker, the MHA's are represented by their colleagues presumably chosen by them or their leader. I hope that Chief Justice Greene recommends that these other agencies have a rotating seat on the IEC.

Upon hearing today that they found the extra bucks to give themselves the $2875 bonus because the Office of the Auditor General had not spent all of its budget. Elizabeth Marshall - one of the PC reps on the IEC at the time was in Cabinet and is the immediate past AG for the province. There is absolutely no excuse for her to keep quiet on this disgusting grab of taxpayer dollars - apparently managed wisely by the current AG.

There is no excuse for this and all members elected prior to the last general election should be booted out.

Give Credit where it is due...Kudos Harvey

In my quest to find which constituency allowances were disproportionately depleted - I wrote Harvey Hodder to get some answers. (see post)

Harvey was prompt with his reply and was helpful in directing me to some of the information available to the public.

I will review that documentation and report back - some time next week.

I will have to write individual members to see if they might be forthcoming with the rest of the info.

Paul Oram joins the fray....

I am disappointed in Paul - he is a new member and was not involved in setting the rules of the IEC in 03-04.

He should not have to pay back his $2875 allowance top-up - what Paul needed to explain is how much was left when Tom Lush left.

Did Tom disproportionately deplete that allowance by election October - 2003?

In order for this to be really corrected the people need the information. Tell us Paul what was in your allowance when you took office?

By saying that he would not have taken it - he is blindly following the spin the Premier is applying. The House of Assembly remains an independent body and should not be dictated to by the Premier or government.