Coleman can be Frank about personal benefit

The word of the week is "bonds" performance bonds and labour and material payment bonds.

If however we really want to know if Frank Coleman benefited directly from the government's cancelling of the contract we need to see the indemnification agreements.

Here's as simple as I can put it: In order to bid on contracts the company/contractor needs to supply a performance bond. This bond simply is to protect - in this case government - from default of or problems with completing the agreed to work under contract. In order for the company Humber Valley Paving to get a bond they must go to a surety company. The surety company then requires that indemnification agreements are signed by the principal (bidder) and possibly others - typically majority owners, their spouses, and in some cases assets of other companies owned by a majority owner.

We have not talked much about the indemnity agreement - rather we have focused on the bond. This is exactly what government and Minister McGrath would prefer and here's why. Just because Frank Coleman sold or transferred for a nominal fee his majority shares to other shareholders does not necessarily relinquish his obligations under an indemnification agreement. So in other words - Coleman may claim he can no longer speak for the company as he no longer holds shares but what Coleman is not saying is that he still may have been on the hook for losses should the bond have been called.

Now let's look at how Coleman may have directly benefited. The government says that the contract was not cancelled until after Frank Coleman relinquished his shares. While that part may be true - if the bond was called after Coleman divested of his interest in HVP - Frank Coleman still may have been an indemnifier for any losses resulting from the bond being called. This could be millions of dollars.

This is why this whole thing smells rotten - because ALL information is not forthcoming and they hide behind things like "I am no longer a shareholder" therefore cannot speak for the company. Okay then here are the questions for Frank Coleman.

1. Did you personally or any of your holdings other than HVP indemnify the surety for the performance bond?

2. Have you sold or divested of your other interests such as Coleman Foods - if not why not?

3. When an extension was sought by HVP - did you provide a letter from the surety regarding that extension. Were the appropriate emails, faxes, documents, provided to the surety?

Bottom line is this - unless we see the indemnification agreement for the bond - we cannot ascertain if Frank Coleman benefited from the government's decision to cancel the contract and not call the bond.

Further any indemnity agreements signed by Frank Coleman personally or by other entities where Frank Coleman has interests are really personal documents not documents of HVP. Our future Premier should have no problem releasing these. 

None of this of course negates the fact that relatives of Frank Coleman benefitted.

Commissioner of Lobbyists reviewing HVP activities?

Based on what Minister McGrath has been saying relative to discussions with Gene Coleman and other officials of Humber Valley Paving one would expect the Lobbyists Registration Act to be in play here.

Do the "negotiations" "discussions" talked about by Minister McGrath pertaining to Humber Valley Paving and the release of bonds constitute lobbying?

Subparagraph 2(1)(c)(xvi) of the Lobbyist Registration Act:

Based on what the Minister has said - I would consider the activities lobbying.



 (c)  "lobby " means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence

 (xvi)  public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract...




Based on the importance to the company over the three month period wherein discussions - negotiations were taking place - one might need to review whether or not Gene Coleman was an in-house lobbyist for that period.

In-house lobbyist

        6. (1)  In this section,

             (a)  "employee " includes an officer who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties;

             (b)  "in-house lobbyist" means a person who is employed by an organization

                      (i)  20% of whose duties as an employee, as assessed in a 3 month period, are to lobby on behalf of that organization, or

                     (ii)  a part of whose duties as an employee is to lobby on behalf of that organization if the employee's duties to lobby together with the duties of other employees to lobby would constitute 20 % of time at work of one full time employee, assessed in a 3 month period, were those duties to lobby to be performed by only one employee; and

             (c)  "senior officer" means the most senior officer of the organization who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties.

             (2)  The senior officer of an organization which employs an in-house lobbyist shall file a return with the registrar

             (a)  within 10 days after the day on which that person becomes an in-house lobbyist; and

             (b)  within 30 days after the expiration of each 6 month period after the date of filing the previous return.

I see no such registration under the registry - so has the Commissioner of Lobbyists been asked to review this situation?