Showing posts with label government spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government spending. Show all posts

04 January 2017

Spending the future (2005) #nlpoli

" [The change in the province's financial outlook] That's very dramatic...Some people are going to stand back and say 'Oh yeah, that's just because your very lucky. That's because the oil prices have gone up.' Well, no. That's part of it. But we had a tough budget, a prudent budget. We've managed the province, fiscally, very tightly."

Premier Danny Williams
Quoted in "Cash boon may fund province's infrastructure"
by Rob Antle, The Telegram, 22 October 2005, p. A3




Premier Danny Williams is absolutely correct.

The provincial government's financial state is a direct result of oil and gas revenues. High oil prices have produced a boost beyond what the Real Atlantic Accord, the offshore royalty regimes and development at Voisey's Bay would have produced anyway.

Unfortunately, the premier's positive comments may have two unwelcome results. First it may make it seem as though the province can afford to increase spending in a number of ways. Second, his comments divert attention away from the fundamental failure of the Williams administration, two years into its mandate, to produce integrated plans to address the province's financial windfalls in a way that will yield the greatest long term benefit.

11 December 2015

The Tory-gram Returns #nlpoli

And there it was.

Top of the front page. 

Screaming headline.

Economist warns Liberal plan doesn’t make sense.

Right underneath a picture of the new Liberal Premier-in-waiting and the new Prime Minister smiling as they met in Ottawa.  Title: Happy Liberals.

About as objective as Fox News and then you read the story.

Their economist shitting on the Liberals is….

wait for it…

Wade Locke.

Hands up who didn’t just piss themselves laughing?

09 December 2015

Two solitudes #nlpoli

CBC and the Telegram  carried a story on Tuesday that the province would be hit by a “mild recession” next year. There’s not much real news in that since oil and minerals will all be down in price for the foreseeable future. Major projects are coming to an end.  All known.  All foreseen. But since the Conference Board of Canada issued the release and used the words “mild recession” and so that makes it news.

Later on Tuesday,  everyone carried the story that Premier-designate Dwight Ball had written to the federal government to try and forestall the two percent hike in the harmonised sales tax. Same thing:  news release, therefore news.

At the risk of repeating the same thing again, let’s just recall that the latest change in oil prices means that 36% of government spending this year will be covered by borrowing from the banks.

The sales tax hike won’t make much of a difference this year.  The  $50 million or so it will bring in between January and March will amount to precisely 1.6% of the revised borrowing. It was frig-all before oil dropped. It is even moreso frig-all now when compared to the magnitude of the provincial government’s financial problems.

We can say that revenues won’t be much better next year.  This is another point worth bearing in mind.  The local media have habitually followed slavishly behind the provincial government’s lead over the past decade and talked about last year, not the year coming up. and in truth.  Well, this whole HST thing is another example of chasing mice when the deer are just over the hill.

03 May 2012

Some NL cabinet ministers bill taxpayers for work commuting #nlpoli

Almost half the money (46%) spent on ministerial travel by the municipal affairs department between December 2010 and November 2011 went to cover travel by minister Kevin O’Brien from his home in Gander  to St. John’s for cabinet meetings and other government business.

O’Brien billed taxpayers for about $77,188 in travel and related expenses during the period.  About $36,000 of it was for travel between Gander and St. John’s.

The information is taken from expense reports posted by the provincial government on the government website.  CBC reported on Kevin O’Brien’s travel expenses on May 1 and 2 as a result of hearings by the House of Assembly estimates committee reviewing the 2012 budget. 

The CBC story erroneously labels the travel as being to O’Brien’s district  - it was from the district – and attributes the amount to Air Canada airfares. There’s more to it than that.

Provincial government  expense rules for cabinet ministers allow them to live outside the capital region and bill travel, accommodation and meal costs to the department when they have to travel to St. John’s for official business. The definition of “permanent residence” used in the cabinet policy is tied to the declaration ministers make to the House of Assembly to determine their allowances and entitlements under House of Assembly spending rules.

O’Brien isn’t alone in the billing practice.  For example, finance minister Tom Marshall’s commuting travel accounted for 67% of his departmental travel claims in the period.  Marshall billed taxpayers $23,400 in the period SRBP looked at for travel between his home in Corner Brook and his department’s head office in St. John’s.  Marshall’s total ministerial travel was $35,025.

Cabinet minister Joan Burke billed taxpayers more than $15,433 for commuting from December 2010 to November 2011. The total of her expenses listed on the provincial government website was $30,307.  That puts her commuting costs at 51% of her total ministerial expense bill. 

During his last year in politics, Labrador affairs minister John Hickey hit taxpayers for more than $27,682 for travel from his Goose Bay home to St. John’s for cabinet meetings and other government business.   Hickey’s bills that year included his share of two aircraft charters to bring him to St. John’s as well as two bills for long-term airport parking passes. His expenses total on the government website was $47,769.  That would make his commuting travel 58% of his ministerial travel costs

Aboriginal affairs minister Patty Pottle, billed the most of all for the home-to-work travel, though.  In her last year in office, Pottle billed taxpayers more than $40,400 for travel, meals and accommodations as she traveled from her home in Nain to St. John’s.  That represents 63% of the $64,300 in expenses listed for Pottle on the government website.

Pottle claimed a total of almost $35,000 in one six month period.Her travel to St. John’s on official business accounted for slightly more than $24,000 for the same six months.

Some ministers also claim car expenses under the ministerial expense rules.  They can either claim mileage or claim a car allowance plus operating costs incurred on government business.

The cabinet expense policy on the car allowance states:

The automobile allowance is $8,000 per year, prorated for the portion of the fiscal year for which the Minister serves in Cabinet (based on MC 90-1135).

Ministers will be reimbursed fuel expenses, consumable liquids and related expenses incurred while traveling on government business. Detailed original receipts indicating proof of payment must be provided.
Ministers receive the automobile allowance as a bi-weekly payment that coincides with the usual pay cycle.

The automobile allowance, fuel expenses, consumable liquids and related expenses will be issued on payroll cheques rather than General Account Cheques and is taxable in accordance with Canada Revenue Agency requirements.

In addition to his other commuting, Kevin O’Brien received more than $6,000 under the car allowance and operating expense policy between June and November 2011 alone. 

SRBP first noted the practice of commuting ministers in July and December 2008.  

From December 2010 to November 2011, O’Brien filed 36 expense claims for travel, meals and accommodations for travel between Gander and St. John’s.  The smallest claim was $231. The largest was $2,069.  Some of the claims may have related to the same travel.

O’Brien’s travel claims suggest his commuting was quite frequent at times.  His expense records for claims paid in December 2010 show claims for travel in October and November, 2010.  SRBP did not include them in the totals above since the travel took place outside the study period.

In those two months, O’Brien filed commuting claims for travel on October 13, 17, 29 and 31 and November 4, 14, 21 and 28. The total cost of those claims was approximately $9,952.

O’Brien also claimed for other ministerial travel besides the commuting.  For example, during the period examined for this post, he expensed travel, entertainment and related expenses totalling $985 for the presentation of a fire truck to the Town of Hampden in White Bay.

- srbp -

21 January 2010

Massive cost overruns, delays now normal for provincial government?

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, you really didn’t hear very often about a provincial government construction project in Newfoundland and Labrador going for almost double the original cost estimate.

You’d hear stuff about other places, like say one involving a nuclear power plant in New Brunswick. Or there might be one involving transportation – always a rat’s nest of problems – like say the streetcar line in Toronto or another light rail one in Ottawa.

That was then, as they say.

This is now, where the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador seems to have a huge problem with construction projects of all kinds.

The latest is the health centre in western Labrador.

Promised originally as a juicy bit of pork for the January 2007 by-election, the project seems stuck like an excavator in winter snow. Other than that, not much has happened.

Not much except watching the cost estimates balloon like an embolism.  According to The Aurora, what was once estimated to cost about $56 million is now estimated to be in the range of $90 million.

That number will get bigger almost certainly.  And at some point, as in Lewisporte and Flower’s Cove, there will have to be an intervention to reduce the sorts of health stuff that happens in the health care centre so that the construction costs don’t go completely off the charts.  

The Aurora report says provincial government officials put the cost spiral down to a construction boom in briefing notes prepared for health minister Jerome Kennedy last fall.

Okay.

Theoretically, that could be the case. There’s just so much construction going on in the province right now that everything is at a premium.  Boom times and all that.  At least, so the idea goes.

There are a couple of problems with that notion. 

First of all, this is a recession and Newfoundland and Labrador hasn’t escaped the recession at all.  Far from it.  Even the provincial government is forecast a huge drop in the value of goods and service sin the province.  Everything is down from oil to newsprint to minerals. 

And if you look around, like say in Alberta, you can see what happens in a recession.  Like most places in the developed world, and even in an Alberta which is still chugging along well ahead of other provinces in economic activity,  a recession in Alberta means costs are dropping. Businesses – like Total SA and Conoco  - are actually increasing their spending on oil sands development because of costs that are as much as 40% less than they were in 2008.

That Labrador health centre is already estimated to cost 40% more than first forecast, incidentally. That’s pretty much on par with what happened to the one in Lewisporte.

So it doesn’t really make a lot of sense – at first blush – that Newfoundland and Labrador in a recession would see costs go up while everywhere else – like Alberta – costs are dropping.

Second, the sort of delays and cost over-runs for the Labrador west hospital is typical of the pattern of delays on provincial government construction projects – upwards of three and four years in some cases – and massive cost over-runs (40% is the half of it) people in this province have seen for the past five or six years. It didn’t just start.  And it isn’t confined to hospitals.

On delays, we have things like a 2004 court security law that still isn’t in effect. There’s a 2006 law creating a health research ethics board that still isn’t in place.  From 2007, there’s a major piece of legal work and a centrepiece – supposedly – of the Tory big blue plan called the sustainable development act.  Three years and not so much as a peep.

Let us not forget three years on Grenfell to deliver nothing that couldn’t have been done without all the fuss and the promises when the idea was first announced.

Nor can we ignore the land claims deal with the Innu on the Lower Churchill that happened and then unhappened.  Now it roams the Earth periodically cropping up in some news story in which it claims to be alive.  The reality is that it is undead, trapped by internal political wrangles within the Innu community in a world between life and death.

In the background, there is the program review, a response to a supposed budget crisis in 2004 the premier gave to Ross Reid.  No one knows what happened to it.   similar initiative – a 2006 economic program review – likewise disappeared.  The guy looking after it went back to Memorial in 2008.  What is Doug House doing these days?

On the construction front, there are cases like the sports centre slash conference hall in St. Anthony that doubled in price before the provincial government cut the whole thing down to a size that would fit inside the ballooned budget.  Two years after it was first announced, there was much less for way more.

We also can’t forget the aquaculture centre in St. Alban’s.  Two years later the thing is just starting to get underway  - we were originally told it would actually be finished by now - for 71% more than the original estimate.

Ferries. Schools. Hospitals.  Roads. You name it and the thing has been announced - in some cases many, many times - the costs have skyrocketed and there’s not a sign of anything tangible.  As noted here last winter, about half the economic stimulus projects the provincial government announced consisted of projects that had been announced, some of them as long ago as 2005.

Massive cost overruns and inordinate delays seem to be the norm in the provincial government these days.

The interesting question is why that is so.

We can be pretty sure it doesn’t have anything to do with just the normal cost of doing business. The pattern started before costs really skyrocketed and it affects things besides construction work.

And it really doesn’t have anything to do with outdated ceremonies and rules.  One of the things Tory supporters in this province should point out is that all the time the current administration doesn’t spend in the legislature gives it more time to get things done.  These guys are much more efficient than other administrations, so the talking point would go. 

Notice that they don’t say that sort of thing, though.  Despite having a legislature that sits about half the number of days it sat two decades ago, the usual complaint lately is about all the distractions. 

Nor can there be any complaint about requirements to have the legislature approve things.  The Fishery Products Act amendments a couple of years ago gave cabinet the right to make decisions on its own without reference to the legislature ever again. That follows a pattern in other bills where the decision on when laws come into force is left entirely to cabinet. 

Call it a sort of low-rent rule by decree, the idea behind this approach is that things can be done more quickly if all it takes for is a cabinet conference call and then a quick printing of The Gazette. No messy debates in public.  No question period.  Just a nice clean agreement behind closed doors.  Job done.

Except it hasn’t seemed to work that way.

Now this is the sort of thing we old political science types call “interesting” or “curious”.  It goes to the heart of what we love:  how government works in practice. 

The theory is fine.  All the bumpf from the departmental bumpf factories keeps the news media full.  And some people think they can change the budget by going to a consultation session.  People who are genuinely interested in this sort of thing, though, love trying to figure out how things actually get done.

In the case of the current provincial administration, those types have got their work cut out for them.  The current crowd should be performing much more efficiently and effectively than they actually are.  Put another way, they should be accomplishing things on par with what - as their polls show -  people think they are doing.

So how come they aren’t?

-srbp-