Lobbyist registration

"We do have probably the best legislation in the country put in place in order to make sure things are done properly," Williams said.

In the CBC story quoted above, Premier Danny Williams was talking about the provincial lobbyist registration legislation in the midst of accusations that representatives of Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream should have registered as lobbyist in relation to the fibre deal.

The federal government and five provincial jurisdictions have legislation dealing with lobbyists, that is with people who communicate with government officials on behalf of clients or companies and organizations in order to influence government decisions.

All describe lobbyists and the act of lobbying in similar terms. It's pretty clear that representatives of those companies were engaged in lobbying the provincial government about the deal. Their activity fits any of the definitions of lobbying used in any jurisdiction.

The question comes around the requirement to register as a lobbyist and therefore make the lobbying activity a matter of public record.

Under the Newfoundland and Labrador law, an in-house lobbyist - someone employed full-time by a company - only has to register if 20% or more of his or her time is spent lobbying.

Think about it.

Someone working a 40 hour week could lobby, but he or she wouldn't have to register and thereby publicly disclose their activity unless they spent more than 8 hours a week lobbying. Someone could lobby government for up to a full day each week in perpetuity and never have to publicly disclose the lobbying. A senior executive working more hours could spend even more time each week lobbying and keep the whole thing from public scrutiny.

Of the six jurisdictions across Canada with lobbyist registration laws, only Newfoundland and Labrador makes it possible to lobby as though there was no legislation at all.

The companies and organizations that have registered their in-house lobbyists either exceed the 20% rule or they have opted to register in order to live up to the spirit and intention of the lobbyist registry. That is, they comply with the idea that people lobbying government should publicly disclose their activities.

Newfoundland and Labrador's lobbyist registration law ensures things are done properly.

The only question is what things we are talking about.

Certainly it doesn't necessarily mean that all lobbying is publicly registered, as it would be in just about all the five other provinces and the federal government that have laws governing lobbying.

Newfound Group lobbying province apparently without lobbyist registration

Newfound Group has been lobbying the provincial government for assistance with the Humber valley resort yet no lobbyists have been registered, as required by provincial law. [Update: See correction below]

Interviewed by CBC Radio's David Cochrane, Jeremy White, president of Newfound Group said the company has been working with the province to have the province lobby Air Canada to restore a direct flight between St. John's and London.

White also said his company was seeking provincial government assistance with its marketing program. He said the provincial government had offered to help defray some of the company's annual marketing program. White indicated that the company the government had been working closely together to deal with the company's financial issues.

However, the provincial lobbyist register contains no entries for anyone or any company related to Newfound.

The provincial lobbyist registration act requires that a company lobbying the provincial government register within 10 days of starting any lobbying activities. [Correction: The 10 day rule applies if the company is using a consultant lobbyist.] The online registry is current as of 21 November. An in-house lobbyist must register if his lobbying activity constitutes 20% or more of his or her time during a three month period.

In July 2007, Humber Valley Resort hired former tourism minister Paul Shelley as its new general manager. Shelley retired from politics on July 13 and was replaced in cabinet in January, having signalled his intention not to seek re-election in the fall. Shelley was human resources minister at the time of his departure from cabinet.

In addition to any political heights Shelley has scaled, his days at Humber Valley have included the odd rock wall, as this video shows. This and other videos on the resort can be found on the resort blog.

Shelley isn't the only Humber Valley executive with ties to the current administration. Humber Valley chief executive officer Brian Dobbin serves on the provincial government's Irish business partnership board. He is also publisher of The Independent newspaper.

Neither Shelley nor Dobbin is listed in the provincial lobbyist registry.

-srbp-

For the record: 2003 Tory commitment on lobbying

From the memory pit of the Internet, recall the Progressive Conservative commitment on lobbying and lobbyists.

Don't try to go to the party website to find the commitments from the 2003 election.  They've vanished as if they didn't exist.  Thanks to the Internet, though, the promises have been preserved for posterity and the occasional use, like this one.

There was a consultation and then new legislation, which came into force on October 11, 2005. What's interesting is how the legislation has worked in practice.  That's the subject of another post coming this weekend.  'Til then, here's the specific commitments from the 2003 general election:

A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation to develop legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this Province.

The primary objectives of the legislation will be to:

• Establish a registry so the public will know who is lobbying and who is being lobbied.
• Require lobbyists to report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
• Require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.
• Differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.
• Impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.

-srbp-

Non-voters and Influence #nlpoli

There is a new scourge among us.

An evil that causes “problems”.

Russell Wangersky found them and wrote about them this past weekend.

They are the people who do not vote.

‘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.

Dunderdale blunders again: did NALCOR lobbyists give wrong funding figures to fed’s watchdog?

Information provided on the federal lobbyist registry about lobbyists hired by the provincial energy corporation is wrong to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Plus it is also for something other than what the lobbyists are registered to lobby about.

That’s according to Kathy Dunderdale, the province’s natural resources minister.  Presumably, the information was supplied to the federal registry by the lobbyists when they registered.

The province’s natural resources minister claims that the figure $960,000 listed on a federal lobbyist registry entry as cash received by the client for government funds isn’t for fees paid to the lobbyists. 

Dunderdale issued a news release today to refute opposition claims that the provincial energy corporation was dropping almost a million bucks a year on lobbyists while at the same time the provincial government was dropping another bundle to pay for Our Man in a Blue Line Cab who is supposed to be the province’s point man for all things in Ottawa.

Dunderdale says the figure on the federal lobbyist registry was:

…funding received by Nalcor from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for three specific projects related to the Northern Strategic Plan, a rate subsidy for isolated and remote communities powered by diesel, and energy-related studies for the Department of Natural Resources – all unrelated to Summa. The fact that this was not a payment to Summa was evident from the website of the Office of Commissioner of Lobbying, but was misreported by the Opposition.

Okay. 

So that’s exactly what your humble e-scribbler did.

Right off, here’s one entry for the lobbying firm and here’s a picture of the section of the website where the figures are presented.

The same information is the same as the entry for another lobbyist from the same firm currently working the same file.  Here’s the bottom of the second lobbyist entry which -  incidentally -  is identical to the first:

The information on that financial line is supposed to be government funding received by the client, in this case NALCOR Energy.  You can confirm that by checking the guide provided by the lobbyist registry:

• Source and amount of any government funding provided to the client, as well as information indicating if the client is expecting to receive public funding; and…

Now if Kathy Dunderdale is right, that figure of $960,000 is related to something other than the Lower Churchill and it also isn’t related to the lobbying firm, Summa Strategies.

So why is it there?

Really good question.

Unfortunately, Dunderdale didn’t answer it in her news release.

If that wasn’t bad enough,  the lobbyist entry is about the Lower Churchill and the client is identified as NALCOR Energy, the holding company that includes all the provincial government’s energy holdings.

Under those circumstances, the entry should include  - at the very least - the hundreds of millions paid in the past two years by the provincial government to purchase oil stakes and other money transferred from the provincial government to fatten NALCOR up financially.

Dunderdale didn’t offer any explanation of that in her news release either.

This wouldn’t be the first time Kathy Dunderdale blundered badly on a matter within her portfolio.

In 2006 Dunderdale  was embroiled in controversy over a patronage appointee who violated the province’s public tender act. Dunderdale made repeated statements about the issue some of which contradicted other statements.  in the end, the government was forced to close the legislature early to avoid further embarrassment.

In 2008, Dunderdale said the provincial government was considering a law suit against Quebec and Ottawa over the 1969 Churchill Falls contract.  She later claimed she “misspoke”, a line she maintains to this date despite evidence the government has been considering some form of legal ploy on the contract for some time.

In September, 2009, Dunderdale gave wrong information about the failure of talks with Rhode Island on a potential sale of Lower Churchill power. She said “that they did not have the capacity to negotiate a long-term power purchase agreement with Nalcor on behalf of the Province. Nor were they able, in their Legislature, to do the regulatory changes that were required in order to wheel electricity into the state.”

According to the Rhode Island governor’s office:

As far as we can determine, there is no legislative hold up here in Rhode Island, it is more of a question of cost.  While the power generation is inexpensive, the cost of transmission adds to the final price. The possibility of purchasing power is still alive….

The salvation for Dunderdale in this case is that she scored a minor victory on what the cash was really about.

Unfortunately Dunderdale put the government’s lobbyists in an even deeper spot over the amount they apparently did report to the federal lobbyist registry.

Ouch!

-srbp-

Who is lobbying whom these days? #nlpoli

When it needed a lobbyist in Ottawa to monitor the federal environmental review process for its Kami project, Alderon Iron Ore turned to Summa Strategies and a well-connected fellow named Tim Powers.

You can find out information like this thanks to the federal registry of lobbyists.  Powers’ registration number for the Alderon gig is 777504-308605.  It’s a matter of public record.

For those who may not know, Powers is also a registered lobbyist (777504-14002) for Nalcor Energy in its dealings with the federal government.  Again, it’s a matter of public record. 

But what about Alderon’s dealings with the provincial government and its agency, Nalcor Energy?  Did they have anyone interceding on their behalf? 

Good question. 

Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer.

When is lobbying not lobbying?

Apparently Premier Danny Williams does not consider that representatives of Persona, Rogers (TSX:RCI) and MTS Allstream were engaged in lobbying the provincial government on what ultimately became the GRAP fibre deal.

For the record, here are some extracts from Danny Williams' own Lobbyist Registration Act:

2 (1)...

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

(i) the development of any legislative proposal by the government of the province or by a member of the House of Assembly,

(ii) the introduction of any bill or resolution in the House of Assembly or the passage, defeat or amendment of any bill or resolution that is before the House of Assembly,

(iii) the making, amendment or repeal of any subordinate legislation as defined in the Statutes and Subordinate Legislation Act ,

(iv) the development, amendment or termination of any policy or program of the government of the province,

(v) a decision by the Executive Council to transfer from the Crown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the Crown or to the public,

(vi) a decision by the Executive Council, a committee of the Executive Council or a minister of the Crown to have the private sector instead of the Crown provide goods or services to the Crown,

(vii) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of the Crown,

(viii) the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of the Crown,

(ix) arranging a meeting between a public-office holder and any other person,

(x) public-office holders relating to the procurement of goods and services,

(xi) public-office holders relating to the terms of a tender or request for proposals or other procurement solicitation prior to the awarding of that tender or the acceptance of the request for proposals or other procurement solicitation,

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

(xiii) the appointment of any public official;

Promises, promises… 2003 contracts and tendering edition #nlpoli

In light of the controversy about Humber Valley Paving, here are some of the Conservative promises made in 2003 about contracts and public tendering, controls on political donations, special committees of the legislature, and disclosure of lobbying activities.

Each of them bears on the HVP tendering controversy in one way or another.  You humble e-scribbler has highlighted some of the sentences in bold because they contrast so starkly with that the Conservatives did once they got into office. 

Note the bit about revising the Public Tender Act.  The Conservatives promised it in 2003.  They gave notice that they planned to introduce a new public tendering law in the spring 2012 session of the legislature.  And then it disappeared.  They promised campaign finance reform and did nothing once in office.

Enjoy!

Big Oil’s New L’il Buddies and helicopter safety

While the offshore helicopter safety inquiry has given some people a platform for their false statements about search and rescue again, let’s try a scenario that is based on facts and reasonable suppositions. 

Let’s suppose, for example, that after the whole thing is over, former Supreme Court Judge Robert Wells makes some recommendations that – in the opinion of the offshore oil companies – would adversely affect the projects. 

Let’s take the Hebron project as a typical one.

Adverse affect might be cost in this case. 

For example, let’s suppose that Wells decides that – despite the very best and most intense lobbying by everyone from Jack Harris to lawyer Randall Earle – the cost burden for providing search and rescue for the offshore in St. John’s should still be borne by the oil companies.

Let’s suppose that Big Oil’s L’il Buddies fail miserably in their efforts to shift the cost to taxpayers.  Let’s imagine that – contrary to the campaign being waged -  Wells requires that the companies continue to provide SAR support for their own employees and their own helicopters. 

And let’s imagine Wells decides to up the ante arguing that they should do it 24/7.

All of that is either established fact (there is such a campaign underway, even if it is hodge-podge and disorganized) or is a likely outcome of the inquiry.

And further, let’s suppose the oil companies find that – for a whole bunch of arguable reasons – that cost is just too much to bear. 

Maybe oil prices have dropped down again to levels far below the current US$80 a barrel.  And hey, it’s not like oil prices will go up and up and up forever.

So there’s our scenario.

What does the provincial government do?

Well, the provincial cabinet would likely find themselves bound by section 5.1 of the Hebron financial agreements:

The Province shall, on the request of the Proponents…support the efforts of the Proponents in responding to any future legislative and regulatory changes that may be proposed by Canada or a municipal government in the Province that might adversely affect any Development Project, provided such action does not negatively impact the Province or require the Province to take any legislative or regulatory action respecting municipalities.

And before you start arguing that opposing the SAR regulation “negatively impact the Province”, you are really not reading carefully enough.  When the word “province” is written with a capital “P” it means the Government of the place.

So since the provincial government as such would not be negatively affected, they wouldn’t have the one and only ground that applies on which they could slip out from under their legally binding obligation to back Big Oil.

Of course, the provincial government is also really an oil company these days.  Therefore it would liable for the cost of providing those helicopters for SAR.  It  would be in the provincial government’s interest to work with the other oil companies against the Wells safety recommendation anyway. 

If money is really tight - after all  - and these extra costs threaten the Lower Churchill project too, there might be lots of reasons for the provincial government/oil company to fight such a recommendation.

This inquiry might turn out to be very interesting after all. 

Oh.

And we can expect the lobbying effort that benefits Big Oil – Jack Harris is a witness in the schedule, for example – to intensify over the next few weeks.

-srbp-

Hebron deal: Big Oil’s new L’il Buddy

A curious extract from the financial agreement that was part of the Hebron development deal:

5.1 Support of Province.

The Province shall, on the request of the Proponents:

(A) assist and support each of the Proponents in seeking modifications for federal fiscal enhancements to the extent that such enhancements do not, in the opinion of the Province, have a negative financial impact on the Province, or where such enhancements do have a negative financial impact, they have been offset to the satisfaction of the Province by the Proponents;

(B) use all reasonable efforts to assist the Proponents in securing commitments from Canada and municipal governments in the Province regarding the legal and regulatory framework applicable to a Development Project; and

(C) support the efforts of the Proponents in responding to any future legislative and regulatory changes that may be proposed by Canada or a municipal government in the Province that might adversely affect any Development Project, provided such action does not negatively impact the Province or require the Province to take any legislative or regulatory action respecting municipalities.

Talk about your little gem of a concession to the oil companies.

This section commits the provincial to support any or all of the proponents on any action taken by the Government of Canada that “might adversely affect any” development project on any of the lands covered by the agreement.

What might we be talking about here?

Well, it’s pretty wide open. If you look up the definition of “Development Project” in the agreement you’ll see it’s broad enough to cover every aspect of the project from start to finish, including environmental considerations. If the proponents think the idea is bad, then the province is obliged to help out. It doesn’t have an option; if the proponents ask, the “Province shall.”

And before you note the little provisos there about the Province and the conditions under which it doesn’t have to lend support, bear in mind that the definition of the Province in the agreement is also pretty tight and tidy:

“Province" means the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the geographical territory of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the context may require.

Now this gets even more squirrely when you consider that the provincial government co-manages the offshore with the federal government through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. The sort of regulatory changes we are talking here are ones that are most likely to come through the offshore board.

Environmental regulations, shipping regulations, changes to safety requirements, that sort of thing: all covered through federal legislation since the offshore is legally in federal jurisdiction.

Even fallow field is covered by this provision. If a future federal government wanted to change land tenure in such a way that it would affect lands covered by Hebron, the provincial government would likely be obliged to toe Big Oil’s line. If the proposed federal regulatory “enhancements” actually worked out well for the provincial government, the Proponents can cut a side deal under this clause to secure their support to fight the “enhancements”.

Not a bad little clause.

Well, not bad for the oil companies, anyway.

This provision is even more squirrely because the provincial government – through the minister of natural resources (Kathy Dunderdale) and the provincial representatives on the offshore regulatory board – will not only carry on all this lobbying at the behest of and on behalf of Big Oil in the first place, they can do it from behind closed doors.

There isn’t a single clause there that would oblige the provincial government to disclose its lobbying on behalf of the oil companies; no disclosure to the public and indeed no disclosure to anyone.

Seems like a pretty big conflict of interest, but not one that should come as any surprise given that government’s policy is to be both a regulator and an operator simultaneously.

That’s pretty much the definition of conflict of interest as we’ve discussed here before, particularly when the talks broke off in 2006. We also raised the issue given the Premier’s curious claim after the recent helicopter crash that – despite the fairly obvious – the provincial government didn’t have a regulatory role in the offshore.

It also shouldn’t come as a surprise given that the Hebron deal sets the local research and development below the levels set by the offshore regulator. Government accepted that low amount - and the pledge to back Big Oil - after the offshore board won a court case against Big Oil over just those sorts of levies set retroactively by the offshore board. Next time out, Kathy Dunderdale or her successor will be working to make sure the regulatory changes don’t get out of the board in the first place.

All of that pales in comparison to the clause in a fiscal deal that obliges the provincial government to back the oil companies whenever the companies ask.

-srbp-

@cbcnl using Nalcor lobbyist as election commentator #nlpoli #cdnpoli

 

CBC Newfoundland and Labrador will be using registered Nalcor lobbyist Tim Powers as an election commentator but Powers will apparently be commenting as part of a group of journalists and a political scientist, not as an identified partisan or lobbyist.

CBC’s David Cochrane will host the new TV program  - On Point – that will air Sunday afternoons at 1:00 PM on the island during the provincial election. Cochrane described the show in an interview with St. John’s Morning Show host Anthony Germain on Tuesday. 

Cochrane included Powers as part of a group comprising political scientist Amanda Bittner, Telegram editor Russell Wangersky and  Germain. The show will also feature a partisan panel, made up of representatives of the three provincial political parties. Each Sunday show will also have a feature interview.

Great concept, great panel - including Powers  - except for one enormous problem:  Powers is in a blatant and undeniable conflict of interest.  He’s a paid lobbyist for Nalcor.  Work for Nalcor, you work – in effect for the provincial government.   That means that the object of Powers’ lobbying work will play a central role in this campaign.

Blind people could see the ethical problems the CBC has created journalistically by including Powers on a panel discussing the provincial election.  

Powers has been a registered lobbyist for Nalcor on the Lower Churchill project since at least 2007.  According to the lobbyist commissioner’s office, Powers’ registration with the federal lobbyist registry expired in March 2011.  He reactivated the registration in June 2011.

Powers has an impressive resume.  A former political aide to John Crosbie, Powers holds degrees from four universities including the London School of Economics and Harvard University.  He is well known as a media commentator on political issues.

But that doesn’t trump his obvious conflict of interest.  The guy can’t even pretend to offer unbiased commentary in an election in which his client and his client’s sole shareholder are directly involved.

For some reason, Powers’ role lobbying on behalf of Nalcor in Ottawa is seldom mentioned publicly in his commentaries even when he speaks about his client’s business. 

In the past, Powers has written about and commented on Nalcor issues on his blog at the Globe and Mail yet neither he nor the Globe  disclosed his status as a registered lobbyist for the provincial Crown corporation in connection with the pieces.

Some people touted Powers as a potential successor to Danny Williams, but that was before the provincial Conservative Party sorted out its backroom deal for Kathy Dunderdale.  He’s also commented about provincial politics, generally.  In June 2011, Powers commented on the role of political myth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

- srbp -

To infinity, and beyond - redux

Planetspace, Inc., an American company that lost in its bid to develop NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems phase one demonstrations, is lobbying the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for financial assistance for an unspecified venture.

Planetspace was one of 13 companies in the race to develop the commercial orbital system but lost out earlier this year to Orbital.

Mark Doucet, of Cabot Capital Network Projects is the registered lobbyist. Doucet has registered to lobby the Premier's Office, the Business Investment Corporation as well as the business, finance, tourism, innovation and transportation departments for a "financial incentive request".

The Globe and Mail reported last year that Fred Doucet, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, was lobbying the Government of Canada for $45 million to support development of a space tourism venture as part of the Nova Scotia project.

Fred Doucet, president and chief executive officer of Fred Doucet Consulting International Inc (FDCI), is listed in the federal government registry as a lobbyist for Planetspace. Mark Doucet is listed in the registry as a vice president of FDCI.

Fred Doucet's name popped up early in 2008 as the go-between who arranged meetings been Mulroney and German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber. He denied knowing anything about financial transactions alleged to have taken place at the meetings.

Fred Doucet is reported by the National Post to have been a business partner of former Premier Frank Moores in Government Consultants International.

Planetspace signed a deal in August 2006 with the Government of Nova Scotia for 300 acres of land as part of a plan to develop an orbital launch facility. Bond Papers reported the Nova Scotia deal in July 2007.

-srbp-

Inertia #nlpoli

In a letter last May to his federal counterpart, economic development minister Keith Hutchings described minimum processing requirements as the “only policy instrument within provincial jurisdiction that ensures fisheries resources adjacent to the province result in processing jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

For those who do not know what they are,  minimum processing requirements are a condition that the provincial government sets on the licenses it gives to companies that process fish in the province.  The name says it all:  the companies have to process a certain amount of the fish in order to create jobs in fish plants around Newfoundland and Labrador.

There’s been a fairly steady row about processing rules over the past decade as the companies struggle to stay financially viable.  There are way too many plants for the amount of fish available and there are way too many people in the province drawing pathetically small wages slicing up the fish that comes ashore.  Companies can’t process fish profitably here and yet the provincial government insists they keep at bit.

The provincial politicians and bureaucrats know perfectly well that they need to change their ways. The politicians knew about it when they set about to destroy the only truly globally competitive fish company in the province.  They’ve known about it as the fought over exactly the same issue with the company the government’s policy favoured over exactly the same issue.

And yet the politicians persist with their bankrupt idea.

Radio Free Nalcor #nlpoli

Talk about putting on the full court press to try and squeeze out every favourable bit of commentary for a project that remains mired in controversy and doubt.

Nalcor is running a couple of days of media trips – free of charge – to the falls itself where Nalcor has already started working on a project it claims they haven’t got approval to start work on yet.

And if that wasn’t enough, and surely purely by total coincidence Conservative strategist Tim Powers is a co-host on VOCM’s Back Talk.  The station is owned by Steele Communications, incidentally, whose boss sits  - by complete happenstance - on the board of directors of Nalcor’s oil and gas corporation.

No room for dissent? No time for silence. #nlpoli

The controversy about The Rooms' recent request for proposals is not about Muskrat Falls.

Maybe someone at The Rooms or within the provincial government thought that was the problem when Des Sullivan raised concerns about it.  After all, Des is well known as a critic of Muskrat Falls.  That might explain why Dean Brinton, The Rooms' chief executive,  issued a very short statement that apologized for using Muskrat Falls as an example when explaining the Crown corporation's policy about conflict of interest for advertising agencies responding to the proposal request.

Let us assume that Brinton made a really superficial mistake because otherwise  his response is insulting and condescending.  Any reasonable personal understood our ought to have understood that Sullivan was concerned about the implication that critics of the provincial government could not bid on government work.

Brinton didn't deal with that at all.

Bandaids, buck passing, a scurrilous personal attack and the possible breakdown of cabinet government

Despite posting record operating surpluses in each of the three years since it received reports on the needed repairs and life safety improvement province's hospitals, the Williams administration planned to increase spending on hospital repairs by just two million dollars in its upcoming budget. 

The plan was to spend $14 million instead of the $12 million budgeted in those three record surplus years.

That is until news broke this week of the problems.

Now, according to Premier Danny Williams , that $14 million will be increased to somewhere between $20 to $28 million. Williams said $14 million of that will go to the four sites in St. John's, including the provincial health centre at the Health Sciences Centre.

You can read about it on the front page of today's Telegram. Williams comments were also reported on NTV News on Friday evening.

Previously secret consultant's reports were released this week by the provincial health department after health minister Ross Wiseman inadvertently referred to them.  The assessments, completed in 2005 showed that four St. John's area health centres required $134 million in required repairs.  over half that amount - $70 million - was classified as currently or potentially critical.

The provincial allocation for St. John's amounts to just 20% of the amount identified as critical or potentially critical just three years ago.  In the meantime, the situations have deteriorated and the costs have increased.  According to CBC, which broke the hospital scandal earlier this week, the bill for St. John's hospitals could top $170 million if all work was done this year.

"It's growing faster than we can keep ahead of it," said Keith Bowden, director of infrastructure and support for Eastern Health, the regional authority that manages all hospitals and clinics in the city area, as well as the rest of eastern Newfoundland.

"I mean, we're not keeping ahead of the curve at all."

The reports on the St. John's hospitals were kept secret despite a written commitment from Williams in his 2003 campaign manual to release government-commissioned reports within 30 days of receipt and to have an action plan made public within 60 days to address the reports.

Reports on other hospitals in the province - so-called facilities reports - may also exist.

According to provincial finance department figures, the Williams administration posted a $524 million surplus on its operating budgets for 2005 (capital and current) and a $141 million surplus in 2006.  In 2007, the surplus is projected to be more than $880 million yet while the finance minister and the health minister knew of the hospitals problem, the surplus was redirected to other spending, including covering some of the costs of creating a government-owned oil and gas company.

In the Telegram, Williams defended his health minister saying that Wiseman didn't create the problems. 'We inherited this and we inherited a mess," Williams said.  While that's true Williams' administration also hasn't done anything to deal with the problem and obviously hadn't planned to do anything until the secret reports were uncovered by media inquiries.

For his part, Williams denied knowing anything about the reports. Given the Premier's penchant for nano-management, his claim seems odd but if we take him at his word - there's no reason not to - Williams has now pointed to a far more sinister problem within his administration. 

If Williams is correct, three successive ministers of health, including the man he just appointed to head the energy company's board of directors withheld crucial information from him and potentially other members of cabinet.

Williams claim suggests a fundamental breakdown in the operations of cabinet government in the province. Ministers cannot properly make crucial decisions, such as government spending, if details of major issues are hidden from them.  The secrecy cloak that apparently kept these reports from the public also applies within government too, if Williams' comments are accepted at face value.

Opposition parties were highly critical of the Williams' administration handling of the hospital scandal this week.

"This report has sat on the desk of three ministers," [Liberal health critic Roland] Butler said.

"Yes, the debt has to be looked after," said Butler, who said Health Minister Ross Wiseman should be lobbying Finance Minister Tom Marshall, "trying to find out if he can get the money to correct those serious issues, sooner rather than later."

New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael called on Williams to relieve Wiseman in light of his performance on a serious of scandals within the department.  In an interview with NTV news, Williams attacked Michael personally, claiming she was being hypocritical to criticize Wiseman when she herself had been looking for a raise from the House of Assembly management committee. 

There's no logical connection between the two issues, but the attack was a trademark Williams' personal smear.

Update:  CBC has other examples of repairs needed in hospitals around the province. Seems there are hospitals without sprinkler systems. 

CBC's Deanne Fleet reported on this in the Friday news cast.  Neither the fire commissioner nor municipal affairs minister Dave Denine were available Friday to take questions on the growing controversy.  Denine and health minister Ross Wiseman dropped the regulatory hammer on 22 personal care homes in the province just three weeks ago for not having sprinklers installed.

Operators, who had been warned of the sprinkler issue in 2003, were given just 30 days to install systems or get signed contracts for installation or face immediate closure.

You can likely figure out Fleet's questions to the fire commissioner and to Denine.

-srbp-

Trevor's duck and cover explained

Trevor Taylor, part-time substitute fisheries minister in the Provincial Conservative government has been busily ducking a looming issue in the fisheries world.  In a system already grossly overstocked with processing capacity, Taylor's department has a recommendation under consideration to add a few more licenses.

The local CBC fisheries broadcast has been trying desperately to get Taylor on the air.

He's been unavailable.

Apparently, Trevor's been too busy campaigning against Fabian Manning, not in his free time or anything mind you but during the day time  - normal government working hours - when one might expect he could have found a few hours to devote to his custodial responsibilities in the fish department.

Seems Trevor has been joined on the hustings by attorney general Jerome Kennedy and intergovernmental affairs genius Tom Hedderson. 

You will recall Hedderson as the guy writing letters to Ottawa last June lobbying on a decision that was made...18 months earlier.

Trevor sees no problem with this carrying on partisan family fights during daylight hours.

Trevor also decided on Monday to issue a news release criticizing the federal government for a deal giving 1500 tonnes of yellowtail flounder from Canada's NAFO allocation to the Americans.

But sure Trevor and the boys are supporting the ABC campaign, you say.

Yes, sez your humble e-scribbler, but don't forget the real motivation for all these cabinet ministers to join in the Family Feud.

There's a big cabinet shuffle coming very shortly.  Being seen out there hammering away at The Boss' favourite cause is much better for the old career path than spending time doing other things, like say the job you get paid to do.

Oh.  That's right. 

Trevor did find time in his hectic hectoring schedule to call the Fisheries Broadcast and do an interview.

But that was after one of his predecessors outed him on the Family Feud thing.

-srbp-

Ya wanna know what stupid is? #nlpoli #cdnpoli

According to information supplied to the news media – and widely reported already – the helicopter from 444 Squadron used for a training flight than ended with a bit of fishing for the crew six weeks ago was available for search and rescue missions.

And if that re-tasking wouldn’t have been enough, the squadron had another aircraft on stand-by anyway to meet any call for civilian search and rescue service, which, by the way, is not the squadron’s primary job.

None of that stopped CBC from turning a photo of the trip into a scandal.  But to complain about that though would be to complain about dogs barking:  that’s the shit they do especially when it comes to a potential ratings driver like a controversy spun entirely out of the imaginations of people in a newsroom. 

Crisis at Tammany

Well, not really.

It’s really just a couple of councillors who have opted for hysterics over reason given the decision by Fortis to withdraw its proposed 15 storey high rise development in a heritage zone that had a four story height restriction.

Read that again, just to make sure you are clear.

A proposal that already violated the city building restrictions died before it got to a vote.

And some councillors are a wee bit miffed.

Like At Large councillor Tom Hann and mayor Doc O’Keefe (via CBC):

"Some of us were labelled gutless wonders, and spineless. So in the present atmosphere, why would anyone want to come here and be part of the city," said Hann.

"We slammed the door, your worship. We slammed the door in their face."

A disappointed Mayor Dennis O'Keefe agreed, saying the company had voiced similar concerns to him.

"They felt that they weren't getting a fair shake," said O'Keefe. "What they heard the loudest was the naysaying and the branding of being arrogant."

If Hann would stop with the foolishness for a moment, he’d realise that there are plenty of places in St. John’s, including in the downtown area, where a developer like Fortis can build high rise towers.

So if a developer like Fortis decides to submit a proposal for development that violates the area height restrictions, then it’s their own fault if the thing fails.

There was nothing stopping Fortis from submitting a proposal that fit within the rules and that incorporated a redevelopment of their existing 12 story property.  That one would have been grandfathered through anyway.

But there isn’t a single developer who will refuse to come build in the city of St. john’s because  - to use his own words - some people think councillors like Hann are “gutless wonders” and “spineless”.

Developers likely don’t care that much about Hann’s feelings.

As for Fortis, they did a pretty slick job early on of lobbying people like Hann and O’Keefe and putting them in the bag long before the residents of St. John’s even heard about the proposal. That’s the sort of old-fashioned crony politics that has left this city in a development mess there is. That’s the one where no one knows what the rules are.  They don’t know what the rules are because there are a few councillors who can be persuaded to toss the rules out the window if the mood strikes them.

Ultimately Fortis lost this round because of a pretty effective lobby.  Those opposed to the development just put the squeeze on the notoriously fickle councillors.

That’s the way things go in politics.

And if Hann wants to fix things  - if he wants to show he has a spine - well he can start by bringing about some changes that open up city hall to greater public scrutiny. That way people wouldn’t be worried that developers can get their way around the rules.

Who knows?  If the rules were suddenly clear and fairly and consistently applied there might be more people willing to invest.

-srbp-