Wait, what? (II)

CBC reported Thursday on the Great Patriotic War for Freedom From Information:

[Interim Auditor-General] Loveys wrote that the government has lately been applying a much broader definition of cabinet secrecy "than has been seen in recent memory."

But Dunderdale said government has nothing to hide, and said that Loveys had alternative ways of getting the same information — although she could not suggest any when reporters asked her to do so.

"I think there are other ways for him to get that information other than from cabinet documents ... here are reams and reams of information that's made available to the auditor general," Dunderdale said.

"Every piece of information that comes in to government is available to the auditor general. It's just the preparation of material used specifically for the preparation of cabinet documents is not available."

O.... K...... So, under the rule that says you can't get cabinet documents, you can't get cabinet documents.

Which means, in the Former Republic of Dannystan, you can't get "material used specifically for the preparation of cabinet documents", or "the preparation of material used specifically for the preparation of cabinet documents".

Perhaps some Iranian military scientists will get their hands on these materials use for the preparation of cabinet documents, and create some cabinet documents of their own. Buwahaha ha ha ha!

Or something.

In any event, Dunderstan has come a long way from what the PC Party New Energy campaigned on in 2003:

A Progressive Conservative government will:

Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include amendments that will clearly identify information that should be in the public domain, including cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the information to the public.

Wait, what? (I)

In the continuing story of a government gone to the dogs, Ashley Fitzpatrick reports in Saturday's Telegram:

The premier said the editorial was incorrect in suggesting there was no accounting for how $5 billion in infrastructure spending was parceled out.

"What the (acting) auditor general said was that he didn't feel he had access to documents that allow him to determine how decisions were made on how we were going to spend money," she said.

"Nowhere in his report does he talk about not knowing where money was spent. Nowhere. The auditor general is informed on a daily basis where every cent in the government is spent. It's all uploaded to a website that he has access to. On a monthly basis, he is given a roll-up of the month's spending - down to the last nickel. When projects are approved at cabinet, the auditor general is informed of what projects are approved, before a nickel is spent."

Crazy idea here, just throwin' it out there... but why doesn't The Most Accountable Government Ever open up access to this website to everyone?

Sounds like something special!

About that "infrastructure strategy"

Over the past few years, this corner has tried to quantify a very obvious pattern of pavement politicking, using data drawn from a couple of sources.

The first source was the former Danny Williams-Government's own press releases, passim, announcing funding under the Provincial Roads Improvement Program.

The second, interestingly, a most useful table which was provided after requesting the "analysis" referred to in a 2005 press release issued by former Minister Tom Rideout:

Minister Rideout says he offers no apologies for addressing transportation issues in government districts throughout the province. "When the previous administration was in power, opposition districts were highly neglected," said the minister. "This neglect now needs to be addressed, and that is exactly the action our department is taking.

"I had an analysis completed for the last five years that the previous administration was in office. Statistics from this analysis clearly indicate that the largest percentage of the allocated funding for roads went to government districts.

"I make no apologies now for addressing areas that were neglected when the previous administration was in power."

Asking for this "analysis" yielded a printoff of a simple Excel spreadsheet, years in columns, district names in rows, dollar amounts in cells. When pressed as to whether this constituted the whole of the analysis, Senior Official replied:

I will have to retrieve single page I sent you to confirm but I believe it lists the name of each electoral district as well as the expenditures. Any provincial politcian would know simply by looking at the district names which ones are Government seats and which are not. The Minister would not have required any further analysis by officials to make this distinction.

Well and good.

Of course, the former Danny Williams-Government liked to do things on a go-forward basis. No further proof was needed of this, than the fact that the "analysis", referenced in 2005, and so helpfully provided by DW-G, included data up to 2008.

So, by 2010, curiosity being what it is, this corner inquired again of Senior Official:

Has the table referenced below been updated with more recent data, including from the 2009 PRIP?

Response:

We have not updated the table yet.

Follow-up:

Will it be updated?

Re-response:

Eventually, but we do not update on regular basis just as need arises. We are tied up on other priorities right now.

On a totally unrelated measure, after years of making a great show of them, starting in 2009 Danny Williams-Government completely stopped including dollar value figures in its district-by-district PRIP funding announcements, and has continued to omit them on — wait for it — a go-forward basis.

Pease in a pod (XXIV)

#FormerPremier:

"I can't control traitors. People who betray their province, I have no control over that. All I can continue to do is fight the good fight and I will right up until the federal election..."

#CurrentPMO:

In a sworn affidavit released Tuesday to The Canadian Press, Andrew Frank says he was told by his supervisor at ForestEthics that a PMO official had referred to their organization as an "enemy of the state."

Better late than never?

Rob Antle of CBC, January 18, 2012:

The Newfoundland and Labrador house of assembly sat for the fewest days last year since the Tories took office, dropping the province further down the list of active provincial legislatures.

The chamber at Confederation Building was open for debate just 33 days in 2011.

Other than 2003, that’s the lowest figure in at least a quarter-century, according to statistics maintained by the Parliament of Canada.

Ahem. 2011.

2010.

2010 again.

2009.

2009 again.

Show your work

Dundergov repeated a strange Dandergov-era claim on Tuesday:

Newfoundland and Labrador has once again emerged as a national leader in red tape reduction according to an annual report released today by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). The report gives Newfoundland and Labrador a grade of B, second only to British Columbia.

“The Red Tape Reduction initiative in this province began in 2006, and has had resounding success to date,” said the Honourable Paul Davis, Minister of Service NL. “The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has an ongoing commitment to improving regulatory processes across all of our programs and services.”

The original goal of the provincial Red Tape Reduction initiative was a 25 per cent reduction in red tape. This goal was surpassed within a three-year time frame, and the Provincial Government continues to achieve its objective of no net growth in the number of regulatory requirements. As of November 2011, this objective has been surpassed with a net reduction in regulatory requirements of two per cent since April 2009.

This corner will ask again:

How is this "red tape" measured, so that its reduction can be quantified so very precisely?

And what regulatory requirements have been abolished along the way?

Can a body get such information with resorting to protracted and orwellian (or possibly kafkaesque) Access to Information requests?

What is the Premier trying to hide?

This was the Progressive Conservative Party, a decade ago, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by private capital:

MR. WILLIAMS: The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are very, very concerned about the details of this agreement and they have a right to know before it is finalized.

My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier is: Why would you not bring it before this Legislature and before the people of the Province? If you are about to sign a deal that could possibly be another giveaway of our resources, of our future, of our children and our grandchildren, why would you not bring it before this House if it is going to be such a good deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? What is the Premier trying to hide, Mr. Speaker?

This is the Progressive Conservative Party, Wednesday, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by at least $6.2-billion in public money, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that the cost estimates are credible:

“We’re going to have the Manitoba Hydro report at the end of this month, and that is the critical component of the PUB review. You’ve heard all of the discussion that has come from opposition parties about opening of the House and having an opportunity to discuss issues,” Dunderdale said.

She said the Opposition Liberals and the NDP can use their allotted budget debate time to talk about Muskrat Falls and the PUB report.

“Because the budget is a money bill, you can discuss anything under the sun,” Dunderdale said.

What a hypocrisy this government is

This was the Progressive Conservative Party, a decade ago, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by private capital:

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what a farce. What a hypocrisy this government is. This government, who says its trademark is: It is the most open and accountable and transparent government since Confederation. What a farce!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: Will he agree with the position of Deputy Premier Tulk, last spring, and agree to a full and open debate in the House of Assembly prior to an agreement between Inco and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and prior to such an agreement being final and binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Will you agree, Minister, to a full and open debate in this House?

This is the Progressive Conservative Party, Wednesday, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by at least $6.2-billion in public money, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that the cost estimates are credible:

“We’re going to have the Manitoba Hydro report at the end of this month, and that is the critical component of the PUB review. You’ve heard all of the discussion that has come from opposition parties about opening of the House and having an opportunity to discuss issues,” Dunderdale said.

She said the Opposition Liberals and the NDP can use their allotted budget debate time to talk about Muskrat Falls and the PUB report.

“Because the budget is a money bill, you can discuss anything under the sun,” Dunderdale said.

The people need to know

This was the Progressive Conservative Party, a decade ago, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by private capital:

ST. JOHN'S, May 6, 2002 — In order to force the government to debate the terms of the deal in the House of Assembly, Williams said the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador will be conducting a major advertising campaign. Caucus members will also hold public speaking engagements across the province.

"The people need to know that the government is about to sign a bad deal. We know from previous experience, such as Churchill Falls, that once a bad deal is signed, it cannot be changed no matter how hard we try. Debating the deal in the House of Assembly before it is finalized will at a minimum fully disclose to the people the benefits this province will receive from the development of a major resource."

This is the Progressive Conservative Party, Wednesday, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by at least $6.2-billion in public money, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that the cost estimates are credible:

“We’re going to have the Manitoba Hydro report at the end of this month, and that is the critical component of the PUB review. You’ve heard all of the discussion that has come from opposition parties about opening of the House and having an opportunity to discuss issues,” Dunderdale said.

She said the Opposition Liberals and the NDP can use their allotted budget debate time to talk about Muskrat Falls and the PUB report.

“Because the budget is a money bill, you can discuss anything under the sun,” Dunderdale said.

Arrogance and disrespect

This was the Progressive Conservative Party, a decade ago, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by private capital:

MR. WILLIAMS: My questions today are for the Premier. Yesterday, in response to a question to the Premier on whether debate would be held in this House of Assembly before a deal was finalized on Voisey's Bay, the Premier shocked some of the Members of this House of Assembly and indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He made a statement, and I will repeat it, "If we have a debate in this Legislature, and if the government has already commited to the deal, which has twenty-eight seats, and if we bring it in here and vote for it, regardless of how the Opposition votes, it will pass in this Legislature. That is the practicality of how this Legislature operates."

That was the Premier's quote. In other words, why bother to bring it in here? Why have hon. members opposite talk about it or debate it? Why bring it before this House?

I would ask the Premier: Does twelve years in power breed the arrogance and disrespect that you now show no respect for this House, for the members of this House, and indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

This is the Progressive Conservative Party, today, about a resource megaproject in Labrador being undertaken by at least $6.2-billion in public money, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that the cost estimates are credible:

“We’re going to have the Manitoba Hydro report at the end of this month, and that is the critical component of the PUB review. You’ve heard all of the discussion that has come from opposition parties about opening of the House and having an opportunity to discuss issues,” Dunderdale said.

She said the Opposition Liberals and the NDP can use their allotted budget debate time to talk about Muskrat Falls and the PUB report.

“Because the budget is a money bill, you can discuss anything under the sun,” Dunderdale said.

Finally, a legislative agenda

Tom Osborne, the Member that works, has another one of his brrrilliant ideas. VOCM reports today:

MHA Targeting Money Lenders
Friday , January 6 2012

A St. John's MHA is pushing for regulations to deal with payday lending companies and their practices in the province. On VOCM Back Talk with Paddy Daly, Tory MHA Tom Osborne said he was shocked by a call he received from a constituent who recently ran into trouble with one of those companies. He says the man had borrowed $140 and was charged $267 plus an additional $20 fee just a month later. Osborne says he will push for regulations, similar to those in place in other provinces, to try to control how payday lending companies operate. He says the companies prey on people who are already vulnerable.

If Osborne is looking for other provincial legislation to study, and then ignore, he need look no further than Manitoba, whose Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans) was enacted in 2009.

This was two years after Manitoba brought in its whistleblower protection legislation, which the Danny-Dunderdale Government has been assiduously ignoring studying going on five years now.