One departed minister received now-cancelled cabinet cash allowance, premier's office says
One now-retired politician availed of a new transitional allowance for outgoing cabinet ministers that was rescinded hours after being revealed by CBC News on Friday.
Late Tuesday afternoon, the premier's office confirmed details of payments made under the now-cancelled policy.
Those details were first reported by the business and political news website allNewfoundlandLabrador.
Former energy minister Andrew Parsons "resigned while the policy was in place and has therefore received the cabinet transitional allowance," Sonja Pomeroy, a spokesperson for the premier's office, wrote in an emailed statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
Parsons would have been eligible for an allowance payment of around $37,000.
According to Pomeroy, former premier Andrew Furey "has not received the cabinet transitional allowance and has asked that he not receive it." He had been eligible under the policy.
Neither Parsons nor Furey has provided comment.
Policy rescinded hours after airing of CBC report
On Friday morning, CBC News revealed that the provincial cabinet had quietly approved a new transitional allowance policy for departing ministers, which came into effect April 1.
It provided one month's ministerial salary for each year of service in cabinet, on a prorated basis, for a minimum of three months and a maximum of 12 months.
For ministers, that worked out to a minimum payout of around $12,000, up to the full annual salary of $48,664.
John Hogan left cabinet in March to run for the provincial Liberal leadership. He won, and was sworn in as Newfoundland and Labrador's 15th premier in May. (Mark Quinn/CBC)
The revelation of the new payment to outgoing cabinet ministers, approved just months before an election, generated immediate public controversy. Six current cabinet ministers have indicated they plan to retire when voters go to the polls.
ADVERTISEMENT
On Friday afternoon, Premier John Hogan announced that cabinet had met and decided to "immediately rescind" the policy, which had never been publicly disclosed.
Hogan stressed that he was not in cabinet when the policy was approved, and was not involved in that decision.
In an open letter to Hogan on Monday, Opposition Leader Tony Wakeham was skeptical about that explanation.
"Setting aside how difficult it is to believe that the public service would not brief a new premier on issues of compensation for cabinet, your statement raises more questions than it provides answers," Wakeham wrote.
The PC leader said any cabinet minister who voted to approve the allowance should be removed from the Liberal slate of candidates in the coming election.
PC Leader Tony Wakeham, left, and NDP Leader Jim Dinn have both been sharply critical of the now-cancelled allowance for departing ministers and how it has been handled. (Jeremy Eaton/CBC)
Meanwhile, NDP Leader Jim Dinn called on Hogan to disclose exactly who supported the decision.
ADVERTISEMENT
"None of these ministers are living paycheque to paycheque," Dinn said in a press release Tuesday.
"To make such a selfish decision after hearing firsthand how much people are struggling is nothing short of greed."
Download our free CBC News app to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Sign up for our daily headlines newsletter here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Canada's trade team downplays chances of deal with Trump by Aug. 1
With the clock ticking on U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to boost tariffs on some Canadian exports to 35 per cent starting Aug. 1, Canada's top trade negotiators are downplaying the likelihood of reaching a deal by that deadline. Dominic LeBlanc, minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, and Canada's ambassador to the U.S., Kirsten Hillman, wrapped up two days of meetings with Republican senators. These included a brief sit-down between LeBlanc and Howard Lutnick, the U.S. secretary of commerce and Trump's point man on tariffs. "We've made progress, but we have a lot of work in front of us," LeBlanc told reporters outside a Senate office building on Thursday. LeBlanc said he had a "productive, cordial discussion" with Lutnick and plans to return to Washington next week. He also added some caveats about the path to reaching a deal. "We're going to continue to work toward the Aug. 1 deadline,' he said. "But all of these deadlines are with the understanding that we'll take the time necessary to get the best deal that we think is in the interest of the Canadian economy and Canadian workers." Hillman, who was appointed Canada's chief negotiator with the U.S., also suggested an agreement with the Trump administration is not imminent. WATCH | Dominic LeBlanc speaks after meeting Trump's point man on tariffs: "It's important for us to recognize that there is a time when the deal is the right deal, and it's important for us to be in a position to continue negotiating until we get to that point," she said. Their comments are the latest evidence that Prime Minister Mark Carney's government is not in a rush to sign a deal with the U.S. Carney said Tuesday that his objective is "not to reach a deal whatever it costs." Following Carney's meeting with Canada's premiers earlier this week, Nova Scotia's Tim Houston said the prime minister isn't dead set on signing a deal by the deadline. Other countries reach tariff deals with Trump This comes amid Trump's announcements this week of framework agreements on tariffs struck with Japan and Indonesia, and reports the U.S. is closing in on a deal with the European Union. Canada may be less panicked than other trading partners about the Aug. 1 deadline because only a small portion of Canada's exports to the U.S. would be affected by Trump's threat of 35 per cent tariffs. That's because most goods enter the U.S. tariff-free under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. Officials say LeBlanc and Hillman met with five Republican senators in Washington: Kevin Cramer (North Dakota), Roger Marshall (Kansas), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Tim Scott (South Carolina) and Todd Young (Indiana). Another Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, told reporters in Washington on Thursday that the U.S. shares a lot of security and economic interests with Canada and shouldn't treat it as "just another country" when it comes to tariffs. "I wish that I could say it feels good, that this is all going to be taken care of before the first of August, but I'm not sensing that," said Murkowski, who visited Ottawa on Monday to meet Carney and some of his cabinet ministers
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
CBC investigation finds some big grocers promoting imported food with Canadian branding
Like many shoppers these days, Stacey Dineen, who lives just outside Kitchener, Ont., is all-in on the buy Canadian movement. "Trump's comments about annexing Canada, wanting to make us part of the United States, boy, that really kind of lit something," she said. Dineen buys Canadian food whenever she can, but when she can't, she looks for imported products from outside the United States. And Canada's major grocery chains have jumped on the trend, running patriotic ads and pledging to help shoppers buy Canadian. But Dineen says she gets frustrated when grocers provide conflicting information about where a product comes from. Last week, for example, she saw organic broccoli at her local Sobeys grocery store. A sign stated it was a "product of Canada," but the fine print on the tag said "produce of USA." "It makes me feel misled," said Dineen. "At this point, I have run out of patience for it. It feels — at the very least, it's careless." New data from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and a CBC News investigation suggests country-of-origin mislabeling by grocers is an ongoing problem. It's also against the rules; in-store food signage must be accurate and not misleading. The CFIA, Canada's food regulator, told CBC News that between November 2024 and mid-July, it received 97 complaints related to country-of-origin claims. WATCH | Buying Canadian? You may want to double check the signage: Of the 91 complaints investigated so far, the CFIA found companies violated the rules in 29 (32 per cent) of the cases. Most involved bulk produce sold in stores, and in each case the problem was fixed, according to the agency. CBC News visited grocery stores operated by Sobeys, Loblaws and Metro in downtown Toronto this month and found similar issues among both bulk and prepackaged produce. At each store, one or more country-of-origin shelf signs in the produce section stated the accompanying product was a "product of Canada" or Mexico, but the product's sticker or packaging said it was a "product of USA." And it's not just produce. CBC News also found questionable Canadian signage for more than a dozen other types of products at the Sobeys store, including imported raw almonds promoted with a red maple leaf symbol and a "Made in Canada," declaration. "We don't grow almonds in this country. Those should not meet the Made in Canada threshold," said Mike von Massow, a professor in the Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Guelph. He added that a high turnover of grocery products can sometimes lead to mistakes. However, food labelling expert Mary L'Abbé says that, six months into the Buy Canadian movement, shoppers' patience for grocer errors is wearing thin. "It's important to Canadians, and I think they have a responsibility to their consumers who expect them to interpret the regulations correctly," said L'Abbé, a nutritional sciences professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. "I think the retailers have to step up to the plate and actually get their act together." Grocers respond Back in the produce section at Sobeys, CBC News found a large sign promoting blueberries as a "product of Canada." But the fine print on the packaging said the berries were a "product of USA." "That's false advertising," said von Massow, suggesting human error as a possible cause. At the Loblaws store, CBC discovered several produce items, such as berries, squash and eggplant where shelf labels indicated they were a "product of Mexico," while product stickers or packaging revealed they were a "product of U.S.A." Packaged raspberries and blackberries at Metro had similar inconsistent labelling. At a Loblaw-owned No Frills in Toronto, CBC found different inconsistent labelling. The store displayed strawberries with signage that included a red maple leaf and the phrase, "Prepared in Canada." But the berries' packaging stated that they were a "product of USA." It's possible that the strawberries were packaged in Canada, but the CFIA told CBC News it would be inappropriate to use a "Made in Canada" or "Prepared in Canada" claim if a product was only packaged here. L'Abbé says the No Frills ad is misleading. She points out that big grocers have launched big marketing campaigns centred around the Buy Canadian movement. Both Loblaw and Sobeys have produced slick, patriotic ads prominently featuring the Canadian flag. "Obviously they're spending money on those marketing campaigns," said L'Abbé. "They can also do the work behind the scenes to make sure that they're advertising things correctly." CBC News sent photos of its findings to Loblaw Companies Limited, Sobeys Inc., and Metro Inc. Loblaw did not directly answer questions about the strawberries, but shortly after CBC's inquiry, the maple leaf and "Prepared in Canada" signage on the strawberries was gone. Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro each told CBC News in separate emails that they strive for accurate country-of-origin signage, but noted that the task is challenging when dealing with mass inventory. "Fresh produce can change week-to-week and unfortunately mistakes can happen from time to time," said Sobey's spokesperson, Emily Truesdale. Loblaw and Metro offered an apology to customers for any mishaps and encouraged them to alert the store if they discover inconsistencies. Both grocers also said they're working with store staff to reinforce signage policies and minimize errors. "As a result of [CBC's] inquiry, stores received reminders about checking produce labels," said Metro spokesperson Stephanie Bonk. Imported but made in Canada? In response to the Buy Canadian movement, big grocers began marking many domestic products in stores with a maple leaf symbol. But sometimes it winds up on products with no apparent Canadian connection. "There are lots of opportunities for things to get confusing," said von Massow. "It's important for these stores to be transparent." At the Sobeys store, CBC News found more than a dozen "imported" house-brand Compliments products, including ice cream cones, salad dressing, raw nuts and graham crackers, displayed with a red maple leaf symbol. Sobeys' website says the maple leaf symbol refers to items that are "Made in Canada" or are a "Product of Canada." According to the CFIA, "Product of Canada" refers to food that is entirely or almost entirely created in the country. To qualify as "Made in Canada," the last significant transformation of a food product must occur in the country. But the packaging for each of the imported house-brand items states that it was "imported for Sobeys" with no qualifying statement about a Canadian connection. "Why would you put a Maple Leaf on a product that very clearly is imported?" asked Dineen, who discovered imported raw almonds and "California natural" walnut pieces marked with a maple leaf at her local Sobeys. "It just erodes the trust. It just makes you think, 'OK, so that's meaningless.'" Sobeys did not directly answer questions about imported Compliments products marked with a maple leaf. Von Massow says if you're unsure about any store or product labels, ask store staff for an explanation, or call the product's customer service line, often printed on the packaging. Shoppers who discover advertising or labels for food that they feel are misleading can file a complaint with the CFIA. WATCH | Grocery stores overcharge for packaged meat: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Canada can learn from Australia on adequately protecting citizens at live events
In April 2025, a man drove an SUV through a crowd of people attending a Filipino cultural festival in Vancouver, killing 11 people and injuring dozens more. In response, the British Columbia government immediately commissioned an inquiry to examine the systemic causes of the incident and whether any lessons could be learned from the tragedy. Read more: The commission came up with six recommendations based on gaps in the current municipal application and approval system for public events across the province. One key recommendation was that all public events should be required to complete a risk assessment. This isn't currently happening across the province. The absence of such analysis poses a risk for public safety. Another recommendation was the creation of local knowledge capacity to support event organizers, particularly for small and rural events, where the expertise to conduct a basic security risk assessment is lacking. Forseeable tragedy As I argued in August 2022, the live events industry lacks the same level of professionalism as other occupations. Many of these small event organizers are amateurs who lack the resources to properly deal with the security risks involved in holding their events. Read more: These factors, combined with emerging security risks, meant that the tragedy at the Lapu Lapu festival could be considered a foreseeable event given the risk realities associated with modern mass gatherings. The inquiry report highlighted how B.C. is lagging behind other international jurisdictions in terms of legislative pro-activeness in securing public events. This policy deficiency is actually a Canada-wide problem; the country is woefully behind other western nations when it comes to securing public events. My doctoral thesis examined this very issue when I compared the regulation and application process to host public events in Canada and Australia's largest cities. Australia vs. Canada Firstly, it's important to note that Canada is a less safe country in terms of security than Australia, all things considered equal. Canada's porous border with the United States means more illegal firearms are entering the country, resulting in more gun violence than in Australia, where there are more restrictive gun ownership laws. The Lapu Lapu attack was not investigated as an act of terrorism, but in a related concern, Canada's intelligence-gathering and national security laws place it at a counter-terrorism disadvantage compared to Australia. Relatively speaking, research suggests Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms hinders its security services from being able to detect and investigate terrorism-related offences given the greater importance placed on individual rights compared to Australia, where there is no such Charter equivalent. Australia also has pro-active foreign intelligence collection capabilities to aid in its counter-terrorism efforts, while Canada's CSIS agency only has domestic capabilities. That essentially requires it to import intelligence from its allies. Given these facts, it would seem plausible that Canada would be at greater risk for security threats at public events — including terrorist attacks, active shooters, etc. — than Australia. When I compared the data between both countries in my research, it suggested Australia has more public event regulation than Canada. It was quantitatively shown that Australian officials require risk assessments and other proactive measures from event organizers, including for risk mitigation, while Canadian officials are mostly concerned with reactive security response plans — in other words, determining how organizers would respond to attacks after they occurred. An analysis of event application documents in both countries reveal that Australian municipalities disproportionately emphasize 'risk management' in approving events compared to Canadian municipalities. Three ways the B.C. report falls short The B.C. report missed out on examining several important elements. Firstly, it did not take a holistic, deep dive into just how vulnerable public events are to myriad security threats — like active shooters, crowd crushing and terrorist attacks — but instead focused solely on the hostile vehicle threat. It also failed to consider the urgency of governments to adopt policy changes in the face of emerging threats on public spaces, like drone attacks. Secondly, the report made no mention of the need for law enforcement to develop stronger ties to share intelligence with event organizers as a proactive measure to protect mass gathering events from violence. The Hamas attacks at a music festival in Israel in October 2023 highlight the worst outcome of such failures. Read more: Lastly, there was no call for action or recommendation for the federal government to play a greater role in providing guidance to the industry and lower levels of government. National security is a federal issue as well as the regulation of airspace for drones. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, the national government provides guidance on protecting public spaces. There is no such policy leadership in Canada. The B.C. findings show Canadian authorities have a lot of work to do to make public events safer for Canadians. With the FIFA World Cup coming to Canada next year, Canadian governments still have time to implement corrective actions to ensure soccer fans stay safe. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sean Spence, Royal Military College of Canada Read more: Calls to designate the Bishnoi gang a terrorist group shine a spotlight on Canada's security laws B.C.'s mental health law is on trial — and so is our commitment to human rights Vancouver SUV attack exposes crowd management falldowns and casts a pall on Canada's election Sean Spence provides security consulting services within the hospitality industry.
