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One now-retired politician availed of a new transitional allowance for outgoing cabinet ministers that was rescinded hours after being revealed by CBC News on Friday.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Policy rescinded hours after airing of CBC report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
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: 4 possible outcomes of a gerrymandering battle royale
The American political system has for years transformed into a more partisan, brutalized and norm-scorning version of itself. The old rules are increasingly out; whatever-it-takes is increasingly in. Few developments epitomize that transformation like the burgeoning gerrymandering arms race. Texas Republicans' recent move to redraw the state's congressional districts in the middle of the decade has little precedent, and for once nobody is pretending this is about anything other than raw politics. Republicans just want to make it harder for Democrats to flip a closely divided US House in 2026. A Texas Republican state representative told CNN the GOP is doing this 'because it's good for our party.' President Donald Trump said this week that the GOP is 'entitled to five more seats' in the state. This has led to promises of reprisals from Democrats. They've pledged to respond in kind by playing dirty in states where they could re-draw the maps, like California. Other states – red and blue – are actively considering jumping into the fray with their own map overhauls. All of it raises the prospect of something pretty scary and undemocratic: a continual race to the bottom in which districts are constantly redrawn whenever it suits one party or another, rather than once a decade. It's an inauspicious prospect, to say the least. Lawmakers could find themselves representing and seeking election in ever-changing districts to which they have little personal connection. Those districts' residents could become pawns in a sophisticated and constant game of divide-and-conquer. Adding to the potential chaos is the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, which has long required states to ensure minority communities are not barred from electing candidates of their choice. So what's to stop the madness? How could this ultimately shake out? Here are a few scenarios. So what if nobody can — or will — stop what's been set in motion? As many as a dozen states could conceivably be mined for partisan advantage by redrawing their maps either before the 2026 or 2028 elections. CNN has looked at some of them, in both red and blue states. Republicans could add as many as five seats in both Texas and in Florida. They could also go for smaller gains in states like Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and South Carolina. Democrats could conceivably try to add five districts in California, a handful in New York and possibly one more seat in states like Illinois and Maryland. That doesn't mean all of these efforts would succeed — or that the politicians in all these states would even try. Many of these states' maps were already extensively gerrymandered just a few years ago, after the 2020 census. Trying to add new seats could mean stretching a party's advantage in certain districts too thin — i.e. creating very marginal advantages — and having it backfire in a good election for the other side. (There is already some speculation this could happen in Texas.) Democrats also face significant legal hurdles in even attempting to re-draw the maps in states like California and New York. But if the gloves come off and this truly becomes a free-for-all, it's possible Republicans could flip between five and 10 seats, thanks to their superior opportunities. That's not an overwhelming shift, but it matters — the margin of victory for House control has been reliably narrow in recent election cycles. If Democrats won five more seats in 2024, they would currently control the chamber. Still, the real impact is arguably in the precedent it sets for a never-ending gerrymandering war. It's often the case that a such a partisan war appears unavoidable — right up until the moment the two sides avoid it. And there's a case to be made that they each have incentives to prevent this from truly getting ugly. One is the risk of the gerrymanders backfiring because the two sides get too aggressive. Another is that members whose own districts could be impacted start to balk. We're beginning to see this with some California and New York Republicans who could be targeted in retaliatory strikes urging Texas Republicans to back off. Even lawmakers who might not lose their seats often don't like having them diluted or extensively redrawn to facilitate their party's gains elsewhere; no one wants to sign up for a tougher reelection bid. It's conceivable that a handful of states pursue these gerrymanders — maybe Texas follows through, and California tries to retaliate — and then it fizzles because lawmakers decide it's just not worth it for such marginal gains. Maybe they even worry about democracy (a quaint thought, sure). Of course, it will be hard to reach such a détente, especially if Trump is intent on extracting whatever advantage he can. The president has demonstrated little regard for such norms or the prerogatives of even his fellow Republicans. And given the GOP clearly has more to gain here, the party has little incentive to back away. Perhaps the most efficient way to avoid this war is for Texas Democrats' walkout to actually, somehow, work. Texas is the canary in the coal mine here, and Democrats appear dug-in to do what they can to stop it. Dozens of lawmakers have left the state to prevent the legislature from getting the quorum it needs to do business. Republicans have issued a series of threats aimed at getting them to return. Those include talking about arrests, fines and a proposal from a Texas Republican facing a primary — Sen. John Cornyn — to enlist the FBI to help in some way. But those threats might not be as serious as Republicans would like to pretend they are. It's not at all clear what role the FBI could even play, for example, in the absence of laws being broken. The name of the game for Democrats is getting to early December. That's when time runs out for Texas Republicans to be able to re-draw the maps in time for the 2026 primaries. Walkouts often don't work, but sometimes they lead to some concessions. Perhaps Republicans begin to worry about the spotlight being cast on their power grab. Perhaps Democrats cut a deal to return that means smaller GOP gains, and the temperature drops. It might be the cleanest resolution. This is probably the most far-fetched resolution in this political day and age. But what if this whole mess leads lawmakers to actually, you know, decide to do something to rein in gerrymandering? (Another quaint thought, we know.) One of those lawmakers who could be targeted by Democratic reprisals, GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, is talking about a bill banning mid-decade redistricting. Another, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, wants to ban gerrymandering — though it's not at all clear what such a ban would entail, since they would have to define what actually constitutes gerrymanding, or how it would ever get consensus. It's virtually impossible to see either of these proposals becoming law. But perhaps Democrats could band together with blue-state Republicans to threaten a discharge petition to at least force the issue a little bit. It almost surely would never pass, but they could bring some pressure to bear.
Bloomberg
3 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Uncertainty Complicates Fed's Rate Path
"Bloomberg Real Yield" highlights the market-moving news you need to know. Today's guests: Parametric SMA Fixed Income Portfolio Manager Nisha Patel, DWS Group Head of Fixed Income and Trading George Catrambone, Barings High Yield Portfolio Manager Kelly Burton and Invesco Head of North American Investment Grade Credit Matt Brill. (Source: Bloomberg)
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: 4 possible outcomes of a gerrymandering battle royale
FacebookTweetLink The American political system has for years transformed into a more partisan, brutalized and norm-scorning version of itself. The old rules are increasingly out; whatever-it-takes is increasingly in. Few developments epitomize that transformation like the burgeoning gerrymandering arms race. Texas Republicans' recent move to redraw the state's congressional districts in the middle of the decade has little precedent, and for once nobody is pretending this is about anything other than raw politics. Republicans just want to make it harder for Democrats to flip a closely divided US House in 2026. A Texas Republican state representative told CNN the GOP is doing this 'because it's good for our party.' President Donald Trump said this week that the GOP is 'entitled to five more seats' in the state. This has led to promises of reprisals from Democrats. They've pledged to respond in kind by playing dirty in states where they could re-draw the maps, like California. Other states – red and blue – are actively considering jumping into the fray with their own map overhauls. All of it raises the prospect of something pretty scary and undemocratic: a continual race to the bottom in which districts are constantly redrawn whenever it suits one party or another, rather than once a decade. It's an inauspicious prospect, to say the least. Lawmakers could find themselves representing and seeking election in ever-changing districts to which they have little personal connection. Those districts' residents could become pawns in a sophisticated and constant game of divide-and-conquer. Adding to the potential chaos is the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, which has long required states to ensure minority communities are not barred from electing candidates of their choice. So what's to stop the madness? How could this ultimately shake out? Here are a few scenarios. So what if nobody can — or will — stop what's been set in motion? As many as a dozen states could conceivably be mined for partisan advantage by redrawing their maps either before the 2026 or 2028 elections. CNN has looked at some of them, in both red and blue states. Republicans could add as many as five seats in both Texas and in Florida. They could also go for smaller gains in states like Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and South Carolina. Democrats could conceivably try to add five districts in California, a handful in New York and possibly one more seat in states like Illinois and Maryland. That doesn't mean all of these efforts would succeed — or that the politicians in all these states would even try. Many of these states' maps were already extensively gerrymandered just a few years ago, after the 2020 census. Trying to add new seats could mean stretching a party's advantage in certain districts too thin — i.e. creating very marginal advantages — and having it backfire in a good election for the other side. (There is already some speculation this could happen in Texas.) Democrats also face significant legal hurdles in even attempting to re-draw the maps in states like California and New York. But if the gloves come off and this truly becomes a free-for-all, it's possible Republicans could flip between five and 10 seats, thanks to their superior opportunities. That's not an overwhelming shift, but it matters — the margin of victory for House control has been reliably narrow in recent election cycles. If Democrats won five more seats in 2024, they would currently control the chamber. Still, the real impact is arguably in the precedent it sets for a never-ending gerrymandering war. It's often the case that a such a partisan war appears unavoidable — right up until the moment the two sides avoid it. And there's a case to be made that they each have incentives to prevent this from truly getting ugly. One is the risk of the gerrymanders backfiring because the two sides get too aggressive. Another is that members whose own districts could be impacted start to balk. We're beginning to see this with some California and New York Republicans who could be targeted in retaliatory strikes urging Texas Republicans to back off. Even lawmakers who might not lose their seats often don't like having them diluted or extensively redrawn to facilitate their party's gains elsewhere; no one wants to sign up for a tougher reelection bid. It's conceivable that a handful of states pursue these gerrymanders — maybe Texas follows through, and California tries to retaliate — and then it fizzles because lawmakers decide it's just not worth it for such marginal gains. Maybe they even worry about democracy (a quaint thought, sure). Of course, it will be hard to reach such a détente, especially if Trump is intent on extracting whatever advantage he can. The president has demonstrated little regard for such norms or the prerogatives of even his fellow Republicans. And given the GOP clearly has more to gain here, the party has little incentive to back away. Perhaps the most efficient way to avoid this war is for Texas Democrats' walkout to actually, somehow, work. Texas is the canary in the coal mine here, and Democrats appear dug-in to do what they can to stop it. Dozens of lawmakers have left the state to prevent the legislature from getting the quorum it needs to do business. Republicans have issued a series of threats aimed at getting them to return. Those include talking about arrests, fines and a proposal from a Texas Republican facing a primary — Sen. John Cornyn — to enlist the FBI to help in some way. But those threats might not be as serious as Republicans would like to pretend they are. It's not at all clear what role the FBI could even play, for example, in the absence of laws being broken. The name of the game for Democrats is getting to early December. That's when time runs out for Texas Republicans to be able to re-draw the maps in time for the 2026 primaries. Walkouts often don't work, but sometimes they lead to some concessions. Perhaps Republicans begin to worry about the spotlight being cast on their power grab. Perhaps Democrats cut a deal to return that means smaller GOP gains, and the temperature drops. It might be the cleanest resolution. This is probably the most far-fetched resolution in this political day and age. But what if this whole mess leads lawmakers to actually, you know, decide to do something to rein in gerrymandering? (Another quaint thought, we know.) One of those lawmakers who could be targeted by Democratic reprisals, GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, is talking about a bill banning mid-decade redistricting. Another, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, wants to ban gerrymandering — though it's not at all clear what such a ban would entail, since they would have to define what actually constitutes gerrymanding, or how it would ever get consensus. It's virtually impossible to see either of these proposals becoming law. But perhaps Democrats could band together with blue-state Republicans to threaten a discharge petition to at least force the issue a little bit. It almost surely would never pass, but they could bring some pressure to bear.
