Topic
Love The Tyee? We need your support. Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
Ministry tight-lipped on why it cleared bureaucrat to work for EOG Resources.
NDP's John Horgan: 'Not how we should be operating.'
Michigan disaster follows 12 other big spills or penalties this decade for giant aiming to pipe tar sands oil to Kitimat
It will boost BC's carbon output three per cent, but cap-and-trade can offset, says Premier.
Senior bureaucrats aren't supposed to work for any company they've recently had substantial involvement with for at least a year after leaving the provincial civil service.
But the Campbell administration decided those guidelines didn't conflict with the former head of the government's oil and gas division joining the Canadian subsidiary of EOG Resources Inc. -- a Houston, Texas-based firm developing natural gas reserves in northeastern British Columbia.
Gordon Goodman was put in charge of that government division more than two years ago.
In that position, he was responsible for administering programs that can, in certain circumstances, reduce the amount of money -- or royalties -- companies must pay the province when extracting oil and gas resources.
According to records obtained via a freedom of information request, two applications approved by Goodman in 2009 for such reductions came from EOG Resources Canada Inc.
An energy and mines ministry spokesperson stressed those applications, which had been reviewed and recommended by government staff, were among hundreds Goodman gave the green light to.
One of them will provide the company with a $3.84 million royalty credit to help EOG build a road to shale gas projects in the Horn River Basin.
The other will reduce the royalty rate for the first phase of development for those projects.
In a letter dated Jan. 4, 2010, Goodman notified EOG the government had finalized that rate reduction.
Three months later, on April 16, he left the civil service to work for the company.
Now a lobbyist for firm he granted breaks
It's unclear what Goodman's new responsibilities are with EOG.
When we called its Calgary office last Wednesday, an individual in the general manager's office told us Goodman's title was "government and regulatory affairs" manager.
A day later, the Calgary office's front desk described him as EOG's "health and safety" manager.
Meanwhile, the energy and mines spokesperson stated last Thursday that Goodman was the company's "health, safety and environment" manager.
But a citizens' services ministry spokesperson added this week he was also responsible for "regulatory affairs."
What is clear, though, is that, on June 23, Goodman registered as an in-house lobbyist for the company.
He signed up to lobby the government about its "oil and gas regulatory structure" to enhance EOG's "efficiency and cost effectiveness."
He's also registered to lobby for fiscal measures to help make a proposed liquified natural gas export terminal near the Port of Kitimat "economic."
EOG owns a 49 per cent stake in that terminal.
Government ruled 'no conflict'
According to government guidelines, senior bureaucrats must wait a year before they can be hired by a company they had "substantial involvement" with during the "year immediately preceding" the end of their employment.
Nor can they lobby for or give counsel to such a firm for that period.
But the energy and mines spokesperson stated the government assessed Goodman's case and determined that "there was no conflict in his moving directly to work for EOG after leaving government."
That assessment was made after Goodman contacted the province's public service agency "to ensure he was not in conflict regarding government's post-employment restrictions."
The citizens' services spokesperson declined to provide specifics on why the agency found Goodman wasn't in a conflict with those restrictions. But New Democrat energy, mines and petroleum resources critic John Horgan called the decision "outrageous."
Path into industry
"To have an internal review saying we've reviewed the matter and found no conflict is not how we should be operating," said Horgan, adding British Columbia needs a law, not just guidelines, barring such activity.
"How you can go from giving royalty breaks to a company to being in their employ to being the advocate on their behalf to government without anyone recognizing that is a problem demonstrates the tin ear that this government has when it comes to conflict of interest."
Goodman isn't the first senior energy and mines resources staffer to have recently joined the private sector. In May, the then minister responsible's top political aide Natalie Poole-Moffatt left to become a senior government affairs advisor for Apache Canada Ltd.
Apache owns the remaining 51 per cent stake of the proposed Kitimat liquified natural gas export terminal.
When she resigned, the government confirmed Poole-Moffatt reached an agreement to have no professional contact with ministry officials or the minister's office for a period of one year.
As a political staffer, the post-employment guidelines for senior bureaucrats didn't apply to Poole-Moffatt.
Goodman didn't return phone calls and an email from Public Eye. Nor did EOG vice-president and general manager Billy Helms respond to requests for comment. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
22
Login or register to post comments
circle A
2 years ago
well done!
Sean holman
Jeffrey J.
2 years ago
BAU (Business As Usual) for Liberals
This is Business As Usual for this government and its relation to the oil and gas industry. In this case, the evidence set out above leaves Goodman's claim of innocence puzzling. If Goodman claims he didn't recall helping out his future employer, then why apply for an exemption to the one year rule? More importantly, his employer would have recalled the tax reduction very, very well. Indeed, had it been turned down by Goodman, he would probably still be looking for a job, like millions of other Canadians. But life is so much better when you're well connected.
Great coverage. Always a pleasure to read Mr. Holman on the Tyee in addition to his Public Eye publication.
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/index.html
denipaul
2 years ago
Conflicts of Interests / Public Wealth
One year... Not anywhere long enough! 5 years minimum! But they are not even honouring the 1 year! Betrayal of the public trust for personal gain/advancement is going on all over in politics these days. Politicians and beaurocrats and their dealings with Corporations. It is shameful. It is being allowed and not against the current laws, so it is okay? I am also wondering about the government's water rights policies, as well as what is going on the the Electric Power industry.
the real ODB
2 years ago
had enough yet?
This has Campbell's stamp of approval all over it. After all, nothing gets done in this Province without it. One thing I find difficult to fathom is when British Columbians state: "Campbell has lost all credibility". When in hell did he EVER have credibility? Not when he was Mayor of Vancouver. Not when he stabbed Gordon Wilson in the back and wrest control of the Liberal party from him. And most certainly not during any of the years (far too many) that he's been the self appointed supreme dictator (heavy emphasis on the "dic" part) of BC. Possibly the only time he was "credible" was during the '96 election campaign when he stated he would sell BC Rail. That cost him defeat and no doubt a promise to himself and his cronies to never tell the truth again. The rest as they say "is history".
Greg in Calgary
2 years ago
Well done 2!
On the other hand, "ires" isn't a word. "Angers" is a word. And I'm not even an English major.
RockyRacoon
2 years ago
Balzac said that behind every family fortune is a great theft,
and I would add that behind every great fortune is a public-sector giveaway.
Found on alternet.
Cheers,
RR
Camero409
2 years ago
This government is bankrupt
morally and ethically. The laughable part is that it's been going on since Campbell was mayor of Vancouver. The crooks he worked for while mayor are the crooks he works for as premier. If you research his past you will see the lineage. He's a puppet who will get rewarded as soon as he leaves government. I just hope he's tossed out first!
samuidave (not verified)
2 years ago
We continue to tilt at windmills ...
mostly, I believe, brcause we are unable to pinpoint the problem at large.
One politician, one bureaucrat, one businessman is replaced by another politician, another bureaucrat or another businessman. And still nothing changes for the better. Things actually seem to just keep getting worse. The entire political system is broken if you are one of the 'artificially impoverished' in the capitalist game which, of note, the vast majority of us are.
Our thinking (reliant paramountly on emotion) is broken, too. We have retained the trappings of the old world - religion and deference to perceived authority. In the main, our peculiar view of the world and our place in it, and of our politics, prevents us from fixing the fundamental problem at hand.
I think Marx wrote a brilliant piece in 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right which, I believe, if read today rings clear regarding Canada and our collective psyche:
Why this is, Marx explains quite elloquently and the short article is worth the read. I think the principles laid forth are meritorious even if one is not aligned with his general philosophy. One might say that flipping cards with a stacked deck in favour of the house always relieves you of your efforts, particularly if you insist on playing.
lynn
2 years ago
Interesting comment, samuidave.
In Derrick Jensen's "A Language Older Than Words", where in an effort to understand the flaws of historical revolutions, he finally came to this conclusion:
Quote:
"It really is very simple. what you value is what you create. This is true whether we speak of motorcycles, interstate highways, nuclear power plants, napalm, and indoor sports arenas or harmonious familial and communal relationships and harmonious relationships between ourselves and our nonhuman neighbors. The inverse is true as well: by looking at what we or anyone else creates, we can determine much more accurately than with words alone what is deemed valuable."
"By not questioning the primacy of production, and therefore the valuing of private property over (human and nonhuman) relationships, most revolutionaries guarantee their revolutions won't change fundamental power structures. For it doesn't matter whether capitalists, The Supreme Soviet, proletariats, the Church, or intellectuals control the means of production, that truth is that this group - fill in the blank - then controls the means of production. The property is just as private whether the owners claim to be capitalists, communists, "horny-handed workers," or anarchists. Wealth funnels toward the producers and away from the community as a whole. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
As Einstein once noted: "The significant problems of the world cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness at which they were created."
samuidave (not verified)
2 years ago
lynn, I would suggest ...
that if we accept Bentham's view of the 'greatest good for the greatest number of people' as a truism, and we juxtapose this with Jensen's quote from above, 'wealth funnels toward the producers and away from the community as a whole', do we not simply strive toward having the 'greatest number of people' from 'the community as a whole' the ones controlling production and therefore the wealth? And is this not what Marx was getting at?
lynn
2 years ago
samuidave
I mostly agree, samuidave.
It was why I posted Jensen's piece, (after reading your quote from Marx which is, as you aptly suggest, a brilliant, and I would add, a highly perceptive piece of thought). It seemed that both he and Jensen were confronting the flaw in revolutions that "leave the pillars of the house (still) standing").....with "old boss, new boss" wearing the same old hats. They both also recognize the true wealth and equity in communal sharing ....but to be fair to Jensen his wish would be to do away with the primacy of production...and set a new course, which likely in the end would involve or necessitate a more evolved level of consciousness. ( Hence, the Albert E. quote.)
I'll take a breath, and quote what Jensen says on this....and hope you can get by the one word "religious" in this piece by Jensen, that he is using with an egalitarian stipulation/precondition. Here goes:
Quote: "If we wish to do away with bosses, we need to do away with the primacy of production. We need to learn from egalitarian religious and especially extant indigenous groups that the emphasis of our society must be on process: not on the creation of things and the accumulation of monetary or political power, but on the acknowledgment and maintenance of relationships, on both personal and grand scales."
"How a group that has as its foundation the maintenance of relationships can stand up in direct conflict to a group based on production is a question to which I don't yet have an answer. It is, however, a question that needs to be asked, and answered, and soon."
In an over-populated world that is constantly ramping up the gears of production, Jensen, I think, asks a critical question. He places the primacy on the maintenance of relationships over production. From reading him, the maintenance of relationships would include all living things. It centers on, too, what you have often mentioned here , samuidave, and that is the necessity of a world that revolves around human dignity, and the old "Do unto others..." but still pretty good rule...
crh
2 years ago
mired in depth
Sheesh Lynn and samuidave. Intellectuals can always take the debate and go on forever. Can we not just see things for what they are? Human beings seem to pop out as givers or takers. Otherwise known as the left right march.
History says as much. If we do not continue as givers, then we will disappear as the Romans did(the takers).
samuidave (not verified)
2 years ago
good point, crh...
let me take a swipe at it in another way. This is an excerpt from a short Richard Dawkins article called Atheists for Jesus
:
It is certainly worth the entire read.
Finished?
I trust you can now agree that maybe it isn't quite so cut and dried as givers and takers. ;)
lynn
2 years ago
short stop
I hear you, crh.
But samuidave makes a very good point as well.
When it comes to givers and takers, perception also comes into play.
Human beings are awfully good at fooling themselves...and others in that regard.
Just ask Gordo what side "of give and take" he and his party fall on...
As physicist Rcihard Feynman said;
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
rickthepoetwarrior
2 years ago
Corporate malfeasance and governments love of same
I like this article and the generated comments.
None of this is new. The Rich have always co-opted governments and leaders to do there bidding. Nowadays they only laugh as they see how much the public will swallow.
Only when we eliminate the self-serving greed they promote as 'free-market capitalism' will we level the playing field.
Corporations are designed to hide and protect the cowards that run them and that is why politicians are running to them in droves.
They should be eliminated (in a nice way of course).
samuidave (not verified)
2 years ago
yet another story, but I always enjoying sharing this one
This is a native American Indian story, and the lesson, I believe, can apply to much of our behaviour.
rickthepoetwarrior
2 years ago
Addendum to post
I take that back.
I no longer care if 'it' is in a nice way or not.
Greatfeather
2 years ago
What else is new?
Just another story about legalized prostitution.
Greatfeather
2 years ago
Figured it out yet?
The B.C. legislature has become the biggest "House of Ill Repute" in all of Canada. They are all proud of themselves too. You have to admire their audacity though. And, we keep letting them get away with it.
jnewcomb
2 years ago
Stop 'em going INTO government, not OUT
Holman's logic is faulty. If the company needs government largesse, giving a parachute to an ex-government worker who will be on your payroll hardly makes economic sense. You need to get your corporate man INTO government to get the payoff, not afterwards.
VivianLea Doubt
2 years ago
a thank you...
to Lynn and samuidave and others for the wonderful comments here. Your words hearten me...
cfvua
2 years ago
If we only knew all that has gone on
This is the way it is done and the stench won't go away. I rang this alarm bell way back when the giveaway royalty schemes were trotted out by the faithful to Calgary former Energy Minister now Senator Richard Neufeld. At that time Encana courted away an ADM by the name of Steve Roberts, who incidentally put the plan together, with direction from above I am sure and mainly input from Calgary. NO link to jobs, nothing, pure and simple welfare. Works good too, when you're trying to get Alberta in to line on royalties. The producers bawled about expensive to get at Greater Sierra(remember that flavour of the month) gas. Cost prohibitive, needed deep well royalty credits. Service work and jobs all go to Alberta hence no income tax spin-off to the province so why subsidize? Ever wonder why there will never be a BC based BC gas producer? All at the expense of Northeast resident businesses and workers. What a great economic development strategy for Alberta. And the fat get fatter. By working in the MInistry of Energy you can become a valuable asset to a gas producer by grinding out subsidies from an all too gullible corporate gifting government. And who got paid to build the $3.84 Million road? Why can't we find out? Is it embarrassing to the company and the government? Is there conflict? Who builds the pipelines and the production facilities, who installs them. What has been the total dollar value of subsidies going back to day one? At the Energy Expo this weekend in Fort Nelson it looked like a refugee zone for out of province contractors on the frontage roads with equipment from out of province lined up from one end of town to the other, while residents sit having been forced to pay PST on their gear and now out of province has been given the gift of HST and get in for nothing. Producers put out graphs to show how bidding is working. They feel good because BC services are bidding. Doesn't matter if BC Services don't get the work. Zero return on "incentive" money if the jobs go out of province.
Does anyone remember(besides me) hearing Campbell campaigning about "no subsidies". Forget it, I think that was when he said BC Rail wasn't for sale either.