Adios to another one #nlpoli

Clyde Jackman is the latest provincial Conservative to quit politics.

That’s not surprising.  He was supposed to go in 2011 but hung around to make sure the party didn’t have to make an serious changes in people or policies.

Jackman had a few colourful moments during his political career, not the least of which was his stint as fish minister.  He scuttled an historic agreement to reform the fishery. Clyde and his colleagues couldn’t be arsed to spend money on it when they had all their cash tied up in other things.

Then there was the time Clyde and his colleagues couldn’t be arsed to fund an historic commemoration when Clyde was responsible for tourism.

Other than being part of the crowd that added more public debt to the back’s of provincial taxpayers than all the other administrations since Confederation combined,  Clyde Jackman had a relatively tame political career compared to some of his colleagues.

Now Clyde is retiring.  Not surprising really.  In 2011, he barely scraped back into office in a situation where his party didn’t face huge opposition.  Clyde wasn’t alone.  Lots of his colleagues kept their seats by only the thinnest of margins.  it’s only when you look at the numbers that you realise how just close the Conservatives came to losing in 2011. It wouldn’t have taken much,.

Good bye and good luck, Clyde.

Enjoy the grand-kids.

-srbp-

“…particularly hypocritical…” #nlpoli

Tories bums in the province must be a wee bit tighter than usual this week.

The province’s Dippers – new Democrats to the uninitiated – filed a lawsuit this week challenging the constitutional validity of a Troy law passed in 2007 that lets people vote when there are no elections.

You can tells Tory bums are tight.  No, it’s not because of because of the agitated yelping of the local dogs who, alone among God’s creatures, can hear hypersonic flatulence.

Rather it is because of the number of Tories belching verbal flatulence against the New Democrats.

For starters, natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy told the Telegram that

“Ms. Michael’s about-face is disturbing on a number of fronts — first of all, her flip-flop on this matter shows a lack of principles and, secondly, rather than taking responsibility for her actions, she tried to blame her staff for not doing adequate research….”

An argument that starts by tossing aside a cabinet minister’s usual reluctance to comment on matters that are before the courts.

And then to start by impugning the personal integrity of one’s opponent.  The vicious, petty ad hominem slur:  there’s something you usually don’t hear from Tories in this province. 

So sad are these comments:  sad because Jerome Kennedy, the leading light of the administration, and one of the better cabinet ministers of the past couple of decades, has nothing of substance so he must instead rely on this sort of foolishness.

Sadder still are his words because Jerome knows that in the Tory version of the house of Assembly,  opposition parties do not have the time to research bills properly and investigate them.  the Tories won’t open the House or allow any time for such things. 

More on that later.

Then there is another Tory who did a stint as the last caller on the morning open line show on Friday.  He dismissed the lawsuit as being “particularly hypocritical” of NDP leader Lorraine Michael. Back in 2007, you see, the NDP leader voted for the Tory bill that made their special ballot foolishness the law of the land.

Said Tory claimed that if Michael was “legitimately concerned” then she would have used the “mechanisms available to her’ to suggest amendments to the election law.

Where might she do this?

Why, the House of Assembly, our Tory friend insisted.

This would be the same House of Assembly that has come to resemble a legislative house of ill repute under the Tories.  They ram through a handful of bills through in the scarce number of days they let the place open.  Parliamentary oversight committees don’t exist. 

And even if all that weren’t true, the Tory on the radio knew full well that he and his colleagues would vote down any amendment any opposition politician came up with, just because.

Coming from these Tories, any talk of relying on the legislature would be disingenuous at best

These are the same Tories whose current leader has criticised the House for being useless when it comes to dealing with the truth where the real problem has been her own demonstrable distance from truthfulness in the past.

Their former Glorious Leader routinely made a mockery of accountability, himself, and once mused out loud that it might be time to get rid of free speech in the legislature once and for all.

The thing is, the Old Man wasn’t joking.

What is a bit of a joke though is that this whole onslaught of Tories is in defence of Clyde Jackman, the Tory who won his seat in the last general election by a handful of special ballots. 

Where Jerome might be one of only a couple of high flyers in the current cabinet, Jackman is definitely at the other end of the scale.  He might not be the most incompetent minister to hold office since 2003.  The competition  - Charlene Johnson, Kathy Dunderdale, Paul Oram, Dave Denine to name a few - has been extraordinarily stiff even in a province used to having some especially stunned-arse cabinet ministers.  You’d be safe, though, if you suggested that Jackman would certainly be in the Top Three.

Jackman’s abilities are not the joke here, though.  Rather, the joke is that the lawsuit against the special ballot voting provisions came as a result of the fact that Jackman won a tight race by relying on them, as it turned out.

He wound up in that tight spot as a result of some rather clumsy political manoeuvring by Jackman and his colleagues on the fishery and the Marystown fish plant, the Marystown shipyard and likely the government’s botched response to a hurricane or two.

Now his Tory colleagues are employing equally clumsy  - embarrassingly clumsy - political claims to back him up.

And while that may not be particularly hypocritical, it is particularly funny.

Damned funny.

- srbp -

Political impotence and the little blue pills

Fish minister Clyde “The Finger” Jackman is going to fight to save a local coast guard co-ordination centre and its dozen jobs.

Well, that’s what the torqued CBC headline says. 

The provincial government he’s a part of has a financial mess of its own creation on its hands and no plan to deal with it and Jackman has been the major obstacle to serious fisheries reform in the province but that’s another issue.

But why does Jackman have to fight for anything at all with the federal Conservatives under Stephen Harper?

After all Clyde and all his provincial Conservative buddies campaigned vigorously for the federal Conservatives in the recent general election.  Well, okay some campaigned more vigorously than others but you get the idea. 

They shouldn’t have to do anything but pick up the phone and ask their friends to fix things back up again.
Jackman’s help in the last federal election apparently counted for exactly jack-shite.  He met with his federal counterpart, uttered a few choice words and left empty-handed, much like those people in the fishery who worked hard, gave Jackman a report on restructuring and then watched the minister fling it back in their faces for no good reason.

That’s likely to be as effective as what CBC’s report quotes as Jackman’s advice to other seriously interested in this issue:

"I've encouraged people, you know, to write to the minister to do what they have to get their points across," said Jackman.

Much like the fisheries reform thingy.

But why should anyone have to do anything?  Kathy Dunderdale can just call her friend Stephen Harper and the whole thing will be solved.  After all, the Premier made her choice, is proud of her choice and thinks she did a wonderful job even if the overwhelming majority of voters – including rafts of her own supporters – went with another choice.

Kath and her Krew are rapidly becoming the poster children for political impotence.

Not the cure for it mind you.

Just fine examples of political dysfunction…

And of course how this bunch of little blue pills can’t cure it.

- srbp -

Are you smarter than a cheese grater, now?

Remember that fisheries research cash announcement that seemed to have been cobbled together within the past six weeks?

Well, there’s a bit more evidence of the whole thing was baked up in a few weeks.  The evidence comes from the release of a consultation document to support development of a coastal and oceans management strategy by the provincial governments.

Environment minister Charlene Johnson is in the thick of it, once again, with this quote from the news release:

“Our oceans play a very valuable role in our ecosystems and it is important that we employ an appropriate policy framework for their management,”…

Charlene has an interest in and jurisdiction over the ocean.

Interesting.

In late May – about six weeks ago – she sure didn’t.

That’s because, according to Johnson, “if the Leader of the Opposition was so concerned about the environment and offshore she should have asked me a question where jurisdiction does fall under my department and that is when the oil reaches the land, Mr. Speaker.”

In that same session, natural resources minister Calamity Kathy Dunderdale went so far as to put a specific delimitation on where the shore began: the “Minister of Environment and Conservation … has no responsibility beyond the high water mark.”

Dunderdale – who is also Danny Williams’ hand-picked choice as second in command on the good ship Williams – also had no trouble defining where the fisheries minister stood:  his “did not go any further than that either as far as the offshore was concerned.”

How truly odd, then, that the other minister involved in the oceans strategy consultation was none other than Clyde Jackman, minister of fisheries and aquaculture.

Now we’ve already had more than a few chortles  at Dunderdale’s expense over this whole issue of jurisdiction. Okay so maybe there were a few guffaws too. But for an administration  whose deputy premier only a few weeks ago was adamant that  ministers had absolutely no responsibility for what went on below the high water mark on the shore, this new document is a gigantic change of direction.

All in six weeks.

But that’s not the end of it.

This new strategy is supposedly about…well, let’s let Charlene tell us:

“Our goal is sustainability and ensuring we use our resources effectively…”

Laudable stuff, indeed.

The word “sustainable” occurs no fewer than 36 times in the consultation document itself, usually in conjunction with the word “manner”, as in things must be done in a “sustainable manner”.

The responsibility for this sustainable stuff rests with none other than Charlene Johnson and her intrepid little department:

The Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for developing and implementing the Sustainable Development Act, the Sustainable Development Strategy, and coordinating interdepartmental interests. It supports the Sustainable Development Roundtable, comprised of stakeholders from around the province, and
the development and monitoring of indicators to ensure development adheres to the principles of sustainability. (p.13)

Sustainable Development Act?

Yes, that would be the same piece of legislation that was part of the Tory campaign platform in 2003, passed into law in early 2007 but never implemented.

The roundtable?

Doesn’t exist, apparently.

And that sustainable development strategy?  Well, if the Act had been put into effect, then the whole thing would already exist. Instead, government is trotting out yet another consultation to develop yet another strategy on things which apparently are beyond its ministerial competence and all of this is being done before they bother to put into an effect a commitment made in 2003.

For those who are counting that is a total of seven years to get exactly nowhere.

The Sustainable Development Act required that cabinet approve a comprehensive strategic environment management plan for the whole province within two years of the Act coming into force.  In other words, if this Act had been put into effect the year it was passed, the entire province – including the fisheries related bits – would already have a plan.

And then five years after that, the whole thing would be reviewed again complete with public consultation.

To put it bluntly, had the current administration done what it committed to do in 2003 and what it finally got around to passing through the House of Assembly in 2007, this entire business and a whole lot more besides would already be done or well under way.

As it is, one has to wonder why the SDA remains in mothballs and why this  particular “consultation” appears now, out of the blue, and focuses – as it appears – on areas over which the provincial government has no legislative jurisdiction.

Taken together with Friday’s announcement, it looks a we bit curious if not downright suspicious.

- srbp -

Related:

• “Your serial government at work” (2007)
• “To listen to old, archived messages, press 2…” (2006)
• “Res ipsa loquitur, once more” (2005)  a.k.a. “…and there shall be plans, and planning for plans and plans to co-ordinate the plans of the planning for plans…”

It's not easy being green or accountable

Note: Then environment minister Tom Osborne announced a consultation into new pesticide regulations in February 2004 to replace pesticide regs introduced the year before. In September 2005, he announced the new regs would be implemented shortly thereafter. They were introduced in April 2007.


Environment minister Clyde Jackman is in the hot seat these days and it isn't from the swelteringly humid weather.

Jackman is facing increasing public criticism for his decision to reduce the demands on the law care industry to notify people living adjacent to a property where the companies will be applying pesticides and herbicides.

Until very recently, companies were required to give written notice to neighbours within a 50 metre radius of the property being sprayed. Jackman quietly reduced the distance to a mere 15 metres. When we say quietly, we mean he changed the requirements in the regulations without any notice to the public.

There are a couple of things to notice about this.

Firstly, there is no requirement in the Environmental Protection Act that the minister notify the public to changes made to terms and conditions of a license for pesticides.

The Act allows the cabinet to make regulations and those regulations, such as the amendments gazetted on April 20, 2007, empower the environment minister to set terms and conditions of a license to hold and apply pesticides.

So when Jackman says he merely changed the terms and conditions of license [revised, added aside] - and that he did not legally need to notify people - he is correct. That's what the law provides and that's what he did. However, in using this argument that conditions are somehow not regulations, Jackman is engaging in the same game of petty semantics as Tom Rideout recently did on the Green accountability bill.

The terms and conditions are an integral part of the regulation and as it occurs,* Jackman's power as minister to set and enforce any terms and conditions result from regulatory power conferred on him ultimately by public statute. They are not merely internal administrative rules on what type of pen to use or what colour paper a form shall be printed in. The terms and conditions are integral to the license itself.

Secondly, though, and flowing from that, Jackman's actions are an all too common feature of government in Newfoundland and Labrador. Increasingly, substantive powers are delegated from the legislature to the cabinet - such as the break-up of Fishery Products International - and mandatory public disclosure as would be required legislative change is eliminated entirely.

In the case of making regulations, it is normal to give cabinet the power to establish regulations. It would extremely cumbersome to bring a bill to the legislature each time some part of the myriad regulations governing life in the province had to be changed.

However, the regulations gazetted on April 20 simply repeat the delegated authority established when the new regulations were introduced in 2003 and give authority to the minister in as broad a set of terms as possible.

Nowhere is public disclosure established beyond the historic requirement that any legislative measures take effect once published in the Gazette. How many people are aware the Gazette exists, let alone how many read it? To make that the standard of public disclosure - of accountability and transparency - in the 21st century is to sanction the passage of the Green bill in a manner the Green commission report expressly condemned.

That's really the root of the current problem: a lack of public disclosure.

Province may not have made pesticide reg changes as claimed in '05

It is important to note here that pesticide and herbicide spraying are well know issues of public health and environmental concern. They are so well known that Jackman's predecessor issued a news release in February 2004 on a public consultation on the proposed pesticide regulations. The consultation included a discussion paper outlining the issues and a consultation period of 60 days.

As it turned out, the whole business was so involved that it took 18 months to produce a news release that the amended regulations would be introduced. It is interesting to note however that there is no evidence on the provincial government website that any amendments were made to the pesticide regulations until the changes made in April 2007.

Jackman's predecessor - today the justice minister - was eloquent in his statement at the time:

"One of government’s main goals is to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate the unnecessary use of pesticides, as the public must be reminded that there are alternatives to addressing lawn problems besides using pesticides like proper lawn installation and maintenance. Actions such as banning the sale of fertilizer/herbicide blend products from domestic markets and mandatory certification and training for vendors of domestic class pesticides, which will also help educate consumers to make wise decisions on pesticide use, will indeed play an important role in helping us achieve our goal."

Calls were made by several groups, including the Canadian Cancer Society, for a ban on the use of pesticides and herbicides for cosmetic use since the products involved have possible or probable carcinogenic effects. While the government did not enact the ban, its intention to apply tighter controls and eventually promoting alternatives to pesticide use was plainly evident.

Source: Statistics Canada

There was good reason to restrict pesticide application in the province. As recent information from Statistics Canada shows, pesticide use in Newfoundland and Labrador doubled from 1994 to 2005/2006. The proposed 2005 regulations may have reduced use somewhat in the province, but further loosening of the restrictions on notification make it effectively much easier to use pesticides and that is essentially contrary to the policy goal of this administration when it introduced the new regulations less than two years ago.

Being fully aware of the likelihood of public controversy resulting from any changes to the pesticide regulations, it is astonishing that Jackman failed to make any mention of the changes introduced in April and any other decisions he made as a consequence of the new powers.

Perhaps he was afraid of embarrassment since it appears the 2005 announcement was never implemented. However, the minor embarrassment for such an admission might pale if the new regulations actually improved public protection.

As it stands, the reduced notification period does not appear to do that, at least as measured by government's stated intention in 2005. As well, the intention in 2005 of applying restrictions to use around public spaces - absent from the 2003 version of the regulations - appear to be toothless in the final version. Under the April 2007 regulations (s. 8.1), pesticides not listed as exempted or as being a reduced risk may still be applied at or near senior citizens homes, hospitals, personal care homes, licensed day care centres, parks and other open spaces and near schools either where the building will be unoccupied for at least 48 hours after the application or with a special exemption as granted by the minister.

The provincial environment minister is under fire from concerned citizens and some advocacy groups for failing to disclose changes to regulations. Maybe he felt it might be embarrassing if the changes promised in 2005 had not been implemented. Well he should be in a government which claims to be accountability and transparent as often as another government says it is "new".

But, as it turned out, Jackman is in a controversy all the same and his tortured explanations of the past few days are not helping matters.

In the days ahead, he may well come to appreciate why it would have been better that he had simply made the announcement in April in the first place.

-srbp-

* This marks a change. In the original version the phrase read "as a matter of law". in the absence of a legal opinion on the point, the author is not able to make such an authoritative pronouncement. The amended version more accurately reflects the situation without implicitly carrying any legal interpretation.