A few weeks ago, provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor placed a stark choice in front of the province, particularly those involved in the crab business. His choice was more honest that the proposals from Earl McCurdy within the past two days for reasons that will become obvious below.
Since the status quo will not work, he argued, either the industry moves towards a management system like the proposed raw materials sharing system or it accepts a completely free market.
In assessing the government's position it is important to look at the overall management of the fishery. The federal government regulates the number of harvesters in the business. Fisheries and Oceans sets quotas for catching crab and it issues licenses to people to catch the quota.
The provincial government is responsible for managing the processing sector and that's where the most labour is involved. As the provincial government's current backgrounder points out, between 1996 and 2002, the provincial government allowed the processing sector to expand rapidly to meet growing supply but it did so to absorb more and more workers in rural communities who were unable to find other work.
Naturally, there is now a problem in the local processing sector, namely overcapacity. This is just a current buzz-word for too many plants, and with it, too many plant workers for the volume of crab being landed.
It should be noted that the fishing industry globally has too much capacity for processing compared to the volume of fish landings. Increased efficiency in plants has meant that fewer plants can handle landings. As others have noted, changes in the processing sector, changes in currency values and other factors have allowed fish companies in the North Atlantic to ship product to China, finish it and return it to markets here and abroad for less than it would cost to process the same fish at home.
As noted, the current over-supply of fish processing is, in part, the result of decisions taken after 1996 by the provincial government. These decisions were designed, as the government backgrounder notes, to increase the work available in fishplants.
Effectively, this was a return to the disastrous policies of the 1980s in which more and more people were encouraged to enter the fishing industry in one way or another to the point where every fish plant worker barely worked long enough to qualify for basic employment insurance payments. The plant workers, for one group, displaced by the cod moratorium were transferred into processing another species which itself was placed under severe pressure.
Many of the problems currently being faced in the crab industry are due to poor management practices like the ones proposed by the provincial government in the late 1990s. Stress on the stocks has produced an increased incidence of soft shell, a decline in overall landings due to declining stocks and, not surprisingly, a reluctance of people to leave the jobs despite the obvious need to reduce the number of plants and the number of plant workers in the province.
Economically, the current system is unsustainable and, in fact, would have long ago collapsed were it not for the federal government's income supplement programs like Employment Insurance.
The crab problem is a familiar one in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.
The provincial government's solution is equally familiar. In order to preserve the existing plant capacity - and with it the existing employment levels - the government is proposing to distribute crab landings evenly among all plants. This system will keep plants open as long as possible. It will secure as many land-based jobs as possible, but it means a reduction in income for fishermen who, until now, have been able to earn record prices for the crab catches as a result of the artificially increased level of competition among crab processors. They have been able to gain not only the very best prices in the marketplace; they have also earned premiums and other incentives from crab processors who need raw material to keep their plants operating. The notion of the despotic fish merchant is hardly applicable.
The government plan is familiar since it avoids any drastic action. It spreads a declining resource as thinly as possible in exactly the way cod stocks were managed before 1992.
Those who think the Williams administration is harsh or that it is simply favouring business interests had better take a closer look. Their simplistic view obviously sits behind the Indy's front page story this week that implies some sort of plot between the processors and government simply because the Premier's chief of staff used to employ one of the fish processor's staffers.
The reality is that the current provincial government is following a time-honoured political approach to managing the fishery as a social enterprise rather than an economic one. Danny Williams is no different from Brian Tobin, Brian Peckford or Frank Moores in this respect. In truth, Williams' administration is in line with virtually every provincial government since 1949.
The goal of the raw materials management plan is solely to keep plants open as long as possible so that they can keep as many people working as possible, even if they all make a relative pittance. It is considered more important to preserve a job or a plant or a community or the backbone of our society and economy, to paraphrase the icthiophiles, than it is to have a healthy fishing industry in which each person can gain a living wage from direct labour alone.
There is no small irony that Williams is being vilified in this case for being exactly what he is not or that he is being blamed for a situation when in fact actual power rests with another set of hands.
The crab industry as it exists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador depends almost entirely on the fishermen who for the last month have staged various criminal acts to support their supposedly disadvantaged position.
The reality is that in any system proposed by the provincial government, the province cannot enforce it. The fishermen alone decide to whom they will sell their raw material. If prices are better in Nova Scotia, then local plants will sit idle as modern, locally owned crab-boats sail from the fishing grounds offshore Newfoundland to the docksides of Cape Breton. Those whose boats can't make the voyage can easily truck the crab, or hire a boat that can make the voyage if they themselves do not wish to sell for the prices available locally.
From time to time, someone will look to Iceland as a model for this province to follow. Iceland does offer a worthwhile model, but not in the way it is often presented. Iceland long ago dismissed the idea of the fishery as an exercise in social engineering. Instead, the fishery is a business, prosecuted as a business.
Were that approach taken in this province, we would have a very hard time for a few years. The provincial government would merely issue licenses to qualifying companies. Whether those companies survived or closed would depend entirely on market forces. There would be no government bail-outs.
If we want to look at approaches from overseas, we might do well to look at the failed eastern European solution which we seem bent on repeating. In Poland, for example, the government withdrew from the economy. Despite initial upheavals the transition to a market economy and with it economic development was largely completed within a year of the collapse of communism in the early 1990s. Neighbouring countries, which took a different approach are still struggling some 15 years later.
In this province, provincial cabinet ministers resisted the opportunity offered by the cod moratorium to restructure the fishery, end the tendency toward state interference and put the industry on a sound economic footing for the benefit of everyone.
Instead, today, we are left struggling with the vestiges of old-style government management approaches that continue in other guises. They have failed utterly in the past time and time again. They will fail again.
Meanwhile, the fish union trots out the old villains for blame, even though the economic circumstances in the fishery have changed dramatically in recent years, and at the same time engages in criminal behaviour and intimidation to advance their position.
The union also embodies a conflict of interest. Their members who process crab on land will surely benefit from the government's proposal. Their harvester-members - who are predominantly male and who clearly dominate the union - would suffer little or nothing at all from it.
The union has been incredibly successful in wresting concessions from government and herein can be found the lie in any notions that the current administration is somehow intrasigent or that the government is about to break the fish union.
Without giving anything except threats and intimidation, the fish union succeeded in having government cut its program from two years to a mere one. Just this past week, and again with nothing but threats and intimidation, the Premier mused about a compensation package for fish plant workers.
Even if the crab plants stay closed, Earl McCurdy has become one of the most powerful political figures imaginable in the province. He can have one set of his members paid entirely by the government for not working. His other members can catch and sell their products for market prices.
And in the meantime, the other business of the government has slowed to a crawl. News headlines are dominated by the fish union members and their illegal actions. Government can scarcely talk of anything else save crab, either inside or outside the Confederation Building.
Yet in the end, the province remains with a fishing industry desparately in need of serious attention and public talk of the industry mired in myths and half-truths.
Most unfortunately of all, the most powerful man in the fishing industry has no incentive to change anything at all.
It is a shame.
10 May 2005
09 May 2005
Victory! (correction)
Since 1945, May 9 is the day on which Russians commemorate their sacrifice and ultimate victory in the Great Patriotic War.
The defeat of Nazi Germany came at a terrible price with more than 27 million dead and most of the European portion of the Soviet Union devastated.
Here's a link to the official Victory Day site. Drop in. It's worth the visit to get a different perspective on the Second World War.
I still remember the shock expressed by many Westerners on the 40th anniversary when legions of vintage T-34/85 tanks in perfect working order rolled down the Moscow streets and into Red Square. They may have been more menacing than this parade of period transport trucks, but the idea is the same. The communists kept anything military and serviceable in storage just in case.
Correction: Earlier I thought Canada was not represented at the Ksocw events. Turns out that Her Excellency the Governor General was the official Canadian representative in Red Square.
The defeat of Nazi Germany came at a terrible price with more than 27 million dead and most of the European portion of the Soviet Union devastated.
Here's a link to the official Victory Day site. Drop in. It's worth the visit to get a different perspective on the Second World War.
I still remember the shock expressed by many Westerners on the 40th anniversary when legions of vintage T-34/85 tanks in perfect working order rolled down the Moscow streets and into Red Square. They may have been more menacing than this parade of period transport trucks, but the idea is the same. The communists kept anything military and serviceable in storage just in case.
Correction: Earlier I thought Canada was not represented at the Ksocw events. Turns out that Her Excellency the Governor General was the official Canadian representative in Red Square.
08 May 2005
Peter Kent: offshore deals "not good government"
Appearing on CBC Radio's The House, Peter Kent, former television news anchor and newly announced Conservative party candidate in an Ontario riding, told program host Anthony Germain that the offshore revenue deal signed with Newfoundland and Labrador is an example of what Kent termed $7.5 billion in spending that Prime Minister Paul Martin "is scattering across the country very irresponsibly".
Kent called the offshore deals with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia "not good government". While Kent said he was "sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands," Kent said "you don't make government on the fly."
The criticism of the offshore deals came after Kent gushed about one example of government spending, an investment in a human rights museum which, coincidentally, is owned by Kent's former employers.
Here's the full section of the interview, for the record:
GERMAIN: April 14th, the Liberal government announced it was giving $70 million to your employers, the Aspers, for the Human Rights Museum, bringing the total to $100 million. Does it by the Liberal government favourable media coverage from your employer?
KENT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. My employers encouraged me to run. My employer knows the, the political stripe I will be wearing and am wearing now, and absolutely not. That's a great project., the CanWest Media Works has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to a variety of charities. This Human Rights Museum in the geographical centre of Canada represents a first in terms of a human rights museum and recognizing not just the holocaust, but then the Holocaust is a part of it, but representing human rights as they apply to all of the political.....or all of the geographical and ethnic and national origins of the people that make up this country.
GERMAIN: So it's one example of Liberal spending that you endorse?
KENT: Absolutely. I mean, there is, you know, and it's an outstanding promise, some things can be thoughtfully spent. That stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the seven-and-a-half billion dollars that Mr. Martin is scattering across the country very irresponsibly, you know, trying to fulfill an NDP budget. The deals that he has made with Newfoundland on the fly on those resource royalties, that's not good government. You've got to....And I, quite frankly, am sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands, but you don't make government spontaneously on the fly. Mr. Martin is threatening the economy of Canada. This from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Conference Board of Canada, the CD Howe Institute among others by taking this, first of all, the $4.6 billion out of the surplus, which represents over-taxation. You know, these consecutive Liberal surpluses are by any measure excess taxation, gouging of the taxpayers and now he's blowing over half of this year's surplus to keep, to buy Jack Layton's loyalty for a very short period of time.
GERMAIN: Peter Kent....
KENT: Am I ranting, Anthony?
GERMAIN: (Laughs) I didn't say that.
KENT: I've only been doing it for five days.
Rant on, Peter Kent. Rant on.
And while you are ranting please explain your economic ideas. If Liberal surpluses represent overtaxation, then presumably you are about to launch a crusade to lower taxes. But if you lower taxes and eliminate the surpluses, how exactly do you find the cash to reduce the federal debt load?
Take back the Asper's museum money?
Kent called the offshore deals with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia "not good government". While Kent said he was "sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands," Kent said "you don't make government on the fly."
The criticism of the offshore deals came after Kent gushed about one example of government spending, an investment in a human rights museum which, coincidentally, is owned by Kent's former employers.
Here's the full section of the interview, for the record:
GERMAIN: April 14th, the Liberal government announced it was giving $70 million to your employers, the Aspers, for the Human Rights Museum, bringing the total to $100 million. Does it by the Liberal government favourable media coverage from your employer?
KENT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. My employers encouraged me to run. My employer knows the, the political stripe I will be wearing and am wearing now, and absolutely not. That's a great project., the CanWest Media Works has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to a variety of charities. This Human Rights Museum in the geographical centre of Canada represents a first in terms of a human rights museum and recognizing not just the holocaust, but then the Holocaust is a part of it, but representing human rights as they apply to all of the political.....or all of the geographical and ethnic and national origins of the people that make up this country.
GERMAIN: So it's one example of Liberal spending that you endorse?
KENT: Absolutely. I mean, there is, you know, and it's an outstanding promise, some things can be thoughtfully spent. That stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the seven-and-a-half billion dollars that Mr. Martin is scattering across the country very irresponsibly, you know, trying to fulfill an NDP budget. The deals that he has made with Newfoundland on the fly on those resource royalties, that's not good government. You've got to....And I, quite frankly, am sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands, but you don't make government spontaneously on the fly. Mr. Martin is threatening the economy of Canada. This from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Conference Board of Canada, the CD Howe Institute among others by taking this, first of all, the $4.6 billion out of the surplus, which represents over-taxation. You know, these consecutive Liberal surpluses are by any measure excess taxation, gouging of the taxpayers and now he's blowing over half of this year's surplus to keep, to buy Jack Layton's loyalty for a very short period of time.
GERMAIN: Peter Kent....
KENT: Am I ranting, Anthony?
GERMAIN: (Laughs) I didn't say that.
KENT: I've only been doing it for five days.
Rant on, Peter Kent. Rant on.
And while you are ranting please explain your economic ideas. If Liberal surpluses represent overtaxation, then presumably you are about to launch a crusade to lower taxes. But if you lower taxes and eliminate the surpluses, how exactly do you find the cash to reduce the federal debt load?
Take back the Asper's museum money?
Helicopters to Holyrood? Doyle and Hearn spend big on travel
In the Indy this week are two things worth reading. I'll post more on the issue of custodial management and Jeff Ducharme's excellent front-page story, later on Sunday.
But for this little waker-upper, let's flip to page 9, wherein managing editor Ryan Cleary buried the results of a little bit of research in spending by the province's members of parliament.
The MPs are listed from most expensive to least expensive for the fiscal year ending March 31 2004. In other words, these figures are a year old.
Not surprisingly, Bill Matthews and the late Lawrence O'Brien come out on top, largely because of their high travel costs. Try buying an airline ticket to Labrador and the get around the riding and you'll see why O'Brien racked up more in travel costs than in staff salaries.
Matthews also represents a huge riding, so, again, his travel costs outstrip his staff budget.
But here's a little bit of information the Indy didn't find peculiar in the slightest. Personally, I thought this was more of a page one piece than Craig's testimony - especially since TransCon already covered their own reporter's comments. [coughcough]
At the time these expenses were racked up, Progressive Conservative MPs Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn represented ridings on the Avalon Peninsula.
Doyle's was confined to much of the same space he currently represents.
Hearn used to have to truck down past his home in Renews to Trepassey and Placentia on his jaunts to the riding but here's the funky thing. Unlike, say O'Brien or Matthews, the two PCs could actually drive from one end of their ridings - let alone drive in a few hours at most - from the airport in St. John's to any point they needed to visit.
So why then did Mr. Doyle rack up $172, 904 in travel expenses?
And why did Loyola Hearn cost taxpayers $164, 159 for travel?
The Indy story concludes with a little bit of editorialising, a testament to its high journalistic standards, no doubt:
"The most frugal of the province's MPs was a bit of a surprise - Natural Resources Minister and Avalon MP John Efford."
There's no explanation of why that was surprising any more than there is an explanation of why the Indy decided to avoid asking two St. John's MPs why they spent so much on travelling in two of the province's smallest ridings.
But for this little waker-upper, let's flip to page 9, wherein managing editor Ryan Cleary buried the results of a little bit of research in spending by the province's members of parliament.
The MPs are listed from most expensive to least expensive for the fiscal year ending March 31 2004. In other words, these figures are a year old.
Not surprisingly, Bill Matthews and the late Lawrence O'Brien come out on top, largely because of their high travel costs. Try buying an airline ticket to Labrador and the get around the riding and you'll see why O'Brien racked up more in travel costs than in staff salaries.
Matthews also represents a huge riding, so, again, his travel costs outstrip his staff budget.
But here's a little bit of information the Indy didn't find peculiar in the slightest. Personally, I thought this was more of a page one piece than Craig's testimony - especially since TransCon already covered their own reporter's comments. [coughcough]
At the time these expenses were racked up, Progressive Conservative MPs Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn represented ridings on the Avalon Peninsula.
Doyle's was confined to much of the same space he currently represents.
Hearn used to have to truck down past his home in Renews to Trepassey and Placentia on his jaunts to the riding but here's the funky thing. Unlike, say O'Brien or Matthews, the two PCs could actually drive from one end of their ridings - let alone drive in a few hours at most - from the airport in St. John's to any point they needed to visit.
So why then did Mr. Doyle rack up $172, 904 in travel expenses?
And why did Loyola Hearn cost taxpayers $164, 159 for travel?
The Indy story concludes with a little bit of editorialising, a testament to its high journalistic standards, no doubt:
"The most frugal of the province's MPs was a bit of a surprise - Natural Resources Minister and Avalon MP John Efford."
There's no explanation of why that was surprising any more than there is an explanation of why the Indy decided to avoid asking two St. John's MPs why they spent so much on travelling in two of the province's smallest ridings.
By the gallon or the shovel-full?
There's an old saying that editors always get the last word and they buy their ink by the gallon.
The editorial in this week's Independent proves the point to a tee.
"Chief concern" takes issue with Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering's treatment of the Indy reporter who published a story recently on an external investigation the chief ordered. The Indy's sources were reputed to be within the ranks of the RNC itself.
As Ronalda Nakonechny related the story on CBC Radio, both she and Indy reporter Alisha Morrissey had requested interviews with Deering only to find themselves both in the same interview.
The Indy editorial disputes this version saying: "[t]he next week Chief Deering called the reporter to his office." Personally, and until there is some substantive evidence to back it up, I'll buy the CBC version since it doesn't come laden with the implication of the Indy's account.
After recounting a portion of the interview, in which Deering chastised the Indy report, there's this opinion from the Indy anonymous editorialist: "The chief's behaviour was nothing short of unprofessional."
In a word: nonsense.
The chief took the opportunity in an interview to make clear his concerns about the use of anonymous informants breaching their oath of confidentiality by leaking information - inaccurate information at that - to reporters. He didn't sugar-coat his words nor could anyone doubt his seriousness from the forcefulness of his tone. CBC Radio played the same sections of the interview the Indy subsequently printed.
His tone and his comments reflected the strength of his views but it is a long way from bullying.
Reporting is a tough business. When a reporter puts a story into print based on anonymous sources - at least anonymous to the public - then he or she can expect to hear a few strong comments from the people being talked about. Suck it up and move on.
Chief Deering was well within his rights to speak directly to the reporter who wrote the first story and he is perfectly within his right - and professional responsibility - to defend the integrity of the police service and emphasize the need for confidentiality.
The editorial repeats a quote from RNC Association president Tim Buckle saying that officers are concerned that if there was "another Mount Cashel" they'd have no one to turn to if the chief were "to quash the investigation". That's a powerful accusation by Buckle and if the Indy wants to take up his cudgels, they'd better present something much better than they have so far in the way of evidence.
The major problem in the Indy stories and in the editorial is that it misses the point:
There is no evidence that Chief Deering ordered the prostitution investigation to be quashed. An external investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not recommend laying charges, as the Indy editorial notes. Therefore, Buckle's comments are totally without foundation. There simply isn't any proof to back them up.
Period.
The major problem with the Indy series, as noted here last week, is that their source or sources turned out to be, in a word: wrong. Dead wrong actually, as confirmed by the Ontario Provincial Police who are conducting external investigations into two matters as requested by Chief Deering.
Now we have a second wrong in the Indy is launching an attack on Deering's professionalism rather than deal with the point he raised.
Newspapers who traffick in leaked confidential information from police sources - information that turns out to be wrong - undermine the administration of justice. The public must be assured that information in police hands will not become public without due process. Brown envelopes and meetings in doughnut shops or downtown parking lots just don't cut the standard of due process.
If anyone had presented evidence to the Indy that demonstrated Deering had quashed investigations, then the editorial would have a point and one that would need to be answered by the ministry of justice not the chief of police.
No evidence.
No point.
No story.
Reporters are often faced with an ethical question on the use of confidential information that may fall into their laps. Editors have to apply a high standard to the use of such information, often withholding material they'd like to print simply because it doesn't meet the extremely high standards needed to avoid the problem so evident in the Morrissey reporting.
If standards aren't high, then stories sometimes wind up being more innuendo than information. There is plenty of innuendo on page one of this week's Indy. Something about Ross Reid of the Premier's Office and Derick Butler of the fish processor's group having once worked together on Parliament Hill. That is followed by paragraphs of people denying things that never happened. Sheer crap, but it made page one based solely on its high "National Enquirer" score.
Then there were the stories on NAPE, published shortly after Ryan Cleary took over as managing editor of The Independent. The background information came literally from a brown envelope someone within NAPE figuratively tossed over the newspaper's transom. No one at the Indy ever questioned the motives and context of the leaker, even though NAPE was in a labour dispute at the time. The Indy interpretation of the material just coincidentally happened to match government's need to discredit the union.
But here's the big point: there was no proof on any wrong-doing, yet the stories were laced with veiled suggestions of nefarious deeds. One story in particular focused on a subsidiary of NAPE that the Indy story seemed to suggest might be a slush fund of some kind. In fact, the company was the mechanism by which NAPE owned the building in which they were housed and kept the liability for it separate from the union's main business. It's a simple practice. Ask Danny Williams or Brian Dobbin about it.
When anyone receives leaked confidential information one must look both at the information itself and the source. Leakers aren't always do-gooders protecting the public. They may have other agendas of their own. That's why most editors usually apply a fairly high standard - much higher than the usual high standards - before running a story from leaked information.
Until the Indy gets evidence in the prostitution/quashing story, all we have here is apparently a case of an editor proving once more that he buys his ink by the gallon and will try to get the last word.
Innuendo seems to be once again doled out by the shovel full, but that isn't proof either.
"Unprofessional" is a word people should throw around carefully. Sometimes it might plop into a vat of the dark printing liquid and splash onto the one who threw it in the first place.
The editorial in this week's Independent proves the point to a tee.
"Chief concern" takes issue with Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering's treatment of the Indy reporter who published a story recently on an external investigation the chief ordered. The Indy's sources were reputed to be within the ranks of the RNC itself.
As Ronalda Nakonechny related the story on CBC Radio, both she and Indy reporter Alisha Morrissey had requested interviews with Deering only to find themselves both in the same interview.
The Indy editorial disputes this version saying: "[t]he next week Chief Deering called the reporter to his office." Personally, and until there is some substantive evidence to back it up, I'll buy the CBC version since it doesn't come laden with the implication of the Indy's account.
After recounting a portion of the interview, in which Deering chastised the Indy report, there's this opinion from the Indy anonymous editorialist: "The chief's behaviour was nothing short of unprofessional."
In a word: nonsense.
The chief took the opportunity in an interview to make clear his concerns about the use of anonymous informants breaching their oath of confidentiality by leaking information - inaccurate information at that - to reporters. He didn't sugar-coat his words nor could anyone doubt his seriousness from the forcefulness of his tone. CBC Radio played the same sections of the interview the Indy subsequently printed.
His tone and his comments reflected the strength of his views but it is a long way from bullying.
Reporting is a tough business. When a reporter puts a story into print based on anonymous sources - at least anonymous to the public - then he or she can expect to hear a few strong comments from the people being talked about. Suck it up and move on.
Chief Deering was well within his rights to speak directly to the reporter who wrote the first story and he is perfectly within his right - and professional responsibility - to defend the integrity of the police service and emphasize the need for confidentiality.
The editorial repeats a quote from RNC Association president Tim Buckle saying that officers are concerned that if there was "another Mount Cashel" they'd have no one to turn to if the chief were "to quash the investigation". That's a powerful accusation by Buckle and if the Indy wants to take up his cudgels, they'd better present something much better than they have so far in the way of evidence.
The major problem in the Indy stories and in the editorial is that it misses the point:
There is no evidence that Chief Deering ordered the prostitution investigation to be quashed. An external investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not recommend laying charges, as the Indy editorial notes. Therefore, Buckle's comments are totally without foundation. There simply isn't any proof to back them up.
Period.
The major problem with the Indy series, as noted here last week, is that their source or sources turned out to be, in a word: wrong. Dead wrong actually, as confirmed by the Ontario Provincial Police who are conducting external investigations into two matters as requested by Chief Deering.
Now we have a second wrong in the Indy is launching an attack on Deering's professionalism rather than deal with the point he raised.
Newspapers who traffick in leaked confidential information from police sources - information that turns out to be wrong - undermine the administration of justice. The public must be assured that information in police hands will not become public without due process. Brown envelopes and meetings in doughnut shops or downtown parking lots just don't cut the standard of due process.
If anyone had presented evidence to the Indy that demonstrated Deering had quashed investigations, then the editorial would have a point and one that would need to be answered by the ministry of justice not the chief of police.
No evidence.
No point.
No story.
Reporters are often faced with an ethical question on the use of confidential information that may fall into their laps. Editors have to apply a high standard to the use of such information, often withholding material they'd like to print simply because it doesn't meet the extremely high standards needed to avoid the problem so evident in the Morrissey reporting.
If standards aren't high, then stories sometimes wind up being more innuendo than information. There is plenty of innuendo on page one of this week's Indy. Something about Ross Reid of the Premier's Office and Derick Butler of the fish processor's group having once worked together on Parliament Hill. That is followed by paragraphs of people denying things that never happened. Sheer crap, but it made page one based solely on its high "National Enquirer" score.
Then there were the stories on NAPE, published shortly after Ryan Cleary took over as managing editor of The Independent. The background information came literally from a brown envelope someone within NAPE figuratively tossed over the newspaper's transom. No one at the Indy ever questioned the motives and context of the leaker, even though NAPE was in a labour dispute at the time. The Indy interpretation of the material just coincidentally happened to match government's need to discredit the union.
But here's the big point: there was no proof on any wrong-doing, yet the stories were laced with veiled suggestions of nefarious deeds. One story in particular focused on a subsidiary of NAPE that the Indy story seemed to suggest might be a slush fund of some kind. In fact, the company was the mechanism by which NAPE owned the building in which they were housed and kept the liability for it separate from the union's main business. It's a simple practice. Ask Danny Williams or Brian Dobbin about it.
When anyone receives leaked confidential information one must look both at the information itself and the source. Leakers aren't always do-gooders protecting the public. They may have other agendas of their own. That's why most editors usually apply a fairly high standard - much higher than the usual high standards - before running a story from leaked information.
Until the Indy gets evidence in the prostitution/quashing story, all we have here is apparently a case of an editor proving once more that he buys his ink by the gallon and will try to get the last word.
Innuendo seems to be once again doled out by the shovel full, but that isn't proof either.
"Unprofessional" is a word people should throw around carefully. Sometimes it might plop into a vat of the dark printing liquid and splash onto the one who threw it in the first place.
07 May 2005
and the award goes to...
Ryan Cleary, managing editor of The Independent, for missing a simple fact.
On the front page of this week's Indy is Craig Westcott's testimony at a senate committee hearing into media ownership.
Cleary concludes his own column this week with a little bit of insight into the soul-searching he apparently endured before putting Westcott on the Indy's front page.
Apparently, Ryan was worried about attracting "added publicity" to Westcott.
Oddly, Cleary was worried too that people might be thinking the Indy was taking shots at the competition. Don't visit newsrooms around town on Monday as they are likely to be full of people rolling on the floor with laughter at that one.
Cleary never misses a chance - including in that column - to hold up the Indy as something superior in the world of journalism throughout the province. A "perceived bias" Ryan? Geez, me son, how many times have we endured the self-massage in your column that does all but say the Indy is the home of the only unadulterated journalism in the place?
My favourite is this line: "But there's another reason why The Indy decided to go with Westcott's story on the front page: you won't read it anywhere else."
So why the worry about "added publicity", Ryan?
I already read an account of Westcott's testimony.
In The Telegram.
Which is owned by Transcontinental.
Which also owns the Express.
Where Craig Westcott is still employed.
And as for The Indy being independent - as Ryan points out at the start of his column - we are still waiting for the investigative reporting on Brian Dobbin's business relationship with Taiwanese interests.
Independence is a relative thing.
On the front page of this week's Indy is Craig Westcott's testimony at a senate committee hearing into media ownership.
Cleary concludes his own column this week with a little bit of insight into the soul-searching he apparently endured before putting Westcott on the Indy's front page.
Apparently, Ryan was worried about attracting "added publicity" to Westcott.
Oddly, Cleary was worried too that people might be thinking the Indy was taking shots at the competition. Don't visit newsrooms around town on Monday as they are likely to be full of people rolling on the floor with laughter at that one.
Cleary never misses a chance - including in that column - to hold up the Indy as something superior in the world of journalism throughout the province. A "perceived bias" Ryan? Geez, me son, how many times have we endured the self-massage in your column that does all but say the Indy is the home of the only unadulterated journalism in the place?
My favourite is this line: "But there's another reason why The Indy decided to go with Westcott's story on the front page: you won't read it anywhere else."
So why the worry about "added publicity", Ryan?
I already read an account of Westcott's testimony.
In The Telegram.
Which is owned by Transcontinental.
Which also owns the Express.
Where Craig Westcott is still employed.
And as for The Indy being independent - as Ryan points out at the start of his column - we are still waiting for the investigative reporting on Brian Dobbin's business relationship with Taiwanese interests.
Independence is a relative thing.
06 May 2005
The Premier on Fabian
Premier Williams held a newser (news conference) today to comment on Fabian Manning's ouster from the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Radio Noon played some of his comments, focusing on three ideas.
First, the Premier picked up on the idea of confidential information being leaked and pinning that on Fabe. Note that the puppet caller to Open Line used this line first thing yesterday morning. This is no accident. It's also an interesting idea in that Fabian Manning, Ultra-Tory, is being accused of high treason against Tories. Proof would be interesting concept here - rather than the mere accusation - but don't count on anything coming soon.
Second, he picked up on the idea that a government caucus member has to toe the line on every government issue. The caucus and leader get to set their own rules in a parliamentary democracy. Let's just observe that this is a tight regime being set here.
This is an understandable idea in that this is an extremely tough issue for some government members. Fabe just happens to be the one, most likely, who is being used pour encourager les autres. French army commanders in the Great War used to shoot some of their soldiers who may or may not have been guilty of anything actually to accomplish the same purpose.
Of course, it also suggests that there is a lot of tension within caucus or that caucus solidarity is fragile. The French army shot people when it was on the brink of wide-spread mutiny. Even if the caucus is rock solid, some of the Premier's political opponents will draw conclusions from this action.
Third, the Premier mentioned the news release and other action following from the Nite Line fiasco. Ok. Maybe Fabe could have handled the issue a little more circumspectly, but even floating the accusation in an effort to discredit Manning was a weak tactic.
I'll toss out an observation on a line from Peter Gullage's national radio report earlier today that a member of the Premier's staff was present in the caucus room for the deliberations on Manning's future. Every caucus is different but I have never heard of unelected people being present for confidential caucus discussions. A caucus, like a cabinet, is the ultimate privileged club. Having an appointed political staffer in the room is unusual in local political circles.
Radio Noon played some of his comments, focusing on three ideas.
First, the Premier picked up on the idea of confidential information being leaked and pinning that on Fabe. Note that the puppet caller to Open Line used this line first thing yesterday morning. This is no accident. It's also an interesting idea in that Fabian Manning, Ultra-Tory, is being accused of high treason against Tories. Proof would be interesting concept here - rather than the mere accusation - but don't count on anything coming soon.
Second, he picked up on the idea that a government caucus member has to toe the line on every government issue. The caucus and leader get to set their own rules in a parliamentary democracy. Let's just observe that this is a tight regime being set here.
This is an understandable idea in that this is an extremely tough issue for some government members. Fabe just happens to be the one, most likely, who is being used pour encourager les autres. French army commanders in the Great War used to shoot some of their soldiers who may or may not have been guilty of anything actually to accomplish the same purpose.
Of course, it also suggests that there is a lot of tension within caucus or that caucus solidarity is fragile. The French army shot people when it was on the brink of wide-spread mutiny. Even if the caucus is rock solid, some of the Premier's political opponents will draw conclusions from this action.
Third, the Premier mentioned the news release and other action following from the Nite Line fiasco. Ok. Maybe Fabe could have handled the issue a little more circumspectly, but even floating the accusation in an effort to discredit Manning was a weak tactic.
I'll toss out an observation on a line from Peter Gullage's national radio report earlier today that a member of the Premier's staff was present in the caucus room for the deliberations on Manning's future. Every caucus is different but I have never heard of unelected people being present for confidential caucus discussions. A caucus, like a cabinet, is the ultimate privileged club. Having an appointed political staffer in the room is unusual in local political circles.
Williams explains - later today
Fresh back from the oil trade conference in Houston, Premier Danny Williams plans to explain today what happened with Fabe.
This oughta be good.
Let's hope there is something more substantive than the stuff we have seen so far.
By the way, Danny, if you want to fire a troublemaker, save cash in the process AND accomplish something substantive, think of another "F".
This oughta be good.
Let's hope there is something more substantive than the stuff we have seen so far.
By the way, Danny, if you want to fire a troublemaker, save cash in the process AND accomplish something substantive, think of another "F".
05 May 2005
A floor walker speaks, or soft-shelled excuses
Sometimes you hear interesting things on the way to Tim Horton's.
Like this evening, when cabinet minister Tom Rideout called Nite Line to explain why Fabian Manning got the flick from the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Rideout began by listing his experience as probably the longest serving member in the House of Assembly and the one who has sat in more caucuses than any currently sitting member.
Fair enough on that score, Tom, although those of us with memories recall that you switched from the Liberal Opposition benches in 1984 to the Peckford team in order to get a cabinet seat. Bill Rowe once listed you among the legion of fellows who practiced the old-fashioned political art in this province of wearing out carpets by crossing the floor of the House to sit with another team.
Rideout's explanation of the caucus move was that the government needed to have complete support of its members to get government business through the legislature.
Here are three reasons why Rideout's argument makes no sense:
1. The government party has so many members that even if half the back benchers voted against the government, they'd still win any vote as long as everyone showed up.
2. Manning has given absolutely no indication that he intends to vote against the government on any bill, especially a money bill or other confidence vote.
3. The whole crab deal is not contained in any bill scheduled to come before the House.
So what exactly was the problem, Tom?
If it is as trivial the Premier and Mr. Manning getting bent over a misunderstanding of which Manning is which, surely goodness they can find enough common ground to kiss and make up.
This is hardly like Tom's floor crossing, the Wells/Crosbie business, Ross Wiseman's cover of a tune by Tom Rideout or even the Wilson Callan thing.
Maybe the Premier found old strategy notes stuck in a filing cabinet somewhere from the Grimes-Efford fiasco and used them as a guide.
Like this evening, when cabinet minister Tom Rideout called Nite Line to explain why Fabian Manning got the flick from the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Rideout began by listing his experience as probably the longest serving member in the House of Assembly and the one who has sat in more caucuses than any currently sitting member.
Fair enough on that score, Tom, although those of us with memories recall that you switched from the Liberal Opposition benches in 1984 to the Peckford team in order to get a cabinet seat. Bill Rowe once listed you among the legion of fellows who practiced the old-fashioned political art in this province of wearing out carpets by crossing the floor of the House to sit with another team.
Rideout's explanation of the caucus move was that the government needed to have complete support of its members to get government business through the legislature.
Here are three reasons why Rideout's argument makes no sense:
1. The government party has so many members that even if half the back benchers voted against the government, they'd still win any vote as long as everyone showed up.
2. Manning has given absolutely no indication that he intends to vote against the government on any bill, especially a money bill or other confidence vote.
3. The whole crab deal is not contained in any bill scheduled to come before the House.
So what exactly was the problem, Tom?
If it is as trivial the Premier and Mr. Manning getting bent over a misunderstanding of which Manning is which, surely goodness they can find enough common ground to kiss and make up.
This is hardly like Tom's floor crossing, the Wells/Crosbie business, Ross Wiseman's cover of a tune by Tom Rideout or even the Wilson Callan thing.
Maybe the Premier found old strategy notes stuck in a filing cabinet somewhere from the Grimes-Efford fiasco and used them as a guide.
Manning on Voice Activated
The Williams government crab quota kerfuffle has claimed its first political victim.
PC MHA Fabian Manning decided voice the concerns of his constituents, many of whom are fishermen and plant workers, and speak out against Williams plan to give crab production quotas to processors.
He expected to lose his position as a Parliamentary Secretary but he wasn't ready for what happened next. He was tossed out of Caucus by his one time friends and colleagues.
When he tried to get into his office the next morning the locks had been changed.
Once again, the issue of who our elected politicians really represent comes to the fore.
Has the party political system finally had its day?
You can ask Fabian Manning yourself on Voice Activated, Sunday night, 8:30 PM on Rogers Television. Channel 9 in St. John's.
Tune in.
Call in.
757-0777
PC MHA Fabian Manning decided voice the concerns of his constituents, many of whom are fishermen and plant workers, and speak out against Williams plan to give crab production quotas to processors.
He expected to lose his position as a Parliamentary Secretary but he wasn't ready for what happened next. He was tossed out of Caucus by his one time friends and colleagues.
When he tried to get into his office the next morning the locks had been changed.
Once again, the issue of who our elected politicians really represent comes to the fore.
Has the party political system finally had its day?
You can ask Fabian Manning yourself on Voice Activated, Sunday night, 8:30 PM on Rogers Television. Channel 9 in St. John's.
Tune in.
Call in.
757-0777
Up a tree
Two examples of the strange workings in politics and government came today courtesy of the provincial Progressive Conservative caucus and the City of St. John's.
CBC news reported on a demolition order issued by the City of St. John's for the tree house in the backyard of a city resident. TV news had pictures of the structure which is actually sturdier than some of the cabins people spend the May 24th weekend in.
City officials defend their actions on the grounds of safety.
I am thinking they have done one of three things.
Either they have decided to become the treehouse nazis - a la the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld - extending their considerable jurisdiction into even the tiniest aspect of life in the city
or
They are using the national building code as a cheap excuse to quiet complaints from neighbours who may object to the treehouse for other grounds.
or
In light of a complaint they don't want to endorse the structure out of fear that someone can sue them.
Either way - or even if there is another explanation, the city officials have made a decision that is rightly exposing them to national attention and likely considerable national ridicule.
Hint: when the public has a commonsense reaction that a government policy is silly, maybe the public is right.
Over in the other forest known as provincial politics, there is considerable chatter among the tree-dwellers about the ouster of one Fabian Manning from his particular troop of political great apes. The other troops are looking on in bewilderment.
Personally, I am gonna have to wait for this one to evolve a bit or for some people to give me calls with information. The whole thing leaves me gobsmacked, if for no other reason than when you think Tory, you think Manning. The idea this guy has been given the flick is almost too bizarre for words.
Let's put this in political context for you.
In 1968, Clyde Wells and John Crosbie resigned from cabinet and were booted out of caucus for challenging then Premier Joe Smallwood over financing for the Come by Chance deal. Crosbie has dislocated his shoulders over the years patting himself on the back for being the one who stood up to Joe. I have a sneaking suspicion that in the fullness of time another account will emerge that will pop JC's arm back into its socket and set the record straight on this and a whole bunch of other matters. But I digress.
Other than that one, I can't really think of a time when any caucus in the House of Assembly punted one of its members. Some premiers, like Brians Peckford or Tobin, bought the silence of members by giving everyone some extra stipend. Others just tolerated the dissidents.
When Wells became Premier he eliminated the raft of parliamentary secretaries jobs and loosened the reigns on government members. After all, reasoned Wells, they were elected to represent their constituents. Since they weren't in cabinet they needn't be constrained by any rules of confidentiality and solidarity. Besides, except on crucial matters like money bills, government had such a sizeable majority that one or two voting with the other guys wouldn't harm anyone.
Before Tobin bought him off with a made-up cabinet seat, for example, Wally Noel used to be one of those dissidents who frequently spoke against a particular government policy. He was still a welcome member of caucus though since he never ever sided with the opposition when it came time to vote. Plus he made a valuable contribution to public debate by raising ideas and issues that otherwise wouldn't have been raised most likely.
If I can presume to give some analysis on Wells' policy, Wells could hardly criticize a contrarian after being one himself. More to the point though, his actions reflected a view of what members of the House of Assembly were sent there to do. It also reflected a fundamental respect for the equal status of individual members.
The Premier, for his part, seems never content to let things be as they are. His opponents or those he opposes must be working a conspiracy. In this case, the conspiracy is supposedly Manning's plot to run federally. Chaulk this up as completely inane theory number five or six now; I have truly lost count. The fact Peter MacKay, DDS, himself has publicly disavowed the Premier's comments should speak for itself.
Another telling factor is the Tory Slander Society which has taken to attacking Manning from the time the phone lines opened on VOCM this morning. One caller, who claimed to watch the House every day, reported having noticed on the TV broadcasts the shocked look on government member's faces as Opposition members asked questions supposedly containing sensitive inside information.
Whoever sits in the Confed Building earning tax dollars spreading these pinocchiosis baccilli better do some fact checking.
On TV, you can't see reaction shots since the camera is focused on the ones doing the speaking. When a question is asked, it isn't fixed on the government side. When a minister answers, their looks of shock would have dissipated in the minutes it takes to ask a typical Opposition question.
Apart from that, spreading the idea that Fabian the Ultra-Tory must be some sinister traitor either by flat out statement or shitty innuendo - like the cookie tossed by the open-line puppet - is just beneath contempt. Deal with the facts, people. When you attack a guy's character so blatantly, I question your motives and your personal integrity.
I can't say I know Fabian well enough to invite him to dinner at my house but I can say this. In my dealings with him, he has been a fairminded, decent guy. He has been a staunch spokesman for his district and its people. His brother, likely the one Danny got mixed up about, is also a stand-up guy with a lot of well-earned respect out there.
The truth will emerge.
Let's just hope Fabe doesn't do anything rash in the meantime like resign.
Meanwhile, across the country, the political jungle is growing ever more tangly.
Where did I put that machete anyways?
CBC news reported on a demolition order issued by the City of St. John's for the tree house in the backyard of a city resident. TV news had pictures of the structure which is actually sturdier than some of the cabins people spend the May 24th weekend in.
City officials defend their actions on the grounds of safety.
I am thinking they have done one of three things.
Either they have decided to become the treehouse nazis - a la the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld - extending their considerable jurisdiction into even the tiniest aspect of life in the city
or
They are using the national building code as a cheap excuse to quiet complaints from neighbours who may object to the treehouse for other grounds.
or
In light of a complaint they don't want to endorse the structure out of fear that someone can sue them.
Either way - or even if there is another explanation, the city officials have made a decision that is rightly exposing them to national attention and likely considerable national ridicule.
Hint: when the public has a commonsense reaction that a government policy is silly, maybe the public is right.
Over in the other forest known as provincial politics, there is considerable chatter among the tree-dwellers about the ouster of one Fabian Manning from his particular troop of political great apes. The other troops are looking on in bewilderment.
Personally, I am gonna have to wait for this one to evolve a bit or for some people to give me calls with information. The whole thing leaves me gobsmacked, if for no other reason than when you think Tory, you think Manning. The idea this guy has been given the flick is almost too bizarre for words.
Let's put this in political context for you.
In 1968, Clyde Wells and John Crosbie resigned from cabinet and were booted out of caucus for challenging then Premier Joe Smallwood over financing for the Come by Chance deal. Crosbie has dislocated his shoulders over the years patting himself on the back for being the one who stood up to Joe. I have a sneaking suspicion that in the fullness of time another account will emerge that will pop JC's arm back into its socket and set the record straight on this and a whole bunch of other matters. But I digress.
Other than that one, I can't really think of a time when any caucus in the House of Assembly punted one of its members. Some premiers, like Brians Peckford or Tobin, bought the silence of members by giving everyone some extra stipend. Others just tolerated the dissidents.
When Wells became Premier he eliminated the raft of parliamentary secretaries jobs and loosened the reigns on government members. After all, reasoned Wells, they were elected to represent their constituents. Since they weren't in cabinet they needn't be constrained by any rules of confidentiality and solidarity. Besides, except on crucial matters like money bills, government had such a sizeable majority that one or two voting with the other guys wouldn't harm anyone.
Before Tobin bought him off with a made-up cabinet seat, for example, Wally Noel used to be one of those dissidents who frequently spoke against a particular government policy. He was still a welcome member of caucus though since he never ever sided with the opposition when it came time to vote. Plus he made a valuable contribution to public debate by raising ideas and issues that otherwise wouldn't have been raised most likely.
If I can presume to give some analysis on Wells' policy, Wells could hardly criticize a contrarian after being one himself. More to the point though, his actions reflected a view of what members of the House of Assembly were sent there to do. It also reflected a fundamental respect for the equal status of individual members.
The Premier, for his part, seems never content to let things be as they are. His opponents or those he opposes must be working a conspiracy. In this case, the conspiracy is supposedly Manning's plot to run federally. Chaulk this up as completely inane theory number five or six now; I have truly lost count. The fact Peter MacKay, DDS, himself has publicly disavowed the Premier's comments should speak for itself.
Another telling factor is the Tory Slander Society which has taken to attacking Manning from the time the phone lines opened on VOCM this morning. One caller, who claimed to watch the House every day, reported having noticed on the TV broadcasts the shocked look on government member's faces as Opposition members asked questions supposedly containing sensitive inside information.
Whoever sits in the Confed Building earning tax dollars spreading these pinocchiosis baccilli better do some fact checking.
On TV, you can't see reaction shots since the camera is focused on the ones doing the speaking. When a question is asked, it isn't fixed on the government side. When a minister answers, their looks of shock would have dissipated in the minutes it takes to ask a typical Opposition question.
Apart from that, spreading the idea that Fabian the Ultra-Tory must be some sinister traitor either by flat out statement or shitty innuendo - like the cookie tossed by the open-line puppet - is just beneath contempt. Deal with the facts, people. When you attack a guy's character so blatantly, I question your motives and your personal integrity.
I can't say I know Fabian well enough to invite him to dinner at my house but I can say this. In my dealings with him, he has been a fairminded, decent guy. He has been a staunch spokesman for his district and its people. His brother, likely the one Danny got mixed up about, is also a stand-up guy with a lot of well-earned respect out there.
The truth will emerge.
Let's just hope Fabe doesn't do anything rash in the meantime like resign.
Meanwhile, across the country, the political jungle is growing ever more tangly.
Where did I put that machete anyways?
Local Journalists Honoured
For all that can be said about journalists, when they are recognized by their peers for exemplary work, there is nothing but praise that is deserved.
Here's a quick synopsis of the recent Atlantic Journalism Awards, but feel free to go check out the full release here.
Print:
- A gold award for enterprise reporting to The Independent for its six-part "balance sheet" on Confederation.
- A gold award for feature writing to Stephanie Porter of The Independent for a piece titled "Things you can't forget". Hint: She's another reason to read the Indy, besides the outstanding photography.
Radio:
- A gold award to Denis Molloy of VOCM for spot news.
- A gold award in continuing coverage to David Zelcer, Jon Soper, Kevin Harvey and Leigh Anne Power of CBC Radio for their work reporting the Ryan's Commander loss.
- A gold award for feature writing to Chris Brookes for "Not fit for it", his series on the Amulree Commission and the collapse of Responsible Government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Unfortunately, no one from television in the province earned a gold award, although Deanne Fleet at CBC was a finalist in the enterprise reporting category for a piece called "The Gambler".
Some other reporters in the province also received nominations. Go check them out at the link above. Next time you run into them on the street, make sure you give them their well-earned congratulations.
The big disappointment for me though was that Jeff Ducharme's touching photojournalism essay on his mother's treatment for cancer never got an award. I clipped that piece and his column; they are examples of sensitive and touching work that will leave you deeply moved.
Sometimes the deserving work goes without proper recognition.
Not this time.
At least from me.
Well done, Jeff.
Here's a quick synopsis of the recent Atlantic Journalism Awards, but feel free to go check out the full release here.
Print:
- A gold award for enterprise reporting to The Independent for its six-part "balance sheet" on Confederation.
- A gold award for feature writing to Stephanie Porter of The Independent for a piece titled "Things you can't forget". Hint: She's another reason to read the Indy, besides the outstanding photography.
Radio:
- A gold award to Denis Molloy of VOCM for spot news.
- A gold award in continuing coverage to David Zelcer, Jon Soper, Kevin Harvey and Leigh Anne Power of CBC Radio for their work reporting the Ryan's Commander loss.
- A gold award for feature writing to Chris Brookes for "Not fit for it", his series on the Amulree Commission and the collapse of Responsible Government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Unfortunately, no one from television in the province earned a gold award, although Deanne Fleet at CBC was a finalist in the enterprise reporting category for a piece called "The Gambler".
Some other reporters in the province also received nominations. Go check them out at the link above. Next time you run into them on the street, make sure you give them their well-earned congratulations.
The big disappointment for me though was that Jeff Ducharme's touching photojournalism essay on his mother's treatment for cancer never got an award. I clipped that piece and his column; they are examples of sensitive and touching work that will leave you deeply moved.
Sometimes the deserving work goes without proper recognition.
Not this time.
At least from me.
Well done, Jeff.
04 May 2005
War Museum - local connection
As you watch any coverage of the new War Museum in Ottawa, remember that one of their most senior positions is occupied by a guy from Rabbittown.
Dr. Dean Oliver grew up on Malta Street, took an undergraduate degree from Memorial in history, then went on to earn a doctorate in history at York University. He studied under Jack Granatstein, one of the country's foremost historians.
He has been at the War Museum for several years now and is currently the Director of Historical Research and Exhibit Development. For the past couple of years he has been face-and-eyes into the new museum project overseeing a completely new set of exhibits.
Since I have known Dean for almost 25 years, I can tell you he is a thoughtful and accomplished historian. In addition to his historical work - including publications - he is also a frequent lecturer on modern defence topics. It's not unusual to find him lecturing at the Canadian Forces Staff College in Toronto, south of the border or across the pond at NATO.
The museum is his full-time job and he brings to the task of planning exhibits a sensitivity to all aspects of Canada's military history that we all should appreciate. Exhibits, such as one on Somalia which Cliff Chadderton has criticized, usually go through a great deal of thought and planning before they get set up. Nothing is sugar-coated, nor should it be. War is one of the most devastating of human experiences, and it should be understood on many more levels than the obvious respect for great accomplishments and sacrifice.
The museum has some artifacts with strong connections to this province, including paintings of World War 2 from members of the Group of Seven. Maybe the new Rooms complex can arrange a loan of some items and create a strong connection between the museum here and the museums in Ottawa.
Personally, I wish I could be in Ottawa for the official opening.
I'll just have to watch it from afar and send a public atta-boy to a guy who stood for me at my wedding.
Dr. Dean Oliver grew up on Malta Street, took an undergraduate degree from Memorial in history, then went on to earn a doctorate in history at York University. He studied under Jack Granatstein, one of the country's foremost historians.
He has been at the War Museum for several years now and is currently the Director of Historical Research and Exhibit Development. For the past couple of years he has been face-and-eyes into the new museum project overseeing a completely new set of exhibits.
Since I have known Dean for almost 25 years, I can tell you he is a thoughtful and accomplished historian. In addition to his historical work - including publications - he is also a frequent lecturer on modern defence topics. It's not unusual to find him lecturing at the Canadian Forces Staff College in Toronto, south of the border or across the pond at NATO.
The museum is his full-time job and he brings to the task of planning exhibits a sensitivity to all aspects of Canada's military history that we all should appreciate. Exhibits, such as one on Somalia which Cliff Chadderton has criticized, usually go through a great deal of thought and planning before they get set up. Nothing is sugar-coated, nor should it be. War is one of the most devastating of human experiences, and it should be understood on many more levels than the obvious respect for great accomplishments and sacrifice.
The museum has some artifacts with strong connections to this province, including paintings of World War 2 from members of the Group of Seven. Maybe the new Rooms complex can arrange a loan of some items and create a strong connection between the museum here and the museums in Ottawa.
Personally, I wish I could be in Ottawa for the official opening.
I'll just have to watch it from afar and send a public atta-boy to a guy who stood for me at my wedding.
DBRS upgrades province's debt rating
In a news release issued on 02 May 05, the Dominion Bond rating Service (DBRS) upgraded the provincial government's long- and short-term debt rating.
Long-term debt is now set at BBB (High) and short-term debt is rated at R-1 (low).
According to DBRS, the rating changes are due to several factors, including a 20% reduction in the province's debt over the past seven years.
DBRS noted the offshore revenue agreement with Ottawa also supports the improvement in the province's rating. In light of recent comments by the premier that suggest the $2.0 billion cash advance may be sued to finance hydroelectric, development in Labrador, it is interesting to note this comment by DBRS: "No use has been earmarked for the money yet, but balance sheet improvement is likely to be a priority, given earlier statements made by the Premier." [Emphasis added]
DBRS is obviously basing its rating in part on the commitment that the offshore money will be used for debt reduction.
According to DBRS, they have calculated that the province's cash deficit was eliminated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.
When Budget 2004 was introduced, the government stressed the growing debt and deficit situation affecting the province. It is interesting to note that DBRS highlighted a significant reduction in debt over a seven year period. In other words, they are upgrading the debt rating based on actions that date back to Liberal administrations who were pilloried in last year's partisan rhetoric.
As noted in other posts on the Robert Bond Papers, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador achieved significant debt reduction since at least FY1998. In fact, the province's direct debt declined each year between FY2000 and FY2003.
Further debt load improvements started in the early 1990s with a concerted plan to reduce both the total amount and the percentage of debt held in foreign currencies. From a position of almost 50% of debt being in foreign currencies in FY 1994 - and subject to increased costs from currency fluctuations, the province currently holds less than 25% of its direct debt in foreign currency. This foreign currency debt is now entirely held in American dollars. This further reduces the cost of servicing this debt, given the relatively strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to its American counterpart.
So much for the argument about Liberal fiscal mismanagement.
Long-term debt is now set at BBB (High) and short-term debt is rated at R-1 (low).
According to DBRS, the rating changes are due to several factors, including a 20% reduction in the province's debt over the past seven years.
DBRS noted the offshore revenue agreement with Ottawa also supports the improvement in the province's rating. In light of recent comments by the premier that suggest the $2.0 billion cash advance may be sued to finance hydroelectric, development in Labrador, it is interesting to note this comment by DBRS: "No use has been earmarked for the money yet, but balance sheet improvement is likely to be a priority, given earlier statements made by the Premier." [Emphasis added]
DBRS is obviously basing its rating in part on the commitment that the offshore money will be used for debt reduction.
According to DBRS, they have calculated that the province's cash deficit was eliminated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.
When Budget 2004 was introduced, the government stressed the growing debt and deficit situation affecting the province. It is interesting to note that DBRS highlighted a significant reduction in debt over a seven year period. In other words, they are upgrading the debt rating based on actions that date back to Liberal administrations who were pilloried in last year's partisan rhetoric.
As noted in other posts on the Robert Bond Papers, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador achieved significant debt reduction since at least FY1998. In fact, the province's direct debt declined each year between FY2000 and FY2003.
Further debt load improvements started in the early 1990s with a concerted plan to reduce both the total amount and the percentage of debt held in foreign currencies. From a position of almost 50% of debt being in foreign currencies in FY 1994 - and subject to increased costs from currency fluctuations, the province currently holds less than 25% of its direct debt in foreign currency. This foreign currency debt is now entirely held in American dollars. This further reduces the cost of servicing this debt, given the relatively strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to its American counterpart.
So much for the argument about Liberal fiscal mismanagement.
Prime Minister affirms commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador
VOCM news is reporting today that Prime Minister Paul Martin wants to help develop the Lower Churchill hydro electric potential.
For those who may have forgotten, the PM said this last year and the year before, as far as I recall.
It is certainly the same message John Efford carried to a Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association meeting in April 2004.
In fact, the Premier noted that commitment in a news release on the offshore oil revenue talks a day or two after Efford's speech. Here's the link to that release.
As I recall - and I stand to be corrected - the Premier didn't move the Lower Churchill offer forward at that time because he was focused on other issues, including the budget controversy at the time. Aside from the fact the government had already decided in the spring of 2004 to move to an expressions of interest process in October, the government had also entered into secret talks with the Sino-Energy consortium to share information on the Lower Churchill - and presumably receive a proposal eventually from that group. Existence of that deal wasn't revealed until July 2004 and the details weren't made public until September. In April, none of us outside government knew anything about Sino-Energy.
What's the next step? Someone from the Premier's Office or Hydro needs to get in touch with the Prime Minister's Office and John Efford's office ASAP.
It's been a year since the commitment; let's take the PM up on the offer. The only reason the offshore talks took so long is that the province didn't push the issue seriously until October.
Before anyone screams a partisan foul, I'd be more than happy to provide the documentary evidence to back up that point.
For those who may have forgotten, the PM said this last year and the year before, as far as I recall.
It is certainly the same message John Efford carried to a Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association meeting in April 2004.
In fact, the Premier noted that commitment in a news release on the offshore oil revenue talks a day or two after Efford's speech. Here's the link to that release.
As I recall - and I stand to be corrected - the Premier didn't move the Lower Churchill offer forward at that time because he was focused on other issues, including the budget controversy at the time. Aside from the fact the government had already decided in the spring of 2004 to move to an expressions of interest process in October, the government had also entered into secret talks with the Sino-Energy consortium to share information on the Lower Churchill - and presumably receive a proposal eventually from that group. Existence of that deal wasn't revealed until July 2004 and the details weren't made public until September. In April, none of us outside government knew anything about Sino-Energy.
What's the next step? Someone from the Premier's Office or Hydro needs to get in touch with the Prime Minister's Office and John Efford's office ASAP.
It's been a year since the commitment; let's take the PM up on the offer. The only reason the offshore talks took so long is that the province didn't push the issue seriously until October.
Before anyone screams a partisan foul, I'd be more than happy to provide the documentary evidence to back up that point.
Grimey cameras
Maybe there is some irony in having the two defeated, terminal premiers of long party regimes (Tom "43 days" Rideout for the Tories and Roger Grimes for the Liberals) duking it out on the completely irrelevant issue of security cameras in government buildings.
At a time when the crab fishery is closed, crimes are being committed regularly and going unpunished by government, the best thing Roger Grimes can come up with is to ask questions about security cameras installed at the Confederation Building.
If ever there was evidence of an Opposition having nothing to say, this is it.
Where are the concrete suggestions on how to solve the crisis - other than government caving in?
Where are the observations about the long-term problems in the fishery?
Where is the concern about the House of Assembly, government building being trashed and confidential files being thrown about (let alone read)?
Where is the concern that government is condoning criminal activity with its inept handling of the protests? Hint. Hint. Hint.
Then to cap it all, Grimes makes a silly comment about Loyola Sullivan and provokes his ejection from the House for a day.
Roger, we have known each other a long time so I say this in all sincerity: either find something substantial for you and your caucus to say or just let the whole crab mess work itself out with the Opposition staying silent. The government is bumbling here, particularly Rideout in the past couple of days, so odds are high they will shag this whole thing up.
The camera thing is just making people roll their eyes in their head.
Oh yeah, and while we are at it, I have some words for Tom Rideout.
Cops can't install anything in your buildings without a court order or permission.
Stop bullshitting and pussyfooting.
Your comments yesterday sounded like someone desperate to be cute or clever without being either. You just sounded like Roger did: irrelevant.
At a time when the crab fishery is closed, crimes are being committed regularly and going unpunished by government, the best thing Roger Grimes can come up with is to ask questions about security cameras installed at the Confederation Building.
If ever there was evidence of an Opposition having nothing to say, this is it.
Where are the concrete suggestions on how to solve the crisis - other than government caving in?
Where are the observations about the long-term problems in the fishery?
Where is the concern about the House of Assembly, government building being trashed and confidential files being thrown about (let alone read)?
Where is the concern that government is condoning criminal activity with its inept handling of the protests? Hint. Hint. Hint.
Then to cap it all, Grimes makes a silly comment about Loyola Sullivan and provokes his ejection from the House for a day.
Roger, we have known each other a long time so I say this in all sincerity: either find something substantial for you and your caucus to say or just let the whole crab mess work itself out with the Opposition staying silent. The government is bumbling here, particularly Rideout in the past couple of days, so odds are high they will shag this whole thing up.
The camera thing is just making people roll their eyes in their head.
Oh yeah, and while we are at it, I have some words for Tom Rideout.
Cops can't install anything in your buildings without a court order or permission.
Stop bullshitting and pussyfooting.
Your comments yesterday sounded like someone desperate to be cute or clever without being either. You just sounded like Roger did: irrelevant.
03 May 2005
Out of the Fog on fisheries matters
I just finished watching an edition of Out of the Fog featuring a panel of four reporters who have covered the fishery in this province. Given the panelists, I'd highly recommend watching for experienced professionals commenting on their work and on a major news subject these days.
OOTF had Jim Wellman and Kathryn King both of whom navigated the Fish Broadcast on CBC Radio through some tough times, Dene Moore, local correspondent for the Canadian Press, and Greg Locke, an accomplished shooter, former managing editor of The Independent and lately host of Voice Activated on Rogers.
I'll have to go back and watch the whole thing because it looked like a good show.
Krysta asked about the problems journalists face with being spun - that is of falling for a media line from some public relations person or politician. I caught Jim's and Kathryn's response before control of the clicker reverted to She Who Must Be Obeyed. Being on the other side of the fence - The Dark Side, according to some reporters, I am always interested in that sort of question; hence my eagerness to see the rest of the show when it repeats tomorrow or on the weekend.
Speaking of spin, to the best of my knowledge, no person on the panel - all journalists - has ever sent a tee shirt to someone they interview regularly or routinely asked fawning, softball questions of provincial cabinet ministers and the premier.
Can the same be said of the person tossing the questions at the panelists?
It was a bit of unintentional irony, I guess.
OOTF had Jim Wellman and Kathryn King both of whom navigated the Fish Broadcast on CBC Radio through some tough times, Dene Moore, local correspondent for the Canadian Press, and Greg Locke, an accomplished shooter, former managing editor of The Independent and lately host of Voice Activated on Rogers.
I'll have to go back and watch the whole thing because it looked like a good show.
Krysta asked about the problems journalists face with being spun - that is of falling for a media line from some public relations person or politician. I caught Jim's and Kathryn's response before control of the clicker reverted to She Who Must Be Obeyed. Being on the other side of the fence - The Dark Side, according to some reporters, I am always interested in that sort of question; hence my eagerness to see the rest of the show when it repeats tomorrow or on the weekend.
Speaking of spin, to the best of my knowledge, no person on the panel - all journalists - has ever sent a tee shirt to someone they interview regularly or routinely asked fawning, softball questions of provincial cabinet ministers and the premier.
Can the same be said of the person tossing the questions at the panelists?
It was a bit of unintentional irony, I guess.
Polls and something called a poll
Here's a link to the latest poll conducted by a professional opinion research firm.
It shows the Liberals are slightly ahead of the CPC led by Stephen Harper.
Meanwhile, NTV has released the results of a poll done for them by Telelink, a local call centre, on the upcoming federal bye-election in Labrador.
I was struck by a number of things in Ken Regular's report, not the least of which was the enormous undecided: 42%.
Telelink president Cindy Roma said the results were too close to call, with Liberals having 29% of decided supporters and the CPC having 23%. Even if Roma had used a standard approach of distributing the undecideds the same as the 60% who knew what they were going to do, the results would be a win for the Liberals - no question.
As it is, the undecideds are almost half the sample and Telelink apparently didn't probe them at all. Therefore, the best Roma could have said reliably is that she didn't have a clue based on the data her callers collected. Her conclusion is the research equivalent of a shrug.
Telelink also asked decided voters - obviously staunchly committed voters - if current controversies were affecting their choice. Surprise of surprises, something like at least 75% said no the controversies didn't affect their party choice.
Again, this is a penetrating insight into sweet fanny adams.
But to give benefit of the doubt, the questions I have about the poll might be related to the news story, not the research itself
In the interests of fairness, I have asked NTV for a copy of the research report. I'll let you know if I get it. If I do, I'll let you know what I found in detail.
If I can't get my hands on the detailed report, I'll make some observations based on what was reported.
More to follow.
It shows the Liberals are slightly ahead of the CPC led by Stephen Harper.
Meanwhile, NTV has released the results of a poll done for them by Telelink, a local call centre, on the upcoming federal bye-election in Labrador.
I was struck by a number of things in Ken Regular's report, not the least of which was the enormous undecided: 42%.
Telelink president Cindy Roma said the results were too close to call, with Liberals having 29% of decided supporters and the CPC having 23%. Even if Roma had used a standard approach of distributing the undecideds the same as the 60% who knew what they were going to do, the results would be a win for the Liberals - no question.
As it is, the undecideds are almost half the sample and Telelink apparently didn't probe them at all. Therefore, the best Roma could have said reliably is that she didn't have a clue based on the data her callers collected. Her conclusion is the research equivalent of a shrug.
Telelink also asked decided voters - obviously staunchly committed voters - if current controversies were affecting their choice. Surprise of surprises, something like at least 75% said no the controversies didn't affect their party choice.
Again, this is a penetrating insight into sweet fanny adams.
But to give benefit of the doubt, the questions I have about the poll might be related to the news story, not the research itself
In the interests of fairness, I have asked NTV for a copy of the research report. I'll let you know if I get it. If I do, I'll let you know what I found in detail.
If I can't get my hands on the detailed report, I'll make some observations based on what was reported.
More to follow.
Don Martin: cartooning as news
Over at the National Lampoon today, their resident comedian..errr...reporter...errr...columnist Don Martin has adopted the Pinocchio theme to talk about the Prime Minister.
This is obviously another entry in Don's campaign to be a communications director for some future CPC cabinet minister.
Regular readers of these e-scribbles will recall that Don appeared in a less than flattering moment in CBC News Sunday's doc on the last days of the last federal election campaign. Don was a tad miffed in one memorable scene because he had to go back and re-write a column or news story in which he had become ecstatic at the newly-elected Harper majority government.
Don was miffed at the Canadian public who, for some strange reason, had decided to follow their own decision rather than conform to Don's time-saving efforts.
Ah, well, Don, here's a little test to see how well you can diagnose pinocchiosis:
Which federal party leader said he would go to the polls only if Canadians wanted it?
I'll help you out, Don. He wasn't a Liberal, New Democrat or BlocHead.
Don's namesake was much funnier and he knew how to dig deeper.
This is obviously another entry in Don's campaign to be a communications director for some future CPC cabinet minister.
Regular readers of these e-scribbles will recall that Don appeared in a less than flattering moment in CBC News Sunday's doc on the last days of the last federal election campaign. Don was a tad miffed in one memorable scene because he had to go back and re-write a column or news story in which he had become ecstatic at the newly-elected Harper majority government.
Don was miffed at the Canadian public who, for some strange reason, had decided to follow their own decision rather than conform to Don's time-saving efforts.
Ah, well, Don, here's a little test to see how well you can diagnose pinocchiosis:
Which federal party leader said he would go to the polls only if Canadians wanted it?
I'll help you out, Don. He wasn't a Liberal, New Democrat or BlocHead.
Don's namesake was much funnier and he knew how to dig deeper.
Stevie Harper - rabid loon
Here's a quote that just screams "idiot".
It's from the National Lampoon today. One Stephen Harper -
"After his caucus meeting, Harper dismissed questions about the polls:
"What I've said all along is I don't care what the polls say.''
He added:"What I know is that every poll in the last four years since I've been Leader of the Opposition has turned out to be wrong.''
Every poll, Steve?
Like the one from SES Research before the last election that showed the final results with a point?
Count on some enterprising reporter tackling that bit of Harper crap. It's the kind of idiotic comment that politicians blurt out every once in a while in what is obviously an overheated moment.
The proof of the its complete inaccuracy usually leads to a major ding in the old credibility armour. Steve can't take too many more of those.
Meanwhile over at the Liberal bunker, they'll be pointing to this simple formula:
Poll = election.
"No poll has been right since I have been Leader": Stevie Harper
Stephen Harper tells Canadians they don't know what they are doing.
If this Reform-a-Tory strategy works, I'll be the most surprised politico in the country. That is, right after all the in-house Reform-a-Tory strategists.
It's from the National Lampoon today. One Stephen Harper -
"After his caucus meeting, Harper dismissed questions about the polls:
"What I've said all along is I don't care what the polls say.''
He added:"What I know is that every poll in the last four years since I've been Leader of the Opposition has turned out to be wrong.''
Every poll, Steve?
Like the one from SES Research before the last election that showed the final results with a point?
Count on some enterprising reporter tackling that bit of Harper crap. It's the kind of idiotic comment that politicians blurt out every once in a while in what is obviously an overheated moment.
The proof of the its complete inaccuracy usually leads to a major ding in the old credibility armour. Steve can't take too many more of those.
Meanwhile over at the Liberal bunker, they'll be pointing to this simple formula:
Poll = election.
"No poll has been right since I have been Leader": Stevie Harper
Stephen Harper tells Canadians they don't know what they are doing.
If this Reform-a-Tory strategy works, I'll be the most surprised politico in the country. That is, right after all the in-house Reform-a-Tory strategists.
Doyle and Hearn to vote down oil money
The National Lampoon, unofficial propaganda organ of the CPC, is reporting that Reform-aTory members of parliament voted unanimously last night to bring down the government at the earliest opportunity and force an election on an unwilling Canadian public.
"Harper said he doesn't care what public opinion polls are saying, now is the time to act." Feed me, Seymour, indeed!
Well ladies and gentleman, that means that the Reform-a-Tories have unanimously agreed to defeat the government before the offshore accord money can be voted through the House.
Before they start sputing the "separate bill" bull, read the prime minister's letter. I have been saying for weeks that the government had tried to accommodate Reform-a-Tory objections on Kyoto to speed passage of Danny's Billions.
The money is being held up by Stephen Harper and now we learn that both Norm Doyle And Loyola Hearn have decided to join him in defeating the government.
When it came down to the wire, Norm and Loyola voted with their party.
Party before province.
What a concept.
Remember that at the end of June.
"Harper said he doesn't care what public opinion polls are saying, now is the time to act." Feed me, Seymour, indeed!
Well ladies and gentleman, that means that the Reform-a-Tories have unanimously agreed to defeat the government before the offshore accord money can be voted through the House.
Before they start sputing the "separate bill" bull, read the prime minister's letter. I have been saying for weeks that the government had tried to accommodate Reform-a-Tory objections on Kyoto to speed passage of Danny's Billions.
The money is being held up by Stephen Harper and now we learn that both Norm Doyle And Loyola Hearn have decided to join him in defeating the government.
When it came down to the wire, Norm and Loyola voted with their party.
Party before province.
What a concept.
Remember that at the end of June.
Doyle deked?
Connie caucus chair Norm Doyle appears to have been deked by his Leader or maybe Norm was trying to deke us. I doubt that second one Norm is a stand-up guy. Any erroneous comments he made last week must have been based on sincere - but badly misinformed - beliefs.
Actually, from watching CBC news last night, I think the Connies were split between the Reformers who desperately want to flay alive any Liberal in sight and the Progressive Conservatives who are worried about going to the polls when people don't want it.
The Reformers won and so they are gling to try and force an election against their own commitment to heed the wishes of Canadians. (Pssst. Stevie, Canadians don't want an election.).
So in the matter of a few short days I have to drop the Connie label and go back to one I picked up last year from a buddy of mine. Reflecting the deep divisions in the Official Opposition, we must reflect both the Reform and the Progressive Conservative factions.
Hence: Reform-a-Tory.
Meanwhile, VOCM is quoting Norm Doyle about a letter he wrote to the prime minister seeking to split the offshore accord money out of the budget bill. Well, in the interests of a whole bunch of thing, here's the PM's reply to the gang of Reform-a-Tories from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador who wrote him on the matter.
Note that deputy Reform-a-Tory leader Peter MacKay, DDS is on the list.
Peter MacKay, M.P.
Central Nova
Gerald Keddy, M.P.
South Shore-St. Margaret’s
Norman Doyle, M.P.
St. John’s East
Loyola Hearn, M.P.
St. John’s South-Mount Pearl
Bill Casey, M.P.
Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley
I received your letter of April 25, 2005 concerning the implementation of the offshore arrangements reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on February 14, 2005.
These agreements were made as a result of the commitment that I made to the people of those two provinces, in acknowledgement of the importance of these resources for their future and in recognition of the unique fiscal and economic circumstances faced by these two provinces. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the importance of these agreements for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, after 20 years of discussions on this matter, it was this government that committed, delivered and finalized these complicated arrangements in under 1 year. This government's commitment and follow-through sits in stark contrast to Mr. Harper's proposal of a year ago which would have resulted in no increased benefits to equalization entitlements to 3 of the 4 Atlantic provinces. [Emphasis added]
Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided nothing new to Nova Scotia. This government's arrangement with Nova Scotia has an estimated worth of $1.1 Billion over 8 years. Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided Newfoundland and Labrador with an extra $185 million in 2003/04 terms. This government's arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador equates to $2.6 Billion over the next 8 years. The government has worked out a fair and generous agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
We are willing to work with opposition parties to make Parliament function and to facilitate the expeditious consideration and passage of the Budget Bill that is currently before Parliament. However, the proposal to separate the Accord deals from Bill C-43 is misleading to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and excludes the reality of parliamentary procedure and the Bloc Quebecois' position on this matter. Coupling the Accord deals with the budget actually speeds the progress of the Accords through legislative procedures. The Budget Bill is given priority time in the House and Senate to ensure its expeditious passage, given its importance to the government's functions. Thus, this government has given the Atlantic Accords the same priority as our own budget.
You further choose to ignore the fact that removal of the Accords from the Budget Bill for immediate passage as a stand-alone bill would require unanimous consent from all parties in the House - all members of the House of Commons would have to agree. While there is no doubt that the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives would vote for the speedy passage of a stand alone Atlantic Accord bill, Mr. Duceppe has made no indication he would support it. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois have never voted in favour of a budget and have a long stated opposition to the deal we have made with these two provinces. [Emphasis added]
So then, with only a simple majority approving the bill, the Accords would be set to proceed as would any other piece of legislation and would be subject to the numerous readings and committees that could take another year. This government wants the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately receive their benefits.
Mr. Harper is on the record as saying that he supports the Accords when he is in Atlantic Canada. However, as recently as last weekend, he expressed his opposition to such "one-off deals." This therefore raises questions about the sincerity of your offer. Your leader is now allied with the separatist Bloc party and committed to bring down the government at the earliest opportunity and further jeopardizing the Accords.
Gentlemen, your colleagues and your leader Mr. Harper should state your unqualified support for the Accords, vote for the budget and see it passed.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, of Nova Scotia, and indeed the people of Canada expect and deserve that this legislation be passed as expeditiously as possible. Members of Parliament from all parties must step forward and assume the responsibility that Canadians have entrusted in us to ensure this outcome.
Sincerely,
//original signed by Paul Martin//
Actually, from watching CBC news last night, I think the Connies were split between the Reformers who desperately want to flay alive any Liberal in sight and the Progressive Conservatives who are worried about going to the polls when people don't want it.
The Reformers won and so they are gling to try and force an election against their own commitment to heed the wishes of Canadians. (Pssst. Stevie, Canadians don't want an election.).
So in the matter of a few short days I have to drop the Connie label and go back to one I picked up last year from a buddy of mine. Reflecting the deep divisions in the Official Opposition, we must reflect both the Reform and the Progressive Conservative factions.
Hence: Reform-a-Tory.
Meanwhile, VOCM is quoting Norm Doyle about a letter he wrote to the prime minister seeking to split the offshore accord money out of the budget bill. Well, in the interests of a whole bunch of thing, here's the PM's reply to the gang of Reform-a-Tories from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador who wrote him on the matter.
Note that deputy Reform-a-Tory leader Peter MacKay, DDS is on the list.
Peter MacKay, M.P.
Central Nova
Gerald Keddy, M.P.
South Shore-St. Margaret’s
Norman Doyle, M.P.
St. John’s East
Loyola Hearn, M.P.
St. John’s South-Mount Pearl
Bill Casey, M.P.
Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley
I received your letter of April 25, 2005 concerning the implementation of the offshore arrangements reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on February 14, 2005.
These agreements were made as a result of the commitment that I made to the people of those two provinces, in acknowledgement of the importance of these resources for their future and in recognition of the unique fiscal and economic circumstances faced by these two provinces. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the importance of these agreements for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, after 20 years of discussions on this matter, it was this government that committed, delivered and finalized these complicated arrangements in under 1 year. This government's commitment and follow-through sits in stark contrast to Mr. Harper's proposal of a year ago which would have resulted in no increased benefits to equalization entitlements to 3 of the 4 Atlantic provinces. [Emphasis added]
Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided nothing new to Nova Scotia. This government's arrangement with Nova Scotia has an estimated worth of $1.1 Billion over 8 years. Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided Newfoundland and Labrador with an extra $185 million in 2003/04 terms. This government's arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador equates to $2.6 Billion over the next 8 years. The government has worked out a fair and generous agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
We are willing to work with opposition parties to make Parliament function and to facilitate the expeditious consideration and passage of the Budget Bill that is currently before Parliament. However, the proposal to separate the Accord deals from Bill C-43 is misleading to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and excludes the reality of parliamentary procedure and the Bloc Quebecois' position on this matter. Coupling the Accord deals with the budget actually speeds the progress of the Accords through legislative procedures. The Budget Bill is given priority time in the House and Senate to ensure its expeditious passage, given its importance to the government's functions. Thus, this government has given the Atlantic Accords the same priority as our own budget.
You further choose to ignore the fact that removal of the Accords from the Budget Bill for immediate passage as a stand-alone bill would require unanimous consent from all parties in the House - all members of the House of Commons would have to agree. While there is no doubt that the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives would vote for the speedy passage of a stand alone Atlantic Accord bill, Mr. Duceppe has made no indication he would support it. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois have never voted in favour of a budget and have a long stated opposition to the deal we have made with these two provinces. [Emphasis added]
So then, with only a simple majority approving the bill, the Accords would be set to proceed as would any other piece of legislation and would be subject to the numerous readings and committees that could take another year. This government wants the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately receive their benefits.
Mr. Harper is on the record as saying that he supports the Accords when he is in Atlantic Canada. However, as recently as last weekend, he expressed his opposition to such "one-off deals." This therefore raises questions about the sincerity of your offer. Your leader is now allied with the separatist Bloc party and committed to bring down the government at the earliest opportunity and further jeopardizing the Accords.
Gentlemen, your colleagues and your leader Mr. Harper should state your unqualified support for the Accords, vote for the budget and see it passed.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, of Nova Scotia, and indeed the people of Canada expect and deserve that this legislation be passed as expeditiously as possible. Members of Parliament from all parties must step forward and assume the responsibility that Canadians have entrusted in us to ensure this outcome.
Sincerely,
//original signed by Paul Martin//
02 May 2005
Hey IFAW! Over here!
International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Seal Hunt.
Rob Antle.
Great words for google, especially that last one today in which The Robert Bond Papers was the first hit on some people's google searches.
But guys, rather than waste time hunting for stuff on Rob Antle via google, try reading this post from several weeks ago.
It speaks to the abject hypocrisy of the anti-sealing movement. Yes, I know it's about Paul Watson, but is there any substantive difference between Paul and his personal showboat and a group that uses whitecoat pictures because baby seals are "icons"?
Seal Hunt.
Rob Antle.
Great words for google, especially that last one today in which The Robert Bond Papers was the first hit on some people's google searches.
But guys, rather than waste time hunting for stuff on Rob Antle via google, try reading this post from several weeks ago.
It speaks to the abject hypocrisy of the anti-sealing movement. Yes, I know it's about Paul Watson, but is there any substantive difference between Paul and his personal showboat and a group that uses whitecoat pictures because baby seals are "icons"?
Reading the Riot Act
Let's make it clear up front: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
That said, it seems to me to be a waste of the court's time for government to go seek an injuction to order people to stop breaching the Criminal Code of Canada, when by definition, they are not supposed to be breaking the criminal law in the first place.
After a day in which a mob closed government buildings, forcibly entered one of them and then proceeded to occupy the offices and trash files, former premier and current public works minister Tom Rideout held a news conference to announce that the provincial government is seeking a court order to stop people from behaving badly.
Actually, it isn't just bad behaviour. It is criminal behaviour.
In the past four weeks, the mob, organized by the Fish, Food and Allied Works have:
1. Caused repeated disturbances in a public place. This is most likely a breach of section 175 (1) (a) and (c) of the Criminal Code.
2. Participated in a riot, under sections 64 and 65 and 68 of the Criminal Code, provided that an appropriate authority follows the provisions of section 67. This is the section I would have suggsted using in relations to events at the Petten Building today.
3. That doesn't include breaches of other statues, the sections about forcible entry, trespass, and maybe even conspiracy.
4. That doesn't include the breaches under provisions of the House of Assembly standing orders.
There is simply no circumstance that justifies the commission of criminal acts by the union and/or its supporters.
Period.
Make no mistake, this is not a matter of free speech and human rights. The perpetrators of these acts have deliberately and maliciously set about to undermine democracy. They have rejected legitimate means of being heard in favour of what is nothing short of thuggery.
There is no place in a free society for people who would deny rights and freedoms to further their cause. The union president and his followers have infringed on my rights and those of others for far too long.
It must be stopped immediately either voluntarily by the fish union and its supporters or by government using the legal and appropriate means at its disposal.
Tom Rideout's actions today are as weak and vacillating as those of the inept Speaker of the legislature. Their tepid responses to acts of intimidation have actually emboldened the mob who know that they can do just about anything they wish with impunity.
It is time for law and order to be restored.
That said, it seems to me to be a waste of the court's time for government to go seek an injuction to order people to stop breaching the Criminal Code of Canada, when by definition, they are not supposed to be breaking the criminal law in the first place.
After a day in which a mob closed government buildings, forcibly entered one of them and then proceeded to occupy the offices and trash files, former premier and current public works minister Tom Rideout held a news conference to announce that the provincial government is seeking a court order to stop people from behaving badly.
Actually, it isn't just bad behaviour. It is criminal behaviour.
In the past four weeks, the mob, organized by the Fish, Food and Allied Works have:
1. Caused repeated disturbances in a public place. This is most likely a breach of section 175 (1) (a) and (c) of the Criminal Code.
2. Participated in a riot, under sections 64 and 65 and 68 of the Criminal Code, provided that an appropriate authority follows the provisions of section 67. This is the section I would have suggsted using in relations to events at the Petten Building today.
3. That doesn't include breaches of other statues, the sections about forcible entry, trespass, and maybe even conspiracy.
4. That doesn't include the breaches under provisions of the House of Assembly standing orders.
There is simply no circumstance that justifies the commission of criminal acts by the union and/or its supporters.
Period.
Make no mistake, this is not a matter of free speech and human rights. The perpetrators of these acts have deliberately and maliciously set about to undermine democracy. They have rejected legitimate means of being heard in favour of what is nothing short of thuggery.
There is no place in a free society for people who would deny rights and freedoms to further their cause. The union president and his followers have infringed on my rights and those of others for far too long.
It must be stopped immediately either voluntarily by the fish union and its supporters or by government using the legal and appropriate means at its disposal.
Tom Rideout's actions today are as weak and vacillating as those of the inept Speaker of the legislature. Their tepid responses to acts of intimidation have actually emboldened the mob who know that they can do just about anything they wish with impunity.
It is time for law and order to be restored.
Peter MacKay: Dental as anything
Last week Conservative national caucus chairman Norm Doyle told CBC Radio that his party would be meeting today to decide whether or not they would force an election on the Canadian public
Doyle was trying desperately to make it sound like the Connies hadn't already decided to bring down the government. In fact that was something Norm said as plain as day - No decision has been made.
Well, the National Lampoon, unofficial propaganda organ of the CPC is saying something very different yet again this morning, as they did the same day Doyle was talking nonsense.
In the realm of bizarre metaphors, Peter MacKay is actually suggesting we should think dentistry when thinking election.
"Think of it as kind of root canal for the body politic, suggested Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay.
"An election may be something like a visit to the dentist: it may not be something you want to do, but something you have to do," MacKay said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBC Newsworld.
Thanks Peter.
Now it is all making sense to me.
The House of Commons has become the Little House of Horrors. The giant plant intent on eating anything in sight is, of course, the Conservative Party. Seymour Krelborne, the nebbishy guy who must feed the plant from outer space on human flesh is none other than CPC Leader Stephen Harper.
The deputy Conservative leader is actually one Orin Scrivello, DDS, not Peter MacKay as it has seemed all along.
That would make Norm Doyle perhaps Mr. Mushnik, the lovable plant shop owner.
Sadly, Mr. Mushnik gets eaten.
But the plant had an insatiable appetite for blood, as I recall, and Seymour was prepared to feed anyone to it because the plant brought him power.
Ok.
So much for fun.
The real point here is simple: someone within the CPC needs to get a grip on some of their wingnuts, like MacKay.
Who in their right freakin' mind would tell a Canadian public that already doesn't want an election, that having an election is just really like a root canal?
I can only wait for the TV spots: Steve slapping on latex and telling us all to turn our heads to the right and cough.
Doyle was trying desperately to make it sound like the Connies hadn't already decided to bring down the government. In fact that was something Norm said as plain as day - No decision has been made.
Well, the National Lampoon, unofficial propaganda organ of the CPC is saying something very different yet again this morning, as they did the same day Doyle was talking nonsense.
In the realm of bizarre metaphors, Peter MacKay is actually suggesting we should think dentistry when thinking election.
"Think of it as kind of root canal for the body politic, suggested Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay.
"An election may be something like a visit to the dentist: it may not be something you want to do, but something you have to do," MacKay said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBC Newsworld.
Thanks Peter.
Now it is all making sense to me.
The House of Commons has become the Little House of Horrors. The giant plant intent on eating anything in sight is, of course, the Conservative Party. Seymour Krelborne, the nebbishy guy who must feed the plant from outer space on human flesh is none other than CPC Leader Stephen Harper.
The deputy Conservative leader is actually one Orin Scrivello, DDS, not Peter MacKay as it has seemed all along.
That would make Norm Doyle perhaps Mr. Mushnik, the lovable plant shop owner.
Sadly, Mr. Mushnik gets eaten.
But the plant had an insatiable appetite for blood, as I recall, and Seymour was prepared to feed anyone to it because the plant brought him power.
Ok.
So much for fun.
The real point here is simple: someone within the CPC needs to get a grip on some of their wingnuts, like MacKay.
Who in their right freakin' mind would tell a Canadian public that already doesn't want an election, that having an election is just really like a root canal?
I can only wait for the TV spots: Steve slapping on latex and telling us all to turn our heads to the right and cough.
When insight is gossip
This past week, John Efford was more like the John Efford we have seen over the past 20 years of his political career. He was focused, handled media questions with clarity and participated in strong, positive announcements on everything from economic development in his riding to support - albeit indirect - for the Lower Churchill.
Truthfully, that's what political commentary should be focused on - actual performance. For someone who has taken to commenting on politics and public life, it is refreshing to have something positive to say.
Personal digs, especially ones divorced from substantive issues, are corrosive and can only be looked upon with scorn by anyone interested in contributing positively to our province and its political life.
The reason Norm Doyle got a bit of a roasting here lately has been the fact his comments are so far out of character for him that it had to be noted forcefully. I'd expect Norm to continue giving us all some solid performance again soon. That's why he has been a successful and well-regarded politician over the past two decades or so. Norm's inherently strong qualities are why, in the last federal election, my Conservative neighbours volunteered to work on Norm's campaign rather than help in their own riding. They voted with their feet and people should notice that.
In the comments, I did not attack Norm personally or lampoon either his intelligence or integrity. I poked some fun, hopefully taken in the good-natured spirit with which it was intended, in order to get at the larger point, namely the political bind in which Doyle finds himself.
In dealing with recent events in the House of Assembly, I have argued that Harvey Hodder should resign because his performance is lacking. I do not doubt that Hodder is a man of good intention and integrity. I simply find that his performance as Speaker of the House of Assembly is actually such that he is calling the House itself into disrepute.
Where I have taken to speaking on integrity or ability I have endeavoured to base it on something substantial like the gap between claim and fact. Norm Doyle's colleague from Renews, I mean St. John's South-Mount Pearl, falls into this category.
In Loyola Hearn's case, the contrast between his claims and his behaviour lends itself easily to pointing out that the erstwhile minister in a Conservative government has scarcely a credible tad to clothe his form. His efforts on tackling the non-existent problem of post office closures are just a case in point. His fisheries comments ignore completely the depth of the challenges involved and on more than one occasion Hearn appears to be acting less in the best interests of the public than in his own.
Hearn is also deserving of special attention since he has never failed to launch into vicious, personal attacks on John Efford at every turn. In that context, Hearn cannot expect to receive different treatment himself. Brian Tobin was the last politician I recall who engage in political tactics that, when turned on him, made him cry foul with just a hint of hypocrisy. Let's at least be thankful Hearn has had the strength to take it as well as he has dished it out, his miserable behaviour on the most recent federal election night notwithstanding.
As much as possible, the commentaries posted here have strived to work with information, some insight derived from experience and less of the gossipy or catty stuff one usually finds in coffee shops or at local bars. Others can judge the success or failure rate. Sure there has been some strong opinion and no one is expected to agree with any of the opinion or the conclusions reached. Make up your own mind on the arguments advanced here.
All that leads to a comment on Bill Rowe's column in The Telegram on Saturday.
The radio spots flooding over VOCM speak of "staggering insights" from this column, a phrase I have heard people around town tear to shreds for its pomposity and fatuousness. The eating of the Rowe pudding, though, seems to leave one consistently without any proof that there are insights at all, let alone ones that would leave a reader staggered by their profundity.
On Saturday, his comments on John Efford were based entirely on gossip. There is an extensive list of the catty, biting, condescending remarks of mainlanders and others about John Efford's performance as a federal cabinet minister over the past year. Since we are not given the context in which some were offered, we only have Rowe's interpretation that allows him to fit them into the negative cast of the column.
Despite his protests to the contrary, Rowe is merely letting others tear down John without having to sully his hands with doing the job himself. Others are his mouthpiece.
One would reasonably expect some perspective from Rowe, some balance based on Rowe's knowledge of Efford's career. One would expect something a little better than jokes made by unnamed small minds about Mr. Efford's speech patterns. After all, that is the sum total of Rowe's column arguing that Efford should stand again for election so that Efford's constituents may vote on his performance. Mr. Rowe should wish for such a personal record of electoral success either for the party he led or the one he aspired to represent and which latterly has paid his salary.
The superficial nature of Rowe's column tell us little of Efford and more of the columnist and those he quotes. Rowe neglects to offer any balance in his piece. He endorses the snotty remarks as his own even when he may protest mildly one or two aspects. If Bill didn't think accents were important, as he claims, he wouldn't then repeat a litany of jokes about Efford's speech made by people who, one supposes, were like Bill himself in Ottawa - lacking influence.
What makes this column all the more distasteful is that Rowe knows full-well, both from his time as open line host and in his time as employee of the provincial government, that the offshore revenue debate was deliberately directed by some away from matters of substance and fact and toward petty, personal issues. While Rowe obviously lacked the ability or willingness to challenge knowledgeable callers, he frequently allowed superficial nonsense to dominate thereby abetting some of the attacks on Efford.
By continuing those attacks, Rowe can never again be viewed as a credible analyst or commentator. He is an active propagandist and should be treated accordingly.
Even worse, though, Rowe has treated his audience with contempt.
That is an unforgivable sin for a talk-show host or political commentator.
Perhaps Bill would have the courage to once again stand for election and let his audience vote on his merits or demerits before presuming to suggest the same approach for someone else.
Truthfully, that's what political commentary should be focused on - actual performance. For someone who has taken to commenting on politics and public life, it is refreshing to have something positive to say.
Personal digs, especially ones divorced from substantive issues, are corrosive and can only be looked upon with scorn by anyone interested in contributing positively to our province and its political life.
The reason Norm Doyle got a bit of a roasting here lately has been the fact his comments are so far out of character for him that it had to be noted forcefully. I'd expect Norm to continue giving us all some solid performance again soon. That's why he has been a successful and well-regarded politician over the past two decades or so. Norm's inherently strong qualities are why, in the last federal election, my Conservative neighbours volunteered to work on Norm's campaign rather than help in their own riding. They voted with their feet and people should notice that.
In the comments, I did not attack Norm personally or lampoon either his intelligence or integrity. I poked some fun, hopefully taken in the good-natured spirit with which it was intended, in order to get at the larger point, namely the political bind in which Doyle finds himself.
In dealing with recent events in the House of Assembly, I have argued that Harvey Hodder should resign because his performance is lacking. I do not doubt that Hodder is a man of good intention and integrity. I simply find that his performance as Speaker of the House of Assembly is actually such that he is calling the House itself into disrepute.
Where I have taken to speaking on integrity or ability I have endeavoured to base it on something substantial like the gap between claim and fact. Norm Doyle's colleague from Renews, I mean St. John's South-Mount Pearl, falls into this category.
In Loyola Hearn's case, the contrast between his claims and his behaviour lends itself easily to pointing out that the erstwhile minister in a Conservative government has scarcely a credible tad to clothe his form. His efforts on tackling the non-existent problem of post office closures are just a case in point. His fisheries comments ignore completely the depth of the challenges involved and on more than one occasion Hearn appears to be acting less in the best interests of the public than in his own.
Hearn is also deserving of special attention since he has never failed to launch into vicious, personal attacks on John Efford at every turn. In that context, Hearn cannot expect to receive different treatment himself. Brian Tobin was the last politician I recall who engage in political tactics that, when turned on him, made him cry foul with just a hint of hypocrisy. Let's at least be thankful Hearn has had the strength to take it as well as he has dished it out, his miserable behaviour on the most recent federal election night notwithstanding.
As much as possible, the commentaries posted here have strived to work with information, some insight derived from experience and less of the gossipy or catty stuff one usually finds in coffee shops or at local bars. Others can judge the success or failure rate. Sure there has been some strong opinion and no one is expected to agree with any of the opinion or the conclusions reached. Make up your own mind on the arguments advanced here.
All that leads to a comment on Bill Rowe's column in The Telegram on Saturday.
The radio spots flooding over VOCM speak of "staggering insights" from this column, a phrase I have heard people around town tear to shreds for its pomposity and fatuousness. The eating of the Rowe pudding, though, seems to leave one consistently without any proof that there are insights at all, let alone ones that would leave a reader staggered by their profundity.
On Saturday, his comments on John Efford were based entirely on gossip. There is an extensive list of the catty, biting, condescending remarks of mainlanders and others about John Efford's performance as a federal cabinet minister over the past year. Since we are not given the context in which some were offered, we only have Rowe's interpretation that allows him to fit them into the negative cast of the column.
Despite his protests to the contrary, Rowe is merely letting others tear down John without having to sully his hands with doing the job himself. Others are his mouthpiece.
One would reasonably expect some perspective from Rowe, some balance based on Rowe's knowledge of Efford's career. One would expect something a little better than jokes made by unnamed small minds about Mr. Efford's speech patterns. After all, that is the sum total of Rowe's column arguing that Efford should stand again for election so that Efford's constituents may vote on his performance. Mr. Rowe should wish for such a personal record of electoral success either for the party he led or the one he aspired to represent and which latterly has paid his salary.
The superficial nature of Rowe's column tell us little of Efford and more of the columnist and those he quotes. Rowe neglects to offer any balance in his piece. He endorses the snotty remarks as his own even when he may protest mildly one or two aspects. If Bill didn't think accents were important, as he claims, he wouldn't then repeat a litany of jokes about Efford's speech made by people who, one supposes, were like Bill himself in Ottawa - lacking influence.
What makes this column all the more distasteful is that Rowe knows full-well, both from his time as open line host and in his time as employee of the provincial government, that the offshore revenue debate was deliberately directed by some away from matters of substance and fact and toward petty, personal issues. While Rowe obviously lacked the ability or willingness to challenge knowledgeable callers, he frequently allowed superficial nonsense to dominate thereby abetting some of the attacks on Efford.
By continuing those attacks, Rowe can never again be viewed as a credible analyst or commentator. He is an active propagandist and should be treated accordingly.
Even worse, though, Rowe has treated his audience with contempt.
That is an unforgivable sin for a talk-show host or political commentator.
Perhaps Bill would have the courage to once again stand for election and let his audience vote on his merits or demerits before presuming to suggest the same approach for someone else.
01 May 2005
Is this why the Sage was in the Atlantic?
Look around long enough and you sometimes see things that might be connected.
The range instrumentation ships used by the US Air Force to monitor missile launches can be used to monitor anyone's launches, not just their own.
Is it possible that the Observation Island or Invincible were somewhere off Japan to watch this launch?
Then again, the Sage might just have been an extra ship needed for a completely obvious need, like a repair and refit for one of the usual T-AGM vessels. Either way, the Sage wasn't responding to Canadian concerns.
The range instrumentation ships used by the US Air Force to monitor missile launches can be used to monitor anyone's launches, not just their own.
Is it possible that the Observation Island or Invincible were somewhere off Japan to watch this launch?
Then again, the Sage might just have been an extra ship needed for a completely obvious need, like a repair and refit for one of the usual T-AGM vessels. Either way, the Sage wasn't responding to Canadian concerns.
The Winnipeg Offer
The federal government has made two offers which were made public subsequent to their being presented. Following is the offer made in Winnipeg in late December 2004; as I understand it, there were some discussions that are not reflected in this proposal.
What follows is a straightforward presentation of the offer, with some commentary on its contents, particularly as it relates to the provincial government position. Undoubtedly more of the province's reaction will be released later today and I will update my comments accordingly.
Draft Agreement in Principle Between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia
1. This agreement reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia that:
-
both provinces already are collecting and will continue to collect 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land;
-
the Government of Canada has agreed to provide additional offset payments to these provinces in respect of offshore-related Equalization reductions.
Comment: This clause is a simple statement that reflects the current situations with respect to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador offshore revenues. The second bullet point describes the current agreement.
Based on Premier Williams post-June 10 position he could not accept either of these points. First, he has argued that the province currently does not receive 100% of revenues and therefore he could not endorse a comment that states otherwise. Second, the Premier has also claimed that the additional federal transfer is not an offset payment related to Equalization.
2. The Government of Canada intends to execute its commitments under this agreement through legislation that will authorize additional payments to provide 100 per cent offset against reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore revenues.
Comment: This is a further statement of the federal government's intent and the general nature of the agreement.
3. For the fiscal year 2004-05, the value of the additional offset payments will be:
a. For Newfoundland and Labrador: $133.6 million;
b. For Nova Scotia: $30.5 million.
4. For the fiscal year 2005-06, the value of the additional offset payments will be:
a. For Newfoundland and Labrador: $188.7 million;
b. For Nova Scotia: $26.6 million.
Comment: No explanation has been offered as to why the federal government proposed specific amounts for payments in the first two fiscal years of the agreement that differ from the rest of the agreement. In FY 2004, for example, the amount of $133.6 is approximately equal to projected offshore royalties used to prepare the FY 2004 budget. However, actual revenues as defined even by the pre-June 05 provincial position would be closer to $300 million based on current projections. Even allowing that this figure is intended to represent the 70% of revenues used to calculate Equalization, the figure is still slightly off.
Nonetheless, there is nothing to suggest these figures could not have been revised upward to reflect actual performance or that the two fiscal years could not be brought under Clause 5.
5. Commencing in 2006-07, the annual offset payment for each province shall be equal to 100 per cent of any reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore revenues. The amount of additional offset payment shall be calculated as the difference between the Equalization payment to be received by the province under the Equalization formula as it exists at that time if the province received no offshore petroleum resource revenues in that year, and the Equalization payment for that province in that year under the Equalization formula as it exists at the time, net of any payments made with respect to existing accords or Equalization offset provisions.
Comment: This clause describes the formula for determining the amount of the additional transfer to be made by the Government of Canada. It is a robust description of the offset as being the difference between Equalization with oil revenues included and Equalization without oil revenues.
6. For 2006-07 to 2011-12, in any fiscal year, if either province no longer qualifies for receipt of an Equalization payment, no additional offset payments will be made to that province, beyond payments specified in existing accords.
Comment: This is the clause that would cause the provincial government the most concern. Under this clause, additional payments to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would cease in three to five years when the provincial government own source revenues exceed the national per capita average fiscal capacity to qualify for Equalization transfers. in other words, since the province has only three years to go before it achieves "have" status, the duration of the agreement is functionally limited. We are making too much money.
This clause would ensure Newfoundland and Labrador is treated consistently with other provinces across the country. It is also consistent with the principles established in the Atlantic Accord on revenue sharing and on Equalization. The clause also conforms to Premier Williams desire that offshore resources "from a revenue perspective be treated as if they were on land within this province". [Williams to Martin, May 21, 2004.]
7. This arrangement will be in effect until March 31, 2012. No later than March 31, 2011, Canada and each province will, on a bilateral basis, begin discussions to determine whether a successor arrangement with each province should be put into place for an additional 8-year period beyond 2012. There will be no further arrangements for a province beyond March 31, 2012, if that province has not attained budget balance in 2011-12 or has not qualified for Equalization payments in 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Comment: This clause provides conditions for triggering the second eight years of additional federal transfers. It requires that a province must either have balanced its budget on an accrual basis or be receiving Equalization in 2011-2012.
There are two obvious points for comment. First, Newfoundland and Labrador would not qualify for a second period of eight years if current projections hold and it becomes a "have" province within three to five years (2007 to 2009). Second, the Williams administration has already committed to balancing the province's budget on a cash basis by 2008 and on an accrual basis by 2011/2012. This stipulation should not cause significant concern for the provincial government since it conforms to their established policy commitment.
8. Any successor arrangement with a province would be in effect for the period 2012-13 to 2019-20. In any year in that period, offset payments would be subject to the following conditions: the province would have to maintain budget balance in that year, the province would need to have qualified for Equalization payments in that year or the preceding year, and the province's debt-to-GDP ratio (using a fully consolidated accrual basis of accounting) has not become lower than that of one of the provinces that is not a party to this agreement. The arrangement would expire once payments are terminated for any year.
Comment: This section establishes certain conditions for the second eight-year transfer period. It essentially reinforces the goal of having the additional federal transfer being applied to reduce provincial debt and deficit. As such, it conforms to the Williams administrations' election commitment.
9. The Government of Canada commits to providing new offset payments for an additional 8-year period, starting with the first fiscal year of offshore commercial production, if any, from the Deep Panuke project in Nova Scotia or the Hebron project in Newfoundland and Labrador. Any such additional offset payments shall be limited to the revenues from these projects.
Comment: This clause introduces a new concept, namely separate offset mechanisms for specific projects. It overcomes one of the flaws in the original Accord which was not sensitive to protracted development phases. Essentially, Newfoundland and Labrador's offset was triggered by Hibernia production alone. Had the other fields remained undeveloped for an extended period, the offsets would have applied solely to that field; once developed the provincial government would have only received 100% of revenues from the fields with no additional federal transfers.
Rather than causing concern, this clause should be viewed as a positive step forward in the development of talks between the provinces and the federal government. A relatively straightforward amendment could bring any future, and currently unforeseen, projects under a similar special offset provision.
10. The Government of Canada agrees that if, in the future, it enters into an arrangement with another province or territory concerning offshore petroleum resource revenues, then either province may elect to enter into discussions with the Government of Canada to amend this agreement.
Comment: This clause extends to Newfoundland and Labrador a protection already available to Nova Scotia through its offshore oil agreement with the federal government.
-srbp-
NROL-16/Mission B-30: How far is far?
There's an interesting story on the front page of the Telly today recounting the Titan debris impact from Friday night. Don waste time looking, it isn't online. *sigh*
Seems the fisheries patrol vessel Leonard J Cowley was approximately 100 nautical miles northeast of the Hibernia rig.
Thus, as I already suggested several days ago, the debris never came within 100 nautical miles of the platforms. That is exactly as the US Air Force predicted in their original impact map and estimates.
When you have as much experience as the Americans do in launching rockets and when there is a s much sensitivity to third party liability, it is pretty easy to why the fears expressed by some about debris impacts was unwarranted from the outset.
Maybe next time, someone will sell tickets to see the lightshow.
Two observations:
1. The Cowley was not underway at the time of the sighting, suggesting to me that she had been sent out specifically to monitor the launch. If not, then the skipper decided to take advantage of his location to watch the light show.
2. The debris impact is reported by this source to have been over 100 nautical miles away from the offshore production platforms. While I have heard one account that claimed the debris was only a handful of miles away, this is obviously a faulty report.
Sound travels really well on the ocean and at night. Therefore, it is easy for an inexperienced observer to make some bad guesses as to distances.
Seems the fisheries patrol vessel Leonard J Cowley was approximately 100 nautical miles northeast of the Hibernia rig.
Thus, as I already suggested several days ago, the debris never came within 100 nautical miles of the platforms. That is exactly as the US Air Force predicted in their original impact map and estimates.
When you have as much experience as the Americans do in launching rockets and when there is a s much sensitivity to third party liability, it is pretty easy to why the fears expressed by some about debris impacts was unwarranted from the outset.
Maybe next time, someone will sell tickets to see the lightshow.
Two observations:
1. The Cowley was not underway at the time of the sighting, suggesting to me that she had been sent out specifically to monitor the launch. If not, then the skipper decided to take advantage of his location to watch the light show.
2. The debris impact is reported by this source to have been over 100 nautical miles away from the offshore production platforms. While I have heard one account that claimed the debris was only a handful of miles away, this is obviously a faulty report.
Sound travels really well on the ocean and at night. Therefore, it is easy for an inexperienced observer to make some bad guesses as to distances.
Independent preview
The Independent officially hits the streets on Sundays but it seems that some outlets get their copies on Saturday evening. I found mine at a drug store in Mount Pearl so I picked it up to see what's in the paper people are talking about.
A few weeks ago, I took a harsh line (and promptly got a lengthy visit to the blog site from an unidentified Indy staffer) on its content. Last week, the paper appeared to have gotten its chops back as a place to find interesting and new stories. Hunt around and you'll find a different perspective from Express columnist Geoff Meeker; Meeker is a former journalist and now a public relations consultant.
Overall, the Indy is worth reading again if only because throughout the whole thing you can find some decently written and interesting features on the arts community.
It's biggest plus remains the photography by Paul Daly and Rhonda Hayward. I swear there may be better shooters out there somewhere, but they aren't working at newspapers. If the Indy had copy that rivaled the technical and artistic merits of their photographers, the paper would be a must-read for anyone in North America.
I am going to buy the Indy each week just to have something to ponder in Paul and Rhonda's captivating images. As for the rest of it, well, make up your own mind.
So what's in the Indy this week?
There's a page one story by Jeff Ducharme called "Paid 'allies'" noting that Fisheries and Oceans is paying the tab for the 11 national delegations to the conference starting in St. John's next week on Grand Banks fishing. The point seems to be that this is all a big con job. Ducharme has a sentence on the first page: "[c]ritics say the conference is a farce, meant to pacify detractors."
So I read on to find more on this point.
Flip to the second page and you'll find not critics plural but critic singular. The sole critic Jeff quotes is none other than Gus "Highgrade" Etchegary. As noted here several weeks ago, at least one former fisheries inspector has pointed to the standard policy of the company Etchegary worked for that instructed skippers to highgrade; that means they could only bring back the biggest and best fish, dumping thousands of tons of cod annually back into the sea - dead. Etchegary's company contributed as much to the decimation of cod stocks as any foreigner, apparently. But that's a story the Indy won't touch either to confirm it or dispel it.
Even if that highgrading story turned out to be completely untrue, Etchegary alone doesn't constitute anything more than the voice of one guy. So much for a new approach on the fisheries stories the Indy likes to run. Oh yeah, Gus has a letter to the editor in this issue too.
Let's look at the other stories.
There's a follow-on by Alisha Morrissey on her story last week that alleged an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police requested by Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering included looking at a three year old probe into prostitution in the capital city.
Morrissey's story this week is based on her interview with Chief Deering in which he denied the contention in Morrissey's original story, supposedly based on information supplied by unidentified "sources".
Well, here's the upshot: seems that Morrissey's original story was, in a word, wrong. Her sources were wrong and her story was wrong.
Morrissey gives a partial transcript of the Deering interview, focusing on the sections where he took her to task for what he considered to be encouraging corruption by police officers or other police officials who breach their oaths of confidentiality. In a CBC Radio interview, Morrissey's boss, Ryan Cleary called Deering's approach "bullying".
It isn't bullying, Ryan. Deering took strong exception to the initial story and the approach your paper took. That's fair enough. He is entitled to his view and to express it strongly and civilly as he did. CBC Radio reporter Ronalda Nakonechny (apologies if I spelled her name incorrectly) noted that the RNC taped the interview. Under the circumstances that's an acceptable practice too since it allows for corrections to any misinterpretations that can arise in a controversial situation.
But again, the upshot of the whole thing is that the Indy got the story wrong. Their sources weren't that good apparently. This story is different from the fish one, however, because there isn't a pattern of behaviour. The Indy had information they thought was solid and went with it. Provided they had more than one source, their approach was legitimate. On the other hand if it turns out the RNC employee charged this week was the source of the leak and was the only source, we would all need to question Morrissey's contention in the transcript that "we follow a standard set of guidelines and ethics...".
On page three there's a half page on speculation about Danny Williams as a possible prime minister. We already dissected Bill Rowe's column on that bit of fluff last week. Most quotes in this piece, by Jamie Baker, go to a single source - Steven Frank, Canadian bureau chief for Time magazine. Aside from that, we have no idea who Frank is and why we should pay attention to his gushing opinion. There certainly isn't any detailed analysis of the premier's political credibility, contacts or ability to speak French. Nope. All we have is Frank's view that Danny Williams as prime minister "would be great". The second most quoted source in the column is Kevin O'Brien, recently appointed as parliamentary assistant to the Premier. I am not sure that counts as an independent source.
Oddly, from a news standpoint, you have to get past that half-page of bumpf to get to a more interesting story from this week, namely Fabian Manning's untimely firing as parliamentary assistant to the education minister. Curious too that the Indy reporter on the story picked up a suggestion tossed only by the Premier - maybe to discredit Manning - that the strong-willed and competent Tory member of the House of Assembly might be considering using his stand on the crab dispute as a springboard to federal politics. Manning flatly rejects that idea or the equally absurd notion he might bolt from the Tory caucus. Nice spec, Indy guys, but it is a good way to avoid writing a piece that has more weight than the one-note samba on page three.
There's another story on page four about the loss of federal jobs in the province. The story quotes a number of sources - all critical, except for John Efford. One of them is Loyola Hearn, reportedly the member of parliament for St. John's South Mount Pearl. Odd that the Indy mentions Hearn's crusade against the non-existent plan to close 86 post offices in the country - not 82 as the Indy reports but omits the completely bogus nature of Hearn's claims.
Would that fact - there was no plan - detract from Hearn's cred if the Indy actually reported the fact Hearn was...what is that word again...wrong?
There's also a nice little page filler - full page literally - on who might run in the next election. The Indy must be reading my blog - they actually raised the idea that Hearn is planning to stand for election in a seat other than the one he currently represents on paper. Unnamed "sources" are said to dismiss the idea. Let's wait and see what happens.
If I skim back over all that, I can see a pattern on sourcing that would be most unsettling if it turned out to be true.
Slide way over to page 25 and there is an interview with Dean MacDonald, re-appointed chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and good friend of both the current and at least one former premier. MacDonald notes the cost of developing the Lower Churchill will be around $5.0 billion; this ties nicely with a story last week that the premier seems to be considering using the offshore bonus money - currently threatened by Stephen Harper with being defeated in the Commons - to build the energy megaproject.
In this piece, I like MacDonald's mention of the Upper Churchill power recall which he says has been resold once recalled from Quebec. What he doesn't tell you is that the power is resold to Quebec as part of an arrangement to keep solvent the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation. MacDonald also makes an interesting observation on power consumption by oil refineries - a big part of the government's policy book on energy and economic development. MacDonald notes there hasn't been a new refinery built in North America in 25 years. Guess what? There isn't likely to be one built in the near future and likely not here without massive tax concessions.
Aside from a piece of amateurish poetry from John Crosbie, my favourite piece this week is a column by Indy owner Brian Dobbin. Seems Mr. Dobbin feels the need to warn us about those dastardly mainland Chinese and their business investments. Dobbin claims to have spent a lot of time in China, "including having operational offices in Hong Kong and Taiwan". He also mentions yet again - albeit cryptically - his experience in presenting a Taiwanese development proposal to the provincial government some years ago only to have it rejected by the government.
Ok. Dobbin would have a point if he was raising a strategic concern about the extent to which Chinese state-owned enterprises are investing heavily in foreign energy projects like the offshore.
But that isn't his point at all. Dobbin is apparently an environmentalist with concerns about Kyoto and the damage to the global environment being done by Chinese manufacturing industries. We'll take it under advisement, Brian.
But here's my closing suggestion for Brian and Ryan.
In the interests of complete disclosure, let's see a couple of things really soon in the front section of the Indy:
1. A complete review of the Taiwanese proposal Dobbin keeps mentioning using more than one source.
2. A complete disclosure of Dobbin's Taiwanese business connections. If this guy is going to be making public comment then we need to know how he is tied to the island and its ongoing dispute with the Chinese mainland. Taiwan is only China in the minds of the Taiwanese and Hong Kong is still a separate enclave.
Until Dobbin can show us his wider experience in dealing with the People's Republic, there is good reason to believe Dobbin might be a bit less than objective in his opinions on things Chinese.
A few weeks ago, I took a harsh line (and promptly got a lengthy visit to the blog site from an unidentified Indy staffer) on its content. Last week, the paper appeared to have gotten its chops back as a place to find interesting and new stories. Hunt around and you'll find a different perspective from Express columnist Geoff Meeker; Meeker is a former journalist and now a public relations consultant.
Overall, the Indy is worth reading again if only because throughout the whole thing you can find some decently written and interesting features on the arts community.
It's biggest plus remains the photography by Paul Daly and Rhonda Hayward. I swear there may be better shooters out there somewhere, but they aren't working at newspapers. If the Indy had copy that rivaled the technical and artistic merits of their photographers, the paper would be a must-read for anyone in North America.
I am going to buy the Indy each week just to have something to ponder in Paul and Rhonda's captivating images. As for the rest of it, well, make up your own mind.
So what's in the Indy this week?
There's a page one story by Jeff Ducharme called "Paid 'allies'" noting that Fisheries and Oceans is paying the tab for the 11 national delegations to the conference starting in St. John's next week on Grand Banks fishing. The point seems to be that this is all a big con job. Ducharme has a sentence on the first page: "[c]ritics say the conference is a farce, meant to pacify detractors."
So I read on to find more on this point.
Flip to the second page and you'll find not critics plural but critic singular. The sole critic Jeff quotes is none other than Gus "Highgrade" Etchegary. As noted here several weeks ago, at least one former fisheries inspector has pointed to the standard policy of the company Etchegary worked for that instructed skippers to highgrade; that means they could only bring back the biggest and best fish, dumping thousands of tons of cod annually back into the sea - dead. Etchegary's company contributed as much to the decimation of cod stocks as any foreigner, apparently. But that's a story the Indy won't touch either to confirm it or dispel it.
Even if that highgrading story turned out to be completely untrue, Etchegary alone doesn't constitute anything more than the voice of one guy. So much for a new approach on the fisheries stories the Indy likes to run. Oh yeah, Gus has a letter to the editor in this issue too.
Let's look at the other stories.
There's a follow-on by Alisha Morrissey on her story last week that alleged an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police requested by Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering included looking at a three year old probe into prostitution in the capital city.
Morrissey's story this week is based on her interview with Chief Deering in which he denied the contention in Morrissey's original story, supposedly based on information supplied by unidentified "sources".
Well, here's the upshot: seems that Morrissey's original story was, in a word, wrong. Her sources were wrong and her story was wrong.
Morrissey gives a partial transcript of the Deering interview, focusing on the sections where he took her to task for what he considered to be encouraging corruption by police officers or other police officials who breach their oaths of confidentiality. In a CBC Radio interview, Morrissey's boss, Ryan Cleary called Deering's approach "bullying".
It isn't bullying, Ryan. Deering took strong exception to the initial story and the approach your paper took. That's fair enough. He is entitled to his view and to express it strongly and civilly as he did. CBC Radio reporter Ronalda Nakonechny (apologies if I spelled her name incorrectly) noted that the RNC taped the interview. Under the circumstances that's an acceptable practice too since it allows for corrections to any misinterpretations that can arise in a controversial situation.
But again, the upshot of the whole thing is that the Indy got the story wrong. Their sources weren't that good apparently. This story is different from the fish one, however, because there isn't a pattern of behaviour. The Indy had information they thought was solid and went with it. Provided they had more than one source, their approach was legitimate. On the other hand if it turns out the RNC employee charged this week was the source of the leak and was the only source, we would all need to question Morrissey's contention in the transcript that "we follow a standard set of guidelines and ethics...".
On page three there's a half page on speculation about Danny Williams as a possible prime minister. We already dissected Bill Rowe's column on that bit of fluff last week. Most quotes in this piece, by Jamie Baker, go to a single source - Steven Frank, Canadian bureau chief for Time magazine. Aside from that, we have no idea who Frank is and why we should pay attention to his gushing opinion. There certainly isn't any detailed analysis of the premier's political credibility, contacts or ability to speak French. Nope. All we have is Frank's view that Danny Williams as prime minister "would be great". The second most quoted source in the column is Kevin O'Brien, recently appointed as parliamentary assistant to the Premier. I am not sure that counts as an independent source.
Oddly, from a news standpoint, you have to get past that half-page of bumpf to get to a more interesting story from this week, namely Fabian Manning's untimely firing as parliamentary assistant to the education minister. Curious too that the Indy reporter on the story picked up a suggestion tossed only by the Premier - maybe to discredit Manning - that the strong-willed and competent Tory member of the House of Assembly might be considering using his stand on the crab dispute as a springboard to federal politics. Manning flatly rejects that idea or the equally absurd notion he might bolt from the Tory caucus. Nice spec, Indy guys, but it is a good way to avoid writing a piece that has more weight than the one-note samba on page three.
There's another story on page four about the loss of federal jobs in the province. The story quotes a number of sources - all critical, except for John Efford. One of them is Loyola Hearn, reportedly the member of parliament for St. John's South Mount Pearl. Odd that the Indy mentions Hearn's crusade against the non-existent plan to close 86 post offices in the country - not 82 as the Indy reports but omits the completely bogus nature of Hearn's claims.
Would that fact - there was no plan - detract from Hearn's cred if the Indy actually reported the fact Hearn was...what is that word again...wrong?
There's also a nice little page filler - full page literally - on who might run in the next election. The Indy must be reading my blog - they actually raised the idea that Hearn is planning to stand for election in a seat other than the one he currently represents on paper. Unnamed "sources" are said to dismiss the idea. Let's wait and see what happens.
If I skim back over all that, I can see a pattern on sourcing that would be most unsettling if it turned out to be true.
Slide way over to page 25 and there is an interview with Dean MacDonald, re-appointed chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and good friend of both the current and at least one former premier. MacDonald notes the cost of developing the Lower Churchill will be around $5.0 billion; this ties nicely with a story last week that the premier seems to be considering using the offshore bonus money - currently threatened by Stephen Harper with being defeated in the Commons - to build the energy megaproject.
In this piece, I like MacDonald's mention of the Upper Churchill power recall which he says has been resold once recalled from Quebec. What he doesn't tell you is that the power is resold to Quebec as part of an arrangement to keep solvent the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation. MacDonald also makes an interesting observation on power consumption by oil refineries - a big part of the government's policy book on energy and economic development. MacDonald notes there hasn't been a new refinery built in North America in 25 years. Guess what? There isn't likely to be one built in the near future and likely not here without massive tax concessions.
Aside from a piece of amateurish poetry from John Crosbie, my favourite piece this week is a column by Indy owner Brian Dobbin. Seems Mr. Dobbin feels the need to warn us about those dastardly mainland Chinese and their business investments. Dobbin claims to have spent a lot of time in China, "including having operational offices in Hong Kong and Taiwan". He also mentions yet again - albeit cryptically - his experience in presenting a Taiwanese development proposal to the provincial government some years ago only to have it rejected by the government.
Ok. Dobbin would have a point if he was raising a strategic concern about the extent to which Chinese state-owned enterprises are investing heavily in foreign energy projects like the offshore.
But that isn't his point at all. Dobbin is apparently an environmentalist with concerns about Kyoto and the damage to the global environment being done by Chinese manufacturing industries. We'll take it under advisement, Brian.
But here's my closing suggestion for Brian and Ryan.
In the interests of complete disclosure, let's see a couple of things really soon in the front section of the Indy:
1. A complete review of the Taiwanese proposal Dobbin keeps mentioning using more than one source.
2. A complete disclosure of Dobbin's Taiwanese business connections. If this guy is going to be making public comment then we need to know how he is tied to the island and its ongoing dispute with the Chinese mainland. Taiwan is only China in the minds of the Taiwanese and Hong Kong is still a separate enclave.
Until Dobbin can show us his wider experience in dealing with the People's Republic, there is good reason to believe Dobbin might be a bit less than objective in his opinions on things Chinese.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)