Danny Williams likes to use sales jargon, like talking about "the ask".
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
08 December 2005
07 December 2005
Liam quotes the American right to back Harper
In one of several megaposts lately, Liam O'Brien at RGL quoted someone named Darcy Ann Olsen, who is presented as an expert commentator on child care issues.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The Battle Song of the Newfoundlanders
Courtesy of an old friend and sometimes e-mail commentator comes this link about a recent event involving HMCS Cabot, the naval reserve division in Newfoundland and Labrador.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
Controlling every little thing
These changes to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act are curious if only for the fact they are entirely unnecessary.
The Order was created to honour outstanding contributions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to their province. The selection committee consisted of a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the province and the President of Memorial University.
These two positions are now eliminated, supposedly to be replaced by two members of the order.
Unfortunately for Premier Williams explanations in the House of Assembly, his amendments to the legislation don't say that.
They simply reduce the advisory council to a committee comprising the Clerk of the Executive Council (appointed by the premier) and seven other people (also appointed ultimately by the Premier).
In any event, since the original Act didn't specify who was appointed beyond the Chief Justice, the Clerk and the university president, the government had plenty of opportunity to apppoint who they wanted or to amend the legislation to add to the council.
The switcheroo pushed by the Premier looks entirely like what it likely is: the Premier wanted to get rid of some people he didn't like and get personal control over as many appointments as possible.
At least in some instances - like the offshore board - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have qualified people appointed by a process the Premier can't gerrymander.
That doesn't stop the Premier from moving to control every little thing in the province.
The Order was created to honour outstanding contributions by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to their province. The selection committee consisted of a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the province and the President of Memorial University.
These two positions are now eliminated, supposedly to be replaced by two members of the order.
Unfortunately for Premier Williams explanations in the House of Assembly, his amendments to the legislation don't say that.
They simply reduce the advisory council to a committee comprising the Clerk of the Executive Council (appointed by the premier) and seven other people (also appointed ultimately by the Premier).
In any event, since the original Act didn't specify who was appointed beyond the Chief Justice, the Clerk and the university president, the government had plenty of opportunity to apppoint who they wanted or to amend the legislation to add to the council.
The switcheroo pushed by the Premier looks entirely like what it likely is: the Premier wanted to get rid of some people he didn't like and get personal control over as many appointments as possible.
At least in some instances - like the offshore board - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have qualified people appointed by a process the Premier can't gerrymander.
That doesn't stop the Premier from moving to control every little thing in the province.
Morrow to beat Manning
Lawyer Bill Morrow will carry the Liberal banner in Avalon.
The CBC report carries a bizarre comment: "Sandwiched between the twin Tory stronghold seats based in St. John's and Liberal-dominated ridings in the rest of the province, Avalon is emerging as the most interesting riding to watch."
Avalon is on the western border of both the St. John's ridings and drawfs them both in size. It is not "sandwiched" between them by any stretch of anyones imagination.
To call the St. john's seats "Tory strongholds" is also not based on the last voting results.
But hey, while everyone was quick to start the attacks on Art Reid, theirs was a pre-mature escalation of the political contest.
Now we can see a solid race in Avalon.
and the switcheroo in St. John's.
The CBC report carries a bizarre comment: "Sandwiched between the twin Tory stronghold seats based in St. John's and Liberal-dominated ridings in the rest of the province, Avalon is emerging as the most interesting riding to watch."
Avalon is on the western border of both the St. John's ridings and drawfs them both in size. It is not "sandwiched" between them by any stretch of anyones imagination.
To call the St. john's seats "Tory strongholds" is also not based on the last voting results.
But hey, while everyone was quick to start the attacks on Art Reid, theirs was a pre-mature escalation of the political contest.
Now we can see a solid race in Avalon.
and the switcheroo in St. John's.
06 December 2005
The real story on Gander and weather
VOCM broke the real story on Gander and weather forecasting that everyone else has been missing.
Harper: policy plagiarism - revised
Stevie Harper popped up in Petty Harbour today, just outside St. John's, to reinforce the view that all we have in Newfoundland and Labrador is fish and fishermen. His announcement in the local version of Peggy's (If I see one more "quaint" picture) Cove, focused on fish and not a helluva lot else.
The PM, by contrast, talked about lots of things during his trip here - and sounded like he was enjoying himself as he did it.
Standing side by side with Loyola Hearn, Harper proclaimed his support for a bunch of fisheries things, including a policy that would allow fishermen a capital gains break on transferring ownership of fishing vessels within the family.
He added joint management and custodial management to the pile, demonstrating conclusively that his fish man (Loyola Hearn) is stuck in the 1980s. What's next? A hydroponic cucumber factory in Mount Pearl? Double-daylight savings time?
As Greg Locke reports, one mainland journalist traveling in the Opp Leader bubble babbled that he had no idea what custodial management was. Here's a simple link.
For those who want to see it done properly, they can check the United Nations law of the Sea Convention and the current federal government approach.
Local proponents of custodial management want to force the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and claim the fish as ours to manage. Picking a fight with the Spaniards, French and Portuguese seems like an eminently sensible way of making sure the European Union lowers its tariffs on shrimp imported into the EU from Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for joint management, to paraphrase Harper himself on another topic, the answer to fisheries problems lies not in one group of politicians sharing power with another group of politicians. It comes from giving meaningful influence to those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. Check the latest House of Commons fisheries committee report for just such an idea. It's blogged here.
*sigh*
Anyway, seems that the capital gains policy was lifted from bill C-343, proposed by Lawrence MacAulay back in February, 2005. It died with the government, like a bunch of other measures.
**Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)***
Revision: Aside from the bit snipped, here's something from the Charlottetown Guardian from September.
Harper should have looked closer at bill: MP
Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay says Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should have taken a closer look at Bill 343 tabled by MacAulay last February before saying that a new Conservative government will provide a capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 of qualifying fishing
property transferred within a family. Harper said he would exempt fishermen from capital gains tax on up to $500,000 on land, licenses or equipment handed to their children. "There is just something wrong with charging capital gains tax when a fishing family wants to transfer assets from one generation to another," said Harper.
Under the Conservative plan approximately 60,000 full- and part-time fish harvesters in Canada would be affected.
But MacAulay says Harper's plan is only a half-measure. MacAulay's private member's Bill 343, given first reading Feb. 25, calls for an exemption on capital gains up to $500,000 on transactions involving any individual, not just family members.
"I just wish Harper would have looked at my bill, and he would not have limited his suggestion to families. My bill is for the entire fishing industry and it is important that it be that way in order to ensure its survival in the small business backbone of the Canadian economy."
The PM, by contrast, talked about lots of things during his trip here - and sounded like he was enjoying himself as he did it.
Standing side by side with Loyola Hearn, Harper proclaimed his support for a bunch of fisheries things, including a policy that would allow fishermen a capital gains break on transferring ownership of fishing vessels within the family.
He added joint management and custodial management to the pile, demonstrating conclusively that his fish man (Loyola Hearn) is stuck in the 1980s. What's next? A hydroponic cucumber factory in Mount Pearl? Double-daylight savings time?
As Greg Locke reports, one mainland journalist traveling in the Opp Leader bubble babbled that he had no idea what custodial management was. Here's a simple link.
For those who want to see it done properly, they can check the United Nations law of the Sea Convention and the current federal government approach.
Local proponents of custodial management want to force the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and claim the fish as ours to manage. Picking a fight with the Spaniards, French and Portuguese seems like an eminently sensible way of making sure the European Union lowers its tariffs on shrimp imported into the EU from Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for joint management, to paraphrase Harper himself on another topic, the answer to fisheries problems lies not in one group of politicians sharing power with another group of politicians. It comes from giving meaningful influence to those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. Check the latest House of Commons fisheries committee report for just such an idea. It's blogged here.
*sigh*
Anyway, seems that the capital gains policy was lifted from bill C-343, proposed by Lawrence MacAulay back in February, 2005. It died with the government, like a bunch of other measures.
**Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)***
Revision: Aside from the bit snipped, here's something from the Charlottetown Guardian from September.
Harper should have looked closer at bill: MP
Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay says Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should have taken a closer look at Bill 343 tabled by MacAulay last February before saying that a new Conservative government will provide a capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 of qualifying fishing
property transferred within a family. Harper said he would exempt fishermen from capital gains tax on up to $500,000 on land, licenses or equipment handed to their children. "There is just something wrong with charging capital gains tax when a fishing family wants to transfer assets from one generation to another," said Harper.
Under the Conservative plan approximately 60,000 full- and part-time fish harvesters in Canada would be affected.
But MacAulay says Harper's plan is only a half-measure. MacAulay's private member's Bill 343, given first reading Feb. 25, calls for an exemption on capital gains up to $500,000 on transactions involving any individual, not just family members.
"I just wish Harper would have looked at my bill, and he would not have limited his suggestion to families. My bill is for the entire fishing industry and it is important that it be that way in order to ensure its survival in the small business backbone of the Canadian economy."
Wells adrift in oil patch
Most of the bluster is gone.
Premier Danny Williams is accepting Max Ruelokke [pronounced roo-lock] as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
it was almost bizarre to hear Williams praising Ruelokke's extensive experience - bizarre given that Ruelokke was likely in consideration in the round of candidates Danny Williams scuttled in favour of a completely unqualified candidate named Andy Wells.
The Premier's comments about "the process not being finished" is just some bluster to cover over the fact that he was completely outmanoeuvered by the guys who actually read the Atlantic Accord and applied the terms of the contract.
The process is finished.
Ruelokke's in.
Wells was never even close.
Premier Danny Williams is accepting Max Ruelokke [pronounced roo-lock] as the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
it was almost bizarre to hear Williams praising Ruelokke's extensive experience - bizarre given that Ruelokke was likely in consideration in the round of candidates Danny Williams scuttled in favour of a completely unqualified candidate named Andy Wells.
The Premier's comments about "the process not being finished" is just some bluster to cover over the fact that he was completely outmanoeuvered by the guys who actually read the Atlantic Accord and applied the terms of the contract.
The process is finished.
Ruelokke's in.
Wells was never even close.
05 December 2005
What Steve giveth, he taketh away too.
Flanked by his senior policy team, Conservative leader Stephen Harper today announced a $1200 allowance to be paid annually to families for each child under six years old.Sounds great.
Then the zinger: the money will be taxable.
The Liberal proposal is to fund child care spaces in accredited facilities and support early childhood education.
Corporal Taylor - give all the facts
Left - Mobile Gun SystemNot much surprise in the return of former Corporal Scott Taylor as an expert military commentator. His comments on the new transport aircraft purchase and the army's proposed mobile gun system are linked from Bourque, but here is the Taylor piece.
Taylor criticizes the proposed transport purchase by calling the J Herc a new version of the aircraft currently ins service. He's right - except that Taylor doesn't point out that there are no other aircraft currently flying that can meet the requirement.
Taylor talks about strategic airlifters. Again, there are no plans to purchase them but Taylor neglects to point out that Canada does not have a requirement for a fleet of heavy-lift aircraft that would justify the operating costs. Nor does he note that heavy lift is readily available in all foreseeable cases.
Taylor also criticizes the army's mobile gun system (MGS), essentially a version of the light armoured vehicle with a big gun on it. He notes comments by General Rick Hillier that the MGS was vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades. Note the use of the word "was" there.
The MGS and its LAV cousins were vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades. This was painfully obvious from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What Taylor didn't say was that a simple, add-on armour system corrects that flaw. The Department of National Defence has already called a tender for the add-on armour for its fleet of wheeled armoured vehicles. Problem solved.
Left - LAV III with add-on armour defeats rocket propelled grenades.Yes, the LAV family with add-ons is now too heavy to be carried by a Hercules - but other airlift and sealift is readily available. As it is, even without the add-on armour, the Canadian Herc fleet couldn't transport enough LAVs in a short time frame anywhere in the world to make much of a difference.
In the old days, Taylor's criticisms were well-founded, largely due to the inept Department of National Defence. His job was easy - he didn't have to know much to point to really obvious problems. Taylor built a name for himself among news media as a result.
These days Taylor's criticisms are based on not providing information that is already in the public domain which contradicts his conclusions.
Way to go, Scott.
Who owns loyolahearn.com?
Ok.
While I am starting to dig deeper into the mystery of Loyola Hearn's website, he has the one he used as a member of parliament.
Not a lick of campaign information here. Last time out, Loyola reformatted the pages on the parliamentary site so he could stuff campaign materials there, then switched back again later. El cheapo, for sure.
There's still some funny stuff, though. Like the news release headlined "Hearn introduces Private Member'Â’s Bill to help restore the Democratic Deficit".
Aside from the overdone capitalization, this means that Hearn wants to bring back the democratic deficit rather than eliminate it. Doesn't anyone in his office read English?
Hearn's motion would require that a by-election be held within 90 days of the resignation or death of a member of parliament. Maybe he should have introduced a motion requiring members of parliament to vote with the province instead of their party. Or maybe Hearn could have passed a motion that would prevent an MP from voting for a bill so he could vote against it.
Or maybe he should have tried an anti-hypocrisy motion to prevent a member of parliament from lambasting an opponent and then crying foul when the same populist e-mail storm hits his own e-mail in-basket.
There's still the mystery of the dot com site though. While I search, enjoy the sojourn over at Norm Doyle's tiny piece of cyberspace.
Norm Doyle's website is a mere blue page with a link to his e-mail address. The high-spending Doyle must be too busy to get his website up and inform voters of his views - like trying to end equal marriage.
I just can't wait to hear what else Norm wants to do.
Bring back the noose, maybe?
How about public flogging?
Take back the vote from women?
Meanwhile...
Seems that loyolahearn.com is registered to something called Canada Christian College, with the contact name on the account belonging to the college's president Dr. Charles McVety.
This is a bit wacky since there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why Charles McVety would own a website for Loyola Hearn.
McVety is the president of both Canada Christian College and the Christian Family Action Coalition. He's also involved with a number of similar political action groups like defendMarriage.
There is no indication of any direct connection between Hearn and McVety or any of the groups McVety heads. There's no sign the two even know each other.
Perhaps this site might explain it, although I still find the whole thing curious.
Seems that McVety has been cybersquatting - buying up the domains for members of parliament. Some of the sites have been activated, but for what purpose no one can say. Go to the sites named for Gerald Keddy or Don Boudria. They are almost identical.
My guess? McVety bought loyolahearn.com when hearn may have appeared to be waivering in his voting record on issues of concern to McVety. Doyle on the other hand had a perfect record and therefore wouldn't need to be pressured in cyberspace. Check Bouquets of Grey for just such ascorecardd" approach to rating members ofparliamentt.
I don't make this stuff up. I just put a bunch of stuff together and tell you what it looks like. There's no secret that conservative Christians on the extreme right have been working to influence Conservative Party policy and have staged minor coups in winning some nominations.
Consider this view, for example, taken from the Canadian Christianity website's OttawaWatch:
"And there are others who are known to competently understand and articulate the evangelical mindset, particularly with respect to life and family values. They include John Reynolds, Peter MacKay, Scott Reid, Loyola Hearn and James Moore."
This is going to take some extra digging.
In the meantime, I still haven't come up with a sensible reason why the head of a fundamentalist political action group would be owning a web domain named for a Conservative member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador?
More to follow, for sure.
While I am starting to dig deeper into the mystery of Loyola Hearn's website, he has the one he used as a member of parliament.
Not a lick of campaign information here. Last time out, Loyola reformatted the pages on the parliamentary site so he could stuff campaign materials there, then switched back again later. El cheapo, for sure.
There's still some funny stuff, though. Like the news release headlined "Hearn introduces Private Member'Â’s Bill to help restore the Democratic Deficit".
Aside from the overdone capitalization, this means that Hearn wants to bring back the democratic deficit rather than eliminate it. Doesn't anyone in his office read English?
Hearn's motion would require that a by-election be held within 90 days of the resignation or death of a member of parliament. Maybe he should have introduced a motion requiring members of parliament to vote with the province instead of their party. Or maybe Hearn could have passed a motion that would prevent an MP from voting for a bill so he could vote against it.
Or maybe he should have tried an anti-hypocrisy motion to prevent a member of parliament from lambasting an opponent and then crying foul when the same populist e-mail storm hits his own e-mail in-basket.
There's still the mystery of the dot com site though. While I search, enjoy the sojourn over at Norm Doyle's tiny piece of cyberspace.
Norm Doyle's website is a mere blue page with a link to his e-mail address. The high-spending Doyle must be too busy to get his website up and inform voters of his views - like trying to end equal marriage.
I just can't wait to hear what else Norm wants to do.
Bring back the noose, maybe?
How about public flogging?
Take back the vote from women?
Meanwhile...
Seems that loyolahearn.com is registered to something called Canada Christian College, with the contact name on the account belonging to the college's president Dr. Charles McVety.
This is a bit wacky since there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why Charles McVety would own a website for Loyola Hearn.
McVety is the president of both Canada Christian College and the Christian Family Action Coalition. He's also involved with a number of similar political action groups like defendMarriage.
There is no indication of any direct connection between Hearn and McVety or any of the groups McVety heads. There's no sign the two even know each other.
Perhaps this site might explain it, although I still find the whole thing curious.
Seems that McVety has been cybersquatting - buying up the domains for members of parliament. Some of the sites have been activated, but for what purpose no one can say. Go to the sites named for Gerald Keddy or Don Boudria. They are almost identical.
My guess? McVety bought loyolahearn.com when hearn may have appeared to be waivering in his voting record on issues of concern to McVety. Doyle on the other hand had a perfect record and therefore wouldn't need to be pressured in cyberspace. Check Bouquets of Grey for just such ascorecardd" approach to rating members ofparliamentt.
I don't make this stuff up. I just put a bunch of stuff together and tell you what it looks like. There's no secret that conservative Christians on the extreme right have been working to influence Conservative Party policy and have staged minor coups in winning some nominations.
Consider this view, for example, taken from the Canadian Christianity website's OttawaWatch:
"And there are others who are known to competently understand and articulate the evangelical mindset, particularly with respect to life and family values. They include John Reynolds, Peter MacKay, Scott Reid, Loyola Hearn and James Moore."
This is going to take some extra digging.
In the meantime, I still haven't come up with a sensible reason why the head of a fundamentalist political action group would be owning a web domain named for a Conservative member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador?
More to follow, for sure.
So what's the point?
So Decima is producing polling results for Canadian Press.
What's the point if no one but Canadian Press can see the details?
Notice that in the story carried online in the Globe on Sunday, there isn't a single mention of the methodology used to collect data. It's an "online" poll, but beyond that we know exactly squat.
Geez, at least with Allan Gregg's outfit, I can tell he is just producing some numbers for his own purposes - like lumping Alberta, where the Connies are miles ahead, with Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they aren't. Then there's the absence of any numbers for British Columbia where there seems to be a race and the Atlantic provinces.
Allan once missed a major development in Atlantic Canada and blew off the error of his predictions with a shrug and a simple "Sample was too small."
What's the point if no one but Canadian Press can see the details?
Notice that in the story carried online in the Globe on Sunday, there isn't a single mention of the methodology used to collect data. It's an "online" poll, but beyond that we know exactly squat.
Geez, at least with Allan Gregg's outfit, I can tell he is just producing some numbers for his own purposes - like lumping Alberta, where the Connies are miles ahead, with Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they aren't. Then there's the absence of any numbers for British Columbia where there seems to be a race and the Atlantic provinces.
Allan once missed a major development in Atlantic Canada and blew off the error of his predictions with a shrug and a simple "Sample was too small."
04 December 2005
Speaking of lame-assed
The Conservative party candidate in the Bonavista-Exploits riding is one Aaron Hynes.
He's an ex-navy type, with a bachelor of Arts degree from an unnamed university. Since leaving the navy, Aaron has worked extensively - as a staffer for Conservative members of parliament.
Now when a party has to start tossing political staffers into the fray, they are usually running low on alternatives. There's nothing wrong with staffers as candidates, but for the most part, most of them don't aspire to holding elected office.
If Aaron genuinely wants to enter elected politics on his own, then by all means, bring it on and good luck, Aaron.
And make no mistake, Aaron has a fine background - at least the navy bit. He deserves a medal for surviving as a political staffer for any party since the late 1990s.
What's lame-assed in this instance is the website. The thing is slow to load, is way too wide for most browsers and seem to have used just about every stock Conservative Party of Canada graphic and animation.
It looks exactly like every other CPC website except this one. That's the original CPC, the Communist Party of Canada.
Meanwhile, Loyola Hearn's site is still deader than a doornail. That's his dot com site; loyolahearn.ca doesn't even exist.
Compare that to his Liberal rival, Siobhan Coady. You can get there by .COM or .CA.
or for that matter, go visit Peg Norman, the New Democrat candidate who has reportedly stopped banging her head against the wall in the wake of Jack Layton's comments that people shouldn't vote for third place candidates.
Note that Peg's site is a cookie-cutter affair as well. Programmed nationally and with virtually no detectable local content.
He's an ex-navy type, with a bachelor of Arts degree from an unnamed university. Since leaving the navy, Aaron has worked extensively - as a staffer for Conservative members of parliament.
Now when a party has to start tossing political staffers into the fray, they are usually running low on alternatives. There's nothing wrong with staffers as candidates, but for the most part, most of them don't aspire to holding elected office.
If Aaron genuinely wants to enter elected politics on his own, then by all means, bring it on and good luck, Aaron.
And make no mistake, Aaron has a fine background - at least the navy bit. He deserves a medal for surviving as a political staffer for any party since the late 1990s.
What's lame-assed in this instance is the website. The thing is slow to load, is way too wide for most browsers and seem to have used just about every stock Conservative Party of Canada graphic and animation.
It looks exactly like every other CPC website except this one. That's the original CPC, the Communist Party of Canada.
Meanwhile, Loyola Hearn's site is still deader than a doornail. That's his dot com site; loyolahearn.ca doesn't even exist.
Compare that to his Liberal rival, Siobhan Coady. You can get there by .COM or .CA.
or for that matter, go visit Peg Norman, the New Democrat candidate who has reportedly stopped banging her head against the wall in the wake of Jack Layton's comments that people shouldn't vote for third place candidates.
Note that Peg's site is a cookie-cutter affair as well. Programmed nationally and with virtually no detectable local content.
The Fabester goes federal
Courtesy of Greg Locke is a picture for the history books.It was taken on Sunday 04 December 05 in Holyrood as Fabian Manning announced his candidacy for the Conservatives in the Avalon riding.
Back to the camera is provincial finance minister Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan, Fabe's mentor, as it were. Thankfully Fabe never picked up Rain Man's annoying tendency to cite statistics, numbers and decimals with a fetishistic fervour worthy of the most kinky accountant around.
Given the polls, Manning is likely to be out of work in the New Year, but hey, he is taking a shot.
One of the historic things about this whole change of direction for Fabe is that running for the federal Conservatives was one of the things Danny Williams cited in his heavy-handed effort to boot Fabe from the provincial Tory caucus. That's heavy handed as in having one of his political staffers sit in on the meeting - unheard of in other caucuses - to make sure the
The problem was the Premier got the wrong Manning at the time. Fabe's mistake at the time was not only challenging the Premier on his crab fishery management scheme but calling a local radio station to point out that the Premier had made a major league mistake about Fabe and his federal impulses.
Ya just don't do that to He Who Is Never Wrong.
The other historic thing about this shot is that it includes Elizabeth Marshall. She was Williams' star candidate in 2003 but fell from grace rather quickly as she had the temerity to disagree with the Premier.
Repeatedly.
She resented his making decisions within her department just because he could.
Repeatedly.
She finally got fed up and handed Danny her resignation.
He reportedly jumped for joy.
How quickly the stars fade.
Anyway, here's a picture of two former provincial Progressive Conservative stars who fell afoul of Danny Williams and paid the price for it.
One of them is looking to take up a new job.
Let's see what happens.
No contest in the TV spots
Check out the Conservatives' first TV spots - a series of three 30 sec spots built around the fake concept.
Here's Steve appearing to be interviewed by someone who is obviously not a real TV presenter. There's a screen in the background on which people who appear obviously to be actors are reading obviously scripted bits in an obviously 'I am reading a cue card or teleprompter' kinda way.
The people are referred to by first names, like "Joan", so we get the impression really quickly that these are generic Canadians. They are not real - even though there are obviously a few million real people across the country who would have been prepared to participate in some Conservative Party advertising.
Then Steve recites a bit of dialogue in a obviously stilted way. Aside from the obviously stiff approach and the obviously fake nature to the spots, the messaging is pretty heavy handed, as in crudely executed.
Then there are the first Liberals spots.
A soft approach featuring real people, with real names in real places across Canada telling you why they are voting Liberal. Since I had a small part in identifying people to participate, I can tell you they are real.
Then there's another one with a series of headlines praising Liberal policies over the past couple of years.
There's a big gap here in the quality and the execution of these TV spots on just about every level, from creative on down through the list. To be fair, the Conservative spots match their first week of campaigning in tone and message, but - and this is a big but - there is a sophisticated way to run political advertising that the Conservatives have just missed. They missed it in the flight they ran in August as well.
If the context and appearance - the look and feel - of the advertising lacks credibility, then the message will lack credibility as well.
But just so that everyone understand what the standards are for this type of advertising, try surfing through this site, The Living Room Candidate. I dare you to find a recent political television ad as lame-assed as these Conservative ones.
Here's Steve appearing to be interviewed by someone who is obviously not a real TV presenter. There's a screen in the background on which people who appear obviously to be actors are reading obviously scripted bits in an obviously 'I am reading a cue card or teleprompter' kinda way.
The people are referred to by first names, like "Joan", so we get the impression really quickly that these are generic Canadians. They are not real - even though there are obviously a few million real people across the country who would have been prepared to participate in some Conservative Party advertising.
Then Steve recites a bit of dialogue in a obviously stilted way. Aside from the obviously stiff approach and the obviously fake nature to the spots, the messaging is pretty heavy handed, as in crudely executed.
Then there are the first Liberals spots.
A soft approach featuring real people, with real names in real places across Canada telling you why they are voting Liberal. Since I had a small part in identifying people to participate, I can tell you they are real.
Then there's another one with a series of headlines praising Liberal policies over the past couple of years.
There's a big gap here in the quality and the execution of these TV spots on just about every level, from creative on down through the list. To be fair, the Conservative spots match their first week of campaigning in tone and message, but - and this is a big but - there is a sophisticated way to run political advertising that the Conservatives have just missed. They missed it in the flight they ran in August as well.
If the context and appearance - the look and feel - of the advertising lacks credibility, then the message will lack credibility as well.
But just so that everyone understand what the standards are for this type of advertising, try surfing through this site, The Living Room Candidate. I dare you to find a recent political television ad as lame-assed as these Conservative ones.
SES rolls on; PM and Harper move to Atlantic Canada
Another day, a new set of rolling polls from SES Research.
The Day 6 numbers, updated to 03 December 05, show the Liberals with 38%, the Conservatives with 29% and New Democrats at 15%. All changes are within the margin of error for the poll, but there seems to be an upward trending for Liberals and a flat line trending for Conservatives.
in the SES Leadership Index, there is also a significant change, but again, the fluctuations of the index components are within the margin of error.
Bottom line: Paul Martin still scores significantly higher than Steve Harper on the cumulative leadership scores.
The campaign shifts to Newfoundland on Monday and Tuesday. Paul Martin will address the St.John's Board of Trade on Monday. Stephen Harper is in St. John's on Tuesday, reportedly. Both leaders are obviously looking at the battleground in the three easternmost ridings in the country.
Two of the seats were held by the Conservatives after the last election but by the slimmest margin that I can recall for those seats, the ones Connie faithfuls were touting as "safe". The Liberals are looking for gains in those seats, hence the PM's visit.
Meanwhile, in the Avalon riding, former provincial member of the legislature Fabian Manning has bowed to the almost unprecedented pressure and will carry the Conservative banner. The seat was held by John Efford after the 2004 election. He'll be supported by Jim Morgan, among others. Morgan is a former provincial fisheries minister with more baggage from his past than new ideas.
Some reports have Stephen Harper in St. John's this week - most likely Tuesday. His goal will be to shore up the Avalon peninsula contests, particularly in the wake of polling that shows Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would return Liberals to Ottawa in the province's seven Commons ridings, if the vote was held today.
The Day 6 numbers, updated to 03 December 05, show the Liberals with 38%, the Conservatives with 29% and New Democrats at 15%. All changes are within the margin of error for the poll, but there seems to be an upward trending for Liberals and a flat line trending for Conservatives.
in the SES Leadership Index, there is also a significant change, but again, the fluctuations of the index components are within the margin of error.
Bottom line: Paul Martin still scores significantly higher than Steve Harper on the cumulative leadership scores.
The campaign shifts to Newfoundland on Monday and Tuesday. Paul Martin will address the St.John's Board of Trade on Monday. Stephen Harper is in St. John's on Tuesday, reportedly. Both leaders are obviously looking at the battleground in the three easternmost ridings in the country.
Two of the seats were held by the Conservatives after the last election but by the slimmest margin that I can recall for those seats, the ones Connie faithfuls were touting as "safe". The Liberals are looking for gains in those seats, hence the PM's visit.
Meanwhile, in the Avalon riding, former provincial member of the legislature Fabian Manning has bowed to the almost unprecedented pressure and will carry the Conservative banner. The seat was held by John Efford after the 2004 election. He'll be supported by Jim Morgan, among others. Morgan is a former provincial fisheries minister with more baggage from his past than new ideas.
Some reports have Stephen Harper in St. John's this week - most likely Tuesday. His goal will be to shore up the Avalon peninsula contests, particularly in the wake of polling that shows Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would return Liberals to Ottawa in the province's seven Commons ridings, if the vote was held today.
03 December 2005
The pollsters at odds
Reconcile the SES rolling polls with the latest from EKOS.
The latest SES numbers show the Libs at 36 with the Connies at 31. EKOS has the Libs at 34 and the Connies at 27.
One possible explanation is that the EKOS numbers reflect the state of play up to December 1. Then if look at last night's SES numbers - which correspond to the EKOS sampling time frame, you see that the EKOS ones are even farther out of whack or vice versa.
Maybe it's just that pesky margin of error thing. There's a more likely explanation, although the Conservative number is a teensy bit outside that range.
Then there's the issue of trending. The EKOS poll shows the Conservatives on a downward trend; SES has them moving upward, likely reflecting the first week of non-stop announcements.
In the regional numbers, and even allowing for the large margins of error involved in the national ones, all available polling shows similar pictures.
The Conservatives are ahead only in Alberta. They trail everywhere else, and in some cases, like Atlantic Canada, they are almost 20 points behind the Liberals. In Ontario, often described by lazy commentators as "vote-rich", the Conservatives a significantly behind the Liberals even at this stage and after a week of announcements that seem to have given the party a bump overall.
Flip along the EKOS poll and you'll seem some food for thought in the issues questions and in the demographic breakdowns of party support.
On page 23 of the EKOS background report you'll find a really telling number, however, and that is the stated expectation of respondents on who will win the election, irrespective of their own party preference.
Fully 64% of respondents expected the Liberals to win, compared to 18% for the Conservatives. Since April of this year, the gap between those two party expectations has continued to grow.
There is still plenty of desire for a new governing party, but that isn't reflected in any of the other positions.
For example, Paul Martin is viewed by EKOS respondents as the best person to lead the country and he is in the lead by a substantial margin everywhere except Quebec and Alberta.
Each poll offers a wealth of information. The key is to know how to read it properly.
The one thing both EKOS and SES seem to agree on is that the election is similar to the overall responses in 2004. I tend to agree with SES this evening that the race is trimming down to a two-way contest - Jack Layton's bus has developed a serious mechanical problem, with bits flying off at every turn.
The latest SES numbers show the Libs at 36 with the Connies at 31. EKOS has the Libs at 34 and the Connies at 27.
One possible explanation is that the EKOS numbers reflect the state of play up to December 1. Then if look at last night's SES numbers - which correspond to the EKOS sampling time frame, you see that the EKOS ones are even farther out of whack or vice versa.
Maybe it's just that pesky margin of error thing. There's a more likely explanation, although the Conservative number is a teensy bit outside that range.
Then there's the issue of trending. The EKOS poll shows the Conservatives on a downward trend; SES has them moving upward, likely reflecting the first week of non-stop announcements.
In the regional numbers, and even allowing for the large margins of error involved in the national ones, all available polling shows similar pictures.
The Conservatives are ahead only in Alberta. They trail everywhere else, and in some cases, like Atlantic Canada, they are almost 20 points behind the Liberals. In Ontario, often described by lazy commentators as "vote-rich", the Conservatives a significantly behind the Liberals even at this stage and after a week of announcements that seem to have given the party a bump overall.
Flip along the EKOS poll and you'll seem some food for thought in the issues questions and in the demographic breakdowns of party support.
On page 23 of the EKOS background report you'll find a really telling number, however, and that is the stated expectation of respondents on who will win the election, irrespective of their own party preference.
Fully 64% of respondents expected the Liberals to win, compared to 18% for the Conservatives. Since April of this year, the gap between those two party expectations has continued to grow.
There is still plenty of desire for a new governing party, but that isn't reflected in any of the other positions.
For example, Paul Martin is viewed by EKOS respondents as the best person to lead the country and he is in the lead by a substantial margin everywhere except Quebec and Alberta.
Each poll offers a wealth of information. The key is to know how to read it properly.
The one thing both EKOS and SES seem to agree on is that the election is similar to the overall responses in 2004. I tend to agree with SES this evening that the race is trimming down to a two-way contest - Jack Layton's bus has developed a serious mechanical problem, with bits flying off at every turn.
Byrne out?
Check the Telegram ad for Loyola Hearn when you pick up the Saturday paper today.
Missing from the photo:
Kilbride member of the House and provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne.
The young guy touted as a likely successor to the Old Guy from Renews is conspicuous by his absence.
The absence is almost as noticeable as the dyspeptic looks on the faces of some of the provincial Tories who are now apparently supporting, among other things, the guy who wants to bring back the equal marriage debate and the guy who told Danny Williams, politely, to get stuffed, in writing when Danny asked for a reworking of the Atlantic Accord.
Missing from the photo:
Kilbride member of the House and provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne.
The young guy touted as a likely successor to the Old Guy from Renews is conspicuous by his absence.
The absence is almost as noticeable as the dyspeptic looks on the faces of some of the provincial Tories who are now apparently supporting, among other things, the guy who wants to bring back the equal marriage debate and the guy who told Danny Williams, politely, to get stuffed, in writing when Danny asked for a reworking of the Atlantic Accord.
Star candidate of the 1980s
Loyola Hearn's website is still lost in cyberspace. We are at the end of the first week of campaigning.
Guess he's too busy down at his house in Renews or coaxing provincial members of the House of Assembly to pose for print ads to get the website back online.
Guess he's too busy down at his house in Renews or coaxing provincial members of the House of Assembly to pose for print ads to get the website back online.
Bond right about Wells
Way back in July, when Andy Wells first leaked the story that Danny Williams had put him up as a propspective chair of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Board, the Bond Papers pointed out the guy wouldn't be getting job.
After months of speculation but other people, turns out the Bond Papers got it right.
Read the story below by Terry Roberts, at The Telegram. It is again reprinted in full, below so that an electronic version won't disappear.
Max Ruelokke is eminently qualified for the job in so many ways. He's the calibre of candidate Andy was up against and, while Andy is good for a lot of other things, in this case, the man was outclassed by every single name that has been mentioned.
Including Leslie Galway, who, oddly, Premier Wells felt didn't have the stuff to run the province's offshore regulator for more cash than she is currently making running his rump of a department.
Then in one of the most bizarre of appointment suggestsions - before Joan Cleary to run Bull Arm - the premier touted Andy Wells to run the offshore board. The goal was simple, according to Danny Williams: to get more benefits for this province from the offshore, with Andy Wells to fight for those benefits through the offshore board.
The problem with the premier's argument was equally simple: as Danny Williams himself admitted later on, the offshore board doesn't negotiate or otherwise set local benefits. Danny does.
So here we are, all the months later, on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to St. John's and someone leaks the decision apparently reached by panel appointed to find a new chair for the offshore board.
How curious. I wonder who'll be looking for time in the PM's agenda for Monday?
Count on this issue to come up tomorrow at a forum sponsored by CBC Radio's The Current, in which the Mayor of Sin Jawn's is a panelist...
Saturday, December 3, 2005
Wells comes up dry
By Terry Roberts - The Telegram
Left - Andy Wells
It appears there won'’t be a shakeup at St. John'’s City Hall after all.
After months of speculation and controversy, The Telegram has learned that Mayor Andy Wells has been passed over for the position of chairman and chief executive officer of the federal-provincial board that regulates the province'’s offshore oil and gas industry.
In a surprising twist, a joint selection panel led by prominent businessman Harry Steele has instead offered the post to Max Ruelokke, a former deputy minister of mines and energy with the provincial government in the 1990s.
Sources say Wells, who was publicly endorsed by Premier Danny Williams for the job, has been offered the position of vice-chairman.
It'’s not clear whether he will accept the secondary role with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB), but there'’s speculation the decision may touch off another row between the federal and provincial governments.
The premier'’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Matthews, said Williams would not be commenting while the selection process was ongoing.
But sources say Williams is fuming over the decision and may confront Prime Minister Paul Martin on the issue during his campaign visit to St. John'’s Monday.
If so, it would be reminiscent of 2004, when Williams battled Ottawa over changes to the Atlantic Accord oil revenue sharing agreement.
After months of bitter negotiations, the dispute ended with the federal government agreeing to pay $2 billion in upfront money to the province.
It'’s believed Ruelokke, who has worked in the private sector since leaving government in 1998, was a compromise between Rex Gibbons, the federal government'’s choice for the job, and Wells, who was favoured by the province.
Gibbons has a Ph.D in geology and served as a Liberal MHA for the district of St. John'’s West from 1989 to '’97.
He is a former minister of mines and energy and was once the province'’s representative on the CNLOPB.
Ruelokke, a civil engineer and Grand Bank native, ran the Marystown Shipyard and the Bull Arm fabrication site, and comes with an intimate knowledge of this province'’s oil and gas industry.
He is currently the general manager of East Coast operations for AMEC Oil and Gas Ltd., an English company that provides engineering, procurement and construction management services to offshore oil and gas projects.
Neither Wells nor Ruelokke would confirm anything when contacted Friday.
"“I have no comment,"” said Wells, who planned to resign as mayor if given the job, which pays roughly $200,000 annually.
Wells has served on city council since 1977, and was re-elected to his third term as mayor on Sept. 27.
He has often been critical of various oil companies over their level of investment in the province, and his nomination for the job is said to have been strongly opposed by those in the industry.
Ruelokke acknowledged he was interviewed for the job this week, but sounded surprised to hear he was a leading candidate when contacted by The Telegram Friday morning.
"“I assumed I was one of a number of people who had interviews and didn'’t make any assumptions beyond that, really,"” said Ruelokke, who chaired an offshore petroleum engineering task force established by the former Liberal provincial government in 1998.
The process of selecting a new chair and CEO began making headlines last July after it was revealed that Wells was the province'’s first choice for the job.
Then-natural resources minister John Efford quickly weighed in, saying Wells did not make the short list of an independent head-hunting firm that had been seeking out potential candidates.
Both sides eventually agreed to appoint a joint selection committee.
Steele, chairman of Newfoundland Capital Corp. Ltd., was joined on the committee by a pair of government appointees - — Wayne Thistle for the Government of Canada and Dean MacDonald for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Steele was the mutual choice of Thistle and MacDonald.
It'’s not known how many candidates made the short list, but several interviews took place last week.
Ruelokke said if he were given the job, politics would not play a role.
"“'I'’ve never been involved in organized politics in my life,"” he said.
troberts@thetelegram.com
After months of speculation but other people, turns out the Bond Papers got it right.
Read the story below by Terry Roberts, at The Telegram. It is again reprinted in full, below so that an electronic version won't disappear.
Max Ruelokke is eminently qualified for the job in so many ways. He's the calibre of candidate Andy was up against and, while Andy is good for a lot of other things, in this case, the man was outclassed by every single name that has been mentioned.
Including Leslie Galway, who, oddly, Premier Wells felt didn't have the stuff to run the province's offshore regulator for more cash than she is currently making running his rump of a department.
Then in one of the most bizarre of appointment suggestsions - before Joan Cleary to run Bull Arm - the premier touted Andy Wells to run the offshore board. The goal was simple, according to Danny Williams: to get more benefits for this province from the offshore, with Andy Wells to fight for those benefits through the offshore board.
The problem with the premier's argument was equally simple: as Danny Williams himself admitted later on, the offshore board doesn't negotiate or otherwise set local benefits. Danny does.
So here we are, all the months later, on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to St. John's and someone leaks the decision apparently reached by panel appointed to find a new chair for the offshore board.
How curious. I wonder who'll be looking for time in the PM's agenda for Monday?
Count on this issue to come up tomorrow at a forum sponsored by CBC Radio's The Current, in which the Mayor of Sin Jawn's is a panelist...
Saturday, December 3, 2005Wells comes up dry
By Terry Roberts - The Telegram
Left - Andy Wells
It appears there won'’t be a shakeup at St. John'’s City Hall after all.
After months of speculation and controversy, The Telegram has learned that Mayor Andy Wells has been passed over for the position of chairman and chief executive officer of the federal-provincial board that regulates the province'’s offshore oil and gas industry.
In a surprising twist, a joint selection panel led by prominent businessman Harry Steele has instead offered the post to Max Ruelokke, a former deputy minister of mines and energy with the provincial government in the 1990s.
Sources say Wells, who was publicly endorsed by Premier Danny Williams for the job, has been offered the position of vice-chairman.
It'’s not clear whether he will accept the secondary role with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB), but there'’s speculation the decision may touch off another row between the federal and provincial governments.
The premier'’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Matthews, said Williams would not be commenting while the selection process was ongoing.
But sources say Williams is fuming over the decision and may confront Prime Minister Paul Martin on the issue during his campaign visit to St. John'’s Monday.
If so, it would be reminiscent of 2004, when Williams battled Ottawa over changes to the Atlantic Accord oil revenue sharing agreement.
After months of bitter negotiations, the dispute ended with the federal government agreeing to pay $2 billion in upfront money to the province.
It'’s believed Ruelokke, who has worked in the private sector since leaving government in 1998, was a compromise between Rex Gibbons, the federal government'’s choice for the job, and Wells, who was favoured by the province.
Gibbons has a Ph.D in geology and served as a Liberal MHA for the district of St. John'’s West from 1989 to '’97.
He is a former minister of mines and energy and was once the province'’s representative on the CNLOPB.
Ruelokke, a civil engineer and Grand Bank native, ran the Marystown Shipyard and the Bull Arm fabrication site, and comes with an intimate knowledge of this province'’s oil and gas industry.
He is currently the general manager of East Coast operations for AMEC Oil and Gas Ltd., an English company that provides engineering, procurement and construction management services to offshore oil and gas projects.
Neither Wells nor Ruelokke would confirm anything when contacted Friday.
"“I have no comment,"” said Wells, who planned to resign as mayor if given the job, which pays roughly $200,000 annually.
Wells has served on city council since 1977, and was re-elected to his third term as mayor on Sept. 27.
He has often been critical of various oil companies over their level of investment in the province, and his nomination for the job is said to have been strongly opposed by those in the industry.
Ruelokke acknowledged he was interviewed for the job this week, but sounded surprised to hear he was a leading candidate when contacted by The Telegram Friday morning.
"“I assumed I was one of a number of people who had interviews and didn'’t make any assumptions beyond that, really,"” said Ruelokke, who chaired an offshore petroleum engineering task force established by the former Liberal provincial government in 1998.
The process of selecting a new chair and CEO began making headlines last July after it was revealed that Wells was the province'’s first choice for the job.
Then-natural resources minister John Efford quickly weighed in, saying Wells did not make the short list of an independent head-hunting firm that had been seeking out potential candidates.
Both sides eventually agreed to appoint a joint selection committee.
Steele, chairman of Newfoundland Capital Corp. Ltd., was joined on the committee by a pair of government appointees - — Wayne Thistle for the Government of Canada and Dean MacDonald for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Steele was the mutual choice of Thistle and MacDonald.
It'’s not known how many candidates made the short list, but several interviews took place last week.
Ruelokke said if he were given the job, politics would not play a role.
"“'I'’ve never been involved in organized politics in my life,"” he said.
troberts@thetelegram.com
The smell of fear
Check out the telegram today on page A5.
Bottom of the page.
Big ad by Loyola Hearn with the headline "Provincial MHA's endorse Loyola Hearn".
There's Loyola in a posed picture surrounded by all the Conservative House member's from within his riding. There's even Loyola Sullivan looking a tad like something's up his backside that shouldn't be there, and Speaker Harvey Hodder.
There's two things about this ad that scream Loyola's fear of losing:
1. Last time out, Loyola couldn't get the endorsement of any Tories. People wouldn't work for him.
Then after the whole thing was over, Loyola got into a pissing match with Danny.
2. The ad talks about "Standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador".
Here's Loyola's record on the offshore:
1985 - As cabinet minister in Peckford, voted in favour of what he would later denounce as revenue clawbacks for Equalization.
2004 - Issues householder at taxpayer expense with factual errors about deal he voted for in 1985.
2005 - Encouraged to vote for offshore deal and put province before party
2005 - Gets exceedingly pissy when people expect him to live up to the same standards he used to politically bludgeon others.
2005 - In the final votes, supports the offshore bill and then votes to bring down the government. Hearn voted for the Province before he voted against it.
When choosing between party and province, Hearn chose party.
He took Harper over Hamlyn Road.
I smell fear in St. John's South-Mount Pearl. And it's coming from the little fellow from Renews.
I wonder if this time he will be willing to debate his opponents.
Bottom of the page.
Big ad by Loyola Hearn with the headline "Provincial MHA's endorse Loyola Hearn".
There's Loyola in a posed picture surrounded by all the Conservative House member's from within his riding. There's even Loyola Sullivan looking a tad like something's up his backside that shouldn't be there, and Speaker Harvey Hodder.
There's two things about this ad that scream Loyola's fear of losing:
1. Last time out, Loyola couldn't get the endorsement of any Tories. People wouldn't work for him.
Then after the whole thing was over, Loyola got into a pissing match with Danny.
2. The ad talks about "Standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador".
Here's Loyola's record on the offshore:
1985 - As cabinet minister in Peckford, voted in favour of what he would later denounce as revenue clawbacks for Equalization.
2004 - Issues householder at taxpayer expense with factual errors about deal he voted for in 1985.
2005 - Encouraged to vote for offshore deal and put province before party
2005 - Gets exceedingly pissy when people expect him to live up to the same standards he used to politically bludgeon others.
2005 - In the final votes, supports the offshore bill and then votes to bring down the government. Hearn voted for the Province before he voted against it.
When choosing between party and province, Hearn chose party.
He took Harper over Hamlyn Road.
I smell fear in St. John's South-Mount Pearl. And it's coming from the little fellow from Renews.
I wonder if this time he will be willing to debate his opponents.
GST rebate update 2
3 down (the traditional morning cup)
19, 997 to go.
Me and my kidneys are with ya there, buddy.
It's like one of those Depression era dance marathons or some crap that you'd see on Fear Factor.
Drink 20, 000 cups of coffee and see if you can win 400 bucks.
19, 997 to go.
Me and my kidneys are with ya there, buddy.
It's like one of those Depression era dance marathons or some crap that you'd see on Fear Factor.
Drink 20, 000 cups of coffee and see if you can win 400 bucks.
02 December 2005
Layton and Hargrove at loggerheads for same space
Check this out.
Buzz Hargrove warns people to vote Liberal where the New Democrats are third, in order to stop the Connies.
Jack Layton, who scarcely 24 hours ago said the same thing in eastern Ontario, criticizes Buzz.
The noise you hear, still, is NDP candidate Peg Norman - the distant third in St.John's South-Mount Pearl, banging her head against the wall.
For the second day in a row.
In the race to see who is going to emerg first, I am guessing my kidneys are stronger than anyone's head.
Buzz Hargrove warns people to vote Liberal where the New Democrats are third, in order to stop the Connies.
Jack Layton, who scarcely 24 hours ago said the same thing in eastern Ontario, criticizes Buzz.
The noise you hear, still, is NDP candidate Peg Norman - the distant third in St.John's South-Mount Pearl, banging her head against the wall.
For the second day in a row.
In the race to see who is going to emerg first, I am guessing my kidneys are stronger than anyone's head.
The first SES rolling poll results of the campaign
The first poll by SES Research for the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC) shows the Liberals with the support of 37% of decided voters, up from 34% on the day the campaign started. The Conservatives are steady at 29% with the New Democrats dropping from 20% to 15%.
Margin of error for the national figures is 3.1% at the 95 percentile confidence interval.
The regional figures open up much wider margins of error and therefore are less reliable in indicating voter choices.
SES has developed a leadership index for ranking opinions of party leaders as to trust, competence and vision for Canada.
Paul Martin's cumulative score on the index is 84, compared to 58 for Stephen Harper, 39 for Gilles Duceppe and 25 for Jack Layton. The margin of error in each of the three categories is plus or minus 5%, therefore making the changes within the individual categories thus far statistically insignificant, even though on the cumulative score, Martin's number has gone from 76 on Monday to 84 on the last day on which polling data was collected. Martin is the only leader to have increased his leadership index by more than 5 %.
Margin of error for the national figures is 3.1% at the 95 percentile confidence interval.
The regional figures open up much wider margins of error and therefore are less reliable in indicating voter choices.
SES has developed a leadership index for ranking opinions of party leaders as to trust, competence and vision for Canada.
Paul Martin's cumulative score on the index is 84, compared to 58 for Stephen Harper, 39 for Gilles Duceppe and 25 for Jack Layton. The margin of error in each of the three categories is plus or minus 5%, therefore making the changes within the individual categories thus far statistically insignificant, even though on the cumulative score, Martin's number has gone from 76 on Monday to 84 on the last day on which polling data was collected. Martin is the only leader to have increased his leadership index by more than 5 %.
GST rebate update 1
Two down.
Only 19, 998 to go in my bid to do what it takes to get $400 in GST rebates, should Stephen Harper make the leap to 24 Sussex Drive.
A large coffee at Tim's would go from the current local price of $1.50 to $1.48 under Harper's proposal.
Total GST savings on Day 1: four cents.
The bugger really wants my kidneys to work for the cash.
Only 19, 998 to go in my bid to do what it takes to get $400 in GST rebates, should Stephen Harper make the leap to 24 Sussex Drive.
A large coffee at Tim's would go from the current local price of $1.50 to $1.48 under Harper's proposal.
Total GST savings on Day 1: four cents.
The bugger really wants my kidneys to work for the cash.
Brave Soldier Hearn
There are some awfully funny comments from Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn is the following story from The Telegram.
Ordinarily, the story would have focused on the poll by Corporate Research Associates (CRA) showing the Liberals with a commanding lead in in Atlantic Canada and in this province in the federal election. The story would also have drawn big attention to the fact that the CRA poll found that Prime Minister Paul Martin is the party leader preferred by most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Obviously, CRA didn't poll Liam O'Brien.
Anyway, the funny bits are the ones where Loyola Hearn wants us all to believe that the poll is crap - it isn't - and that the federal Conservatives have a shot at winning John Efford's old seat in Avalon.
It's funny because Loyola should be focused on winning his own seat rather than fretting over who is going to represent the riding in which he lives.
It's funny because when Loyola says Efford had a free ride previously, Hearn is actually the guy who gave it to him. When faced with a choice as to which part of his old riding he wanted to represent in Ottawa, the supposed Connie heavyweight opted to run in St. John's and Mount Pearl. He thought he'd have an easy ride of it, himself.
Reality proved starkly different.
Everyone else has marked his riding as being definitely in play, a swing seat, likely to turn over even, because Mr. Hearn's margin of victory last time was less than 9% of the vote. Some contend it was less than 5% but I'll stick to my new number.
It was the toughest political fight of Hearn's life and Hearn's less than generous comments in victory attest to how much the former Brian Peckford cabinet minister was pissed off.
Then, to make matters worse, Hearn got trapped in the spring Harper effort to defeat the government. Tons of e-mails poured in demanding Hearn vote in favour of the offshore deal and put partisan issues aside. "Put province before party" they demanded.
The Connie reply was to vote in favour of the bill containing the offshore deal, before they then voted to bring down the government on another motion.
Faced with the choice, Hearn picked Harper over Hamilton Avenue and his choice may continue to haunt him.
And the bruised politician started musing about taking up fishing and giving up the political racket. As he told CBC News, "[h]ow long more to you stay around? That's the point...Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
For the record, here is the full Telegram story by Jamie Baker.
I am taking the risk of reprinting from their website since there is no permanent link I can use and after a couple of days this story will vanish from the Internet.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Battleground Avalon
By JAMIE BAKER, The Telegram page 1, above the fold.
A new poll predicts the Liberals would sweep all seven ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador if an election were held today, but that isn't dashing any Conservative hopes, especially in Avalon, where the party is promising a changing of the guard.
St. John'’s South-Mount Pearl Conservative incumbent Loyola Hearn dismisses the poll and says Avalon, the riding held by retiring Liberal cabinet minister John Efford, is ripe for the picking.
The three Liberal nominees for the riding are former provincial cabinet minister Art Reid, lawyer Bill Morrow and Avondale deputy mayor Bern Hickey. Hearn said he expects his party will announce its candidate -— it is rumoured provincial Independent PC MHA Fabian Manning is among those interested -— within a matter of days.
Targeted campaign
The riding is among the 20 across Canada targeted by the Conservatives as potentially winnable.
"We will win that riding," Hearn predicted, adding he believes even Efford could have been toppled at the height of his popularity had the challenges been more substantial.
"Efford had a free ride," he said.
"When he ran in the byelection, we ran Michelle Brazil against him, with no organization, nothing and she got 20-odd per cent of the vote. The last time we had a guy come into the campaign, again, with no organization, no money, he had never been involved in anything public like that — and he took 31 per cent of the vote."
"Imagine what a well-known person could have done,— and Efford was riding high at the time."
Avalon's Liberal riding president Stephen Crocker isn't convinced voters will act against the party out of displeasure over Efford's recent political troubles, which began in the heat of the Atlantic Accord battle.
In fact, Crocker is convinced they will look to Efford's list of federal accomplishments as a sign of what the party can do -— and has done -— for the riding.
"I don't think Mr. Efford's legacy was totally negative -— Mr. Efford did a lot of good stuff in his time in politics and I think that is what people will remember, "Crocker said. "The key to winning Avalon, obviously, is a strong campaign and getting the message out to people on where the party stands, where it has been and where it is going.”
If the recent poll conducted by Corporate Research Associates Inc. is to be believed, where the Liberals are going is, apparently, up.
Besides taking all seven seats in this province, the poll has the Liberals taking 25 of 32 seats in Atlantic Canada -— five seats are forecasted for the Conservatives and two for the NDP.
The numbers also show if the election were held now, 46 per cent of Atlantic Canadians said they would vote for the Liberals, 27 per cent Conservative, 18 per cent NDP, 16 per cent were undecided, and 10 per cent had no response or didn'‚’t plan to vote.
Province more Liberal: poll
In Newfoundland, the numbers were even more Liberal, with 50 per cent preferring the Liberals, 29 per cent Conservative and 10 per cent NDP with 19 per cent undecided ‚— those numbers are almost exactly the same as they were in a May 2004 poll conducted in this province prior to the last federal election.
Fifty-one per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians also said they were very or mostly satisfied with the performance of the Martin government, up six per cent from May 2004; 39 per cent were either mostly or completely dissatisfied.
As far as leadership is concerned, 41 per cent of Atlantic Canadians prefer Paul Martin as prime minister compared to just 19 per cent for Stephen Harper and 17 per cent for Jack Layton.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Martin attracted 44 per cent preference compared to 20 and 15 per cent respectively for Harper and Layton.
"That doesn't surprise me when you look at Mr. Harper's track record and where he stands on health care and so on," Crocker said. "I think health care is going to be a big issue in Avalon, and we all know Stephen Harper's record of supporting two-tier health care.”
With mostly rural areas in the riding, Hearn said attracting the right candidate would also be huge for any party's hopes of victory in ridings east of Montreal.
Unlike more urban areas where voters rarely know the candidate and vote based largely on policies and platforms, Hearn said the candidate is also very important when it comes to campaigning in Atlantic Canada.
"In Atlantic Canada, everybody knows who you are and if they don't know who you are, you'll be hard pressed to get the votes," Hearn observed. "That's why you need reasonably good candidates, someone who is known and well respected. It is very seldom you will see a well established individual doing poorly in an election."
"Voters want solid representation, somebody they know they can trust and somebody they know will do the work for them in Ottawa. Check the public record, Hansard, even watch CPAC, and you'll have an idea who's doing what for the province -— we have not been well-represented by a number of Liberals."”
While Hearn sees Avalon, his own district and St. John's East as potential winners for his party, the big battles, he said, will be getting the right people to take on a couple of other longtime Liberal incumbents Bill Matthews and Gerry Byrne.
"The challenge is really out there in Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and Random-Burin-St. George's to have some good solid people come forward," Hearn said. "We have a great chance of forming government, and an extra seat or two in Newfoundland could be all it takes."
jbaker@thetelegram.com
Ordinarily, the story would have focused on the poll by Corporate Research Associates (CRA) showing the Liberals with a commanding lead in in Atlantic Canada and in this province in the federal election. The story would also have drawn big attention to the fact that the CRA poll found that Prime Minister Paul Martin is the party leader preferred by most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Obviously, CRA didn't poll Liam O'Brien.
Anyway, the funny bits are the ones where Loyola Hearn wants us all to believe that the poll is crap - it isn't - and that the federal Conservatives have a shot at winning John Efford's old seat in Avalon.
It's funny because Loyola should be focused on winning his own seat rather than fretting over who is going to represent the riding in which he lives.
It's funny because when Loyola says Efford had a free ride previously, Hearn is actually the guy who gave it to him. When faced with a choice as to which part of his old riding he wanted to represent in Ottawa, the supposed Connie heavyweight opted to run in St. John's and Mount Pearl. He thought he'd have an easy ride of it, himself.
Reality proved starkly different.
Everyone else has marked his riding as being definitely in play, a swing seat, likely to turn over even, because Mr. Hearn's margin of victory last time was less than 9% of the vote. Some contend it was less than 5% but I'll stick to my new number.
It was the toughest political fight of Hearn's life and Hearn's less than generous comments in victory attest to how much the former Brian Peckford cabinet minister was pissed off.
Then, to make matters worse, Hearn got trapped in the spring Harper effort to defeat the government. Tons of e-mails poured in demanding Hearn vote in favour of the offshore deal and put partisan issues aside. "Put province before party" they demanded.
The Connie reply was to vote in favour of the bill containing the offshore deal, before they then voted to bring down the government on another motion.
Faced with the choice, Hearn picked Harper over Hamilton Avenue and his choice may continue to haunt him.
And the bruised politician started musing about taking up fishing and giving up the political racket. As he told CBC News, "[h]ow long more to you stay around? That's the point...Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
For the record, here is the full Telegram story by Jamie Baker.
I am taking the risk of reprinting from their website since there is no permanent link I can use and after a couple of days this story will vanish from the Internet.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Battleground Avalon
By JAMIE BAKER, The Telegram page 1, above the fold.
A new poll predicts the Liberals would sweep all seven ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador if an election were held today, but that isn't dashing any Conservative hopes, especially in Avalon, where the party is promising a changing of the guard.
St. John'’s South-Mount Pearl Conservative incumbent Loyola Hearn dismisses the poll and says Avalon, the riding held by retiring Liberal cabinet minister John Efford, is ripe for the picking.
The three Liberal nominees for the riding are former provincial cabinet minister Art Reid, lawyer Bill Morrow and Avondale deputy mayor Bern Hickey. Hearn said he expects his party will announce its candidate -— it is rumoured provincial Independent PC MHA Fabian Manning is among those interested -— within a matter of days.
Targeted campaign
The riding is among the 20 across Canada targeted by the Conservatives as potentially winnable.
"We will win that riding," Hearn predicted, adding he believes even Efford could have been toppled at the height of his popularity had the challenges been more substantial.
"Efford had a free ride," he said.
"When he ran in the byelection, we ran Michelle Brazil against him, with no organization, nothing and she got 20-odd per cent of the vote. The last time we had a guy come into the campaign, again, with no organization, no money, he had never been involved in anything public like that — and he took 31 per cent of the vote."
"Imagine what a well-known person could have done,— and Efford was riding high at the time."
Avalon's Liberal riding president Stephen Crocker isn't convinced voters will act against the party out of displeasure over Efford's recent political troubles, which began in the heat of the Atlantic Accord battle.
In fact, Crocker is convinced they will look to Efford's list of federal accomplishments as a sign of what the party can do -— and has done -— for the riding.
"I don't think Mr. Efford's legacy was totally negative -— Mr. Efford did a lot of good stuff in his time in politics and I think that is what people will remember, "Crocker said. "The key to winning Avalon, obviously, is a strong campaign and getting the message out to people on where the party stands, where it has been and where it is going.”
If the recent poll conducted by Corporate Research Associates Inc. is to be believed, where the Liberals are going is, apparently, up.
Besides taking all seven seats in this province, the poll has the Liberals taking 25 of 32 seats in Atlantic Canada -— five seats are forecasted for the Conservatives and two for the NDP.
The numbers also show if the election were held now, 46 per cent of Atlantic Canadians said they would vote for the Liberals, 27 per cent Conservative, 18 per cent NDP, 16 per cent were undecided, and 10 per cent had no response or didn'‚’t plan to vote.
Province more Liberal: poll
In Newfoundland, the numbers were even more Liberal, with 50 per cent preferring the Liberals, 29 per cent Conservative and 10 per cent NDP with 19 per cent undecided ‚— those numbers are almost exactly the same as they were in a May 2004 poll conducted in this province prior to the last federal election.
Fifty-one per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians also said they were very or mostly satisfied with the performance of the Martin government, up six per cent from May 2004; 39 per cent were either mostly or completely dissatisfied.
As far as leadership is concerned, 41 per cent of Atlantic Canadians prefer Paul Martin as prime minister compared to just 19 per cent for Stephen Harper and 17 per cent for Jack Layton.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Martin attracted 44 per cent preference compared to 20 and 15 per cent respectively for Harper and Layton.
"That doesn't surprise me when you look at Mr. Harper's track record and where he stands on health care and so on," Crocker said. "I think health care is going to be a big issue in Avalon, and we all know Stephen Harper's record of supporting two-tier health care.”
With mostly rural areas in the riding, Hearn said attracting the right candidate would also be huge for any party's hopes of victory in ridings east of Montreal.
Unlike more urban areas where voters rarely know the candidate and vote based largely on policies and platforms, Hearn said the candidate is also very important when it comes to campaigning in Atlantic Canada.
"In Atlantic Canada, everybody knows who you are and if they don't know who you are, you'll be hard pressed to get the votes," Hearn observed. "That's why you need reasonably good candidates, someone who is known and well respected. It is very seldom you will see a well established individual doing poorly in an election."
"Voters want solid representation, somebody they know they can trust and somebody they know will do the work for them in Ottawa. Check the public record, Hansard, even watch CPAC, and you'll have an idea who's doing what for the province -— we have not been well-represented by a number of Liberals."”
While Hearn sees Avalon, his own district and St. John's East as potential winners for his party, the big battles, he said, will be getting the right people to take on a couple of other longtime Liberal incumbents Bill Matthews and Gerry Byrne.
"The challenge is really out there in Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and Random-Burin-St. George's to have some good solid people come forward," Hearn said. "We have a great chance of forming government, and an extra seat or two in Newfoundland could be all it takes."
jbaker@thetelegram.com
Norm Doyle - CBC Radio news
Since there was no link available for the earlier posting on Norm Doyle, let me tell everyone that Norm backed the call for a free-vote on equal marriage in an interview with CBC Radio.
When I can get the quote and the story as a link, I'll post it.
In the meantime, be amused at the latest evidence that when someone has nothing constructive or factual to say, someone will just make stuff up.
Then read the post about the GST. Negative campaigning raised to a new high.
or is it low?
When I can get the quote and the story as a link, I'll post it.
In the meantime, be amused at the latest evidence that when someone has nothing constructive or factual to say, someone will just make stuff up.
Then read the post about the GST. Negative campaigning raised to a new high.
or is it low?
A large double double view
Canadians will get this really easily.
A large Timmies in Newfoundland and Labrador will set you back $1.50. That the Canadian standard - large, double double - and taking in the harmonized provincial and federal sales taxes.
If Stephen Harper is elected, my Timmies will go to $1.48, for a total savings of two friggin' cents a cup.
It will take 20, 000 cups of coffee to reach the $400 in GST savings Harper claims his proposal will plunk in my pocket.
I better get started.
That's a lot of coffee.
A large Timmies in Newfoundland and Labrador will set you back $1.50. That the Canadian standard - large, double double - and taking in the harmonized provincial and federal sales taxes.
If Stephen Harper is elected, my Timmies will go to $1.48, for a total savings of two friggin' cents a cup.
It will take 20, 000 cups of coffee to reach the $400 in GST savings Harper claims his proposal will plunk in my pocket.
I better get started.
That's a lot of coffee.
Cutting the GST - the Andrew Coyne view
Courtesy of Paul Wells, comes an old column by Andrew Coyne, arguing that cutting the GST is actually a bad idea.
Cut other taxes instead.
And while we are on it, here's a story from CBC Liam O'Brien won't be quoting any too soon. Economists are criticizing the GST cuts proposal.
There have been plenty of those stories.
Plus there have been positive stories quoting people in the restaurant business. Ok. But cutting the GST by two percent - five years from now - isn't going to do a single thing to put one more bum in one more seat in one more restaurant across Canada.
Think about it.
The proposed cuts will give me the kind of cash - 40 freakin' cents off a $20 meal tab - that make me feel like going down to cross the harbour here in St. John's and buy up a few newspapers.
And it will happen two full years after Harper gets elected.
And after Harper repeals equal marriage.
If he gets elected.
Cut other taxes instead.
And while we are on it, here's a story from CBC Liam O'Brien won't be quoting any too soon. Economists are criticizing the GST cuts proposal.
There have been plenty of those stories.
Plus there have been positive stories quoting people in the restaurant business. Ok. But cutting the GST by two percent - five years from now - isn't going to do a single thing to put one more bum in one more seat in one more restaurant across Canada.
Think about it.
The proposed cuts will give me the kind of cash - 40 freakin' cents off a $20 meal tab - that make me feel like going down to cross the harbour here in St. John's and buy up a few newspapers.
And it will happen two full years after Harper gets elected.
And after Harper repeals equal marriage.
If he gets elected.
Norm Doyle appears - or is it Homer?
The high- spending Connie candidate in St. John's East emerged today for the first time in a while.
His choice topic? Backing Stephen Harper in opposing equal marriage.
Shag the Constitution.
Shag the Supreme Court.
Shag equality.
Shag common sense and the fact we managed to put this issue behind us.
Norm and his boss, Stephen Harper want to re-open the debate on equal marriage.
Way to go Normie.
Where should we send the cheque for all your help?
His choice topic? Backing Stephen Harper in opposing equal marriage.
Shag the Constitution.
Shag the Supreme Court.
Shag equality.
Shag common sense and the fact we managed to put this issue behind us.
Norm and his boss, Stephen Harper want to re-open the debate on equal marriage.
Way to go Normie.
Where should we send the cheque for all your help?
CBC buggers the facts - swing seats
Hey guys, I know it's a challenge to run a website, but at least use the cut and paste.
St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Connies took it by 8.9% last time.
That's below the 10% CBC is using to define a swing seat.
And if I recall correctly, CBC should also include St. John's North, which is now known once again as St. John's East. The margin in that neck of the local woods was damned close too.
Thanks to Liam O'Brien, official Connie propagandist on the Island for putting me on to this little error by the Ceeb. In his efforts to attack some of my earlier he comments, Liam tossed the CBC out as a source to contradict me on which seats are close.
D'oh!
The factually-challenged Connies were done in, in this instance, by someone else's dodgy facts. minor error, but as we have seen with Jason Kenney sometimes one can build an entire chunk of a campaign on stuff that is basically made up.
As my daughter used to say: "Oh deeuh".
St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Connies took it by 8.9% last time.
That's below the 10% CBC is using to define a swing seat.
And if I recall correctly, CBC should also include St. John's North, which is now known once again as St. John's East. The margin in that neck of the local woods was damned close too.
Thanks to Liam O'Brien, official Connie propagandist on the Island for putting me on to this little error by the Ceeb. In his efforts to attack some of my earlier he comments, Liam tossed the CBC out as a source to contradict me on which seats are close.
D'oh!
The factually-challenged Connies were done in, in this instance, by someone else's dodgy facts. minor error, but as we have seen with Jason Kenney sometimes one can build an entire chunk of a campaign on stuff that is basically made up.
As my daughter used to say: "Oh deeuh".
01 December 2005
Has anyone seen Loyola?
No point in looking here.
Seems like the Man from Renews (about two hours drive outside the riding he represented in Ottawa) thinks he's still in the last campaign.
That's the one where he ducked every interview he could duck, refused to debate the other candidates and generally seemed to go over the fence for most of the campaign.
At one point, his opponents seriously considered sending out search parties.
His reward last time? The nearest run election of his life.
His reward this time? Maybe a federal pension to go with the provincial one he already collects.
Seems like the Man from Renews (about two hours drive outside the riding he represented in Ottawa) thinks he's still in the last campaign.
That's the one where he ducked every interview he could duck, refused to debate the other candidates and generally seemed to go over the fence for most of the campaign.
At one point, his opponents seriously considered sending out search parties.
His reward last time? The nearest run election of his life.
His reward this time? Maybe a federal pension to go with the provincial one he already collects.
When the leader undermines his own candidates
From nottawa, comes this set of comments by Jack Layton that by voting for third place candidates, voters can elect a Conservative instead.
Ok.
The math works in some ridings where Jack is ahead.
But in St. John's East and St.John's South-Mount Pearl, Jack seems to be working to get Liberals elected.
How odd.
Of course, there is no small irony in the fact that Jack pushed for this election so that, in some cases, like say eastern Newfoundland, he'll be electing candidates whose party is now committed to cracking open the equal marriage debate, yet again.
The noise you hear in Ottawa is Peg Norman pounding her head against the wall at her campaign office.
Ok.
The math works in some ridings where Jack is ahead.
But in St. John's East and St.John's South-Mount Pearl, Jack seems to be working to get Liberals elected.
How odd.
Of course, there is no small irony in the fact that Jack pushed for this election so that, in some cases, like say eastern Newfoundland, he'll be electing candidates whose party is now committed to cracking open the equal marriage debate, yet again.
The noise you hear in Ottawa is Peg Norman pounding her head against the wall at her campaign office.
More curious Connie math comments
Check here for a Canadian Press story on the math behind the proposed GST cut and some other comments on the Harper proposal.
But get a load of this section, in particular:
*"For an average family of four with an income of $60,000 a year, this would mean about $400 less in taxes - savings they will see every time they go to the gas station, the shopping mall or a restaurant," Harper said.
"When the GST cut is fully implemented, the total benefit will, of course, be much greater."
Liberals argued that the first-year savings would be closer to $250, basing their claims on Statistics Canada numbers that indicate a typical family earning $60,000 makes taxable purchases worth about $25,000 a year.
Such a family would have to spend upwards of $40,000 in order to realize $400 in savings in the first year - a number that's not unreasonable, the Conservatives countered.*
Ok. A combined family income of $60, 000 a year making $40,000 in GST-related purchases a year. That leaves only $20, 000 to pay provincial, federal and municipal taxes, Canadian Pension Plan contributions and Employment Insurance premiums, a few bucks for the pension and maybe some cash for the kid's education. Surely I've left something out.
Even if I haven't, then at the end of the five years, once the Stephen Harper GST cut comes through, I'll have an extra $400 in cash. That's 0.6% of the gross annual income of this fictitious family.
Move over Donald Trump.
But get a load of this section, in particular:
*"For an average family of four with an income of $60,000 a year, this would mean about $400 less in taxes - savings they will see every time they go to the gas station, the shopping mall or a restaurant," Harper said.
"When the GST cut is fully implemented, the total benefit will, of course, be much greater."
Liberals argued that the first-year savings would be closer to $250, basing their claims on Statistics Canada numbers that indicate a typical family earning $60,000 makes taxable purchases worth about $25,000 a year.
Such a family would have to spend upwards of $40,000 in order to realize $400 in savings in the first year - a number that's not unreasonable, the Conservatives countered.*
Ok. A combined family income of $60, 000 a year making $40,000 in GST-related purchases a year. That leaves only $20, 000 to pay provincial, federal and municipal taxes, Canadian Pension Plan contributions and Employment Insurance premiums, a few bucks for the pension and maybe some cash for the kid's education. Surely I've left something out.
Even if I haven't, then at the end of the five years, once the Stephen Harper GST cut comes through, I'll have an extra $400 in cash. That's 0.6% of the gross annual income of this fictitious family.
Move over Donald Trump.
Tax rhetoric for Connies
Over at RGL, Liam is predictably ecstatic about the GST cut proposal from Stephen Harper and seemingly perplexed by my comments earlier today. And since he's in full Connie campaign mode, Liam has to embellish my comments and add his own twists of meaning to everything.
Set up the straw man and knock 'em down.
Or should we take this as a hold-over from Liam's previous career as a journalist when he admits sitting in meetings where reporters plotted to get someone they didn't like?
Sticking to the facts and the issues are never good enough for some people.
But let's deal with the issues in reverse order:
3. In order to change the Harmonised Sales Tax, Liam, the three Atlantic provinces that are party to the deal all must agree.
My question was simple: did Harper check with Loyola Sullivan and da byes before springing this tax cut thingy out the door? This is a huge issue for federal provincial relations and contains a disturbing echo of Harper's pledge last time to alter equalization radically - and unilaterally.
That's really the key point. The Atlantic provinces would lose cash, at least as it looks to me, but hey on this point, I am willing to admit I could be wrong. Maybe there won't be any revenue loss for the provinces. But let someone show me some facts.
At least, I can admit when I may be off base. With Jason Kenney, he can only continue to make ludicrous accusations...and stick to them despite his own admissions he has no evidence to support his manic claims.
In the meantime, let's see if there actually was any consultation at all with the three provinces using HST before the Harper announcement.
2. Why wait five years to drop two points? Liam doesn't really answer this one at all, but it is a question that screams for an answer almost as loudly as the one about Harperian unilateralism. If Harper is going to slash the GST by two points, sure it will cost billions, but why the slow drop? There is no logical explanation why Harper can drop a few billion in revenue in one year and then take four years to chop the rest.
1. Why not zero? It's a simple, rhetorical question. If Harper can drop the GST by two points over five years, why not hack it even further? In for a penny, in for a pound.
And before Liam trots out the tried 1993 Chretien promise, let's just face facts - as Liam says, the GST is a source of considerable cash for the feds. We needed it in 1993 to pay off the huge debt load run up by previous governments, including the Gucci-level spending of the Mulroney Tories. Now that we are in good fiscal shape - thanks to Paulie Martin - then maybe we can look at different tax relief measures as part of the reward for the lean times.
Too late. He uses that tired old chestnut repeatedly. Liam even claims Liberals lied in 1993. To lie means to tell a falsehood knowingly. Like saying that Newfoundland government oil money is sucked off to Ottawa when, in fact, as the premier admitted, he collected and kept every cent. Gee, the fact truck never seems to make a stop in Connie-land.
Rather than the rhetoric of the parties, though, I am going to watch closely for comments from the business community and the public on this one.
Set up the straw man and knock 'em down.
Or should we take this as a hold-over from Liam's previous career as a journalist when he admits sitting in meetings where reporters plotted to get someone they didn't like?
Sticking to the facts and the issues are never good enough for some people.
But let's deal with the issues in reverse order:
3. In order to change the Harmonised Sales Tax, Liam, the three Atlantic provinces that are party to the deal all must agree.
My question was simple: did Harper check with Loyola Sullivan and da byes before springing this tax cut thingy out the door? This is a huge issue for federal provincial relations and contains a disturbing echo of Harper's pledge last time to alter equalization radically - and unilaterally.
That's really the key point. The Atlantic provinces would lose cash, at least as it looks to me, but hey on this point, I am willing to admit I could be wrong. Maybe there won't be any revenue loss for the provinces. But let someone show me some facts.
At least, I can admit when I may be off base. With Jason Kenney, he can only continue to make ludicrous accusations...and stick to them despite his own admissions he has no evidence to support his manic claims.
In the meantime, let's see if there actually was any consultation at all with the three provinces using HST before the Harper announcement.
2. Why wait five years to drop two points? Liam doesn't really answer this one at all, but it is a question that screams for an answer almost as loudly as the one about Harperian unilateralism. If Harper is going to slash the GST by two points, sure it will cost billions, but why the slow drop? There is no logical explanation why Harper can drop a few billion in revenue in one year and then take four years to chop the rest.
1. Why not zero? It's a simple, rhetorical question. If Harper can drop the GST by two points over five years, why not hack it even further? In for a penny, in for a pound.
And before Liam trots out the tried 1993 Chretien promise, let's just face facts - as Liam says, the GST is a source of considerable cash for the feds. We needed it in 1993 to pay off the huge debt load run up by previous governments, including the Gucci-level spending of the Mulroney Tories. Now that we are in good fiscal shape - thanks to Paulie Martin - then maybe we can look at different tax relief measures as part of the reward for the lean times.
Too late. He uses that tired old chestnut repeatedly. Liam even claims Liberals lied in 1993. To lie means to tell a falsehood knowingly. Like saying that Newfoundland government oil money is sucked off to Ottawa when, in fact, as the premier admitted, he collected and kept every cent. Gee, the fact truck never seems to make a stop in Connie-land.
Rather than the rhetoric of the parties, though, I am going to watch closely for comments from the business community and the public on this one.
Weather office wonderments
Pressure for the relocation of the weather office back to Gander continues to mount.
But here's a bit of information to ponder.
Weather forecasting takes two things: data and analysis.
The data comes from sites spread across an area. Most of it is transmitted by automated collection stations both on- and offshore.
The analysis can be done anywhere.
So is the issue with the weather office in Gander about the accuracy of the forecasts or about where people get paid to read the numbers? The accuracy of the forecasts might just have to do with a lack of sufficient automated data collection sites around the province, especially in the northeast and Labrador.
If it's about where people do the analysis, then the weather office could be in Rangoon and still get the local forecasting here spot on. After all, Gander used to forecast for Nain and the people in Nain never complained about things.
But here's a bit of information to ponder.
Weather forecasting takes two things: data and analysis.
The data comes from sites spread across an area. Most of it is transmitted by automated collection stations both on- and offshore.
The analysis can be done anywhere.
So is the issue with the weather office in Gander about the accuracy of the forecasts or about where people get paid to read the numbers? The accuracy of the forecasts might just have to do with a lack of sufficient automated data collection sites around the province, especially in the northeast and Labrador.
If it's about where people do the analysis, then the weather office could be in Rangoon and still get the local forecasting here spot on. After all, Gander used to forecast for Nain and the people in Nain never complained about things.
Why not zero? Why not right now?
Stephen Harper's first big election announcement - aside from hiring Ken Starr - is to drop the Goods and Services Tax from its current seven per cent to five percent.
Here's the catch - he'll drop it over the course of five years.
Here's my question: why five years?
Here's my second question: why stop at five? Why not just axe the thing altogether? If Ottawa has so much cash floating around, why wouldn't Harper just drop the GST to zero?
Here's a third question, just to add to the pile: Has Steve cleared this idea with the Atlantic provinces? They'd have to agreed to change the Harmonized Sales Tax. They also stand to lose a few bucks in the process.
Here's the catch - he'll drop it over the course of five years.
Here's my question: why five years?
Here's my second question: why stop at five? Why not just axe the thing altogether? If Ottawa has so much cash floating around, why wouldn't Harper just drop the GST to zero?
Here's a third question, just to add to the pile: Has Steve cleared this idea with the Atlantic provinces? They'd have to agreed to change the Harmonized Sales Tax. They also stand to lose a few bucks in the process.
Election quickies
1. JK Note to self: Douse self in gasoline on national television. Light Match. Apply match to own arm, leg or other available body part.
Conservative Jason Kenney had yet another factual meltdown with Mike Duffy last night.
Negative campaigning is designed to suppress the other guys vote. Kenney missed the part of Konnie Kampaign Kollege where it was explained that neg has to be based on fact. Based on fact, a negative will stick and have effect.
Bullshit, like napalm, sticks. 'Cept it sticks to the one that flung the bullshit. That's an effect you don't want, Jason.
Kenney himself has admitted there is no evidence to support his whacked out claims of high level corruption in the finance department, which Kenney quickly points out are not actually accusations of high level corruption.
Funniest moment with Puffy: when the Puffster's crackberry went off TWICE with e-mails from the Liberal Fact-ory, popularly known as the war room, setting the record straight.
One smack for Jason was funny. Two was hysterical.
Self-imolation on national TV as a campaign strategy. Something tells me that one won't be catching on like blogging.
Bond Papers Prediction: RCMP will find no basis for a criminal investigation.
NDP and Connies will hint strongly that even the Queen's Cowboys are on the take to Paul's Crew.
2. What's love got to do with it? Jason Kenney is apparently upset with Liberal "attacks on his Fearless Leader. The attacks - unlike Kenney's lunatic smears - raised questions about Kenney's boss based on facts, specifically, Harper's answer to the simple question: "Do you love this country?"
Harper's answer: ""Well, I said Canada is a great country. You know, all of us who get involved in public life spend a lot of time away from our families to go across the country, probably get in many ways the most rewarding experience you could have, you know. It's not tourist travel, you don't see all the hot spots and all the great sights but you get a real sense -- the kind old and the of traveling I've done, especially the last seven or eight months, you get a real sense of Canadians, where they live, who they are and what their challenges are. And I think the country has unlimited potential. That's why I think it would be so exciting to take over at this point in our history. But I think it's necessary to make a change if we're going to realize that potential."
My answer, if asked the same question: "Yes."
Maybe, "Of course".
It wasn't an essay question .
3. Upping the birthrate, the Tory way. Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm wants a tax break to encourage people to have more babies.
Whatever floats yer boat, there, John, bye, but dropping taxes so more Canadian males drop trou' is bordering on something a bit too kinky.
Call me weird.
A thong, high heels, and soft music usually work for me.
4. Our very own Ken Starr. The factual gulf between Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay, DDS is being more widely reported. Find a version of it on Mark Watton's blog.
We are starting to see the outlines of a strategy devised by Harper's games theory buddies: if we know you will commit "X" number of mistakes during the campaign and a big one towards the end is deadly (like last time), then let's deliberately shag up in the front of the campaign.
That way, statistically, we have nothing but good stuff to happen for the part of the campaign closest to voting day.
Conservative Jason Kenney had yet another factual meltdown with Mike Duffy last night.
Negative campaigning is designed to suppress the other guys vote. Kenney missed the part of Konnie Kampaign Kollege where it was explained that neg has to be based on fact. Based on fact, a negative will stick and have effect.
Bullshit, like napalm, sticks. 'Cept it sticks to the one that flung the bullshit. That's an effect you don't want, Jason.
Kenney himself has admitted there is no evidence to support his whacked out claims of high level corruption in the finance department, which Kenney quickly points out are not actually accusations of high level corruption.
Funniest moment with Puffy: when the Puffster's crackberry went off TWICE with e-mails from the Liberal Fact-ory, popularly known as the war room, setting the record straight.
One smack for Jason was funny. Two was hysterical.
Self-imolation on national TV as a campaign strategy. Something tells me that one won't be catching on like blogging.
Bond Papers Prediction: RCMP will find no basis for a criminal investigation.
NDP and Connies will hint strongly that even the Queen's Cowboys are on the take to Paul's Crew.
2. What's love got to do with it? Jason Kenney is apparently upset with Liberal "attacks on his Fearless Leader. The attacks - unlike Kenney's lunatic smears - raised questions about Kenney's boss based on facts, specifically, Harper's answer to the simple question: "Do you love this country?"
Harper's answer: ""Well, I said Canada is a great country. You know, all of us who get involved in public life spend a lot of time away from our families to go across the country, probably get in many ways the most rewarding experience you could have, you know. It's not tourist travel, you don't see all the hot spots and all the great sights but you get a real sense -- the kind old and the of traveling I've done, especially the last seven or eight months, you get a real sense of Canadians, where they live, who they are and what their challenges are. And I think the country has unlimited potential. That's why I think it would be so exciting to take over at this point in our history. But I think it's necessary to make a change if we're going to realize that potential."
My answer, if asked the same question: "Yes."
Maybe, "Of course".
It wasn't an essay question .
3. Upping the birthrate, the Tory way. Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm wants a tax break to encourage people to have more babies.
Whatever floats yer boat, there, John, bye, but dropping taxes so more Canadian males drop trou' is bordering on something a bit too kinky.
Call me weird.
A thong, high heels, and soft music usually work for me.
4. Our very own Ken Starr. The factual gulf between Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay, DDS is being more widely reported. Find a version of it on Mark Watton's blog.
We are starting to see the outlines of a strategy devised by Harper's games theory buddies: if we know you will commit "X" number of mistakes during the campaign and a big one towards the end is deadly (like last time), then let's deliberately shag up in the front of the campaign.
That way, statistically, we have nothing but good stuff to happen for the part of the campaign closest to voting day.
Danny Williams' letter to Santa
Tabled in the House of Assembly yesterday, here is a copy of Danny Williams letter to the federal party leaders.
The Premier likes to point out the success of his last such letter during the 2004 election.
Here's what actually happened:
The PM didn't respond to the letter. He stayed at the negotiating table and worked out the deal the Premier eventually signed.
Stephen Harper flatly rejected the premier's ideas on every level. If you doubt me, I'll post Harper's reply.
Jack Layton is the only guy who endorsed the Premier's position to the "t".
It'll be interesting to see what happens this time out.
The Premier likes to point out the success of his last such letter during the 2004 election.
Here's what actually happened:
The PM didn't respond to the letter. He stayed at the negotiating table and worked out the deal the Premier eventually signed.
Stephen Harper flatly rejected the premier's ideas on every level. If you doubt me, I'll post Harper's reply.
Jack Layton is the only guy who endorsed the Premier's position to the "t".
It'll be interesting to see what happens this time out.
30 November 2005
SES Research - the pollster to watch
Building on the success of analysis for the Canadian parliamentary channel CPAC, pollster SES Research is launching a new nightly tracking survey during this election.
To keep abreast of the latest, accurate numbers, tune in or go to the the SES website.
To keep abreast of the latest, accurate numbers, tune in or go to the the SES website.
Rolling in the aisles
That's what voters in Newfoundland and Labrador will be doing when they read the story from the Globe and Mail that the federal Conservatives have targeted the riding of Avalon as a seat they can win in the upcoming election.
Minor problem: the Conservatives don't have a candidate there yet - despite obvious signs that john Efford wasn't running again. Last time things were so desperate that even John Crosbie mused about coming back to elected politics. That is, he mused about it until his wife, Jane, got wind of the windy former minister's bluster. Crosbie quickly pulled his horns in and went back to writing bitter tripe for a mainland newspaper chain that also boasts the wit if not the wisdom of bitter former cabinet minister Sheila Copps.
Popular local member of the House of Assembly Fabian Manning is being courted by the federal Conservatives. Outside the legislature the other day Manning gave a dozen solid reasons why he wouldn't seek the nomination. Then, Manning said he was still 50/50 and thinking about it. Unless Harper makes Fabe an offer he can't refuse, count on Manning staying put.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives held onto their two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador by a mere five percent last time out. Incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle took a drubbing after the election for their stance on the offshore revenue deal. They voted for it before they voted against it and that tested the tolerance of even some staunch Tories.
Such was the din of disapproval that Hearn mused about going off fishing rather than run again. Doyle blamed "Liberal spin doctors" in St. John's for his problems. Try as I might, I couldn't get Norm to blame me personally.
If nothing else, the Globe piece represents putting a brave face on things. Go back to the polls and check the seat counters. Every scenario based on current numbers show the Conservatives losing seats in this election. Even in the Globe story, the Connie insiders admit that they expect to lose seats in the West to New Democrats.
They may lose seats in other places too, just like it is possible the Conservatives will pick up a bunch. If it nets out to fewer seats on The Day, then this election may well have been for naught.
Minor problem: the Conservatives don't have a candidate there yet - despite obvious signs that john Efford wasn't running again. Last time things were so desperate that even John Crosbie mused about coming back to elected politics. That is, he mused about it until his wife, Jane, got wind of the windy former minister's bluster. Crosbie quickly pulled his horns in and went back to writing bitter tripe for a mainland newspaper chain that also boasts the wit if not the wisdom of bitter former cabinet minister Sheila Copps.
Popular local member of the House of Assembly Fabian Manning is being courted by the federal Conservatives. Outside the legislature the other day Manning gave a dozen solid reasons why he wouldn't seek the nomination. Then, Manning said he was still 50/50 and thinking about it. Unless Harper makes Fabe an offer he can't refuse, count on Manning staying put.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives held onto their two seats in Newfoundland and Labrador by a mere five percent last time out. Incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle took a drubbing after the election for their stance on the offshore revenue deal. They voted for it before they voted against it and that tested the tolerance of even some staunch Tories.
Such was the din of disapproval that Hearn mused about going off fishing rather than run again. Doyle blamed "Liberal spin doctors" in St. John's for his problems. Try as I might, I couldn't get Norm to blame me personally.
If nothing else, the Globe piece represents putting a brave face on things. Go back to the polls and check the seat counters. Every scenario based on current numbers show the Conservatives losing seats in this election. Even in the Globe story, the Connie insiders admit that they expect to lose seats in the West to New Democrats.
They may lose seats in other places too, just like it is possible the Conservatives will pick up a bunch. If it nets out to fewer seats on The Day, then this election may well have been for naught.
Election notes on a slow second day
Grewal is out. Geez, what a surprise.
Harper plans to campaign on cleaning up government, getting tough on crime and lowering taxes.
When you look at those three items (oh yeah and he mentioned Gomery but not by name), consider the poll by the Strategic Counsel and the issues that are important to Canadians. Corruption is the second largest issue for Canadians, but only 13% of Canadians. taxes are a concern for 5% of those polled. That's it. 5%. 'Tough on crime" or anything like it doesn't register.
Now in the past, some Connie bloggers have taken to bashing Allan Gregg over the head for being a sell-out. That is, they bash him when his polls give them numbers they don't like. I just note that the correlations or in some cases lack of correlations are interesting.
For my part, I am not sure that any of these points are vote tippers - that is, I am not sure which ones are the basis on which people will tip their vote one way or another.
Then over at CTV, you can find this comment from the Conservative leader on re-opening the equal marriage debate. Note the comment that Harper brought the issue up after his staff cut off the question period. It's a safe issue for Harper: Connies love it and he doesn't lose any votes by sticking with it. By contrast, shifting his position would mean that he'd actually lose the hard-core right wing, on which the whole right movement is built. Heck, he'd even have nominated candidates walking away from him if he stood up for equal marriage.
While I may disagree with his his stand, Harper's political posture is smart politics for him.
Meanwhile, the Globe is putting a dark cast on the story, highlighting the problems with re-opening a contentious issue from the last election. The National Lampoon is telling it as a great move forward, by protecting gay couples who are already married, even if parliament at some undefined point decides to repeal the equal marriage bill.
Harper plans to campaign on cleaning up government, getting tough on crime and lowering taxes.
When you look at those three items (oh yeah and he mentioned Gomery but not by name), consider the poll by the Strategic Counsel and the issues that are important to Canadians. Corruption is the second largest issue for Canadians, but only 13% of Canadians. taxes are a concern for 5% of those polled. That's it. 5%. 'Tough on crime" or anything like it doesn't register.
Now in the past, some Connie bloggers have taken to bashing Allan Gregg over the head for being a sell-out. That is, they bash him when his polls give them numbers they don't like. I just note that the correlations or in some cases lack of correlations are interesting.
For my part, I am not sure that any of these points are vote tippers - that is, I am not sure which ones are the basis on which people will tip their vote one way or another.
Then over at CTV, you can find this comment from the Conservative leader on re-opening the equal marriage debate. Note the comment that Harper brought the issue up after his staff cut off the question period. It's a safe issue for Harper: Connies love it and he doesn't lose any votes by sticking with it. By contrast, shifting his position would mean that he'd actually lose the hard-core right wing, on which the whole right movement is built. Heck, he'd even have nominated candidates walking away from him if he stood up for equal marriage.
While I may disagree with his his stand, Harper's political posture is smart politics for him.
Meanwhile, the Globe is putting a dark cast on the story, highlighting the problems with re-opening a contentious issue from the last election. The National Lampoon is telling it as a great move forward, by protecting gay couples who are already married, even if parliament at some undefined point decides to repeal the equal marriage bill.
29 November 2005
Rain Man needs some help deciding
Loyola Sullivan, known to some as the Rain Man for his ability to rattle off figures like ""about a hundred million dollars. uh huh. a hundred million dollars" without really saying anything, got some big help today from auditor general John Noseworthy.
The AG made some really obvious but sensible suggestions about the uses to which the offshore revenue windfall could be put. They are obvious to anyone except, maybe, the Rain Man.
Noseworthy noted that as it currently sits in the bank, the offshore cash is earning interest at a rate of about $60 million annually. Putting that cash toward the unfunded pension liabilities would produce an additional $90 million (or a total of $150 million per year) than can be directed to program spending or used to pay down the long-term debt.
In a media scrum outside the legislature, a grinning Sullivan said he has made recommendations to cabinet on how to dispose of "surplus cash" the government may have on hand. Truthfully, it is hard to know what Sullivan has to grin about.
First of all, he should have developed a plan for debt and deficit reduction - and announced it - long before now.
Second, his talk of "surplus cash" makes a mockery of his own announcement within the past few weeks that he had eliminated the current deficit and produce a surplus - overall - of less than $2.0 million. Sullivan's previous statement made it appear as though the cash surplus this year of well over $300 million by year end - had already been allocated and spent.
His comments today confirm the point made on the Bond Papers that in fact, Sullivan had erroneously hinted that he had no surplus on a cash basis. Face it, if there was no surplus cash - or very little - then there'd be no need for a cabinet paper.
Third, there is every sign that other cabinet ministers including the Premier have covetous eyes on the offshore cash. And that is the truly alarming prospect, as noted ">here previously. We will have considerable pressure to spend our future coming from within the provincial government. It might be too late for Loyola Sullivan to take good advice and do what is in the long term best interest of the province.
His fascination with numbers and decimal points seems to have overshadowed his ability to develop a sound plan and get on with the real job of a cabinet minister - making decisions.
The rain Man got some free advice today.
He should take advice from John Noseworthy and get on with the job of being finance minister...
rather than patting himself on the back when it suits his purpose and trotting out large numbers to frighten people when that suits his purpose.
Then Sullivan would have something to grin about.
And so would the rest of us.
The AG made some really obvious but sensible suggestions about the uses to which the offshore revenue windfall could be put. They are obvious to anyone except, maybe, the Rain Man.
Noseworthy noted that as it currently sits in the bank, the offshore cash is earning interest at a rate of about $60 million annually. Putting that cash toward the unfunded pension liabilities would produce an additional $90 million (or a total of $150 million per year) than can be directed to program spending or used to pay down the long-term debt.
In a media scrum outside the legislature, a grinning Sullivan said he has made recommendations to cabinet on how to dispose of "surplus cash" the government may have on hand. Truthfully, it is hard to know what Sullivan has to grin about.
First of all, he should have developed a plan for debt and deficit reduction - and announced it - long before now.
Second, his talk of "surplus cash" makes a mockery of his own announcement within the past few weeks that he had eliminated the current deficit and produce a surplus - overall - of less than $2.0 million. Sullivan's previous statement made it appear as though the cash surplus this year of well over $300 million by year end - had already been allocated and spent.
His comments today confirm the point made on the Bond Papers that in fact, Sullivan had erroneously hinted that he had no surplus on a cash basis. Face it, if there was no surplus cash - or very little - then there'd be no need for a cabinet paper.
Third, there is every sign that other cabinet ministers including the Premier have covetous eyes on the offshore cash. And that is the truly alarming prospect, as noted ">here previously. We will have considerable pressure to spend our future coming from within the provincial government. It might be too late for Loyola Sullivan to take good advice and do what is in the long term best interest of the province.
His fascination with numbers and decimal points seems to have overshadowed his ability to develop a sound plan and get on with the real job of a cabinet minister - making decisions.
The rain Man got some free advice today.
He should take advice from John Noseworthy and get on with the job of being finance minister...
rather than patting himself on the back when it suits his purpose and trotting out large numbers to frighten people when that suits his purpose.
Then Sullivan would have something to grin about.
And so would the rest of us.
28 November 2005
Election madness
Without a shred of evidence other than a vague "suspicion", Conservative member of parliament Jason Kenney is calling for an investigation of supposed insider trading that preceded last week's announcement by the federal government on income tax policy.
Kenney has no evidence of anything.
He admits that.
Just to make sure there is absolutely no doubt about it, let's repeat that:
Kenney has absolutely no evidence of anything wrong here.
and he admits he has no evidence.
Yet he makes a claim that, at its heart, suggests criminal activity on part of officials in Ralph Goodale's office.
The New Democrats are chiming in with the same call.
And the same absence of evidence.
As Canadian Press notes, there was a great deal of speculation in advance of the announcement, which took place after trading closed for the day.
However, speculation is what the stock market is all about. Changes in trading patterns don't necessarily mean anyone is up to anything criminal.
Meanwhile, both the police forces and the securities regulatory bodies in the country spend a lot of time keeping an eye out for just the sort of illegal activity Kenney is talking about. If they had any suspicions then, rest assured, they'd be all over this little situation.
As it is, all we have is taste of the utter insanity of the forthcoming election campaign.
People will be claiming all sorts of things without any evidence.
Sadly, we can likely also expect yet more of the "Libranos" and "Liberals = organized crime" crap that has been streaming from the Conservative benches for months.
Go back a few days and check the latest poll results, as well as the likely results, and you'll understand why the Conservative messaging is taking on an increasingly shrill tone. Compare it to the New Democrats' comments.
With the exception of the "Hey, I am implying criminal action but denying I am implying criminal action" stuff, the Dippers have been decidedly less shrill than their Connie partners.
Kenney has no evidence of anything.
He admits that.
Just to make sure there is absolutely no doubt about it, let's repeat that:
Kenney has absolutely no evidence of anything wrong here.
and he admits he has no evidence.
Yet he makes a claim that, at its heart, suggests criminal activity on part of officials in Ralph Goodale's office.
The New Democrats are chiming in with the same call.
And the same absence of evidence.
As Canadian Press notes, there was a great deal of speculation in advance of the announcement, which took place after trading closed for the day.
However, speculation is what the stock market is all about. Changes in trading patterns don't necessarily mean anyone is up to anything criminal.
Meanwhile, both the police forces and the securities regulatory bodies in the country spend a lot of time keeping an eye out for just the sort of illegal activity Kenney is talking about. If they had any suspicions then, rest assured, they'd be all over this little situation.
As it is, all we have is taste of the utter insanity of the forthcoming election campaign.
People will be claiming all sorts of things without any evidence.
Sadly, we can likely also expect yet more of the "Libranos" and "Liberals = organized crime" crap that has been streaming from the Conservative benches for months.
Go back a few days and check the latest poll results, as well as the likely results, and you'll understand why the Conservative messaging is taking on an increasingly shrill tone. Compare it to the New Democrats' comments.
With the exception of the "Hey, I am implying criminal action but denying I am implying criminal action" stuff, the Dippers have been decidedly less shrill than their Connie partners.
The blame game, a lame game
Flip over to RGL and you'll see a lengthy commentary that backs Loyola Hearn's contention that the federal government, i.e. the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), is solely responsible for the collapse of the cod stocks and their failure to recover.
What Liam misses, or choses to ignore, is that the latest report from the Commons fisheries committee makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for everyone in the fishery. It is misleading to adopt a narrow approach to the definition of "management" such that it ignores the political, social and economic context in which governments make decisions. That is, if we take a narrow approach, as Liam and Loyola do, then we are apt to repeat the same errors made in the past.
Liam may find it painful that the report actually does not support his own pet views. However, he cannot blame me for this by asserting that the fisheries committee's own conclusions, as quoted here already, are actually mine. The words I used are the words the committee used.
There is no small irony here that when DFO - actually politicians - make(s) bad decisions, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in response to political pressure, the federal government is pilloried. One example is the recreational fishery and limited commercial fishery that began in 1998. Then, when it makes good decisions - such as resisting the calls for a wider recreational fishery and wider commercial fishery, despite evidence that the fish stocks could not sustain the new fisheries - DFO is once again attacked for not responding to political pressure.
What the latest report also contains are some concrete proposals that would change the overall management system, which the committee calls dysfunctional. In other words, they identify the problem and propose a way to fix it or at least start to fix it. One such suggestion is the use of local fishermen's committees to work with DFO on setting quotas for certain species and in certain locales.
The success of this approach was noted in several previous posts. As usual, people seem to ignore good ideas in favour of playing the blame game.
And ultimately, the blame game is a fool's errand. Focusing on blame alone provides no guide to future action. Often, the solutions proposed merely repeat past errors or do nothing to make the substantive changes in fisheries management which the Commons committee clearly thinks are necessary.
This brings us back to the original post and comments by Loyola Hearn. The member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl may wish to blame the federal government for the cod collapse. If he does, then he should make it plain those are his conclusions. If he doesn't agree with the report, then he has the responsibility to table a dissenting opinion - supported by evidence.
The problem comes when Hearn tables a report that doesn't support his conclusions and makes comments to the media that are, at best, misleading. Then he is doing a disservice to everyone involved in the report and in the fishery.
And that was the point of the previous post.
It is a point that gets conveniently ignored by some, along with the mountains of clear evidence that demonstrate Hearn's ideas are not based on fact.
What Liam misses, or choses to ignore, is that the latest report from the Commons fisheries committee makes it clear that there is enough blame to go around for everyone in the fishery. It is misleading to adopt a narrow approach to the definition of "management" such that it ignores the political, social and economic context in which governments make decisions. That is, if we take a narrow approach, as Liam and Loyola do, then we are apt to repeat the same errors made in the past.
Liam may find it painful that the report actually does not support his own pet views. However, he cannot blame me for this by asserting that the fisheries committee's own conclusions, as quoted here already, are actually mine. The words I used are the words the committee used.
There is no small irony here that when DFO - actually politicians - make(s) bad decisions, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s in response to political pressure, the federal government is pilloried. One example is the recreational fishery and limited commercial fishery that began in 1998. Then, when it makes good decisions - such as resisting the calls for a wider recreational fishery and wider commercial fishery, despite evidence that the fish stocks could not sustain the new fisheries - DFO is once again attacked for not responding to political pressure.
What the latest report also contains are some concrete proposals that would change the overall management system, which the committee calls dysfunctional. In other words, they identify the problem and propose a way to fix it or at least start to fix it. One such suggestion is the use of local fishermen's committees to work with DFO on setting quotas for certain species and in certain locales.
The success of this approach was noted in several previous posts. As usual, people seem to ignore good ideas in favour of playing the blame game.
And ultimately, the blame game is a fool's errand. Focusing on blame alone provides no guide to future action. Often, the solutions proposed merely repeat past errors or do nothing to make the substantive changes in fisheries management which the Commons committee clearly thinks are necessary.
This brings us back to the original post and comments by Loyola Hearn. The member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl may wish to blame the federal government for the cod collapse. If he does, then he should make it plain those are his conclusions. If he doesn't agree with the report, then he has the responsibility to table a dissenting opinion - supported by evidence.
The problem comes when Hearn tables a report that doesn't support his conclusions and makes comments to the media that are, at best, misleading. Then he is doing a disservice to everyone involved in the report and in the fishery.
And that was the point of the previous post.
It is a point that gets conveniently ignored by some, along with the mountains of clear evidence that demonstrate Hearn's ideas are not based on fact.
26 November 2005
The political fish
It is hard to know if VOCM got it wrong or if Loyola Hearn actually blamed federal mismanagement for the continued poor state of cod stocks offshore Newfoundland.
Hearn is a member of the the House of Commons standing committee that just released a report on the cod stocks.
VOCM reports that Hearn "says the destruction of the Northern Cod is a direct result of federal mismanagement". VOCM also reports that Hearn is calling on the federal government to implement the recommendations contained in the report linked above.
Check The Telegram for Saturday, November 26, 2005 and there is another quote by Hearn, the guy who tabled the committee report in the Commons: "the destruction of the northern cod and its lack of recovery is a direct result of federal mismanagement."
The odd thing is that Hearn is not quoting the report when he blames the federal government for the lack of cod. Here's what the report actually says in black and white:
Hearn is a member of the the House of Commons standing committee that just released a report on the cod stocks.
VOCM reports that Hearn "says the destruction of the Northern Cod is a direct result of federal mismanagement". VOCM also reports that Hearn is calling on the federal government to implement the recommendations contained in the report linked above.
Check The Telegram for Saturday, November 26, 2005 and there is another quote by Hearn, the guy who tabled the committee report in the Commons: "the destruction of the northern cod and its lack of recovery is a direct result of federal mismanagement."
The odd thing is that Hearn is not quoting the report when he blames the federal government for the lack of cod. Here's what the report actually says in black and white:
...Overfishing has been clearly identified as the major factor in the decline of cod and other groundfish stocks, but not as the only factor. According to a number of past reports, a combination of factors was responsible, and fishermen, processors, scientists, fisheries managers and politicians all made mistakes. As stated by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) in its 1997 report, "The fishery crisis cannot be related to a single cause or blamed on a single group: it is the failure of our whole fisheries system."
In part, as a result of the "failure of our whole fisheries system," the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed on 8 February 2005 to undertake a study of the northern cod including the events leading to the collapse of the fishery and the failure of the stock to re-establish itself since the moratorium....[Page 2]
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. The cod stocks collapsed as a result of the entire fisheries system including both federal and provincial governments, politicians, processors, and fishermen.
If mismanagement was the cause, as the quote above notes and as the subsequent pages of the report document, the "mismanagement" extended to every sector of the industry.
Only Loyola Hearn can tell us why he misrepresented in such a blatant way the findings of a committee whose report he was tabling in parliament. It is tempting, and indeed, easiest, to simply put Hearn's comments down to the sort of old-fashioned "tell em anything" politics that we have heard from him so many times in the past.
Hearn has repeatedly demonstrated his love affair with misrepresentation. During the offshore revenue discussions over the past two years, for example, Hearn got so many basic facts wrong about oil and gas one would have a hard time believing he had been a provincial cabinet minister at the time the real Atlantic Accord was signed and passed by the legislature.
This is by no means a minor issue. The conclusions of a parliamentary committee should hold weight - indeed Hearn's words have been reported because the committee is taken generally as an important group, one with views that should be heeded.
The committee's report contains a great deal of valuable information and a solid set of recommendations. The report proposes a limited commercial fishery be re-opened where such a fishery can be supported by the populations. It calls for increased scientific research, a call that was seemingly heeded by an announcement by the federal fisheries minister of increased scientific research funding.
The report also contains recommendation for even stronger action against domestic overfishing:
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to amending the Fisheries Act to deal with license violations using administrative sanctions subject to appeal through arm'’s-length tribunals;
That, in the interim, the Attorney General of Canada instruct federal prosecutors involved in Fisheries Actlicenseee violation cases to bring to the attention of the court, prior to sentencing, the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of investigating and prosecuting the offence, and to push for the maximum penalty under the law at sentencing; and
That any financial proceeds forfeited as a result of a conviction for license violations be used to support an enhanced dockside monitoring or some other equally important program.
This is a truly remarkable statement, given Hearn's claim that it was the federal government that bears responsibility for the death of the commercial cod fishery. The committee advocated stronger punishment for poaching and other forms of illegal fishing because witnesses who appeared before it and other evidence accumulated during its deliberations pointed precisely to domestic overfishing as a contributing factor in the decimation of the northern codstocks.
Yet the value in the committee's report does not end there. It's next recommendation is that the federal government create regional harvesting or conservation councils to give fishermen greater input into management decisions. The federal politicians - perhaps with the exception of Hearn - have clearly seen the benefit from similar committees at places like the Eastport peninsula.
This is a little known project but it has proven enormously successful. Local fisheries committees advise the federal fisheries minister on fish quotas. Their advice which combines the best scientific information plus the fishermen's own observations have led to dramatic improvements in the health of stocks such as lobster and have led to a dramatic decline - a near elimination - of poaching and other similar crimes.
This is the sort of progressive management approach that the Department of Fisheries and oceans has been quietly implementing. But few know of it when the news sadly is consumed by the rantings of men who once held positions of great political and industrial influence, but who offer little in the way of meaningful input. The only thing the have managed to do is distract people from both the real issues and the facts of the matter at hand.
All this leads back to Hearn and his false statements.
One of the strongest parts of the fisheries committee report is the comparison between what happened in Canada and what happened elsewhere in the face of problems in the cod fishery. In Canada, politicians seemed unable to ignore the pleadings of the fishing industry that quotas be maintaiend at levels the stocks could not support. They played political games with fish instead of acting responsibly. Our collective reward is the decimation of a fish stock that once fed generations throughout the North Atlantic world.
What we see in Hearn's blatant misrepresentation is truly yet more of the same political pandering to a small interest group against the facts, against the best advice. Ignored are the genuinely positive moves on enforcement of rules and on progressive management. Trotted out, instead, are the hoary myths, just in time for another election.
Having read both the Commons committee report and news coverage over the past two days, one can only agree with Telegram columnist and long-time fisheries reporter Joe Walsh. It is time to get cod out of the pork barrel.
Rather than focusing solely on the current federal government as he did, Walsh should have tossed Loyola Hearn into the mix. Hearn's interventions on fisheries issues since he went to Ottawa have been long on the pork and short - extremely short - on anything approaching a new idea that can be backed by facts.
The fisheries committee report spends a good deal of time documenting the mistakes of the 1980s.
Loyola Hearn should know about them. He sat in a provincial cabinet at the time.
One would have hoped he had learned from mistakes of the past.
All that comes to mind is another mangled phrase by Hearn's former cabinet mate and premier Tom Rideout. It had something to do with small, malodourous creatures that could not change their spots.
Strong language, to be sure, but seemingly appropriate on so many levels.
In part, as a result of the "failure of our whole fisheries system," the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed on 8 February 2005 to undertake a study of the northern cod including the events leading to the collapse of the fishery and the failure of the stock to re-establish itself since the moratorium....[Page 2]
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. The cod stocks collapsed as a result of the entire fisheries system including both federal and provincial governments, politicians, processors, and fishermen.
If mismanagement was the cause, as the quote above notes and as the subsequent pages of the report document, the "mismanagement" extended to every sector of the industry.
Only Loyola Hearn can tell us why he misrepresented in such a blatant way the findings of a committee whose report he was tabling in parliament. It is tempting, and indeed, easiest, to simply put Hearn's comments down to the sort of old-fashioned "tell em anything" politics that we have heard from him so many times in the past.
Hearn has repeatedly demonstrated his love affair with misrepresentation. During the offshore revenue discussions over the past two years, for example, Hearn got so many basic facts wrong about oil and gas one would have a hard time believing he had been a provincial cabinet minister at the time the real Atlantic Accord was signed and passed by the legislature.
This is by no means a minor issue. The conclusions of a parliamentary committee should hold weight - indeed Hearn's words have been reported because the committee is taken generally as an important group, one with views that should be heeded.
The committee's report contains a great deal of valuable information and a solid set of recommendations. The report proposes a limited commercial fishery be re-opened where such a fishery can be supported by the populations. It calls for increased scientific research, a call that was seemingly heeded by an announcement by the federal fisheries minister of increased scientific research funding.
The report also contains recommendation for even stronger action against domestic overfishing:
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to amending the Fisheries Act to deal with license violations using administrative sanctions subject to appeal through arm'’s-length tribunals;
That, in the interim, the Attorney General of Canada instruct federal prosecutors involved in Fisheries Actlicenseee violation cases to bring to the attention of the court, prior to sentencing, the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of investigating and prosecuting the offence, and to push for the maximum penalty under the law at sentencing; and
That any financial proceeds forfeited as a result of a conviction for license violations be used to support an enhanced dockside monitoring or some other equally important program.
This is a truly remarkable statement, given Hearn's claim that it was the federal government that bears responsibility for the death of the commercial cod fishery. The committee advocated stronger punishment for poaching and other forms of illegal fishing because witnesses who appeared before it and other evidence accumulated during its deliberations pointed precisely to domestic overfishing as a contributing factor in the decimation of the northern codstocks.
Yet the value in the committee's report does not end there. It's next recommendation is that the federal government create regional harvesting or conservation councils to give fishermen greater input into management decisions. The federal politicians - perhaps with the exception of Hearn - have clearly seen the benefit from similar committees at places like the Eastport peninsula.
This is a little known project but it has proven enormously successful. Local fisheries committees advise the federal fisheries minister on fish quotas. Their advice which combines the best scientific information plus the fishermen's own observations have led to dramatic improvements in the health of stocks such as lobster and have led to a dramatic decline - a near elimination - of poaching and other similar crimes.
This is the sort of progressive management approach that the Department of Fisheries and oceans has been quietly implementing. But few know of it when the news sadly is consumed by the rantings of men who once held positions of great political and industrial influence, but who offer little in the way of meaningful input. The only thing the have managed to do is distract people from both the real issues and the facts of the matter at hand.
All this leads back to Hearn and his false statements.
One of the strongest parts of the fisheries committee report is the comparison between what happened in Canada and what happened elsewhere in the face of problems in the cod fishery. In Canada, politicians seemed unable to ignore the pleadings of the fishing industry that quotas be maintaiend at levels the stocks could not support. They played political games with fish instead of acting responsibly. Our collective reward is the decimation of a fish stock that once fed generations throughout the North Atlantic world.
What we see in Hearn's blatant misrepresentation is truly yet more of the same political pandering to a small interest group against the facts, against the best advice. Ignored are the genuinely positive moves on enforcement of rules and on progressive management. Trotted out, instead, are the hoary myths, just in time for another election.
Having read both the Commons committee report and news coverage over the past two days, one can only agree with Telegram columnist and long-time fisheries reporter Joe Walsh. It is time to get cod out of the pork barrel.
Rather than focusing solely on the current federal government as he did, Walsh should have tossed Loyola Hearn into the mix. Hearn's interventions on fisheries issues since he went to Ottawa have been long on the pork and short - extremely short - on anything approaching a new idea that can be backed by facts.
The fisheries committee report spends a good deal of time documenting the mistakes of the 1980s.
Loyola Hearn should know about them. He sat in a provincial cabinet at the time.
One would have hoped he had learned from mistakes of the past.
All that comes to mind is another mangled phrase by Hearn's former cabinet mate and premier Tom Rideout. It had something to do with small, malodourous creatures that could not change their spots.
Strong language, to be sure, but seemingly appropriate on so many levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)