Note: Scroll to the bottom to get to the new bit.
As predicted here a couple of days ago, loyal local Connie Liam O'Brien is defending his leader's backpeddling on custodial management insisting that Harper's Connies are indeed committed to taking custodial management of the Grand Banks.
Ok. Let's look at O'Brien's claims and then let's look at the evidence:
First, let's take the prediction...
**Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.**
Then O'Brien writes:
"Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been committed to taking custodial management over the stocks on the Nose & Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap for a long time now. Few statements make this clearer than the Party's 2005 Official Policy Document:
"...We will not hesitate to take custodial management of the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap.... " (Article 99 [ii]) [Emphasis added in O'Brien's original]
This [the Conservative commitment to custodial management] was re-enforced time and again in subsequent releases and visits to NL [sic]. Ed tried his best to read all sorts of things into the fact that the news releases aren't carbon copies of one another. He ignores the CPC's own black and white committed-to policy, the CPC's call for emegency debates [sic] on this very issue in the House, and the fact that this policy is indeed supported by just about everybody -- Liberals, NDPers, Tories, Unions, Industry etc..."
Then in classic Liam fashion he shifts to a different topic.
Let's stick with O'Brien and wipe that up first.
Liam is right. The Conservative statement in the policy manual from last spring, as the party was getting ready for what it thought was an election the, was absolutely unequivocal. "We will not hesitate..."
But if that is the policy, then why isn't it consistently repeated over and over again, as Liam insists it has been in the past?
When the wording of a political commitment changes it usually means the commitment has changed and one can't get any clearer than the Harper changes.
March 2005: "We will not hesitate to take custodial management"
December 2005: We will hesitate for five years; custodial management within five years in a media interview.
As he is quoted by CBC, it would be a top priority, occurring within five years. *Using the fishing village of Petty Harbour as a backdrop, Harper said the Conservatives would make custodial management happen during their first term in office.
"My hope would be that once we start to move in this direction the international community will come to the table and resolve the issue," he said. "It is a reasonable time frame."*
December 2005 news release (at the same event; not updated since): Vague - "Moving towards extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area". Like saying "in the fullness of time", "eventually" or "when we get around to it."
January 2006: Letter to Danny Williams. "A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
In the space of a year, we have gone from a firm Conservative commitment to custodial management expressed in clear language, through the equivocation of a public statement and a news release issued the same day saying different things through now to the point where what once will occur is something a Conservative government would support...
but what?
take no action on?
like it if someone else did it for them?
Liam.
Boobalah.
It's really simple.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Res ipsa loquitur. The facts speak for themselves.
Or do they not teach newbie lawyers anymore the basic idea that things are what they are?
Thing 1: Stephen Harper is backpeddling on custodial management.
Thing 2: Liam O'Brien insists that something that is changed substantially is still the same.
As predicted.
So the backpeddling and the shifts of language now are all the more strange, Liam, in light of the strong statements before and all the motions and posturing. You haven't undermined the argument I made; you reinforced it by pointing to the strength of the old Harper commitment.
The contrast between Harper the "Clear" and Harper the "Kinda When We Can" is so dramatic now as to be unmistakable.
Anyone can see it.
Now we just have to explain why Steve Harper is backpeddling.
Update: A lengthy addendum to his original post has appeared over at RGL. Liam uses smaller typeface which means that his explanation of his explanation of the consistency of the inconsistency is actually longer than the original explanation of the consistency where there is inconsistency.
Confuddled?
Evidently so is Liam. He tried everything from flat-out denials, to saying I just plucked out a bullet point, to promising more will follow at some point in the future.
But just to save Liam any further wriggling, here's a sample of what the three statements might have read if, and that's a big if, the Conservatives weren't backing away from custodial management.
March 2005: "We will not hesitate to take custodial management..."
December 2005 (speaking notes and news release): As stated in our policy manual, we will not hesitate to take custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Therefore, I am announcing today that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within its first term in office...
January 2005: As you are aware, I committed that a Conservative government will extend custodial management in its first term...
See?
That's consistent.
That's what a leader would say if he were genuinely committed to a course of action or a policy.
Compare that to "will", then "move towards", then "would support".
In Spain, they are noticing the difference as we speak.
Liam better hope more people who he is counting on to support his team don't notice what everyone else can see.
Upperdate: Three - count 'em - three posts and Liam is still boashing his head against the simple point that Mr. Harper is no longer as firmly behind custodial management as his party was less than a year ago. Actually it's one long post and two longer and then longer still add-ons, but we'll call 'em three.
He tries everything, from branding me as a Liberal (quelle surprise!) to saying I don't support custodial management (It's a legal crock) to a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the point. He even resorts to repeating the lengthy quotes he quoted before and then quotes and quotes and quote some more, until as Dr. Seuss would add, the quotes pushed Liam out the door.
I have figured out a couple of things about Liam over time. One of them is that the longer his posts, the less he actually has to say. The other thing, related to that, is that the longer his posts, the more likely it is you have him skewered. The other other thing to learn is that the more Liam goes off topic, the closer to the truth you come.
That must be why he hates the term Reflexive Grit Loather so much.
So now we know:
Stephen Harper is backing away from his support for custodial management.
09 January 2006
08 January 2006
Voting records
Since Loyola Hearn is especially proud of the number of times he has risen to speak in the commons, it is useful heading over to howdtheyvote.ca.
On dissentions, that is voting against the party line, Loyola did so only once, on second reading of a private member's bill on student loans. Every other time he followed his leader, including in the plans to bring down the government last spring and thereby scuttle the offshore deal in favour of Stephen Harper's equalization reform gambit.
Norm Doyle joined Loyola on that student loan vote, but also voted against his party on second reading of a private member's bill to prohibit replacement workers during labour disputes. There's another dissention by Doyle, but the site doesn't actually list it. Loyola and Norm both voted to bring down the government last spring, standing cheek by jowl with their leader.
Scott Simms voted against the party line 17 times since being elected, a clear indication of both the flexibility of his party and his own independent-minded nature. That gave him a 13 place rank among parliamentarians for dissenting votes.
Bill Matthews voted against the party line 13 times for 24th place.
Gerry Byrne bucked the party seven times, for 57th place.
The late Lawrence O'Brien's stats aren't there.
Now some people will point to these figures and claim that there is a problem when someone votes against his or her party.
Others would look at it and says the dissentions speak volumes about the tolerance in the party for different views. In the top 57 dissenters, the majority are Liberals.
But flip to the bottom of the charts - there you will find cabinet ministers, who obviously have to support the government, and almost the entire Conservative and Bloc caucuses.
It gives some food for thought.
On dissentions, that is voting against the party line, Loyola did so only once, on second reading of a private member's bill on student loans. Every other time he followed his leader, including in the plans to bring down the government last spring and thereby scuttle the offshore deal in favour of Stephen Harper's equalization reform gambit.
Norm Doyle joined Loyola on that student loan vote, but also voted against his party on second reading of a private member's bill to prohibit replacement workers during labour disputes. There's another dissention by Doyle, but the site doesn't actually list it. Loyola and Norm both voted to bring down the government last spring, standing cheek by jowl with their leader.
Scott Simms voted against the party line 17 times since being elected, a clear indication of both the flexibility of his party and his own independent-minded nature. That gave him a 13 place rank among parliamentarians for dissenting votes.
Bill Matthews voted against the party line 13 times for 24th place.
Gerry Byrne bucked the party seven times, for 57th place.
The late Lawrence O'Brien's stats aren't there.
Now some people will point to these figures and claim that there is a problem when someone votes against his or her party.
Others would look at it and says the dissentions speak volumes about the tolerance in the party for different views. In the top 57 dissenters, the majority are Liberals.
But flip to the bottom of the charts - there you will find cabinet ministers, who obviously have to support the government, and almost the entire Conservative and Bloc caucuses.
It gives some food for thought.
Memo to Bourque
Before Bourque posts another piece of tripe about Normand Lester's book and Pierre Pettigrew, the old boy might want to have a look at Paul Wells' observations.
"They [Conservatives and New Democrats jumping on the Lester bandwagon] should know, as apparently they don't yet, that Lester is a vile, scuttling anglophobe with a demonstrated history of ignoring inconvenient facts, getting others flat wrong, and waving around a dusty, ancient and barely-rewritten clip file as if it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.
...
Anyone willing to hop into bed with the likes of Normand Lester has no moral claim to lead this country or to hold the balance of power in a minority Parliament. Is that clear enough?"
Crystal clear, Paul.
"They [Conservatives and New Democrats jumping on the Lester bandwagon] should know, as apparently they don't yet, that Lester is a vile, scuttling anglophobe with a demonstrated history of ignoring inconvenient facts, getting others flat wrong, and waving around a dusty, ancient and barely-rewritten clip file as if it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.
...
Anyone willing to hop into bed with the likes of Normand Lester has no moral claim to lead this country or to hold the balance of power in a minority Parliament. Is that clear enough?"
Crystal clear, Paul.
Connie reality check on finances
An assessment produced by CBC shows that the Conservative campaign promises will cost taxpayers on the order of $66 billion over the next five years.
That puts them in second place behind the New Democrats who have promised $71 billion in spending.
The Liberal platform was costed at $59.4 billion while the Bloc's platform would cost $55 billion over three years.
Note that all parties have platforms that exceed the projected federal surplus up to the year 2011. The November 19 mini-budget put that figure at $55 million.
Based on that projection, and looking at only the three national parties, Canada will overspend by:
- $16 billion under the New Democrats.
- $12 billion under the Conservatives.
- $ 6 billion under the Liberals.
Genuine fiscal Conservatives must be in a tizzy trying to figure out how to vote. Their traditional voice in the Conservatives turns out to be willing to promise New Democrat-style deficit levels in order to gain power.
Logically, that leads us to one of two conclusions:
Either fiscal conservatives will flock to the Liberals since the Conservatives appear to have lost their financial marbles.
or.
They'll vote Conservative knowing full well the party won't live up to most of the promises it has made.
Odds are good, though, they'll live up to one little plan they tried to keep under wraps:
Lower income Canadians will face a tax increase under the Conservatives.
That puts them in second place behind the New Democrats who have promised $71 billion in spending.
The Liberal platform was costed at $59.4 billion while the Bloc's platform would cost $55 billion over three years.
Note that all parties have platforms that exceed the projected federal surplus up to the year 2011. The November 19 mini-budget put that figure at $55 million.
Based on that projection, and looking at only the three national parties, Canada will overspend by:
- $16 billion under the New Democrats.
- $12 billion under the Conservatives.
- $ 6 billion under the Liberals.
Genuine fiscal Conservatives must be in a tizzy trying to figure out how to vote. Their traditional voice in the Conservatives turns out to be willing to promise New Democrat-style deficit levels in order to gain power.
Logically, that leads us to one of two conclusions:
Either fiscal conservatives will flock to the Liberals since the Conservatives appear to have lost their financial marbles.
or.
They'll vote Conservative knowing full well the party won't live up to most of the promises it has made.
Odds are good, though, they'll live up to one little plan they tried to keep under wraps:
Lower income Canadians will face a tax increase under the Conservatives.
Norm Doyle: No socon silence in Newfoundland and Labrador
With a tip of the festive hat to Mark at nottawa, let's flip over to this story from the Halifax Herald.
A couple of Connie contenders there have been muzzled by their national party over the issue of equal marriage.
**"We'’ve been told by Ottawa that we don'’t talk about that," Paula Henderson told The Chronicle Herald on Thursday. "That'’s a dropped subject."
Ms. Henderson is a campaign volunteer for Rakesh Khosla, the Tory running against Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan in Halifax West.
Paul Francis, the Conservative candidate for Sackville-Eastern Shore, also attended the meeting and he too refused to comment.
"We'’re actually referring all inquiries on that meeting to (Tory spokesman) Rob Batherson," said Jeff Alexander, communications director for Mr. Francis.**
Before this all blew up as an election issue, St. John's East Connie candidate Norm Doyle was free to chime right in and back his leader's plans to turn back the clock in Canada. He openly spoke for his social conservative (socon) agenda, an agenda that according to some reports is causing him to bleed support among younger Progressive Conservatives.
When the legislation was being debated in the Commons, Doyle said:
"[Equal marriage] is a step in the wrong direction for our society."
"At the height of this debate, a column in The National Post by Barbara Kay recently caught my eye. The headline on the column reads, "“It's time to think about the children"”. Ms. Kay made this point:
She says that children are, by nature, "“social conservatives"” and will by nature respond that they prefer a mom and a dad. She concludes by saying:
Ms. Kay makes a good and valid point. Researchers or government, nobody knows what the outcome of this reckless piece of social engineering will lead to.** [Emphasis added]
Yep.
Doyle thinks equal marriage is a "reckless piece of social engineering."
Loyola Hearn didn't say much during the debate on this crucial issue, but he voted the socon party line nonetheless.
I wonder if a reporter stuck a microphone in either of these guys' faces, what would the reply be?
Hmmmm.
A couple of Connie contenders there have been muzzled by their national party over the issue of equal marriage.
**"We'’ve been told by Ottawa that we don'’t talk about that," Paula Henderson told The Chronicle Herald on Thursday. "That'’s a dropped subject."
Ms. Henderson is a campaign volunteer for Rakesh Khosla, the Tory running against Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan in Halifax West.
Paul Francis, the Conservative candidate for Sackville-Eastern Shore, also attended the meeting and he too refused to comment.
"We'’re actually referring all inquiries on that meeting to (Tory spokesman) Rob Batherson," said Jeff Alexander, communications director for Mr. Francis.**
Before this all blew up as an election issue, St. John's East Connie candidate Norm Doyle was free to chime right in and back his leader's plans to turn back the clock in Canada. He openly spoke for his social conservative (socon) agenda, an agenda that according to some reports is causing him to bleed support among younger Progressive Conservatives.
When the legislation was being debated in the Commons, Doyle said:
"[Equal marriage] is a step in the wrong direction for our society."
"At the height of this debate, a column in The National Post by Barbara Kay recently caught my eye. The headline on the column reads, "“It's time to think about the children"”. Ms. Kay made this point:
Canadian researchers have made no effort to harvest the views of those who have the most invested in the gay marriage debate--children. Nobody has asked children if they "“strongly prefer, strongly reject or don't care"” whether they have: a single mom, single dad, mother and father, two moms or two dads.
She says that children are, by nature, "“social conservatives"” and will by nature respond that they prefer a mom and a dad. She concludes by saying:
Canada is one of only three places on Earth poised to endorse the use of children as social guinea pigs without their consent. And all because our intellectual and political elites "“haven't ever really thought about it."”
Ms. Kay makes a good and valid point. Researchers or government, nobody knows what the outcome of this reckless piece of social engineering will lead to.** [Emphasis added]
Yep.
Doyle thinks equal marriage is a "reckless piece of social engineering."
Loyola Hearn didn't say much during the debate on this crucial issue, but he voted the socon party line nonetheless.
I wonder if a reporter stuck a microphone in either of these guys' faces, what would the reply be?
Hmmmm.
Liam caves on child care.
Well sort of.
He caves, alright, but the dear old fellow will:
1. insist there was no change; and
2. this is the same position as the one he took all along.
I can see him in court now:
"Yes, M'Lud, while the forensic evidence clearly shows my client was in three houses illegally and stole a quality of jewelry in excess of $5, 000 value, he insists that in fact he is a small pink pussycat and even if he isn't a small pink pussycat, my client insists he was at home with his wife at the time the crimes were committed.
Yes, M'Lud, I acknowledge that his wife has given evidence that she was in fact at bingo that night and yes, I am aware of the three witnesses who were at home at the time and took photographs of my client in their homes at the time alleged holding the jewelry and climbing out a window, but in fact M'Lud, the price of tea in China is extremely high right now and my client is victim of a massive, evil liberal conspiracy of which you, M'Lud, are a part, and...
Look over there!
A purple dinosaur."
Distraction, obfuscation, even flat-out denials don't change the facts - on child care, Liam O'Brien is now advocating that Stephen Harper's:
"focus should remain on maximizing the size of the transfer of funding to parents and let them decide how to spend their money in order to care for their children."
To see how dramatic a shift this is, understand that initially O'Brien insisted that $2.30 cents a day gave choice in child care. That's right. My wife and I could keep one of us at home to raise our child on $2.30 a day. Now, according to Liam, Harper needs to maximize that amount.
This is the guy who quoted American right-wing political lobbyists and presented them as child care experts to bolster his case that $2.30 a day gave choice in child care.
This is the guy who howled when I pointed out, as a parent, that $2.30 was choice, my foot.
In his verbose reply, he said this:
"Ed, you fail to offer a very simple answer: if your problem is with the amount of funding offered, why aren't you advocating a system that does indeed put fund in the hands of parents?"
Of course, it wasn't my plan to fix. I have another idea I think is better.
But after a month, Liam has seen the error of his ways.
Or maybe, just maybe, Liam realized that all his rantings against the non-existent "nanny state" looked kinda dumb, since his own leader has always advocated a minimal amount for subsidized daycare. It's part of the strategy to appear more Liberal than Liberal, emphasis on the word "appear".
Either way, Liam will insist that everything is the same as it always was.
The way Liam insists change is the same, and now likely that a tax increase is a tax decrease, the next thing he'll do is headline a post: "Harper: Double Plus Good!"
He caves, alright, but the dear old fellow will:
1. insist there was no change; and
2. this is the same position as the one he took all along.
I can see him in court now:
"Yes, M'Lud, while the forensic evidence clearly shows my client was in three houses illegally and stole a quality of jewelry in excess of $5, 000 value, he insists that in fact he is a small pink pussycat and even if he isn't a small pink pussycat, my client insists he was at home with his wife at the time the crimes were committed.
Yes, M'Lud, I acknowledge that his wife has given evidence that she was in fact at bingo that night and yes, I am aware of the three witnesses who were at home at the time and took photographs of my client in their homes at the time alleged holding the jewelry and climbing out a window, but in fact M'Lud, the price of tea in China is extremely high right now and my client is victim of a massive, evil liberal conspiracy of which you, M'Lud, are a part, and...
Look over there!
A purple dinosaur."
Distraction, obfuscation, even flat-out denials don't change the facts - on child care, Liam O'Brien is now advocating that Stephen Harper's:
"focus should remain on maximizing the size of the transfer of funding to parents and let them decide how to spend their money in order to care for their children."
To see how dramatic a shift this is, understand that initially O'Brien insisted that $2.30 cents a day gave choice in child care. That's right. My wife and I could keep one of us at home to raise our child on $2.30 a day. Now, according to Liam, Harper needs to maximize that amount.
This is the guy who quoted American right-wing political lobbyists and presented them as child care experts to bolster his case that $2.30 a day gave choice in child care.
This is the guy who howled when I pointed out, as a parent, that $2.30 was choice, my foot.
In his verbose reply, he said this:
"Ed, you fail to offer a very simple answer: if your problem is with the amount of funding offered, why aren't you advocating a system that does indeed put fund in the hands of parents?"
Of course, it wasn't my plan to fix. I have another idea I think is better.
But after a month, Liam has seen the error of his ways.
Or maybe, just maybe, Liam realized that all his rantings against the non-existent "nanny state" looked kinda dumb, since his own leader has always advocated a minimal amount for subsidized daycare. It's part of the strategy to appear more Liberal than Liberal, emphasis on the word "appear".
Either way, Liam will insist that everything is the same as it always was.
The way Liam insists change is the same, and now likely that a tax increase is a tax decrease, the next thing he'll do is headline a post: "Harper: Double Plus Good!"
07 January 2006
Harper: Up is Down for taxes
CBC is reporting that Stephen Harper admits he will raise taxes on lower income Canadians, if elected, but feels that his own plan will actually lower taxes for those same people.
"The problem with general tax reductions [of the type already implemented by the Martin government], as the Liberals have shown in the past, is they're always offset by other measures," Harper said. "That's why nobody's going to notice this particular tax reduction."
The really odd thing is that only last year, in 2004, Stephen Harper proposed exactly the sort of tax cuts he now criticizes as being a waste of energy.
On the Goods and Services Tax [GST], Harper pledged only 18 months ago to increase the GST credit for low and fixed income Canadians.
Harper must be using the kind of logic he used when devising his plan to give each Canadian family $1200 annually for each child under six years of age, but to tax the money so that Canadians actually get as little as $2.30 per week day. Harper calls this choice in child care.
Wow.
Now Harper wants to cut the GST by a mere 1% in the first year of a Harper government and thereby make more money available to Canadians who have larger incomes. GST cuts of the type proposed by Harper generate greater savings to Canadians with larger disposable incomes. Those people aren't on fixed and low incomes.
Search conservative.ca and see what happened to the increased GST rebate for low and fixed income Canadians. You won't find anything even vaguely like it.
In a Harper Canada, apparently even the laws of gravity will be repealed.
Up will be down.
And I only have 19, 960 cups of coffee left to get my $400 bucks, Steve.
My kidneys are thanking you.
"The problem with general tax reductions [of the type already implemented by the Martin government], as the Liberals have shown in the past, is they're always offset by other measures," Harper said. "That's why nobody's going to notice this particular tax reduction."
The really odd thing is that only last year, in 2004, Stephen Harper proposed exactly the sort of tax cuts he now criticizes as being a waste of energy.
On the Goods and Services Tax [GST], Harper pledged only 18 months ago to increase the GST credit for low and fixed income Canadians.
Harper must be using the kind of logic he used when devising his plan to give each Canadian family $1200 annually for each child under six years of age, but to tax the money so that Canadians actually get as little as $2.30 per week day. Harper calls this choice in child care.
Wow.
Now Harper wants to cut the GST by a mere 1% in the first year of a Harper government and thereby make more money available to Canadians who have larger incomes. GST cuts of the type proposed by Harper generate greater savings to Canadians with larger disposable incomes. Those people aren't on fixed and low incomes.
Search conservative.ca and see what happened to the increased GST rebate for low and fixed income Canadians. You won't find anything even vaguely like it.
In a Harper Canada, apparently even the laws of gravity will be repealed.
Up will be down.
And I only have 19, 960 cups of coffee left to get my $400 bucks, Steve.
My kidneys are thanking you.
Bourque berks - misses links to Connies
In his seemingly limitless efforts to slander anyone associated with the Liberal Party, Bourque has decided to attack not only Pierre Pettigrew but the Council for Canadian Unity, which he refers to as a shadowy group. Before I finished the post, the berk moved the top of pager to here.
May I suggest google to dispel the shadows?
Enter the keywords and you will wind up at the site of the Canadian Unity Council, which seems to have been referred to sometimes as the Council for Canadian Unity.
The board of directors includes Bob Rae. Yep. He's pretty much an underworld type.
Included on the board of governors, no more shadowy a figure as Peter Lougheed. Then from Manitoba there is another unsavoury type - Gail Asper, corporate secretary of CanWest Global.
Ontario's Lincoln Alexander is another known skulker mingling with this dastardly crowd.
Let's not forget retired general Charlie Belzile - he's in there too with this nefarious group.
Maybe Bourque has some bone to pick with Donna Dasko of Environics, another governor of the unity underground?
Closer to home, let me offer up another example of the sort of people involved in this group: Ali Chaisson, of the Federation des francophones de Terre Neuve et du Labrador.
Would you believe Steve Kent, mayor of Mount Pearl?
And that's just a handful of the people involved in this non-partisan group, formed in the early 1960s to inform and engage all Canadians in building and strengthening Canada.
But wait.
These guys are affiliated with a bunch called the Dominion Institute and their honourary patron John Ralston Saul. The advisory board of this bunch includes clearly disreputable people like Ann Medina, Jack Granatstein and Richard Gwynn.
Do a quick google on Option Canada and one can easily find a little compendium of articles on the subject in English and French.
And what pray tell might this be?
A 1997 Montreal Gazette article written by Claude Arpin describing grants made to Option Canada. Ok.
Arpin describes OC as "a Montreal lobby group set up eight weeks before the Oct. 30 referendum vote.
Option Canada included businessmen, along with political organizers from three parties - the Liberal Party of Canada, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada."
Look at that last bit again.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, now without the progressive bits.
Look at the number of articles in the little compendium here and the dates associated with them and you'll see a long-standing anti-federalist campaign dating back to the 1995 referendum designed to "get" the side that won.
Maybe, just maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that a tiny bit of research would demonstrate that what appears to be something hideous for Liberals, as it has been painted, is either:
a. nothing much at all; or,
b. something that is going to splash a bunch of people including...wait for it...Conservatives.
In any event, we can safely say Bourque must be French for berk, at best, and that once again we have Stephen Harper in bed with Gilles Duceppe criticizing Liberals on national unity.
The only thing I'd like to see is the list of Progressive Conservatives tied up with Option Canada so we can see how many of them have ties to Mr. Harper.
And as a last thought?
If people want to make this election about the future of Canada:
Bring it on!
May I suggest google to dispel the shadows?
Enter the keywords and you will wind up at the site of the Canadian Unity Council, which seems to have been referred to sometimes as the Council for Canadian Unity.
The board of directors includes Bob Rae. Yep. He's pretty much an underworld type.
Included on the board of governors, no more shadowy a figure as Peter Lougheed. Then from Manitoba there is another unsavoury type - Gail Asper, corporate secretary of CanWest Global.
Ontario's Lincoln Alexander is another known skulker mingling with this dastardly crowd.
Let's not forget retired general Charlie Belzile - he's in there too with this nefarious group.
Maybe Bourque has some bone to pick with Donna Dasko of Environics, another governor of the unity underground?
Closer to home, let me offer up another example of the sort of people involved in this group: Ali Chaisson, of the Federation des francophones de Terre Neuve et du Labrador.
Would you believe Steve Kent, mayor of Mount Pearl?
And that's just a handful of the people involved in this non-partisan group, formed in the early 1960s to inform and engage all Canadians in building and strengthening Canada.
But wait.
These guys are affiliated with a bunch called the Dominion Institute and their honourary patron John Ralston Saul. The advisory board of this bunch includes clearly disreputable people like Ann Medina, Jack Granatstein and Richard Gwynn.
Do a quick google on Option Canada and one can easily find a little compendium of articles on the subject in English and French.
And what pray tell might this be?
A 1997 Montreal Gazette article written by Claude Arpin describing grants made to Option Canada. Ok.
Arpin describes OC as "a Montreal lobby group set up eight weeks before the Oct. 30 referendum vote.
Option Canada included businessmen, along with political organizers from three parties - the Liberal Party of Canada, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada."
Look at that last bit again.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, now without the progressive bits.
Look at the number of articles in the little compendium here and the dates associated with them and you'll see a long-standing anti-federalist campaign dating back to the 1995 referendum designed to "get" the side that won.
Maybe, just maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that a tiny bit of research would demonstrate that what appears to be something hideous for Liberals, as it has been painted, is either:
a. nothing much at all; or,
b. something that is going to splash a bunch of people including...wait for it...Conservatives.
In any event, we can safely say Bourque must be French for berk, at best, and that once again we have Stephen Harper in bed with Gilles Duceppe criticizing Liberals on national unity.
The only thing I'd like to see is the list of Progressive Conservatives tied up with Option Canada so we can see how many of them have ties to Mr. Harper.
And as a last thought?
If people want to make this election about the future of Canada:
Bring it on!
Just for curiosity...
This election a couple of seat projectors have come up on line. They are linked down the right hand column, under Election 2006.
The hill and Knowlton one just needs numbers to plug in.
The democraticspace one is considerably more complex and I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the math involved.
But I can say I find the outcome of the process at odds with where I'd put the seats in this province based on observation and intuition.
Just for curiosity, slip over and have a look at democraticspace.com.
It shows the Liberals safe in three seats (Labrador, Random-Burin-St.George's, and Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte).
Ok. I'll buy that.
Then it shows the Conservatives safe in the two St. John's seats and the Liberal seats in Avalon and Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor being too close to call.
Now that's a tough sell.
Avalon has been a strong Liberal seat and even with re-apportionment, the more populous northern portion of the riding is decidedly Liberal. It has been Progressive Conservative but it's
never been hard core Connie country.
Yes, it has a good Conservative candidate this time around, but his strength is in the southern portion.
Two close to call, which is what democraticspace.com would call this seat seems a little bit off.
Ditto for the central Newfoundland seat held by Scott Simms. Simms is capable and popular and has been an effective member of parliament. While some people are playing up the weather office in Gander story, there's no sense that has produced some sort of tidal shift away from Simms.
In fact, the Prime Minister's recent announcement of moving weather research to Gander is considerably more believable than the Conservative promise. After all, Harper is just agreeing to undo something that has been done and that won't actually improve the quality of weather forecasting.
Ditto as well for identifying the two St. John's seats as being solidly Conservative.
Nothing public has changed the starting position in this campaign. At best, the Conservatives are marginally ahead.
Both Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle are excellent contenders, with Coady clearly carrying great momentum from her last run at St. John's South-Mount Pearl in 2004. A supposedly safe Conservative seat slipped dramatically and Coady came within a hair's breadth of unseating a veteran Connie.
For both seats, the Conservative incumbents suffered serious damage in their efforts to dance on the offshore deals.
A sign of how deep were their self-inflicted wounds is their current ad campaign. It all stresses the exact opposite of what occurred and has a bunch of people coming forward giving testimonials to things that, frankly, these guys never did.
If they were genuinely safe, both incumbents wouldn't be trying so hard to convince us they had the seats locked up.
Add to that the small number of Loyola Hearn signs in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and his heavy media buy aimed at his core audience. This guy's strategy is to hold on to what he's got; he isn't trying to win back anyone he lost or gain anyone new.
My own prediction hasn't changed on the Newfoundland and Labrador ridings, based on observation and what polling has been publicly available. It isn't scientific but more of a gut instinct.
Liberals solid in five.
Liberals solidly in contention in two, with a strong possibility that both Conservative incumbents will be collecting second pensions on January 24.
What will tip the difference in the next few weeks will be the heightened visibility of the Liberals in St. John's and Mount Pearl.
As I said before, keep an eye on these two easternmost seats.
They are the ones to watch
The hill and Knowlton one just needs numbers to plug in.
The democraticspace one is considerably more complex and I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the math involved.
But I can say I find the outcome of the process at odds with where I'd put the seats in this province based on observation and intuition.
Just for curiosity, slip over and have a look at democraticspace.com.
It shows the Liberals safe in three seats (Labrador, Random-Burin-St.George's, and Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte).
Ok. I'll buy that.
Then it shows the Conservatives safe in the two St. John's seats and the Liberal seats in Avalon and Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor being too close to call.
Now that's a tough sell.
Avalon has been a strong Liberal seat and even with re-apportionment, the more populous northern portion of the riding is decidedly Liberal. It has been Progressive Conservative but it's
never been hard core Connie country.
Yes, it has a good Conservative candidate this time around, but his strength is in the southern portion.
Two close to call, which is what democraticspace.com would call this seat seems a little bit off.
Ditto for the central Newfoundland seat held by Scott Simms. Simms is capable and popular and has been an effective member of parliament. While some people are playing up the weather office in Gander story, there's no sense that has produced some sort of tidal shift away from Simms.
In fact, the Prime Minister's recent announcement of moving weather research to Gander is considerably more believable than the Conservative promise. After all, Harper is just agreeing to undo something that has been done and that won't actually improve the quality of weather forecasting.
Ditto as well for identifying the two St. John's seats as being solidly Conservative.
Nothing public has changed the starting position in this campaign. At best, the Conservatives are marginally ahead.
Both Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle are excellent contenders, with Coady clearly carrying great momentum from her last run at St. John's South-Mount Pearl in 2004. A supposedly safe Conservative seat slipped dramatically and Coady came within a hair's breadth of unseating a veteran Connie.
For both seats, the Conservative incumbents suffered serious damage in their efforts to dance on the offshore deals.
A sign of how deep were their self-inflicted wounds is their current ad campaign. It all stresses the exact opposite of what occurred and has a bunch of people coming forward giving testimonials to things that, frankly, these guys never did.
If they were genuinely safe, both incumbents wouldn't be trying so hard to convince us they had the seats locked up.
Add to that the small number of Loyola Hearn signs in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and his heavy media buy aimed at his core audience. This guy's strategy is to hold on to what he's got; he isn't trying to win back anyone he lost or gain anyone new.
My own prediction hasn't changed on the Newfoundland and Labrador ridings, based on observation and what polling has been publicly available. It isn't scientific but more of a gut instinct.
Liberals solid in five.
Liberals solidly in contention in two, with a strong possibility that both Conservative incumbents will be collecting second pensions on January 24.
What will tip the difference in the next few weeks will be the heightened visibility of the Liberals in St. John's and Mount Pearl.
As I said before, keep an eye on these two easternmost seats.
They are the ones to watch
Local News Notes for Saturday
1. Canadian Press (CP) has picked up the Harper/spy agency story. The Telegram is running a CP wire story on the issues including quotes from Stephen Harper. No electronic copy appears to be available.
2. Hit 'em where it hurts. The hitcounter went off the scale on Friday here at Bond Papers, topping out at a number of visitors not seen since January 2005 during the offshore fight.
Biggest story overnight? The anti-clamping candidate in British Columbia who wants to end the practice of clamping umbilical cords after delivery.
3. St. John's South-Mount Pearl Liberal candidate Siobhan Coady made the Telegram today. She didn't get a hit from her release yesterday on the Lower Churchill. Instead, she got coverage on some of her campaign signs which have been vandalized. The page three story lowballs the cost estimate of the signs but quotes Coady as saying she is shocked and saddened by the incidents.
Now if only she could catch Loyola or Peg defacing her signs, a la Ray O'Neill in last year's pathetic municipal election...
4. Elsewhere in the Telegram, there's a full page story on the need for a new military headquarters building in St. John's. Plans to replace the existing Second World War era buildings have been underway for a decade and now is the crunch time. The existing decrepit buildings are due to be sold this year.
So far no candidates have picked up this issue although it's been swirling around the community for years.
Estimated cost of the new building - $68 million.
That story is linked on the Telly site, under the Lifestyles section. Don't ask me why it's there and not in the news section.
2. Hit 'em where it hurts. The hitcounter went off the scale on Friday here at Bond Papers, topping out at a number of visitors not seen since January 2005 during the offshore fight.
Biggest story overnight? The anti-clamping candidate in British Columbia who wants to end the practice of clamping umbilical cords after delivery.
3. St. John's South-Mount Pearl Liberal candidate Siobhan Coady made the Telegram today. She didn't get a hit from her release yesterday on the Lower Churchill. Instead, she got coverage on some of her campaign signs which have been vandalized. The page three story lowballs the cost estimate of the signs but quotes Coady as saying she is shocked and saddened by the incidents.
Now if only she could catch Loyola or Peg defacing her signs, a la Ray O'Neill in last year's pathetic municipal election...
4. Elsewhere in the Telegram, there's a full page story on the need for a new military headquarters building in St. John's. Plans to replace the existing Second World War era buildings have been underway for a decade and now is the crunch time. The existing decrepit buildings are due to be sold this year.
So far no candidates have picked up this issue although it's been swirling around the community for years.
Estimated cost of the new building - $68 million.
That story is linked on the Telly site, under the Lifestyles section. Don't ask me why it's there and not in the news section.
Harper backpedals on commitment to custodial management
Conservative leader Stephen Harper is backpeddling on his commitment to extend Canadian fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 200 mile limit within five years of becoming Prime Minister.
Flanked by Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn at a staged photo op in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, Harper said that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within five years of taking office.
(Left: Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn gestures frantically for some unknown reason. Perhaps the forceful gestures were intended to distract from Harper's evident weak commitment to his won words. Photo: Greg Locke/Picturedesk International)
The official Conservative news release contained no such commitment or time frame. Instead, Harper committed to "moving toward extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area..."
Rather than repeating even the weaker words from the news release, Harper's letter to Williams now contains even more conditional and less emphatic language. Harper's new commitment is that he would support. The use of the word "would" suggest a "but" is not far behind.
Here's the bit from Santa's Letter to Danny.
"A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
----------------
Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.
Shadow Harper spokesperson Sue Kelland Dyer, who tried to hide from local media on the Harper bus in Petty Harbour, will call Open line repeatedly to insist this flip flop is actually working against the interests of central Canada and the central government and therefore because the word "central" doesn't appear in the Harper release, it is obviously good.
Given her evident phobia about the word central, Dyer is next expected to defend Harper's plans to eliminate "central" heating.
Flanked by Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn at a staged photo op in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, Harper said that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within five years of taking office.
(Left: Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn gestures frantically for some unknown reason. Perhaps the forceful gestures were intended to distract from Harper's evident weak commitment to his won words. Photo: Greg Locke/Picturedesk International)The official Conservative news release contained no such commitment or time frame. Instead, Harper committed to "moving toward extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area..."
Rather than repeating even the weaker words from the news release, Harper's letter to Williams now contains even more conditional and less emphatic language. Harper's new commitment is that he would support. The use of the word "would" suggest a "but" is not far behind.
Here's the bit from Santa's Letter to Danny.
"A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
----------------
Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.
Shadow Harper spokesperson Sue Kelland Dyer, who tried to hide from local media on the Harper bus in Petty Harbour, will call Open line repeatedly to insist this flip flop is actually working against the interests of central Canada and the central government and therefore because the word "central" doesn't appear in the Harper release, it is obviously good.
Given her evident phobia about the word central, Dyer is next expected to defend Harper's plans to eliminate "central" heating.
Tories to hike taxes - on lowest income earners
Conservative candidate Jason Kenny confirmed Friday that the federal Conservative Party would raise taxes on low income earners.
That's right.
Raise taxes.
On low income earners.
CBC News is reporting:
"A Tory plan to raise personal income taxes on low income earners is part of an overall tax strategy that will result in more tax relief for Canadians, Tory MP [sic] Jason Kenney said Friday.
Kenney was reacting to a CBC News story that revealed part of the Tory tax plan if they take power is to reverse a Liberal tax cut introduced before the election."
Following a CBC story on the tax cut/tax hike, Conservative staffers called CBC to confirm that while Stephen Harper had previously said he'd allow Liberal tax cuts to stand, he now plans to raise taxes on some Canadians - the lowest income earners - shortly after being elected.
That's right.
Raise taxes.
On low income earners.
CBC News is reporting:
"A Tory plan to raise personal income taxes on low income earners is part of an overall tax strategy that will result in more tax relief for Canadians, Tory MP [sic] Jason Kenney said Friday.
Kenney was reacting to a CBC News story that revealed part of the Tory tax plan if they take power is to reverse a Liberal tax cut introduced before the election."
Following a CBC story on the tax cut/tax hike, Conservative staffers called CBC to confirm that while Stephen Harper had previously said he'd allow Liberal tax cuts to stand, he now plans to raise taxes on some Canadians - the lowest income earners - shortly after being elected.
06 January 2006
Can the Anti-Circ Party be far behind?
This story, from Canadian Press, is just too funny.
Why can't we have candidates like this one across Canada?
I mean really.
OTTAWA (CP) - Some may see it as the ultimate in political navel-gazing - an Independent candidate in the Jan. 23 election wants to clamp down on the clamping down of umbilical cords.
Donna Young believes homosexuality can be explained by whether a person's umbilical cord was clamped immediately after birth.
Young, 63, is running in the British Columbia riding of Prince George-Peace River and says she makes no judgment about people's sexual preferences.
While not exactly a debate about innies or outies, Young is serious about her theory that people who had their cords clamped are missing hormones to match their sex organs.
Young also said in an interview that the clamping causes health problems.
"Basically, this is the last field of emancipation and a woman controlling her body," said Young.
Why can't we have candidates like this one across Canada?
I mean really.
OTTAWA (CP) - Some may see it as the ultimate in political navel-gazing - an Independent candidate in the Jan. 23 election wants to clamp down on the clamping down of umbilical cords.
Donna Young believes homosexuality can be explained by whether a person's umbilical cord was clamped immediately after birth.
Young, 63, is running in the British Columbia riding of Prince George-Peace River and says she makes no judgment about people's sexual preferences.
While not exactly a debate about innies or outies, Young is serious about her theory that people who had their cords clamped are missing hormones to match their sex organs.
Young also said in an interview that the clamping causes health problems.
"Basically, this is the last field of emancipation and a woman controlling her body," said Young.
Harper's reply to Williams - the full text.
Following is a copy of Stephen Harper's response to a letter from Danny Williams. The original Williams letter can be found here, under the title "Danny Williams letter to Santa".
Some editorial notes are required and these have been placed in square brackets.
Danny Williams, Q.C.
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
8th Floor, East Block
Confederation Building
St. John's NL A1B 4J6
Fax: 709-729-5875
Dear Premier Williams,
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our policy initiatives and to share with you how a Conservative government would work hard to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to discussing these initiatives with you in the future.
Fisheries: Does your party support providing an early retirement program on a 70/30 Federal/Provincial cost-shared basis for workers impacted by changes to the industry?
I recognize challenges faced by those affected by changes to the fishing industry. I agree that it is important for governments to proactively assist those affected by these changes and to take a positive approach to creating new opportunities for these individuals. These individuals have an enormous amount of experience and talent to contribute to the labour force and to the future prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador.
A Conservative government would focus our efforts on assisting these individuals through retraining programs and not on early retirement. I believe that it is more beneficial to these individuals and to the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador that we maintain a well-trained and highly skilled workforce, which includes older workers and those who no longer have employment options in traditional industries.
A Conservative government would prefer to work cooperatively with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to assist these individuals by developing programs which focus on retraining opportunities rather than focusing on an early retirement package. However, I understand that retraining is not always an option. Prior to any commitments being made, a feasibility study must be conducted to determine the affordability of an early retirement initiative, as well as a study on the impacts of such an initiative on the labour force as a whole.
Does your party support this request for a Northern shrimp allocation?
I believe that economic development at the local level will be a significant component to the future prosperity of First Nations' communities. However, economic development must be balanced to ensure the sustainability of the resource. A Conservative government must be confident in the long term viability of the shrimp stocks in that area before a reallocation of quota could occur. Once we are assured of the sustainability of the stock we will give serious consideration to this initiative.
[Note the original letter referred to an allocation for Conne River and for the non-aboriginal community at Harbour Breton. Whoever drafted this letter perceived this issue purely as a First Nation's matter.]
Will your party support imposing custodial management on the continental shelf immediately outside Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone to preserve fish sticks from unsustainable harvesting practices?
A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic. Under 12 years of Liberal mismanagement, cod stocks have collapsed in the Atlantic. International over fishing has contributed to this collapse and cannot continue. It is both a matter of environmental stewardship and of protecting Canada's economic interests. A Conservative government would commit to protecting these resources.
[Note: This letter does not contain the time frame committed to during Harper's announcement in Petty Harbour.]
Does your party support the province's view that recovery of cod stocks is best achieved through the implementation of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Cod Recovery Strategy, and not through the listing of cod as a species at risk of extinction under the deferral [sic] Species at Risk Act?
I do not believe that listing cod as a species at risk will achieve the desired results of cod stock recovery. A Conservative government wants to see the stocks return and I think an important aspect of this is ensuring that the provinces have a greater role in managing the fishery. [Emphasis added. This does not mean joint management.]
Another aspect of the recovery will involve an investment in science and management. Science is not enough, however, and I believe that for too long, the wisdom of those who actually derive their living from the ocean has been ignored. A Conservative government is committed to changing that and will consult more widely with corresponding provincial departments and with fishermen.
Does your party support the development of a comprehensive Aquaculture Framework Agreement, including the provision of financial support for the establishment of a cod aquaculture demonstration farm?
The Conservative Party of Canada is committed to rural Canada. I believe that aquaculture provides an excellent opportunity for rural and coastal communities to diversify and revitalize their local economies and contribute to the province's overall economic growth.
A Conservative government would consider supporting a federal/provincial aquaculture framework agreement with the possible direction of research and development funding toward such an initiative.
Energy: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a Federal Government guarantee to proceed with the project?
We support this proposal in principle and believe that it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of its energy mix.
A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project.
[Note: As David Cochrane reported today, this apparent willingness to back a provincial loan would make it easier for the provincial government to develop the Lower Churchill on its own. This commitment from Harper must be considered in light of the federal involvement in the Lower Churchill Development Corporation (see Lower Churchill Development Corporation Act, RSNL 1990, Chapter L-27) and the Hibernia precedent cited. In the case of Hibernia, the federal government acquired an 8.5% interest of the project and the consequent revenues flowing from that interest.]
Does your party support the transfer or sale of the Federal Government's share in Hibernia to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador provided the Federal Government is kept whole on their expected return at the time of their initial investment?
Presently, this is not an endeavour that a Conservative government would support, but we would be willing to discuss this in the future. [Note: This represents a modest change from Harper's answer to the same question last year. In 2004, Harper stated flatly that the Conservative party would sell the shares for the benefit of all Canadians. This remains the fundamental position, by implication, although Harper is obviously prepared to talk about a deal.]
Federal Presence: Does your party support immediate efforts to significantly increase the Federal Government's presence in the province, commencing with the immediate restoration of forecasting services at the Gander Weather Office?
There is an over-concentration of certain federal government services in some areas of the country and an effort must be made to ensure that there is a fair distribution of the federal government presence across the country. Each specific region of Canada has its own unique weather forecasting challenges and requirements and I think it is unacceptable that weather forecasting services were ever removed from Gander. A Conservative government would support the restoration of forecasting services at the Gander Weather Office.
Equalization: Does your party support these reforms to the equalization?
Much of the tension that has arisen between the federal and provincial governments over the last decade is a result of the fiscal imbalance. Paul Martin's government denies the fiscal imbalance exists despite the fact the provinces are struggling to deliver essential services such as health and education while the federal government accumulates surpluses.
I don't think this is fair and I don't think this is right. A Conservative government is committed to bringing balance to the fiscal relationship between the federal and provincial governments.
A Conservative government would also support changes to the equalization program to ensure provinces and territories have the opportunity to develop their economies and sustain important core social services. We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative government will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.
[Note: This restates the position from June 2004. The federal Conservative never supported the Williams proposal for an Atlantic Accord, preferring instead to revamp the entire Equalization program. At the same time, the Harper response appears to meet only one of the four stated aspects of the Williams letter, namely the one on non-renewables.]
Labrador: Does your Party support a Federal-Provincial cost-shared agreement to complete the TLH [Trans-Labrador Highway]?
Yes, a Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Is your party committed to both maintaining a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and utilizing the base for regular Canadian Forces training activity by designating an operational requirement for it?
Further, is your party committed to building a substantive and meaningful federal presence in Goose Bay, as part of a broader economic diversification effort, to compensate for an expected decrease in military activity?
A Conservative government will establish in Newfoundland and Labrador the following new operational requirements for the protection of Canadian sovereignty and security:
* Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion (approximately 650 regular force personnel) for enhanced Atlantic army response at CFB Goose Bay.
* Establish a new Territorial Defence Battalion composed of approximately 100 regular force and 400 reserve force personnel in the area St John's, to assist the Federal and Provincial governments in countering threats to our security as well as responding to natural
disasters.
* Station a new long range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Squadron at CFB Goose Bay to provide surveillance over the Atlantic Ocean and Eastern Arctic.
A Conservative government will also maintain a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and actively encourage increased allied flying training operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay.
Overall, the Conservative plan for national defence will result in a significant increase in employment in Goose Bay and the St John's area, resulting from a significant expansion of the federal defence presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Note: At no point have the federal Conservatives indicated how several new battalions of infantry will be raised and the timescale involved. Harper does not answer the second portion of this question, seeking a commitment to increase the federal government's non-military presence in Goose Bay.]
Does your party support establishing a reserve at Sheshatshiu by June 30, 2006?
A Conservative government would have to consult with effected First Nations communities on the establishment of a reserve at Sheshatshiu before proceeding with such an initiative.
Although every effort would be made to proceed in a timely fashion, it would be premature to commit to a timeline until such consultations have taken place and a satisfactory agreement has been struck with the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation.
Marine Atlantic:
Does you party support these actions [ a one time 15% rate reduction, and a commitment to outlaw strikes and other disruptions to the Marine Atlantic service] ?
A Conservative government would live up to and respect its constitutional responsibilities to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and would give serious consideration to implementing your stated recommendations, however we would have to review the financial implications of the rate reduction.
I recognize the importance of a reliable and affordable ferry service to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. The ferry service is a literal as well as symbolic link between Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada. In many ways it is as important to Canada as it is to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is crucial that the federal government respect that link to the benefit of both Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada.
Economic Development and Infrastructure: Does your party support the Federal Government entering into bilateral, cost-shared agreements to address economic development and infrastructure priorities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
The federal Liberal government has neglected the infrastructure needs of the provinces. A Conservative government would develop infrastructure programs which will allow provinces to address their unique needs and requirements. I cannot commit to specific projects, but I look forward to partnering with provincial governments to address the infrastructure deficit resulting from 12 years of Liberal neglect and inattention.
Does you party support ensuring provincial facilities, such as the Marystown Shipyard and Bull Arm Fabrication Site, benefit from federal shipbuilding and repair contracts to help transform this sector's capacity to the mutual advantage of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador?
A Conservative government would be bound by specific guidelines governing the awarding of contracts but would welcome competitive bids from Newfoundland and Labrador shipyards on any contracts which arise in this area.
Does your party support the Federal Government cost-sharing the above project [a provincial government $200 million waste management and reduction plan]?
First of all, let me applaud your efforts in instituting a waste reduction and management plan. Responsible waste management is an important component of modern environmental stewardship. A Conservative government will develop a multi-pronged approach to reducing greenhouse gases and to preserving Canada's environmental integrity which has been threatened by the federal Liberal's broken promises on the environment.
In the future, I would certainly be interested in examining your proposal further to determine if funding for your plan can be accommodated through our made-in-Canada plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
Thank you once again and all the best to you in the New Year.
Sincerely,
//signed//
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Some editorial notes are required and these have been placed in square brackets.
Danny Williams, Q.C.
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
8th Floor, East Block
Confederation Building
St. John's NL A1B 4J6
Fax: 709-729-5875
Dear Premier Williams,
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our policy initiatives and to share with you how a Conservative government would work hard to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to discussing these initiatives with you in the future.
Fisheries: Does your party support providing an early retirement program on a 70/30 Federal/Provincial cost-shared basis for workers impacted by changes to the industry?
I recognize challenges faced by those affected by changes to the fishing industry. I agree that it is important for governments to proactively assist those affected by these changes and to take a positive approach to creating new opportunities for these individuals. These individuals have an enormous amount of experience and talent to contribute to the labour force and to the future prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador.
A Conservative government would focus our efforts on assisting these individuals through retraining programs and not on early retirement. I believe that it is more beneficial to these individuals and to the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador that we maintain a well-trained and highly skilled workforce, which includes older workers and those who no longer have employment options in traditional industries.
A Conservative government would prefer to work cooperatively with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to assist these individuals by developing programs which focus on retraining opportunities rather than focusing on an early retirement package. However, I understand that retraining is not always an option. Prior to any commitments being made, a feasibility study must be conducted to determine the affordability of an early retirement initiative, as well as a study on the impacts of such an initiative on the labour force as a whole.
Does your party support this request for a Northern shrimp allocation?
I believe that economic development at the local level will be a significant component to the future prosperity of First Nations' communities. However, economic development must be balanced to ensure the sustainability of the resource. A Conservative government must be confident in the long term viability of the shrimp stocks in that area before a reallocation of quota could occur. Once we are assured of the sustainability of the stock we will give serious consideration to this initiative.
[Note the original letter referred to an allocation for Conne River and for the non-aboriginal community at Harbour Breton. Whoever drafted this letter perceived this issue purely as a First Nation's matter.]
Will your party support imposing custodial management on the continental shelf immediately outside Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone to preserve fish sticks from unsustainable harvesting practices?
A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic. Under 12 years of Liberal mismanagement, cod stocks have collapsed in the Atlantic. International over fishing has contributed to this collapse and cannot continue. It is both a matter of environmental stewardship and of protecting Canada's economic interests. A Conservative government would commit to protecting these resources.
[Note: This letter does not contain the time frame committed to during Harper's announcement in Petty Harbour.]
Does your party support the province's view that recovery of cod stocks is best achieved through the implementation of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Cod Recovery Strategy, and not through the listing of cod as a species at risk of extinction under the deferral [sic] Species at Risk Act?
I do not believe that listing cod as a species at risk will achieve the desired results of cod stock recovery. A Conservative government wants to see the stocks return and I think an important aspect of this is ensuring that the provinces have a greater role in managing the fishery. [Emphasis added. This does not mean joint management.]
Another aspect of the recovery will involve an investment in science and management. Science is not enough, however, and I believe that for too long, the wisdom of those who actually derive their living from the ocean has been ignored. A Conservative government is committed to changing that and will consult more widely with corresponding provincial departments and with fishermen.
Does your party support the development of a comprehensive Aquaculture Framework Agreement, including the provision of financial support for the establishment of a cod aquaculture demonstration farm?
The Conservative Party of Canada is committed to rural Canada. I believe that aquaculture provides an excellent opportunity for rural and coastal communities to diversify and revitalize their local economies and contribute to the province's overall economic growth.
A Conservative government would consider supporting a federal/provincial aquaculture framework agreement with the possible direction of research and development funding toward such an initiative.
Energy: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a Federal Government guarantee to proceed with the project?
We support this proposal in principle and believe that it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of its energy mix.
A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project.
[Note: As David Cochrane reported today, this apparent willingness to back a provincial loan would make it easier for the provincial government to develop the Lower Churchill on its own. This commitment from Harper must be considered in light of the federal involvement in the Lower Churchill Development Corporation (see Lower Churchill Development Corporation Act, RSNL 1990, Chapter L-27) and the Hibernia precedent cited. In the case of Hibernia, the federal government acquired an 8.5% interest of the project and the consequent revenues flowing from that interest.]
Does your party support the transfer or sale of the Federal Government's share in Hibernia to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador provided the Federal Government is kept whole on their expected return at the time of their initial investment?
Presently, this is not an endeavour that a Conservative government would support, but we would be willing to discuss this in the future. [Note: This represents a modest change from Harper's answer to the same question last year. In 2004, Harper stated flatly that the Conservative party would sell the shares for the benefit of all Canadians. This remains the fundamental position, by implication, although Harper is obviously prepared to talk about a deal.]
Federal Presence: Does your party support immediate efforts to significantly increase the Federal Government's presence in the province, commencing with the immediate restoration of forecasting services at the Gander Weather Office?
There is an over-concentration of certain federal government services in some areas of the country and an effort must be made to ensure that there is a fair distribution of the federal government presence across the country. Each specific region of Canada has its own unique weather forecasting challenges and requirements and I think it is unacceptable that weather forecasting services were ever removed from Gander. A Conservative government would support the restoration of forecasting services at the Gander Weather Office.
Equalization: Does your party support these reforms to the equalization?
Much of the tension that has arisen between the federal and provincial governments over the last decade is a result of the fiscal imbalance. Paul Martin's government denies the fiscal imbalance exists despite the fact the provinces are struggling to deliver essential services such as health and education while the federal government accumulates surpluses.
I don't think this is fair and I don't think this is right. A Conservative government is committed to bringing balance to the fiscal relationship between the federal and provincial governments.
A Conservative government would also support changes to the equalization program to ensure provinces and territories have the opportunity to develop their economies and sustain important core social services. We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative government will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.
[Note: This restates the position from June 2004. The federal Conservative never supported the Williams proposal for an Atlantic Accord, preferring instead to revamp the entire Equalization program. At the same time, the Harper response appears to meet only one of the four stated aspects of the Williams letter, namely the one on non-renewables.]
Labrador: Does your Party support a Federal-Provincial cost-shared agreement to complete the TLH [Trans-Labrador Highway]?
Yes, a Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Is your party committed to both maintaining a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and utilizing the base for regular Canadian Forces training activity by designating an operational requirement for it?
Further, is your party committed to building a substantive and meaningful federal presence in Goose Bay, as part of a broader economic diversification effort, to compensate for an expected decrease in military activity?
A Conservative government will establish in Newfoundland and Labrador the following new operational requirements for the protection of Canadian sovereignty and security:
* Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion (approximately 650 regular force personnel) for enhanced Atlantic army response at CFB Goose Bay.
* Establish a new Territorial Defence Battalion composed of approximately 100 regular force and 400 reserve force personnel in the area St John's, to assist the Federal and Provincial governments in countering threats to our security as well as responding to natural
disasters.
* Station a new long range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Squadron at CFB Goose Bay to provide surveillance over the Atlantic Ocean and Eastern Arctic.
A Conservative government will also maintain a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and actively encourage increased allied flying training operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay.
Overall, the Conservative plan for national defence will result in a significant increase in employment in Goose Bay and the St John's area, resulting from a significant expansion of the federal defence presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Note: At no point have the federal Conservatives indicated how several new battalions of infantry will be raised and the timescale involved. Harper does not answer the second portion of this question, seeking a commitment to increase the federal government's non-military presence in Goose Bay.]
Does your party support establishing a reserve at Sheshatshiu by June 30, 2006?
A Conservative government would have to consult with effected First Nations communities on the establishment of a reserve at Sheshatshiu before proceeding with such an initiative.
Although every effort would be made to proceed in a timely fashion, it would be premature to commit to a timeline until such consultations have taken place and a satisfactory agreement has been struck with the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation.
Marine Atlantic:
Does you party support these actions [ a one time 15% rate reduction, and a commitment to outlaw strikes and other disruptions to the Marine Atlantic service] ?
A Conservative government would live up to and respect its constitutional responsibilities to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and would give serious consideration to implementing your stated recommendations, however we would have to review the financial implications of the rate reduction.
I recognize the importance of a reliable and affordable ferry service to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. The ferry service is a literal as well as symbolic link between Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada. In many ways it is as important to Canada as it is to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is crucial that the federal government respect that link to the benefit of both Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada.
Economic Development and Infrastructure: Does your party support the Federal Government entering into bilateral, cost-shared agreements to address economic development and infrastructure priorities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
The federal Liberal government has neglected the infrastructure needs of the provinces. A Conservative government would develop infrastructure programs which will allow provinces to address their unique needs and requirements. I cannot commit to specific projects, but I look forward to partnering with provincial governments to address the infrastructure deficit resulting from 12 years of Liberal neglect and inattention.
Does you party support ensuring provincial facilities, such as the Marystown Shipyard and Bull Arm Fabrication Site, benefit from federal shipbuilding and repair contracts to help transform this sector's capacity to the mutual advantage of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador?
A Conservative government would be bound by specific guidelines governing the awarding of contracts but would welcome competitive bids from Newfoundland and Labrador shipyards on any contracts which arise in this area.
Does your party support the Federal Government cost-sharing the above project [a provincial government $200 million waste management and reduction plan]?
First of all, let me applaud your efforts in instituting a waste reduction and management plan. Responsible waste management is an important component of modern environmental stewardship. A Conservative government will develop a multi-pronged approach to reducing greenhouse gases and to preserving Canada's environmental integrity which has been threatened by the federal Liberal's broken promises on the environment.
In the future, I would certainly be interested in examining your proposal further to determine if funding for your plan can be accommodated through our made-in-Canada plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
Thank you once again and all the best to you in the New Year.
Sincerely,
//signed//
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Santa Harper answers Danny's letter - breaking
Steve's answer to Danny is in.
I have a copy.
I'll post it ASAP.
For those who have been following the list of bullshit battalions Harper has announced, remember the prediction of a Regular Force rapid reaction battalion for Goose and at least one more for St. John's comprising a mix of Regular and Reserve soldiers?
Wednesday Jan 4 on the Bond Papers:
"Meanwhile, people in Goose Bay are eagerly awaiting the confirmation that Harper wants to put a battalion of infantry in the community.
My guess is that in addition to Goose Bay, when Harper returns to the province there will be at least one other infantry battalion coming to St. John's as well as one located in Stephenville."
Harper's letter?
• Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion (approximately 650 regular force personnel) for enhanced Atlantic army response at CFB Goose Bay.
• Establish a new Territorial Defence Battalion composed of approximately 100 regular force and 400 reserve force personnel in the area St John’s, to assist the Federal and Provincial governments in countering threats to our security as well as responding to natural disasters.
Wow.
There's much here to blog about.
More to follow.
I have a copy.
I'll post it ASAP.
For those who have been following the list of bullshit battalions Harper has announced, remember the prediction of a Regular Force rapid reaction battalion for Goose and at least one more for St. John's comprising a mix of Regular and Reserve soldiers?
Wednesday Jan 4 on the Bond Papers:
"Meanwhile, people in Goose Bay are eagerly awaiting the confirmation that Harper wants to put a battalion of infantry in the community.
My guess is that in addition to Goose Bay, when Harper returns to the province there will be at least one other infantry battalion coming to St. John's as well as one located in Stephenville."
Harper's letter?
• Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion (approximately 650 regular force personnel) for enhanced Atlantic army response at CFB Goose Bay.
• Establish a new Territorial Defence Battalion composed of approximately 100 regular force and 400 reserve force personnel in the area St John’s, to assist the Federal and Provincial governments in countering threats to our security as well as responding to natural disasters.
Wow.
There's much here to blog about.
More to follow.
Harper to create Canadian CIA
Stephen Harper will create a Canadian spy organization like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to collect information on threats to Canadian security, counter threats overseas and add to allied intelligence capabilities.
There is no explanation of how Harper's spy agency will counter threats overseas, although CIA has recently been aggressively capturing and reportedly torturing suspected terrorists in secret prisons overseas.
There is also no explanation as to why a major foreign and security policy announcement was buried in the back of a document that for the most part focused on gun and youth crime. The release, aimed to exploit recent gun violence in Toronto, made no mention of intelligence agencies.
The Conservative plan is buried in a backgrounder to an announcement on security made on Thursday.
The Harper commitment to expand the agency is unusual since no such overseas intelligence agency currently exists.
There is no information on Harper's plan beyond the brief mention buried in the party backgrounder. The Conservative policy statement released in March contains reference only to a new agency to co-ordinate existing intelligence activities within the Privy Council Office.
Today's announcement describes an agency with powers significantly beyond those currently held by PCO.
As the 1996 Auditor General's report notes, the main Canadian source of foreign intelligence is the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE). (Left - CSE badge)
This agency, part of the Department of national Defence collects and analyzes electronic intelligence from a number of sites, including automated equipment at Gander and Argentia. CSE is comparable to the National Security Agency (NSA), the American electronic intelligence gathering and cryptological service.
The United States maintains a data collection facility at Argentia that includes equipment to monitor launches from Cape Canaveral.
Canadian foreign intelligence collection and assessment is also provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and elements of the Canadian Forces.
The Martin government has considered adding to CSIS' limited overseas operations, however Harper's proposal would create an entirely separate agency under new legislation. (Left: CSIS badge)
Earlier this year, the head of the CSIS oversight committee warned that CSIS' overseas operations may be straying outside the mandate of the counter-terror agency. Under current legislation CSIS is able to collect intelligence both within Canada and overseas.
A bill to establish the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency was introduced two years ago as a private member's bill but died on the order paper at the end of the 37th Parliament.
Recent international news stories have highlighted CIA operations in the fight against terrorism, including the existence of secret overseas prisons, the use of torture by the CIA and suspected shuttling of detainees on CIA-contract flights that sometimes transit Canadian airports like Gander, St. John's and Goose Bay.
There is no explanation of how Harper's spy agency will counter threats overseas, although CIA has recently been aggressively capturing and reportedly torturing suspected terrorists in secret prisons overseas.
There is also no explanation as to why a major foreign and security policy announcement was buried in the back of a document that for the most part focused on gun and youth crime. The release, aimed to exploit recent gun violence in Toronto, made no mention of intelligence agencies.
The Conservative plan is buried in a backgrounder to an announcement on security made on Thursday.
* Expand the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency to effectively gather intelligence overseas, independently counter threats before they reach Canada, and increase allied intelligence operations.
The Harper commitment to expand the agency is unusual since no such overseas intelligence agency currently exists.
There is no information on Harper's plan beyond the brief mention buried in the party backgrounder. The Conservative policy statement released in March contains reference only to a new agency to co-ordinate existing intelligence activities within the Privy Council Office.
Today's announcement describes an agency with powers significantly beyond those currently held by PCO.
As the 1996 Auditor General's report notes, the main Canadian source of foreign intelligence is the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE). (Left - CSE badge)This agency, part of the Department of national Defence collects and analyzes electronic intelligence from a number of sites, including automated equipment at Gander and Argentia. CSE is comparable to the National Security Agency (NSA), the American electronic intelligence gathering and cryptological service.
The United States maintains a data collection facility at Argentia that includes equipment to monitor launches from Cape Canaveral.
Canadian foreign intelligence collection and assessment is also provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and elements of the Canadian Forces.
The Martin government has considered adding to CSIS' limited overseas operations, however Harper's proposal would create an entirely separate agency under new legislation. (Left: CSIS badge)Earlier this year, the head of the CSIS oversight committee warned that CSIS' overseas operations may be straying outside the mandate of the counter-terror agency. Under current legislation CSIS is able to collect intelligence both within Canada and overseas.
A bill to establish the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency was introduced two years ago as a private member's bill but died on the order paper at the end of the 37th Parliament.
Recent international news stories have highlighted CIA operations in the fight against terrorism, including the existence of secret overseas prisons, the use of torture by the CIA and suspected shuttling of detainees on CIA-contract flights that sometimes transit Canadian airports like Gander, St. John's and Goose Bay.
05 January 2006
Williams to repeat strategic economic plan
After two years in office, Premier Danny Williams announced today that he is assigning Doug House to conduct a review of government's economic development programs.
The process sounds suspiciously like the one that led to the development of the Strategic Economic Plan 13 years ago. House was a member of the team that developed the SEP.
Back to the future we go again.
But, more to the point, why didn't House get this appointment in 2003? At that point, we would have had the review completed and been well on the way to implementing new policies.
The Strategic Economic Plan, which has been the foundation of economic development policy since 1992, survived four administrations of two political parties. It was such a success that Williams made it an integral part of his New Approach election platform in 2003.
The process sounds suspiciously like the one that led to the development of the Strategic Economic Plan 13 years ago. House was a member of the team that developed the SEP.
Back to the future we go again.
But, more to the point, why didn't House get this appointment in 2003? At that point, we would have had the review completed and been well on the way to implementing new policies.
The Strategic Economic Plan, which has been the foundation of economic development policy since 1992, survived four administrations of two political parties. It was such a success that Williams made it an integral part of his New Approach election platform in 2003.
Local Connie TV script leaked
Following is the script for television commercial Connie candidate Loyola Hearn is expected to release next week.
Norm Doyle has Danny Williams.
Loyola Hearn can't get him for some reason.
But anyway, here's the script with a vidcap.
[Two Loyolas. Standing side by side. They begin to read, obviously read from a TelePrompter]
Loyola: Hi, I'm Loyola.
Loyola: And I'm Loyola.
Loyola: We are so much alike we could be brothers.
Loyola: We are so close we could be partners.
Loyola: Umm... Be careful, Loyola. Not that kind of partners.
Loyola: No. Not that kind of partners. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
[awkward silence. Loyolas look around]
Loyola: Anyway...
Loyola: Anyway. Let's just say we've always been close on everything we do.
Loyola: And that's why I am here to tell you that without Loyola we could never have gotten all that money from Ottawa last year.
Loyola: That's right. Loyola. Loyola worked day and night attending meetings and speaking out with a strong voice to make sure we got what we deserved.
Loyola: and that's why I am supporting Loyola in St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Loyola: That's right. I am supporting Loyola in St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Loyola: So on January 23rd vote for me.
Loyola: No. On January 23rd vote for me.
Loyolas: [laughing in a fake, forced kind of way.] See. Even we can't tell each other apart.
Voice over: Authorized by the official agent for Loyola.
[Graphic: Vote Loyola. Or Loyola. One of them anyway. You pick.]
Note for Liam: This is a joke and should no way be taken to suggest that either Loyola or Loyola is actually planning something as cheesy as advertising in which people endorse Loyola reading awkwardly from a script.
Note for Chuck and Steve: Relax. Just remember: Loyola only bucked the party line once. he voted to bring down the government and with it the offshore money. He also voted against equal marriage.
Norm Doyle has Danny Williams.
Loyola Hearn can't get him for some reason.
But anyway, here's the script with a vidcap.
[Two Loyolas. Standing side by side. They begin to read, obviously read from a TelePrompter]
Loyola: Hi, I'm Loyola.
Loyola: And I'm Loyola.
Loyola: We are so much alike we could be brothers.
Loyola: We are so close we could be partners.
Loyola: Umm... Be careful, Loyola. Not that kind of partners.
Loyola: No. Not that kind of partners. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
[awkward silence. Loyolas look around]
Loyola: Anyway...
Loyola: Anyway. Let's just say we've always been close on everything we do.
Loyola: And that's why I am here to tell you that without Loyola we could never have gotten all that money from Ottawa last year.
Loyola: That's right. Loyola. Loyola worked day and night attending meetings and speaking out with a strong voice to make sure we got what we deserved.
Loyola: and that's why I am supporting Loyola in St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Loyola: That's right. I am supporting Loyola in St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Loyola: So on January 23rd vote for me.
Loyola: No. On January 23rd vote for me.
Loyolas: [laughing in a fake, forced kind of way.] See. Even we can't tell each other apart.
Voice over: Authorized by the official agent for Loyola.
[Graphic: Vote Loyola. Or Loyola. One of them anyway. You pick.]
Note for Liam: This is a joke and should no way be taken to suggest that either Loyola or Loyola is actually planning something as cheesy as advertising in which people endorse Loyola reading awkwardly from a script.
Note for Chuck and Steve: Relax. Just remember: Loyola only bucked the party line once. he voted to bring down the government and with it the offshore money. He also voted against equal marriage.
I keep hearing strong voices
Norm Doyle, Loyola Hearn, Paul Antle and now Siobhan Coady are all seeking to be a strong voice in Ottawa.
These are pictures of voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East as they seek protection from the growing clamour of "strong voices" invading their heads.
Peg Norman and Mike Keough could win this election handing out aluminum pie plates and some string.
Not one isotopic teaspoon!
So how come Danny Williams isn't leading the charge for full and complete processing of uranium before it leaves Labrador?
Possible secondary processing and uses of uranium:
- power rods for other people's reactors.
- power rods for our own reactors.
- our own reactors.
- our own processing facilities to produce "research" uranium.
- our own processing facilities to generate weapons-grade uranium.
- nuclear weapons for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fundamentally, what's the difference between uranium and nickel?
Geez, with nuclear weapons we could really be an independent country that people would pay attention too.
[squiggly lines, squiggly lines as we slip into the future.]
(Left) January 5, 2015 High altitude satellite photo of suspected uranium secondary processing facility being built south of Buchans, released today by Central Intelligence Agency.
American intelligence officials believe that uranium from mines in Labrador is being brought ashore at Stephenville, processed in the former paper mill and then shipped by rail to Buchans where it is further refined.
President Danny Williams, first president of the Republic of Newfoundland today denied these reports.
Williams said the former Russian navy submarine (NLS Peter Cashin seen at left undergoing refit at the state shipyard at Marystown) is being converted to an undersea natural gas tanker.
He denied that a recent underwater launch of a ballistic missile from the Cashin's sister ship Brian Peckford was the test of a delivery system for nuclear weapons. Williams said the launch was the test of a new system to shunt hydroelectricity from Labrador to markets in China.
In the picture at left, the first test missile, named East Wind, is seen as it breaks the surface at PetroNewf's "energy delivery" research facility.
The site was developed by the new country's state-owned energy corporation with help from the China Heavy Machinery Industrial Import and Export Corporation.
Possible secondary processing and uses of uranium:
- power rods for other people's reactors.
- power rods for our own reactors.
- our own reactors.
- our own processing facilities to produce "research" uranium.
- our own processing facilities to generate weapons-grade uranium.
- nuclear weapons for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fundamentally, what's the difference between uranium and nickel?
Geez, with nuclear weapons we could really be an independent country that people would pay attention too.
[squiggly lines, squiggly lines as we slip into the future.]
(Left) January 5, 2015 High altitude satellite photo of suspected uranium secondary processing facility being built south of Buchans, released today by Central Intelligence Agency.American intelligence officials believe that uranium from mines in Labrador is being brought ashore at Stephenville, processed in the former paper mill and then shipped by rail to Buchans where it is further refined.
President Danny Williams, first president of the Republic of Newfoundland today denied these reports.
Williams said the former Russian navy submarine (NLS Peter Cashin seen at left undergoing refit at the state shipyard at Marystown) is being converted to an undersea natural gas tanker.
He denied that a recent underwater launch of a ballistic missile from the Cashin's sister ship Brian Peckford was the test of a delivery system for nuclear weapons. Williams said the launch was the test of a new system to shunt hydroelectricity from Labrador to markets in China.In the picture at left, the first test missile, named East Wind, is seen as it breaks the surface at PetroNewf's "energy delivery" research facility.
The site was developed by the new country's state-owned energy corporation with help from the China Heavy Machinery Industrial Import and Export Corporation.
Leader's Debate - Come watch, join in and support local debate union
The Newfoundland and Labrador Speech and Debate Union (SDU) is convening a panel of judges to evaluate the performance of the party leaders in the national debate to be held January 9.
Guest judges will include Memorial University political science professor Dr. Christopher Dunn, political blogger Ed Hollett (The Robert Bond Papers) and Burford Ploughman, former President of the Methodist College Literary Institute - MCLI.
The names of additional judges will be announced as they are confirmed.
At the end of the debate, the judges will score the performance of each party leader.
The event is open to the general public.
The SDU is issuing special invitations to representatives of the St. John's region federal campaigns, local MHAs, members of the St. John's and Mt. Pearl City Councils, and local union representatives, so that they can provide their perspective on the debate.
The doors will open at 8:30pm with the telecast schedule to start at 9:30pm. Admission will include a complimentary wine and cheese, and a cash bar will be available.
This event is an SDU fundraiser to support the travel and registration expense of provincial student delegates to national debate and public speaking events scheduled for 2006. It also serves as the inaugural session of a planned monthly series of public debates on topics of general interest.
The SDU is the provincial organization responsible for the development and promotion of student debating, assisting with youth parliaments and generally working to improve the level of public discourse in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Date: Monday January 9th, 2006
Time: Doors open 8:30pm, debate starts 9:30
Location: Guv'nor's Pub Drawing Room on Elizabeth Avenue (upstairs room)
Cost: Tickets are $20 ($10 for MUN students) and will be available at the door.
Contact:
Simon N. Lono,
SDU President
709.689.0809
info@nlsdu.com
Guest judges will include Memorial University political science professor Dr. Christopher Dunn, political blogger Ed Hollett (The Robert Bond Papers) and Burford Ploughman, former President of the Methodist College Literary Institute - MCLI.
The names of additional judges will be announced as they are confirmed.
At the end of the debate, the judges will score the performance of each party leader.
The event is open to the general public.
The SDU is issuing special invitations to representatives of the St. John's region federal campaigns, local MHAs, members of the St. John's and Mt. Pearl City Councils, and local union representatives, so that they can provide their perspective on the debate.
The doors will open at 8:30pm with the telecast schedule to start at 9:30pm. Admission will include a complimentary wine and cheese, and a cash bar will be available.
This event is an SDU fundraiser to support the travel and registration expense of provincial student delegates to national debate and public speaking events scheduled for 2006. It also serves as the inaugural session of a planned monthly series of public debates on topics of general interest.
The SDU is the provincial organization responsible for the development and promotion of student debating, assisting with youth parliaments and generally working to improve the level of public discourse in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Date: Monday January 9th, 2006
Time: Doors open 8:30pm, debate starts 9:30
Location: Guv'nor's Pub Drawing Room on Elizabeth Avenue (upstairs room)
Cost: Tickets are $20 ($10 for MUN students) and will be available at the door.
Contact:
Simon N. Lono,
SDU President
709.689.0809
info@nlsdu.com
04 January 2006
Sue Kelland Dyer - come clean on your political lobbying
When will some intrepid reporter ask Sue Kelland Dyer, local political gadfly and radio call-in regular, what she was doing on Stephen Harper's advance bus during his recent campaign visit?
She is turning up on local radio praising the Conservatives and defending Connie incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle. It's noticeable given that Dyer hasn't had a good thing to say about Connies since she was on their payroll in the 1990s.
Dyer used to advise the local provincial Connies, once ran under the banner of her own political party (but bombed at the polls), was a senior advisor to Liberal premier Roger Grimes and in her last publicly confirmed gig was trying to keep smoking in bars.
So far though, Dyer hasn't indicated if she is a volunteer on the Connie campaign or a paid worker for Steve Harper. She appears to be just another citizen calling in to talk to Randy or Bill. But if she has any other connections, then the public has a right to know, even if they are unpaid ties.
In the interests of full disclosure, Dyer needs to come clean and admit to any official relationship with the Connie campaign.
After all, the Moon Man doesn't get to lounge on the Harper advance bus while waiting for The Man to come and save Petty Harbour.
She is turning up on local radio praising the Conservatives and defending Connie incumbents Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle. It's noticeable given that Dyer hasn't had a good thing to say about Connies since she was on their payroll in the 1990s.
Dyer used to advise the local provincial Connies, once ran under the banner of her own political party (but bombed at the polls), was a senior advisor to Liberal premier Roger Grimes and in her last publicly confirmed gig was trying to keep smoking in bars.
So far though, Dyer hasn't indicated if she is a volunteer on the Connie campaign or a paid worker for Steve Harper. She appears to be just another citizen calling in to talk to Randy or Bill. But if she has any other connections, then the public has a right to know, even if they are unpaid ties.
In the interests of full disclosure, Dyer needs to come clean and admit to any official relationship with the Connie campaign.
After all, the Moon Man doesn't get to lounge on the Harper advance bus while waiting for The Man to come and save Petty Harbour.
Connie won't answer for possible privacy violations
With a hat tip to Marks'Random Campaign Musings for providing the links, comes the story of Connie incumbent Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew-Nippising-Carlton) who apparently had her staff pluck birth dates from passport applications to build up a database for her constituency birthday card mailing list.
The Privacy Commissioner has been asked to investigate.
**Ms. Leslie White, a mother of four and a part-time teacher, is now worried the entire content of her passport application is being kept on file in her MP's office.
"The principle is really bothering me: that my information has been gathered without my knowledge. I don't know how it's going to be used."
Only feeding her concern was a letter she received from Ms. Gallant's office in December that contained the following words in the address section: "Caution: Supports SSM -- NO MAILOUTS."
At the MP's invitation, Ms. White had earlier mailed in a survey seeking opinions on same-sex marriage, which she supports, a position not shared by Ms. Gallant.***
Gallant has refused to answer media inquires, including the chance to participate in an editorial board meeting with the Ottawa Citizen. All other candidates in the Citizen's market have already participated or have agreed to do so.
In a related matter, it was laughable to hear Loyola Hearn complaining to CBC television recently that local media weren't covering this election campaign. Alone of all candidates in St. John's South-Mount Pearl in last year's election, Hearn refused to participate in any forum with other candidates. He refused media interviews and appears to have been a reluctant participant in the handful he's done so far this year.
It was only after some public pressure that he participated in two candidate fora last year. He appeared on a local cable television show notorious for being puffy and lightweight. Hearn also participated in a CBC radio panel with his other candidates. But while the Liberal and New Democrat showed up in the studio, Hearn phoned it in. Literally.
Meanwhile, the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce is still waiting for Hearn's response to their invitation to participate in an all-candidates debate...
from the June 2004 general election.
Ducking interviews is nothing new for Connies.
Gallant, though, has a reason to duck.
It appears she may well have broken the law.
The Privacy Commissioner has been asked to investigate.
**Ms. Leslie White, a mother of four and a part-time teacher, is now worried the entire content of her passport application is being kept on file in her MP's office.
"The principle is really bothering me: that my information has been gathered without my knowledge. I don't know how it's going to be used."
Only feeding her concern was a letter she received from Ms. Gallant's office in December that contained the following words in the address section: "Caution: Supports SSM -- NO MAILOUTS."
At the MP's invitation, Ms. White had earlier mailed in a survey seeking opinions on same-sex marriage, which she supports, a position not shared by Ms. Gallant.***
Gallant has refused to answer media inquires, including the chance to participate in an editorial board meeting with the Ottawa Citizen. All other candidates in the Citizen's market have already participated or have agreed to do so.
In a related matter, it was laughable to hear Loyola Hearn complaining to CBC television recently that local media weren't covering this election campaign. Alone of all candidates in St. John's South-Mount Pearl in last year's election, Hearn refused to participate in any forum with other candidates. He refused media interviews and appears to have been a reluctant participant in the handful he's done so far this year.
It was only after some public pressure that he participated in two candidate fora last year. He appeared on a local cable television show notorious for being puffy and lightweight. Hearn also participated in a CBC radio panel with his other candidates. But while the Liberal and New Democrat showed up in the studio, Hearn phoned it in. Literally.
Meanwhile, the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce is still waiting for Hearn's response to their invitation to participate in an all-candidates debate...
from the June 2004 general election.
Ducking interviews is nothing new for Connies.
Gallant, though, has a reason to duck.
It appears she may well have broken the law.
Battalions for everyone - the saga continues
From cbc.ca, this story of Steve Harper promising to increase the defence presence at the Bagotville, Quebec.
Seems having the only CF-18 interceptor squadron in the East isn't enough.
Nope.
Bagotville will now be home to yet another battalion of infantry (we are up to six new ones now and counting, I've been able to keep track of them all) on top of a refurbished CF-18 presence in the Quebec community.
"Harper said it's good news in a region of high unemployment." The Department of National Defence and Canada's men and women in uniform become more shameless pork in the Connie campaign to buy votes with public money.
Meanwhile, there is no sign that doubling the number of infantry battalions in the Canadian Forces matches with the ability of the Forces to recruit what now amounts to almost 4, 000 new soldiers despite the fact that recruiting this fiscal year will fall 1, 000 short of target.
meanwhile, no word from Harper where his mixed regular/reserve battalions will be located, aside from major centres like Toronto and Vancouver. That's in addition to his doubling of the regular army, including this new presence in the heart of separatist country.
Hmmm. Maybe, with all this extra military presence in and around Quebec, there is a secret Conservative plan to fight separatists. I mean fight separatists, literally. (Unlike Stephen Taylor, I mention conspiracies in jest, for those who miss the joke.)
Meanwhile, people in Goose Bay are eagerly awaiting the confirmation that Harper wants to put a battalion of infantry in the community.
My guess is that in addition to Goose Bay, when Harper returns to the province there will be at least one other infantry battalion coming to St. John's as well as one located in Stephenville.
Seems having the only CF-18 interceptor squadron in the East isn't enough.
Nope.
Bagotville will now be home to yet another battalion of infantry (we are up to six new ones now and counting, I've been able to keep track of them all) on top of a refurbished CF-18 presence in the Quebec community.
"Harper said it's good news in a region of high unemployment." The Department of National Defence and Canada's men and women in uniform become more shameless pork in the Connie campaign to buy votes with public money.
Meanwhile, there is no sign that doubling the number of infantry battalions in the Canadian Forces matches with the ability of the Forces to recruit what now amounts to almost 4, 000 new soldiers despite the fact that recruiting this fiscal year will fall 1, 000 short of target.
meanwhile, no word from Harper where his mixed regular/reserve battalions will be located, aside from major centres like Toronto and Vancouver. That's in addition to his doubling of the regular army, including this new presence in the heart of separatist country.
Hmmm. Maybe, with all this extra military presence in and around Quebec, there is a secret Conservative plan to fight separatists. I mean fight separatists, literally. (Unlike Stephen Taylor, I mention conspiracies in jest, for those who miss the joke.)
Meanwhile, people in Goose Bay are eagerly awaiting the confirmation that Harper wants to put a battalion of infantry in the community.
My guess is that in addition to Goose Bay, when Harper returns to the province there will be at least one other infantry battalion coming to St. John's as well as one located in Stephenville.
Reprint: a campaign of pork and entitlement
In light of CBC's candidate's debate last night, I thought it timely to reprint a post from last month.
The original title was "Of porkers and practicals: assuming another can-opener" and, for at least two of the candidates in last night's debate, this election is about political pork - getting more high paying federal jobs just because we have some sort of entitlement.
No one bothered to explain to voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl how having 10% of Canadian defence spending - if that could even be got - would improve health care, home care, and child care. No one bothered to explain how we'd stand a hope of getting that amount of pork based solely on some bullshit idea that 10% of the men and women in uniform entitles us to 10% of defence spending. It seems the only answer to that was that one had to be a strong voice.
Better to ask for five bucks from everyone for a new bullhorn for Danny than ask for votes in a federal election. It's cheaper and the voice would be "stronger".
Anyway, it seems we have a campaign of pork and entitlement. It's just a bit surprising to see who is leading the charge.
Of pork and entitlement: assuming another can-opener
[originally posted November 2005]
Memorial University's Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development released a brief report the other day on the number of federal government jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. The full document is available here in pdf format.
Some details of the report have been reported elsewhere so there is no need to recount them in detail. Suffice it to say that this report is merely a set of statistics on what has been generally known for some time and is generally understood: over the past two decades and more, the number of federal public servants working in this province has declined.
Unfortunately, the Harris Centre released this set of tables and that's about it. The second part of the study, due in February, will "provide a detailed breakdown of federal employment in the Province, by department and location; identify the level, types and distribution of executive positions; undertake an overview of existing research on access to, and use of, Federal Government programs and services; examine the Federal procurement process; and provide additional qualitative information on changes in the Federal presence in the Province."
There are more than a few problems with this. First of all, the detail to be contained in the second stage of the report will go a long way to helping understand the changes in federal employment levels in Newfoundland and Labrador; simply put, the first Harris Centre report gives us nothing of the "why".
Second, the report actually doesn't give very much in the way of comparative figures. It's all good to say that federal employment declined here by such and such a number, and that it was this much above or below the national average. There is a simple, wider context that, once again, may inform what is becoming a sizeable public discussion and shift that discussion onto some foundation in fact.
The value of context and more, basic information is readily apparent. For example, while federal employment has declined here since 1993, there is absolutely no explanation of why employment levels rose in the years immediately prior to 1993 as dramatically as they fell in the years immediately after.
One possible explanation is a sudden increase in federal spending by a dying political administration which was then corrected by the subsequent one. We don't know for sure and truthfully, it doesn't look like the next Harris study will answer this sort of basic question.
If we look more closely at the Harris report itself a specific example appears - in the form of military employment - that shows the value of accurate information in interpreting the preliminary comments from this first Harris Centre report.
The declines after 1993 actually resulted from changes within National Defence that began while the Tories were still in power. The closure of Argentia in 1994 took with it a bunch of Canadians that simply no longer had a job here as liaison with the Americans. No Yanks. No liaison.
At Gander, organizational and technical changes allowed for moving the communications research unit out of Gander, just as changes led to the closure of the old warning and control squadron in the early 1970s.
In the middle of the Big Land, National Defence moved to a new operating concept at Goose Bay which shifted what used to be federal public service jobs to the private sector. There were fewer people working at Goose Bay after the changes, but the ones that were working just wouldn't show up in a study that deliberately counted only people directly on the payroll of one or another federal department. The situation, therefore, looks worse than it actually is.
The upshot? More information would lead anyone to a better understanding of what caused the changes in the number of federal jobs in the province. Hence, we'd be better able to decide if there was a problem. Hence we'd be better able to figure out what to do.
The Harris numbers, in and of themselves, can't lead anyone to a conclusion as to what happened, why it happened and what, if any action might be needed or possible to fix the "problem".
Another example in the same category - significant subcategories, to quote the Harris paper - is the number of senior executive positions in the province. "Two significant subcategories of employment are the number of executive positions and the service in the military. The former are important since people in executive positions have important influences on policy decisions..."
The paper then notes that the number of senior executives in the province is lower than the share of the national population and was, the lowest across the country.
Ponder that for a second. Then take a look at the report (linked above).
For one thing, the number of senior executives in the province actually grew in the study period, from 55 to 76 positions ranked EX-01 and above. If we take the period from 1998 to 2004, the number of such positions actually grew by 50%! Yet, for some reason, despite the claim quoted above, the Harris paper didn't actually provide the calculations to demonstrate its contention that the senior executive situation was as bad as claimed.
For another thing, we don't actually know what these decision-maker positions are actually supposed to do or why we should be bothered about it. This is a crucial piece of information for anyone wanting to make the claim that nothing happens here because no one has authority to do anything.
On the one hand there is claim we don't have very many, when in fact the numbers went up 50% - that's a bit of an odd thing in and of itself.
On the other, we don't know why EX-01 and above actually means anything. If this is merely rank-creep, in which positions are reclassified upward without any real power changes, then no one in the country is in a better position than we are, despite how many high paying jobs there are. If, in fact, decision-making authority that we might need to influence sits in Ottawa, getting agitated about this might be misplaced. We wouldn't change the overall situation short of moving Ottawa to Gander, let alone relocating the 16 jobs at the weather office.
Predictably, we have seen plenty of people screaming about the injustice of it all. They claim this is all proof that "Ottawa" is shafting us. There are cries for "our fair share", based, apparently on nothing other than some vague entitlement to federal paycheques.
This group, which includes people like Andy Wells, I call porkers. Their interest is not about anything other than getting a share of federal spending for the sake of getting it. It comes not because of anything else than a sense of entitlement. We are owed. We are entitled to our cut of the pork pie. Owed, that is, except when one talks of moving provincial public service jobs from St. John's to Deer Lake. Then Wells finds no merit in moving public service jobs around.
And there is no small irony that many of these same people will lambaste others of a different political stripe for supposedly bellying up to the Ottawa trough to dip their own entitled snouts. No small irony too that the ones clamouring loudest for increased federal spending (like the January transfer payment deal) are likely the first ones to run up the pink, white and green and cry out for "independence" and "self-determination" for our supposedly downtrodden people.
Just for the heck of it, look at the Harris report, and you'll notice something they won't point out too strenuously. Newfoundland and Labrador's share of federal public service jobs is actually higher than its share of the national population. Quebec, by contrast has the lowest ratio, followed by British Columbia and Alberta. Quebec, the erstwhile independent state makes no noise about federal public service jobs; the nationalists of this place howl loudest of anyone about it.
Sadly, there have been very few of the people I call the practicals. These people look at the who question from two related perspectives. They want to ensure that government isn't merely pouring cash down a hole merely to prop up one community or another whose industry has died a natural death. More importantly, though, practicals ask the genuine question about what federal presence and authority is actually needed here.
Having identified that shortfall, if any, they'd work to correct it. For example, if local industry is wasting cash commuting to Halifax, then it makes sense to open a regional office in this province that could:
a. lower operating costs for local businesses; and,
b. improve access of our very successful businesses to markets around the globe with Government of Canada support.
In some respects, this latest Harris report heralds the repeat of the same line of argument advanced by the old Young Royal Commission and the entire increased transfer payments fight from last year.
It is built on much mythology and lots of "numbers" but precious little meaningful information or analysis.
It is as though we are left to assume yet another can-opener.
The original title was "Of porkers and practicals: assuming another can-opener" and, for at least two of the candidates in last night's debate, this election is about political pork - getting more high paying federal jobs just because we have some sort of entitlement.
No one bothered to explain to voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl how having 10% of Canadian defence spending - if that could even be got - would improve health care, home care, and child care. No one bothered to explain how we'd stand a hope of getting that amount of pork based solely on some bullshit idea that 10% of the men and women in uniform entitles us to 10% of defence spending. It seems the only answer to that was that one had to be a strong voice.
Better to ask for five bucks from everyone for a new bullhorn for Danny than ask for votes in a federal election. It's cheaper and the voice would be "stronger".
Anyway, it seems we have a campaign of pork and entitlement. It's just a bit surprising to see who is leading the charge.
Of pork and entitlement: assuming another can-opener
[originally posted November 2005]
Memorial University's Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development released a brief report the other day on the number of federal government jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. The full document is available here in pdf format.
Some details of the report have been reported elsewhere so there is no need to recount them in detail. Suffice it to say that this report is merely a set of statistics on what has been generally known for some time and is generally understood: over the past two decades and more, the number of federal public servants working in this province has declined.
Unfortunately, the Harris Centre released this set of tables and that's about it. The second part of the study, due in February, will "provide a detailed breakdown of federal employment in the Province, by department and location; identify the level, types and distribution of executive positions; undertake an overview of existing research on access to, and use of, Federal Government programs and services; examine the Federal procurement process; and provide additional qualitative information on changes in the Federal presence in the Province."
There are more than a few problems with this. First of all, the detail to be contained in the second stage of the report will go a long way to helping understand the changes in federal employment levels in Newfoundland and Labrador; simply put, the first Harris Centre report gives us nothing of the "why".
Second, the report actually doesn't give very much in the way of comparative figures. It's all good to say that federal employment declined here by such and such a number, and that it was this much above or below the national average. There is a simple, wider context that, once again, may inform what is becoming a sizeable public discussion and shift that discussion onto some foundation in fact.
The value of context and more, basic information is readily apparent. For example, while federal employment has declined here since 1993, there is absolutely no explanation of why employment levels rose in the years immediately prior to 1993 as dramatically as they fell in the years immediately after.
One possible explanation is a sudden increase in federal spending by a dying political administration which was then corrected by the subsequent one. We don't know for sure and truthfully, it doesn't look like the next Harris study will answer this sort of basic question.
If we look more closely at the Harris report itself a specific example appears - in the form of military employment - that shows the value of accurate information in interpreting the preliminary comments from this first Harris Centre report.
The declines after 1993 actually resulted from changes within National Defence that began while the Tories were still in power. The closure of Argentia in 1994 took with it a bunch of Canadians that simply no longer had a job here as liaison with the Americans. No Yanks. No liaison.
At Gander, organizational and technical changes allowed for moving the communications research unit out of Gander, just as changes led to the closure of the old warning and control squadron in the early 1970s.
In the middle of the Big Land, National Defence moved to a new operating concept at Goose Bay which shifted what used to be federal public service jobs to the private sector. There were fewer people working at Goose Bay after the changes, but the ones that were working just wouldn't show up in a study that deliberately counted only people directly on the payroll of one or another federal department. The situation, therefore, looks worse than it actually is.
The upshot? More information would lead anyone to a better understanding of what caused the changes in the number of federal jobs in the province. Hence, we'd be better able to decide if there was a problem. Hence we'd be better able to figure out what to do.
The Harris numbers, in and of themselves, can't lead anyone to a conclusion as to what happened, why it happened and what, if any action might be needed or possible to fix the "problem".
Another example in the same category - significant subcategories, to quote the Harris paper - is the number of senior executive positions in the province. "Two significant subcategories of employment are the number of executive positions and the service in the military. The former are important since people in executive positions have important influences on policy decisions..."
The paper then notes that the number of senior executives in the province is lower than the share of the national population and was, the lowest across the country.
Ponder that for a second. Then take a look at the report (linked above).
For one thing, the number of senior executives in the province actually grew in the study period, from 55 to 76 positions ranked EX-01 and above. If we take the period from 1998 to 2004, the number of such positions actually grew by 50%! Yet, for some reason, despite the claim quoted above, the Harris paper didn't actually provide the calculations to demonstrate its contention that the senior executive situation was as bad as claimed.
For another thing, we don't actually know what these decision-maker positions are actually supposed to do or why we should be bothered about it. This is a crucial piece of information for anyone wanting to make the claim that nothing happens here because no one has authority to do anything.
On the one hand there is claim we don't have very many, when in fact the numbers went up 50% - that's a bit of an odd thing in and of itself.
On the other, we don't know why EX-01 and above actually means anything. If this is merely rank-creep, in which positions are reclassified upward without any real power changes, then no one in the country is in a better position than we are, despite how many high paying jobs there are. If, in fact, decision-making authority that we might need to influence sits in Ottawa, getting agitated about this might be misplaced. We wouldn't change the overall situation short of moving Ottawa to Gander, let alone relocating the 16 jobs at the weather office.
Predictably, we have seen plenty of people screaming about the injustice of it all. They claim this is all proof that "Ottawa" is shafting us. There are cries for "our fair share", based, apparently on nothing other than some vague entitlement to federal paycheques.
This group, which includes people like Andy Wells, I call porkers. Their interest is not about anything other than getting a share of federal spending for the sake of getting it. It comes not because of anything else than a sense of entitlement. We are owed. We are entitled to our cut of the pork pie. Owed, that is, except when one talks of moving provincial public service jobs from St. John's to Deer Lake. Then Wells finds no merit in moving public service jobs around.
And there is no small irony that many of these same people will lambaste others of a different political stripe for supposedly bellying up to the Ottawa trough to dip their own entitled snouts. No small irony too that the ones clamouring loudest for increased federal spending (like the January transfer payment deal) are likely the first ones to run up the pink, white and green and cry out for "independence" and "self-determination" for our supposedly downtrodden people.
Just for the heck of it, look at the Harris report, and you'll notice something they won't point out too strenuously. Newfoundland and Labrador's share of federal public service jobs is actually higher than its share of the national population. Quebec, by contrast has the lowest ratio, followed by British Columbia and Alberta. Quebec, the erstwhile independent state makes no noise about federal public service jobs; the nationalists of this place howl loudest of anyone about it.
Sadly, there have been very few of the people I call the practicals. These people look at the who question from two related perspectives. They want to ensure that government isn't merely pouring cash down a hole merely to prop up one community or another whose industry has died a natural death. More importantly, though, practicals ask the genuine question about what federal presence and authority is actually needed here.
Having identified that shortfall, if any, they'd work to correct it. For example, if local industry is wasting cash commuting to Halifax, then it makes sense to open a regional office in this province that could:
a. lower operating costs for local businesses; and,
b. improve access of our very successful businesses to markets around the globe with Government of Canada support.
In some respects, this latest Harris report heralds the repeat of the same line of argument advanced by the old Young Royal Commission and the entire increased transfer payments fight from last year.
It is built on much mythology and lots of "numbers" but precious little meaningful information or analysis.
It is as though we are left to assume yet another can-opener.
15 minutes that defined a political campaign
For those who want to see a political campaign that promises to be very interesting, go to cbc.ca/nl and check out the evening news' political debate involving Loyola Hearn (CPC), Siobhan Coady (LPC) and Peg Norman (NDP).
It's under the link on the right to the latest television news broadcast. Get it quickly though because it is likely to disappear fast.
The only thing I will say is that the incumbent looked tired and decidedly weak. His answer as to why people should vote for him started out with a plea for pity because this is his fourth campaign in five years. When asked about the issues in the riding he started out by talking about the lack of local media coverage of the campaign.
Everyone was right.
This will be a race to watch.
It's under the link on the right to the latest television news broadcast. Get it quickly though because it is likely to disappear fast.
The only thing I will say is that the incumbent looked tired and decidedly weak. His answer as to why people should vote for him started out with a plea for pity because this is his fourth campaign in five years. When asked about the issues in the riding he started out by talking about the lack of local media coverage of the campaign.
Everyone was right.
This will be a race to watch.
03 January 2006
Loyola Hearn stands...for Party before province
People don't have such short memories, Loyola.
Remember this CBC story from May 2005?
It was at the start of the campaign to get Hearn to put his province ahead of his loyalty to his Leader.
Just as Hearn had pressured Liberals to do repeatedly.
My favourite quote is from Danny Williams: "If Mr. Hearn wants to trade off his province for his country, then that's his decision."
The Fair Deal website generated over 14, 000 e-mails to Hearn and Norm Doyle, all of which he wiggled and wriggled to avoid as only Hearn could.
For the record here's a vid cap from the House as Norm Doyle votes to bring down the government and with it, the province's offshore bill. Norm looks so happy, doesn't he?
Thank heavens there were members of parliament who stood up for Newfoundland and Labrador when it counted.
Like Chuck Cadman.
Remember this CBC story from May 2005?
It was at the start of the campaign to get Hearn to put his province ahead of his loyalty to his Leader.
Just as Hearn had pressured Liberals to do repeatedly.
My favourite quote is from Danny Williams: "If Mr. Hearn wants to trade off his province for his country, then that's his decision."
The Fair Deal website generated over 14, 000 e-mails to Hearn and Norm Doyle, all of which he wiggled and wriggled to avoid as only Hearn could.
For the record here's a vid cap from the House as Norm Doyle votes to bring down the government and with it, the province's offshore bill. Norm looks so happy, doesn't he?
Thank heavens there were members of parliament who stood up for Newfoundland and Labrador when it counted.
Like Chuck Cadman.
Lame-assed Loyola
Sitting here working, I just caught one of Connie candidate Loyola Hearn's radio spots on Open Line.
Now first of all the putz just spent $145 to air a 30 second spot on a radio call-in show.
That's like paying a hundred and fifty bucks to go to Bowring Park, where it's free to get in.
But I digress.
What's really lame about these radio spots is the content.
Loyola claims he's more effective than anyone else in Ottawa from this province.
How does he prove this?
By pointing to the 200-odd times he got to his feet in the House of Commons.
That's it. He got to his feet 200 times or more and that makes him effective.
Hmmmm.
I am gonna give that some thought, check my records and see what I can come up with.
Off the top of my head, I recall one of the things Loyola stood up for was the offshore deal. Then Steve Harper told him to sit down in order to bring down the government and kill off cash for the province.
So Loyola sat down.
Of course, there is an offshore vote Loyola doesn't like to talk about. That's one in 1987 when he stood up to vote in favour of offshore clawbacks.
Then there was the time Loyola stood up about supposed plans to close postal outlets in his riding. Turns out there were no such plans for Loyola's riding. There was one in Avalon I know of but that isn't in the riding Loyola is trying to represent. It's in the riding he would have represented if he wasn't afraid of losing in his own home town.
One of the latest things Loyola stood up to do was table a report on the fishery that placed the blame for cod collapse and the lack of recovery on all the people involved in the fishery in one way or another. Loyola then issued a news release that said something completely different. So even when Loyola stands, he doesn't necessarily stand for accuracy and honesty.
Loyola also stood up to collect his travel claim. Over $100, 000 last year and over $160, 000 the year before. I can't tell you what he spent so much money on since, unlike cabinet ministers, members of parliament get to keep their political spending a secret.
Looks like Loyola's radio spots are a sign of a lame-assed campaign from a member of parliament so desperate to demonstrate he did anything (other than follow Harper's orders) that he is willing to air utter tripe and claim it's gold.
Once I've checked into this a bit more, I'll give you some more examples.
But in the meantime, it sure looks like Loyola is back at proving just exactly how lame he has been as a member of parliament.
After all, who else who run on a record of standing up for the province on the offshore when the record shows Loyola sat down on command from his party leader.
When asked to put province before party, Loyola picked Stephen Harper over Hamilton Avenue and Hibbs Cove.
Now first of all the putz just spent $145 to air a 30 second spot on a radio call-in show.
That's like paying a hundred and fifty bucks to go to Bowring Park, where it's free to get in.
But I digress.
What's really lame about these radio spots is the content.
Loyola claims he's more effective than anyone else in Ottawa from this province.
How does he prove this?
By pointing to the 200-odd times he got to his feet in the House of Commons.
That's it. He got to his feet 200 times or more and that makes him effective.
Hmmmm.
I am gonna give that some thought, check my records and see what I can come up with.
Off the top of my head, I recall one of the things Loyola stood up for was the offshore deal. Then Steve Harper told him to sit down in order to bring down the government and kill off cash for the province.
So Loyola sat down.
Of course, there is an offshore vote Loyola doesn't like to talk about. That's one in 1987 when he stood up to vote in favour of offshore clawbacks.
Then there was the time Loyola stood up about supposed plans to close postal outlets in his riding. Turns out there were no such plans for Loyola's riding. There was one in Avalon I know of but that isn't in the riding Loyola is trying to represent. It's in the riding he would have represented if he wasn't afraid of losing in his own home town.
One of the latest things Loyola stood up to do was table a report on the fishery that placed the blame for cod collapse and the lack of recovery on all the people involved in the fishery in one way or another. Loyola then issued a news release that said something completely different. So even when Loyola stands, he doesn't necessarily stand for accuracy and honesty.
Loyola also stood up to collect his travel claim. Over $100, 000 last year and over $160, 000 the year before. I can't tell you what he spent so much money on since, unlike cabinet ministers, members of parliament get to keep their political spending a secret.
Looks like Loyola's radio spots are a sign of a lame-assed campaign from a member of parliament so desperate to demonstrate he did anything (other than follow Harper's orders) that he is willing to air utter tripe and claim it's gold.
Once I've checked into this a bit more, I'll give you some more examples.
But in the meantime, it sure looks like Loyola is back at proving just exactly how lame he has been as a member of parliament.
After all, who else who run on a record of standing up for the province on the offshore when the record shows Loyola sat down on command from his party leader.
When asked to put province before party, Loyola picked Stephen Harper over Hamilton Avenue and Hibbs Cove.
30 down - 19, 970 to go
The quest continues to see if I can down 20, 000 cups of coffee in a year in order to accumulate the 400 bucks Steve Harper, the economist, says I should get from his big rebate.Remember that one? Steve's gonna lower the GST 1% the first year and then wait four more years to cut the second one percent.
Of course, Steve can't do it in three provinces, which have harmonised sales tax. Can't do it unless those three provinces agree.
Well, on this the first full day back after the holidays, I can report that I have now downed a total of 30 double double's from Tim's since the GST announcement.
My Harper calculator tells me I have saved the princely sum of 60 cents.
Yes, I have not made enough in GST savings to buy another cup of coffee yet.
But hey, I am up for the challenge.
Just 19, 970 cups to go.
02 January 2006
Connies go negative - big time
Bravo nottawa.
He found the second, really negative Connie attack ad that has been running on a couple of specialty channels.
It's one the Connies wouldn't put on their website.
Aside from announcing Liberal policy - an agreement on wait times, puhleese, it's been done - all the Connies seem to have is negative, negative, negative.
Oh yeah.
And today, Stephen Harper kept another one of his campaign promises.
He said he wouldn't use gun violence and murder in Toronto as a political football.
Promise made...
*cough*
*cough*
Just like Steve said he wouldn't campaign over Christmas and the New Year's holidays.
He found the second, really negative Connie attack ad that has been running on a couple of specialty channels.
It's one the Connies wouldn't put on their website.
Aside from announcing Liberal policy - an agreement on wait times, puhleese, it's been done - all the Connies seem to have is negative, negative, negative.
Oh yeah.
And today, Stephen Harper kept another one of his campaign promises.
He said he wouldn't use gun violence and murder in Toronto as a political football.
Promise made...
*cough*
*cough*
Just like Steve said he wouldn't campaign over Christmas and the New Year's holidays.
A year of Bond-ing
Today marks the first anniversary of the Bond Papers.
One year ago, in the midst of the offshore talks, I started this blog as a means of contributing to the discussion of public policy issues affecting Newfoundland and Labrador in particular and Canada in general.
While much has changed in the past year, the core goal for the Bond Papers is still the same: to contribute to an informed discussion of public policy issues. It started with the offshore and in the first few weeks that proved to be the issue that dominated.
Since then, there have been posts on everything from the fishery to alleged spy planes flying through Newfoundland and Labrador, Titan missiles and economic development. Some posts are lighthearted and humourous. Others have been deeper and wordier. Whether they succeeded in being funny or serious, as the case may be, is best left to its readers.
Readership incidentally, has grown fairly steadily in the past year. On any given week upwards of 150 people a day drop in a read these e-scribbles. At times, such as the election, the daily readership has doubled that number. There is no defined pattern to the reader levels. On Friday past, for example, the readership hit the weekly peak of 245 unique visitors. On New Year's Day, it hit almost 150, on a Sunday, when normally readership would drop to the low double digits.
Fundamentally, the Bond Papers remains a form of samizdat, or self-publication. It is an opinion column written at least daily. The opinions here are based on my experience and my research into issues. Fortunately, I have built up a fairly good filing system and a bank of genuine experts off whom I can bounce any of my thoughts and ideas. Ultimately, the opinions presented here are my own.
Blogging, by its very nature, does not follow a single pattern. The one followed here encourages e-mails as the way for readers to give any feedback beyond reading it faithfully and turning up in the hit counter. Most correspondence comes from people who read regularly, beit daily or weekly. Some disagree completely with everything. Some agree with every word.
The majority fall somewhere in between and that is as it should be. The fundamental purpose of the Bond Papers is to provoke, and with any good fortune, to provoke thought.
My favourite response remains the angry telephone call from a politician, soon retired, who felt that in fact I was the one who couldn't do math. I will pit my calculator against his any day in confidence that mine is correct.
My second favourite is the threatening letter from part of the fourth estate that felt it best some of these columns perish rather than be published. Hypocrisy has a new name, but I was quite happy to stop handing out free advertising.One of the most common questions asked is a simple one: how much time do you spend on the blog?
I don't keep track. I fit it into the day. Most days, I find an hour in the evening or early in the morning to throw some things together. Since it is a topical online column, there is plenty of fodder. On other days, I'll be able to take some time during lunch or in the break between other projects to fire off a few thoughts. Anything substantial sometimes takes a half day or more, parceled out over several days. There are occasions when I have worked into the wee hours. Thankfully those times have been rare.
How much longer will this continue? Who knows?With so much fodder for the typing cannon, though and being an opinionated s.o.b., it will be hard to stop.
After all, NSDQ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)