Newbie members of parliament are busily getting their bearings in Ottawa in anticipation of taking up their new responsibilities within the next week.
Congratulations to them on all getting elected.
But there is a dark side to politics, as Steve Paikin described in his book of the same title.
One of the statistics thrown at the new MPs in their orientation is chilling: fully 70% of them will be divorced or have done serious damage to their relationships by the time their political career ends. The long hours, frequent travel and prolonged absences from home, partners and children take a heavy toll on politicians and their families. For those who take up cabinet responsibilities the stress and pressure is even greater.
Political staff often suffer the same pressures. Divorce is all too common. Young children often miss out on the support of the political staffer parent whose job demands much of his or her time and energy. Scott Feschuk joked about it on his blog during the campaign, but it is all too real a problem. My son was four before I actually got to spend any serious amount of time with him; it's time I'll never get back, but more importantly, our relationship was profoundly affected for a very long time by my lack of involvement with him from the very beginning.
Paikin argues at one point that Canadians should be more forgiving of politicians who take spouses along on business trips, at taxpayers expense. He builds the case by profiling politicians who have suffered relationship problems not by any of their own sins of commission but simply by virtue of the demands we, as constituents, place on our political leaders.
The book is readily available in both hard cover and paperback versions. For those of us whose only political activity is voting, check around for Paikin's book. Read it, and give it some thought.
And for all those newbies in Ottawa these days, it's a book whose message is worth serious contemplation.
You have nothing but our best wishes for success and from those of us who have read the book or who have some direct experience with political life, you can count on our understanding.
02 February 2006
Hearn + fish minister = potential problem
If Loyola Hearn gets to be fisheries minister in a Stephen Harper cabinet, there will likely be a problem.
For one thing, if Hearn gives in to his pet belief that northern cod stocks can handle a commercial fishery, as he told CBC recently, then he might run smack into the scientific projections that cod stocks can't handle the fishing done on them now.
That's a problem both for fish stocks and for Hearn's long-term prospects as fisheries minister.
If he rejects the calls for a cod fishery, then he'll raise the political ire of those he has worked to court over the past few years. That's a problem for Hearn, but a win for the fish.
Of course, if the information was placed in front of people who have a direct interest in the fishery - , i.e. the fishermen - odds are good they'd make the right choice.
That's what Hearn is quoted as referring to at the end of the CBC piece. Too bad he didn't make that his only comment, rather than offering the view it was okay to open the fishery.
We are going to be in for an interesting spring if Hearn gets the fish portfolio.
For one thing, if Hearn gives in to his pet belief that northern cod stocks can handle a commercial fishery, as he told CBC recently, then he might run smack into the scientific projections that cod stocks can't handle the fishing done on them now.
That's a problem both for fish stocks and for Hearn's long-term prospects as fisheries minister.
If he rejects the calls for a cod fishery, then he'll raise the political ire of those he has worked to court over the past few years. That's a problem for Hearn, but a win for the fish.
Of course, if the information was placed in front of people who have a direct interest in the fishery - , i.e. the fishermen - odds are good they'd make the right choice.
That's what Hearn is quoted as referring to at the end of the CBC piece. Too bad he didn't make that his only comment, rather than offering the view it was okay to open the fishery.
We are going to be in for an interesting spring if Hearn gets the fish portfolio.
Not one isotopic teaspoon, I say
A newly discovered uranium deposit in Labrador turns out to be larger than initially thought.
I say in all seriousness that government should not let one isotopic teaspoon of the ore outside the province without a ensuring that the uranium is processed to the fullest extent possible locally.
If everyone is upset about lack of secondary processing for iron ore and nickel then they should be furious about uranium leaving the province altogether without being turned into everything from weapons to electricity.
After all, we could build a nice reactor in Labrador, hook it up to the Lower Churchill and develop even more electrical power.
I say in all seriousness that government should not let one isotopic teaspoon of the ore outside the province without a ensuring that the uranium is processed to the fullest extent possible locally.
If everyone is upset about lack of secondary processing for iron ore and nickel then they should be furious about uranium leaving the province altogether without being turned into everything from weapons to electricity.
After all, we could build a nice reactor in Labrador, hook it up to the Lower Churchill and develop even more electrical power.
01 February 2006
There are 30 million reasons to miss Tobin. What's yours?
Some of us will be mourning Brian Tobin's decision to stay out of politics but not for the reasons his old party pres gave to local CBC Radio this morning as he waxed nostalgic about the glory days of the Second Brian.
Nope.
1. Some of us will be missing Tobin's ability to ramble through a media interview and take every conceivable position on a subject without actually taking one.
2. Some of us will miss his "Conversations with the Premier" on one local radio station. The things were a blatant rip-off of something Joe Smallwood used to do. But as one person said, the guy who stuck the mike in Smallwood's face got the chance to ask questions.
3. Some of us will miss Tobin's petulant - read childishly temperamental - attacks on reporters for asking simple, legitimate questions.
Like his long-talked about call to one reporter in which Tobin, upset that the reporter's story on outmigration didn't match Tobin's optimistic bullshit, commented negatively on the size of said reporter's family jewels.
Reputedly the reporter has the call on tape.
4. Some of us will miss incidents like the one in which the deceptively soft-spoken Ramona Dearing, hosting the CBC Radio Morning Show call-in, stood toe-to-toe with the biggest bullyboy blowhard in town until he backed off.
5. Some of us will miss major items of public policy made up in the back of the car as Tobin was being driven somewhere to deliver a speech.
I used to keep a quote from Tobin on my wall. It said something like "Public policy is not made at the drop of a hat; it comes after careful deliberation." He said that in the House of Assembly right after announcing a policy he had just that moment pulled from a pronounced bodily orifice.
6. Some of us will miss his fetishistic attachment to the words "quite frankly", "at the end of the day" and "in the fullness of time". They are hollow, empty, meaningless, space-fillers.
7. Some of us will miss the $57 million bucks in public money Tobin arranged to get from his buddy, hydro board chairman Dean MacDonald, to run something called the Lower Churchill project office. The money was never properly accounted for but the stuff that has been publicized showed a pattern of gross waste and no concern for cost. The money was spent at the direction of the Premier's Office and was accounted for neither to the House of Assembly nor, apparently, to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board of directors.
8. Some of us will miss Captain Canada and the Montreal Rally to Save Canada. Hmmm. Something else pulled from an orifice.
9. Some of us will miss the Turbot War, or as it would be more accurately be remembered: the Great Tobin Crusade for International Media Attention for Himself. That had to be the name for it, since the overfishing continues despite all the hype at the time.
10. Some of us will miss Tobin claiming in 1990 that he was Clyde Wells' secret constitutional advisor. Some of us will really remember the high-level phone call in which it was pointed out that either the bullshit stopped or Wells would sort the matter out...publicly.
The bullshit stopped.
11. Well, at least some of the bullshit stopped. Some of us will miss Tobin insisting straight-faced to Doug Letto that he intended to complete his second term, less than 18 months before he bailed out to go to the job everyone knew he wanted - one in Ottawa as a stepping stone to replacing Chretien.
Ah yes.
Many of us will miss the chance to have Brian Tobin back in politics.
We all have different reasons.
What are yours?
Send your Tobin story and we'll post the best.
Nope.
1. Some of us will be missing Tobin's ability to ramble through a media interview and take every conceivable position on a subject without actually taking one.
2. Some of us will miss his "Conversations with the Premier" on one local radio station. The things were a blatant rip-off of something Joe Smallwood used to do. But as one person said, the guy who stuck the mike in Smallwood's face got the chance to ask questions.
3. Some of us will miss Tobin's petulant - read childishly temperamental - attacks on reporters for asking simple, legitimate questions.
Like his long-talked about call to one reporter in which Tobin, upset that the reporter's story on outmigration didn't match Tobin's optimistic bullshit, commented negatively on the size of said reporter's family jewels.
Reputedly the reporter has the call on tape.
4. Some of us will miss incidents like the one in which the deceptively soft-spoken Ramona Dearing, hosting the CBC Radio Morning Show call-in, stood toe-to-toe with the biggest bullyboy blowhard in town until he backed off.
5. Some of us will miss major items of public policy made up in the back of the car as Tobin was being driven somewhere to deliver a speech.
I used to keep a quote from Tobin on my wall. It said something like "Public policy is not made at the drop of a hat; it comes after careful deliberation." He said that in the House of Assembly right after announcing a policy he had just that moment pulled from a pronounced bodily orifice.
6. Some of us will miss his fetishistic attachment to the words "quite frankly", "at the end of the day" and "in the fullness of time". They are hollow, empty, meaningless, space-fillers.
7. Some of us will miss the $57 million bucks in public money Tobin arranged to get from his buddy, hydro board chairman Dean MacDonald, to run something called the Lower Churchill project office. The money was never properly accounted for but the stuff that has been publicized showed a pattern of gross waste and no concern for cost. The money was spent at the direction of the Premier's Office and was accounted for neither to the House of Assembly nor, apparently, to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board of directors.
8. Some of us will miss Captain Canada and the Montreal Rally to Save Canada. Hmmm. Something else pulled from an orifice.
9. Some of us will miss the Turbot War, or as it would be more accurately be remembered: the Great Tobin Crusade for International Media Attention for Himself. That had to be the name for it, since the overfishing continues despite all the hype at the time.
10. Some of us will miss Tobin claiming in 1990 that he was Clyde Wells' secret constitutional advisor. Some of us will really remember the high-level phone call in which it was pointed out that either the bullshit stopped or Wells would sort the matter out...publicly.
The bullshit stopped.
11. Well, at least some of the bullshit stopped. Some of us will miss Tobin insisting straight-faced to Doug Letto that he intended to complete his second term, less than 18 months before he bailed out to go to the job everyone knew he wanted - one in Ottawa as a stepping stone to replacing Chretien.
Ah yes.
Many of us will miss the chance to have Brian Tobin back in politics.
We all have different reasons.
What are yours?
Send your Tobin story and we'll post the best.
Hearn off national radar, ditto Newfoundland and Labrador
Loyola Hearn, predicted by some to be John Efford's replacement in Ottawa, is not on Don Martin's list of the top 15 picks for the Harper cabinet.
Martin is the Connie-friendly scribe for the NationalLampoon Post, semi-demi-official organ of the Conservative Party of Canada. Our very own right wing Pravda, without the pravda.
For his part, Hearn is the guy who is described by a number of people as being one of the architects of the Conservative Party. Guess that counts for exactly squat in the greater scheme of things.
Martin's story means that either Harper won't be appointing to cabinet anyone east of Quebec other than Pete MacKay, DDS,...
or, most likely our man Loyola will need a super, extra strong voice and maybe a box to hop on when he stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador from his seat well outside the inner circle of cabinet.
He's gonna be so far out of touch with the people making the decisions the only way he'll get noticed is if he sets his arse on fire.
Come to think of it, that's how Efford made the news too:
Self-immolation.
Martin is the Connie-friendly scribe for the National
For his part, Hearn is the guy who is described by a number of people as being one of the architects of the Conservative Party. Guess that counts for exactly squat in the greater scheme of things.
Martin's story means that either Harper won't be appointing to cabinet anyone east of Quebec other than Pete MacKay, DDS,...
or, most likely our man Loyola will need a super, extra strong voice and maybe a box to hop on when he stands up for Newfoundland and Labrador from his seat well outside the inner circle of cabinet.
He's gonna be so far out of touch with the people making the decisions the only way he'll get noticed is if he sets his arse on fire.
Come to think of it, that's how Efford made the news too:
Self-immolation.
Democracy in action...at nottawa
Head over to Mark's Random Musings and take part in his Great Experiment in E-Democracy.
He's looking for some input on when the national Liberal Party should hold its leadership convention.
He's looking for some input on when the national Liberal Party should hold its leadership convention.
Williams' honeymoon over?
The provincial auditor general John Noseworthy released a detailed - and damning - report yesterday into the provincial government's administration of public finances.
Among his findings:
1. A culture of entitlement exists in some parts of the senior public service that allows senior mandarinsto flaunt treasury board guidelines without consequence. Noseworthy pointed to numerous examples of executives receiving salary overpayments with no recovery being sought. The problem is a crhonic one, going back decades...but hey, Danny Williams and his finance minister were elected to implement a New Approach.
2. In December 2003, a Mount Pearl manufacturer received a $300, 000 government loan based on a directive from the premier's office despite advice to the contrary from government officials:
4. The provincial government retains a considerable number of surplus properties yet has no strategy for managing or disposing of them thereby increasing government costs.
In media interviews yesterday, Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan looked extremely uncomfortable. That's likely because Noseworthy's audit revealed significant problems in financial administration that Sullivan can't slough off on the previous crowd.
He and his boss own a bunch of these problems, yet they haven't done anything about them.
Sorta like the debt strategy we are still waiting for.
Two years later.
Among his findings:
1. A culture of entitlement exists in some parts of the senior public service that allows senior mandarinsto flaunt treasury board guidelines without consequence. Noseworthy pointed to numerous examples of executives receiving salary overpayments with no recovery being sought. The problem is a crhonic one, going back decades...but hey, Danny Williams and his finance minister were elected to implement a New Approach.
2. In December 2003, a Mount Pearl manufacturer received a $300, 000 government loan based on a directive from the premier's office despite advice to the contrary from government officials:
Contrary to the recommendations of officials at the Department of Finance and the Department of Innovation Trade and Rural Development, a directive from the Premier's Office in December 2003 resulted in a manufacturing company being provided with a $300,000 loan in 2004.3. Government contravened the Financial Administration Act and other government policies in the way it provided financial assistance to Icewater Seafoods; and,
Officials cited issues such as:
- the loan would not be secured in that prior liens of other investors would have claim to the company's assets in the event of bankruptcy;
- the investment would not generate additional employment in the Province;
- a revised business strategy of the company was not advanced enough to determine if the company would be viable; and,
- several other existing investors were not prepared to increase their investment.
4. The provincial government retains a considerable number of surplus properties yet has no strategy for managing or disposing of them thereby increasing government costs.
In media interviews yesterday, Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan looked extremely uncomfortable. That's likely because Noseworthy's audit revealed significant problems in financial administration that Sullivan can't slough off on the previous crowd.
He and his boss own a bunch of these problems, yet they haven't done anything about them.
Sorta like the debt strategy we are still waiting for.
Two years later.
and they dissed Lono's Code of Conduct
In light of the ongoing fiasco over handing themselves a hefty raise by breaking their own rules, St. John's city council has likely caused a bunch of residents of the capital to ponder their votes in the last election.
They are probably thinking too about the stunning silence of council candidates who paid no attention to Simon Lono's code of conduct. Lono, an at large candidate, unveiled a simple set of principles he said would guide him as a councilor. The candidates who didn't ignore Lono altogether on this point thought the idea was irrelevant since they would always act in an open and transparent manner, putting the public interest ahead of their private interests.
Yeah, well, recent actions demonstrate that council just didn't get it then and they still don't get it. Even the councilors who voted to postpone their pay hikes spoke about the whole matter as a simple misunderstanding.
Tom Hann - who simply echoed sentiments of several councilors including the mayor - said something to the effect that if the whole reason for the hike had been properly explained, residents would have understood.
Barrrrrrmp.
Wrong, Tom.
The point was never about raises.
It was about the sneaky way council set about doing it.
Against council's own rules.
Rules that council was prepared to chuck because they were inconvenient.
Rules that required openness and transparency in the process by sending the matter of council pay to an independent committee.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you once again, the Lono Code of Conduct for city councilors in St. John's. Note especially the parts of the code that apply in this case.
Did any member of council come close to adhering to these simple principles?
*• Act in the public interest. I will work diligently for the public interest of the City and not for any private or personal interest, representing the will of residents and treating all persons, claims and transactions in a fair and equitable manner.
* • Behave in an ethical, open and transparent manner. On being elected, I will publicly disclose all my business and personal interests and will abstain from council debates and decisions in which I have a financial interest, organizational responsibility or personal relationship that could present or appear to present a conflict of interest; I will not accept or use gifts, services or opportunities offered to me which could present or appear to present a conflict of interest; I will not use for personal or private purposes City resources that are not available to the general public of St. John's.
* Conduct public business in a civil and respectful manner. I will debate in Council Chambers, and in all public and private forums, in accordance with rules established by Council, Robert's Rules of Order and basic good manners; I will inform myself and focus on the merits of the question under discussion, maintain courtesy and fairness in debate and refrain from defaming, demeaning, interrupting or attacking the character or motives of other members of the City Council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public.
* Maintain open communications with citizens of St. John's and staff of the City. I will consult with City residents and businesses on matters of municipal policy, planning and programming; communicate decisions and other information affecting residents and businesses in a timely fashion; and engage City staff to understand their concerns as public employees.
They are probably thinking too about the stunning silence of council candidates who paid no attention to Simon Lono's code of conduct. Lono, an at large candidate, unveiled a simple set of principles he said would guide him as a councilor. The candidates who didn't ignore Lono altogether on this point thought the idea was irrelevant since they would always act in an open and transparent manner, putting the public interest ahead of their private interests.
Yeah, well, recent actions demonstrate that council just didn't get it then and they still don't get it. Even the councilors who voted to postpone their pay hikes spoke about the whole matter as a simple misunderstanding.
Tom Hann - who simply echoed sentiments of several councilors including the mayor - said something to the effect that if the whole reason for the hike had been properly explained, residents would have understood.
Barrrrrrmp.
Wrong, Tom.
The point was never about raises.
It was about the sneaky way council set about doing it.
Against council's own rules.
Rules that council was prepared to chuck because they were inconvenient.
Rules that required openness and transparency in the process by sending the matter of council pay to an independent committee.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you once again, the Lono Code of Conduct for city councilors in St. John's. Note especially the parts of the code that apply in this case.
Did any member of council come close to adhering to these simple principles?
Code of Conduct
for members of
St. John's City Council
As an elected representative of the people of St. John's, I will: for members of
St. John's City Council
*• Act in the public interest. I will work diligently for the public interest of the City and not for any private or personal interest, representing the will of residents and treating all persons, claims and transactions in a fair and equitable manner.
* • Behave in an ethical, open and transparent manner. On being elected, I will publicly disclose all my business and personal interests and will abstain from council debates and decisions in which I have a financial interest, organizational responsibility or personal relationship that could present or appear to present a conflict of interest; I will not accept or use gifts, services or opportunities offered to me which could present or appear to present a conflict of interest; I will not use for personal or private purposes City resources that are not available to the general public of St. John's.
* Conduct public business in a civil and respectful manner. I will debate in Council Chambers, and in all public and private forums, in accordance with rules established by Council, Robert's Rules of Order and basic good manners; I will inform myself and focus on the merits of the question under discussion, maintain courtesy and fairness in debate and refrain from defaming, demeaning, interrupting or attacking the character or motives of other members of the City Council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public.
* Maintain open communications with citizens of St. John's and staff of the City. I will consult with City residents and businesses on matters of municipal policy, planning and programming; communicate decisions and other information affecting residents and businesses in a timely fashion; and engage City staff to understand their concerns as public employees.
31 January 2006
Then there are ducks
Dad is not without some talent, of course.At left is a 1/35th scale DUKW built and painted by your humble e-scribe. This is a picture from the almost-finished version so it is still missing some little bits and pieces. Nevertheless, you'll get the idea.
DUKW's, known affectionately as ducks, were built on military 2.5 ton truck chassis and designed to ferry men and supplies over the beaches at Normandy. They are fully amphibious, meaning they can go straight from land into the water and vice versa.
At right is a real DUKW lovingly restored and driven through mud, muck and water by its American owner.
Ralph just bided his time
Alberta may well be introducing changes to the province's health care system that include direct billing by doctors to patients for some services.
What a surprise. it's not like Ralph Klein hasn't talked about that before.
Let's see how the new Conservative administration in Ottawa responds, if indeed the changes violate the Canada Health Act.
What a surprise. it's not like Ralph Klein hasn't talked about that before.
Let's see how the new Conservative administration in Ottawa responds, if indeed the changes violate the Canada Health Act.
Charges laid in DND fraud case
Some Connies tossed the case of alleged fraud within the Department of National Defence on the doorstep of the Liberals, largely because they just tossed every one they could into the pile of alleged "corruption" and miscellaneous evil and kitten eating.
Well, read the story by Canadian Press.
There was criminal activity. The police were called. People were charged. Those who blamed "Liberals" for this were, as usual, grossly deficient in their facts.
Then again, some people can never be accused of letting facts get in the way of a smear.
Well, read the story by Canadian Press.
There was criminal activity. The police were called. People were charged. Those who blamed "Liberals" for this were, as usual, grossly deficient in their facts.
Then again, some people can never be accused of letting facts get in the way of a smear.
The battle lines might be forming
over the so-called vertical fiscal imbalance and Equalization reform.
Check the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, specifically the story on the Harper budget due for March.
It includes this section at the end:
Check the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, specifically the story on the Harper budget due for March.
It includes this section at the end:
Experts warn that the new Tory regime will be hard-pressed to pay for a controversial election promise to share Ottawa's surplus riches with the provinces. Last December Mr. Harper pledged to fix the so-called fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces.
"I think we have to face the fact that Ottawa is rolling in tens of billions of dollars in surpluses . . . at the same time as provinces and municipalities are having trouble meeting the essential core services without going into debt," he said then. "We must find a long-term revenue transfer from the federal government to the provinces and municipalities."
But economists warn that the Conservative fiscal plan provides scant resources for assistance to the provinces. The Tories did not budget any cash for fixing the imbalance, but said they will fund it from $22-billion in budget surpluses their plan would generate over five years.
Dale Orr, chief economist at Global Insight (Canada), said the Tories won't have much cash to spare, especially if they set aside some of each year's projected surplus to guard against economic downturns. He said what's left is small potatoes. "That's not very interesting to the premiers . . . They are talking big, big bucks."
Quebec not interested in elected senate
Since Steve Harper has only committed to a "national" approach, there's no reason why we couldn't wind up in the bizarre situation where some provinces elect senators and some don't.
In the original announcement, Harper left the impression he'd turn the selection process for senators over to provincial premiers rather than run national elections organized by elections Canada.
Quebec clearly isn't interested.
Now we have to see how serious Harper was about senate reform.
In the original announcement, Harper left the impression he'd turn the selection process for senators over to provincial premiers rather than run national elections organized by elections Canada.
Quebec clearly isn't interested.
Now we have to see how serious Harper was about senate reform.
30 January 2006
Goose Bay take note: Connie defence promises to be modified
As noted here, the Conservative defence promises contained many elements that could not be delivered, at least in the near term.
Canadian Press reported on Monday that the plan will be modified. The $2.0 billion price tag is way too low.
Canadian Press reported on Monday that the plan will be modified. The $2.0 billion price tag is way too low.
Toronto power needs good sign for Lower Churchill
As much as Danny Williams likes to muse about building the Lower Churchill hydro project on his own, the joint offer from Quebec and Ontario is still the best option available.
A story today in the Toronto Star confirms Ontario is so strapped for power, the provincial government is looking at building a gas-fired power plant in Hog Town to make sure the lights stay on.
A story today in the Toronto Star confirms Ontario is so strapped for power, the provincial government is looking at building a gas-fired power plant in Hog Town to make sure the lights stay on.
The Harper Plan
Courtesy of the Toronto Star comes a speculation piece on Steve Harper's plans for Canada.
Part of the plan is already easy to see: the Conservatives plan to reduce federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as funding programs in health care, social services and education.
That's one of the logical implications of the Equalization reform proposals, for example, which are designed, in part to lower Ottawa's outlays. As some others have suggested, the Conservative starting point in talks with the provinces would be reduced federal taxes that would have the ffect of opening room for the provinces to boost their tax haul.
Expect that one to disappear quickly.
What political leader wants to raise taxes?
Part of the plan is already easy to see: the Conservatives plan to reduce federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as funding programs in health care, social services and education.
That's one of the logical implications of the Equalization reform proposals, for example, which are designed, in part to lower Ottawa's outlays. As some others have suggested, the Conservative starting point in talks with the provinces would be reduced federal taxes that would have the ffect of opening room for the provinces to boost their tax haul.
Expect that one to disappear quickly.
What political leader wants to raise taxes?
Provincial Liberals still hunting for leader
Interim provincial Liberal leader Gerry Reid announced today that he won't be seeking the job permanently.
Former cabinet minister Anna Thistle - admittedly a long shot - also confirmed she won't be running.
The hunt is still on for someone to challenge lawyer Jim Bennett. So far he's the only declared candidate. Bennett enjoys the support of former Smallwood-era cabinet minister Bill Callahan, current caucus chair Percy Barrett and St. John's city councilor Tom Hann.
Bennett, who is married to Ontario cabinet minister Sandra Pupatello, has announced only one initiative thus far: to nationalize Fishery Products International, either in whole or in part.
Others reportedly considering a run for the leadership include Paul Antle and Siobhan Coady.
Former cabinet minister Anna Thistle - admittedly a long shot - also confirmed she won't be running.
The hunt is still on for someone to challenge lawyer Jim Bennett. So far he's the only declared candidate. Bennett enjoys the support of former Smallwood-era cabinet minister Bill Callahan, current caucus chair Percy Barrett and St. John's city councilor Tom Hann.
Bennett, who is married to Ontario cabinet minister Sandra Pupatello, has announced only one initiative thus far: to nationalize Fishery Products International, either in whole or in part.
Others reportedly considering a run for the leadership include Paul Antle and Siobhan Coady.
St. John's council gets religion - sort of
Surprise. Surprise.
St. John's city council voted tonight to send the matter of their raises to an independent committee of some kind for a review and recommendations.
Only Mayor Andy Wells voted against the motion to rescind the pay hikes.
Update: As The Telly reports, councilors were quick to admit they had a problem but their conversion seems reluctant and half-hearted.
As one wag put it it's like council feels that they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, sister ratted them out and mommy just needs to understand the reasons why they took the cookies in the first.
Andy comfortably predicted the independent consultant who will now review the matter will come back with the same recommendation.
That all depends on who council picks to be the "independent" consultant.
Hands up who thinks it will be Andy's buddy, like say Marie White?
St. John's city council voted tonight to send the matter of their raises to an independent committee of some kind for a review and recommendations.
Only Mayor Andy Wells voted against the motion to rescind the pay hikes.
Update: As The Telly reports, councilors were quick to admit they had a problem but their conversion seems reluctant and half-hearted.
As one wag put it it's like council feels that they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, sister ratted them out and mommy just needs to understand the reasons why they took the cookies in the first.
Andy comfortably predicted the independent consultant who will now review the matter will come back with the same recommendation.
That all depends on who council picks to be the "independent" consultant.
Hands up who thinks it will be Andy's buddy, like say Marie White?
Et maintenant - Stephane Dion
With McKenna out of the way and the second week of leadership speculation calming down somewhat, there is time to look to an obvious choice for leader:
Stephane Dion.
The only issue I'd take with this endorsement from the Draft Dion blog is that Dion would not defend the Trudeau vision of Canada. Rather he'd represent a vision of Canada which a great many Canadians share and which is sadly not being reflected in the current dialogue.
Stephane Dion.
The only issue I'd take with this endorsement from the Draft Dion blog is that Dion would not defend the Trudeau vision of Canada. Rather he'd represent a vision of Canada which a great many Canadians share and which is sadly not being reflected in the current dialogue.
Equalization for beginners
In light of the interest in federal-provincial fiscal relations, here's a link to a post from last year that explained Equalization as simply as I could possibly explain it.
Take a gander.
This will serve as a grounding for the next major post. In that one, I will review the Danny Williams' proposal for Equalization reform and compare it to the one offered up by the federal Conservatives.
Take a gander.
This will serve as a grounding for the next major post. In that one, I will review the Danny Williams' proposal for Equalization reform and compare it to the one offered up by the federal Conservatives.
Pull the other one, Tom Hann.
It's got bells on it.
Hann, the newbie councilor is actually a political veteran who claims he is new to politics and needs to develop a thicker skin.
Seems Hann is bristling over criticism that he went along with his fellow St. John's city councilors in giving themselves a hefty raise in pay without going through a proper process.
Hann calls the whole affair a "public relations disaster" and that if people understood the reason for the raise, there wouldn't be any controversy. That's one of the things he told CBC radio.
He told The Sunday Telegram he hadn't seen the memo from council staff advising that they needed to send the whole affair to an outside group. Seems Hann is to busy to manage all the paper.
What we have here is not a public relations problem....at least not in the sense that Hann means it.
What the residents of St. John's have here is a council that is incapable of adhering to some basic management principles or its own rules.
Council screwed up.
Badly.
They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, violating their own resolutions and own by-laws and, if predictions hold, stepping forward at today's meeting to simply change the rules to suit their purposes.
Hann's excuses - "I didn't get the memo" or "if people only understood..." - demonstrate clearly that the political veteran knows full well how to try and bluster his way through a problem of his own creation. The issue never was about the rationale for the raise; it's about the way council handled the whole affair from the beginning. They broke the rules and now simply want to ignore both the criticisms and the rules to keep their ill-gotten gains.
Unfortunately, what Hann learned in his political life is how not to handle a problem.
If Hann understood what public relations really is - and political public relations at that - he'd recognize some pretty simple actions that would make the whole issue disappear in a heartbeat:
Action Number 1: Admit to the mistake.
- That's a mark of integrity and character in a leader.
Action Number 2: Rescind the motion granting the raise and start following the rules.
- Hann and his fellow councilors will likely get a raise, but they'll get it in a way that won't raise the hackles on citizens' necks.
Action Number 3: Stop bullshitting people with cheap excuses.
- Bullshit let's everyone know that you understand the real issues but you are just ducking them. Bullshit also tells residents you have no respect for them and what's worse, that your election platform may have been a snow job.
The thing is, the way Hann is handling this issue, he is damaging the one commodity he can't afford to damage: his credibility. Once that's gone, a politician is in serious trouble.
Hann and his fellow councilors have a public relations problem alright.
The kind of problem a public relations professional could sort out quickly.
But for some inexplicable reason, politicians seem to have difficulty identifying the nature of their problem, let alone sort it out.
Hann, the newbie councilor is actually a political veteran who claims he is new to politics and needs to develop a thicker skin.
Seems Hann is bristling over criticism that he went along with his fellow St. John's city councilors in giving themselves a hefty raise in pay without going through a proper process.
Hann calls the whole affair a "public relations disaster" and that if people understood the reason for the raise, there wouldn't be any controversy. That's one of the things he told CBC radio.
He told The Sunday Telegram he hadn't seen the memo from council staff advising that they needed to send the whole affair to an outside group. Seems Hann is to busy to manage all the paper.
What we have here is not a public relations problem....at least not in the sense that Hann means it.
What the residents of St. John's have here is a council that is incapable of adhering to some basic management principles or its own rules.
Council screwed up.
Badly.
They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, violating their own resolutions and own by-laws and, if predictions hold, stepping forward at today's meeting to simply change the rules to suit their purposes.
Hann's excuses - "I didn't get the memo" or "if people only understood..." - demonstrate clearly that the political veteran knows full well how to try and bluster his way through a problem of his own creation. The issue never was about the rationale for the raise; it's about the way council handled the whole affair from the beginning. They broke the rules and now simply want to ignore both the criticisms and the rules to keep their ill-gotten gains.
Unfortunately, what Hann learned in his political life is how not to handle a problem.
If Hann understood what public relations really is - and political public relations at that - he'd recognize some pretty simple actions that would make the whole issue disappear in a heartbeat:
Action Number 1: Admit to the mistake.
- That's a mark of integrity and character in a leader.
Action Number 2: Rescind the motion granting the raise and start following the rules.
- Hann and his fellow councilors will likely get a raise, but they'll get it in a way that won't raise the hackles on citizens' necks.
Action Number 3: Stop bullshitting people with cheap excuses.
- Bullshit let's everyone know that you understand the real issues but you are just ducking them. Bullshit also tells residents you have no respect for them and what's worse, that your election platform may have been a snow job.
The thing is, the way Hann is handling this issue, he is damaging the one commodity he can't afford to damage: his credibility. Once that's gone, a politician is in serious trouble.
Hann and his fellow councilors have a public relations problem alright.
The kind of problem a public relations professional could sort out quickly.
But for some inexplicable reason, politicians seem to have difficulty identifying the nature of their problem, let alone sort it out.
29 January 2006
The Amazing Shrinking Minority, or The Integrity of Brian Pallister
124 seats.
Lop off one for a speaker.
Now lop off Brian Pallister who is reportedly casting longing glances at the Manitoba Progressive Conservative leadership race:
Next!
Lop off one for a speaker.
Now lop off Brian Pallister who is reportedly casting longing glances at the Manitoba Progressive Conservative leadership race:
"...I will be returning to Manitoba and consulting with Manitobans as to whether they wish me to enter the race for the Provincial PC leadership."This is the same Brian Pallister who on the night of the election denied said provincial political longings:
"I can'’t even begin to consider a provincial option right now," a jubilant Pallister said from his election headquarters in Portage last night. "Tonight I"’m just celebrating 10 years of hard work."That's 122 and shrinking.
Next!
28 January 2006
City ignores own conflict of interest law...and own previous motion
Update: It's Saturday. Grab the Telly for yet more on the slimy operations at City Hall.
on Monday night passed, Council ignored one of its own resolutions - as well as the by-law on conflict of interest described below. That motion, passed in 2002 mandated that council send the issue of salaries to an independent panel before each election and that the incoming council would accept the recommendations.
Despite the fact that all but three of the current councilors voted on that motion, none of them paid any attention to it.
In the meeting on Monday night, city officials reminded council of the need to rescind the 2002 motion. They ignored it and carried on anyway.
Meanwhile, the Telly reports that newbie council Ron Ellsworth (whose election campaign expenses are still larger than his newly inflated salary, but only just) will introduce a motion on Monday...to rescind the 2002 motion, not the one every is complaining about.
unrepentant, the Boor Mayor continues to lash out at all those who oppose him.
Grab the Telly. Vintage small town politics.
Sad but true.
_________________
St. John's City Council is in hot water with residents of the capital.
At Monday night's meeting, without putting it on the agenda, providing any form of advance notice, and without mentioning it in the budget at all, councilors voted themselves a retroactive pay hike that will see some of them getting cheques for thousands of dollars.
According to The Telegram, council made the decision without consulting staff or an outside sources. They merely sat around a table, did some quick math and boosted their pay.
It was a unanimous decision. Some councilors, like Shannie Duff ought to have known better that the process council used was pathetically inappropriate. However, given Duff's long career on council it is possible she was overcome by a moment of group-think.
Newbie councilor Ron Ellsworth offered a lame excuse: apparently he works hard. He may work hard, but the method he chose to reward himself is so ridiculous as to defy explanation.
As for Tom Hann, the whole affair beggars imagination. The guy who has railed against council for its secretiveness and for its alleged massaging of the books at Mile One stadium has now simply become one of the people he used to criticize. How quickly he was absorbed into the collective when Andy, Doc and the boys started talking about paycheques.
The guy who was a fixture of the Open Line shows along with Sue and the Moon man has now been struck mute. His silence is deafening. Should Hann pop up on Monday - after he sees which way the wind is blowing - to rescind the motion and offer apologies, citizens of St. John's should take his conversion with a grain of salt.
Keep an eye on him. The salary issue was too obviously wrong and his willingness to go along with it too easy. Hann was elected having spoken out about the need for financial propriety at City Hall. In this instance, the watchdog helped load the getaway van.
The issue here is solely one of process and the process used is wrong.
The process is wrong because council violated its own by-laws by using the method it did.
By-law 103 on conflict of interest to be specific:
Conflict of interest is why in every other elected body, the remuneration for elected officials is passed to third parties to decide. Even if council must, by law, vote on its own salary, the salary should be set by someone other than council and adopted without debate.
The question now remains what to do.
Council has no choice but rescind the motion granting the raises. Who better to do it than Doc O'Keefe, the deputy mayor. To do otherwise would merely confirm that council behaves exactly as they have been accused of behaving: without regard to the law.
Once rescinded council should appoint a panel of three persons - none of them being former councilors - and give them 30 days to report on a new method of setting council remuneration from this point forward. Under no circumstances should council grant retroactive pay and under no circumstances should citizens have to deal with this spectacle again in four years' time.
on Monday night passed, Council ignored one of its own resolutions - as well as the by-law on conflict of interest described below. That motion, passed in 2002 mandated that council send the issue of salaries to an independent panel before each election and that the incoming council would accept the recommendations.
Despite the fact that all but three of the current councilors voted on that motion, none of them paid any attention to it.
In the meeting on Monday night, city officials reminded council of the need to rescind the 2002 motion. They ignored it and carried on anyway.
Meanwhile, the Telly reports that newbie council Ron Ellsworth (whose election campaign expenses are still larger than his newly inflated salary, but only just) will introduce a motion on Monday...to rescind the 2002 motion, not the one every is complaining about.
unrepentant, the Boor Mayor continues to lash out at all those who oppose him.
Grab the Telly. Vintage small town politics.
Sad but true.
_________________
St. John's City Council is in hot water with residents of the capital.
At Monday night's meeting, without putting it on the agenda, providing any form of advance notice, and without mentioning it in the budget at all, councilors voted themselves a retroactive pay hike that will see some of them getting cheques for thousands of dollars.
According to The Telegram, council made the decision without consulting staff or an outside sources. They merely sat around a table, did some quick math and boosted their pay.
It was a unanimous decision. Some councilors, like Shannie Duff ought to have known better that the process council used was pathetically inappropriate. However, given Duff's long career on council it is possible she was overcome by a moment of group-think.
Newbie councilor Ron Ellsworth offered a lame excuse: apparently he works hard. He may work hard, but the method he chose to reward himself is so ridiculous as to defy explanation.
As for Tom Hann, the whole affair beggars imagination. The guy who has railed against council for its secretiveness and for its alleged massaging of the books at Mile One stadium has now simply become one of the people he used to criticize. How quickly he was absorbed into the collective when Andy, Doc and the boys started talking about paycheques.
The guy who was a fixture of the Open Line shows along with Sue and the Moon man has now been struck mute. His silence is deafening. Should Hann pop up on Monday - after he sees which way the wind is blowing - to rescind the motion and offer apologies, citizens of St. John's should take his conversion with a grain of salt.
Keep an eye on him. The salary issue was too obviously wrong and his willingness to go along with it too easy. Hann was elected having spoken out about the need for financial propriety at City Hall. In this instance, the watchdog helped load the getaway van.
The issue here is solely one of process and the process used is wrong.
The process is wrong because council violated its own by-laws by using the method it did.
By-law 103 on conflict of interest to be specific:
3.(1) No member of Council shall vote on or speak to any matter before the Council or any committee thereof where:There is no more direct pecuniary interest than a councilor's own remuneration for the job of serving on council.(a) the member of Council has a pecuniary interest directly or indirectly in that matter; (Amended 97/12/01; #1401)
Conflict of interest is why in every other elected body, the remuneration for elected officials is passed to third parties to decide. Even if council must, by law, vote on its own salary, the salary should be set by someone other than council and adopted without debate.
The question now remains what to do.
Council has no choice but rescind the motion granting the raises. Who better to do it than Doc O'Keefe, the deputy mayor. To do otherwise would merely confirm that council behaves exactly as they have been accused of behaving: without regard to the law.
Once rescinded council should appoint a panel of three persons - none of them being former councilors - and give them 30 days to report on a new method of setting council remuneration from this point forward. Under no circumstances should council grant retroactive pay and under no circumstances should citizens have to deal with this spectacle again in four years' time.
27 January 2006
The Blue Plan: rapid execution of deportation orders
Church basements across the country might be filling up quickly if this part of the Harper plan goes into action:
Now in today's Ottawa Sun comes the case of a family originally from Belgium that is likely to get the swift boot from Canada.
The problem? A 24 year old conviction for breaking and enetering which federal immigration officials have known about all the while renewing the family's papers on a regular basis. The previous conviction only became an issue when the family sought permanent resident status.
From the Sun:
In April 2003, the Auditor General reported that the federal government had lost track of some 36,000 people who were under deportation orders. This is unacceptable. People who are under deportation orders must be removed. Canadians deserve nothing less. [Emphasis added]There have been cases in Newfoundland and Labrador, which successful Connie candidates laid at the doorstep of Liberals, all the while knowing their party platform contained the above-cited provision.
The plan
A Conservative government will:
*• Rapidly reduce the backlog of unexecuted deportation orders and swiftly carry out new deportation orders.
Now in today's Ottawa Sun comes the case of a family originally from Belgium that is likely to get the swift boot from Canada.
The problem? A 24 year old conviction for breaking and enetering which federal immigration officials have known about all the while renewing the family's papers on a regular basis. The previous conviction only became an issue when the family sought permanent resident status.
From the Sun:
How long it will take the snail-moving bureaucracy to process it, and (it is hoped) give permanent-residency approval, nobody knows. Hillier is hoping the new Harper government will be a blessing. He says he already had support for the Van Hauves from Tory MPs in the area. "All we're asking is a 120-day extension," he says. "What harm is there in that?"Let's hope that the incoming Conservative government rethinks its policy on deportations, at least just a weensy bit. And that those Connie members of parliament who were willing to support this guy weren't just doing it for the votes.
Choice of new resources minister could ignite old feud
The Financial Post is reporting that Alberta oil interests would like to see the federal natural resources portfolio assigned to a senior cabinet minister to reflect accurately the role the oil and gas industry plays in the Canadian economy.
Ian Doig, an oil analyst based in Calgary has been a long-standing critic of oil and gas exploration and development offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Doig is familiar in Newfoundland and Labrador as a constant critic of the Hibernia project. His views, which often reflect the general opinions in the Alberta oil patch, haven't changed in the past 20 years. As he told the Globe and Mail recently about increased interest by Husky in the east coast offshore:
Alberta's success in promoting its own oil and gas resources are easy to see. Both the Government of Alberta and the federal Liberal government worked to attract American interest in the oil sands, including planning a visit by vice-president Dick Cheney last fall.
Veteran United States Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has already predicted Canada will surpass Saudi Arabia as the leading supplier of oil to the United States. But Hatch's attention is firmly focused on Alberta, describing it as the 800 pound gorilla sitting immediately above Montana.
CBS News' 60 minutes also profiled the oil sands recently, describing them as likely to become more important to the United States than Saudi Arabia.
Try finding any similar attention being paid to the east coast offshore. True there has been an uptick in calls for exploration bids, but there is nothing to rival the recent attention paid to Alberta in the major markets south of the border.
The east coast oil and gas industry still faces significant challenges, not the least of which is making its regulatory regime both effective and competitive. It simply isn't clear whether or not the provincial government is interested in a genuinely competitive, modern oil and gas industry. Turning the province's hydro corporation into a neophyte oil and gas company, the premier's instance on piling on local benefits to projects, and the nomination of Andy Wells to head the offshore regulator all suggest a return to a policy straight out of the unsuccessful past.
That policy is distinctly out of step with the new federal Conservative government's philosophy of economic development and that is ultimately where the problem may rest. Alberta is surging ahead on an agenda of innovation, local entrepreneurship and attracting new outside investment. That matches perfectly with the Conservative view.
What happens offshore Newfoundland and Labrador in the next few years will depend very heavily on who sits as the federal natural resources minister come February 6. If it winds up being an Albertan or someone sympathetic to Alberta's approach - either of which is almost a certainty - Newfoundland and Labrador might find itself in a difficult spot.
We've been in that same spot before and we don't need to go there again.
"The Liberal administration looked on energy as an annoyance, which makes sense in that their stronghold, central Canada, is made up of energy consumers. It was the job of the natural resources minister to keep the consumers happy," Mr. [Frank] Atkins [, a University of Calgary economist] said. "The West is an energy producer, so now we'll get the proper perspective on that.The choice of natural resources minister may resurrect the old rivalry between the established oil producers in Alberta and the new centres of oil wealth on Canada's east coast.
Ian Doig, an oil analyst based in Calgary has been a long-standing critic of oil and gas exploration and development offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Doig is familiar in Newfoundland and Labrador as a constant critic of the Hibernia project. His views, which often reflect the general opinions in the Alberta oil patch, haven't changed in the past 20 years. As he told the Globe and Mail recently about increased interest by Husky in the east coast offshore:
However encouraging the signs, the fact remains that there has not been a significant discovery of oil offshore of Newfoundland in two decades, said Ian Doig, a long-time observer of the East Coast industry and publisher of the industry newsletter Doig's Digest.Having an Albertan as natural resources minister could also reinforce efforts to draw more and more Canadian and American oil and gas policy attention to Alberta.
Mr. Doig said any deep-water exploration is difficult, but that the Orphan Basin is tough even by that standard. Chevron said the ocean in the Orphan Basin is five to 25 times as deep as the Jeanne D'Arc Basin.
He said Newfoundland's chief success in recent years has been to secure royalty concessions from the Liberal federal government.
"They've been more successful with energy riches in Ottawa than offshore."
Alberta's success in promoting its own oil and gas resources are easy to see. Both the Government of Alberta and the federal Liberal government worked to attract American interest in the oil sands, including planning a visit by vice-president Dick Cheney last fall.
Veteran United States Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has already predicted Canada will surpass Saudi Arabia as the leading supplier of oil to the United States. But Hatch's attention is firmly focused on Alberta, describing it as the 800 pound gorilla sitting immediately above Montana.
CBS News' 60 minutes also profiled the oil sands recently, describing them as likely to become more important to the United States than Saudi Arabia.
Try finding any similar attention being paid to the east coast offshore. True there has been an uptick in calls for exploration bids, but there is nothing to rival the recent attention paid to Alberta in the major markets south of the border.
The east coast oil and gas industry still faces significant challenges, not the least of which is making its regulatory regime both effective and competitive. It simply isn't clear whether or not the provincial government is interested in a genuinely competitive, modern oil and gas industry. Turning the province's hydro corporation into a neophyte oil and gas company, the premier's instance on piling on local benefits to projects, and the nomination of Andy Wells to head the offshore regulator all suggest a return to a policy straight out of the unsuccessful past.
That policy is distinctly out of step with the new federal Conservative government's philosophy of economic development and that is ultimately where the problem may rest. Alberta is surging ahead on an agenda of innovation, local entrepreneurship and attracting new outside investment. That matches perfectly with the Conservative view.
What happens offshore Newfoundland and Labrador in the next few years will depend very heavily on who sits as the federal natural resources minister come February 6. If it winds up being an Albertan or someone sympathetic to Alberta's approach - either of which is almost a certainty - Newfoundland and Labrador might find itself in a difficult spot.
We've been in that same spot before and we don't need to go there again.
Double talk can't protect double dip
No matter how hard Loyola and Loyola try and double-talk the coming changes on the Equalization program, there's little doubt the Equalization offsets in the Atlantic Accord will be factored into the calculations.
After all, the 1985 Accord and the 2005 deal are both designed to hand this province Equalization as if oil revenues didn't exist.
The new Harper proposal is designed to hand us Equalization as if oil and gas and other non-renewables didn't exist.
And in the Rob Antle story below, you'll even see Loyola talking about the new Equalization proposal as an Atlantic Accord in perpetuity.
So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if the new Equalization deal is done, there is no need for Ottawa to double pay the province with offsets on things that don't need to be offset because they are already offset.
Confused? You would be if you listened to Loyola.
Or Loyola.
No one is going ask for the money back - Loyola is an old enough war horse to understand you can say something silly like that knowing full well it won't come true.
It's called misdirection.
Of course what neither Loyola will say is the simple truth:
In all likelihood, the money already received or provided under the Atlantic Accord (1985) will be looked on as an advance on any new Equalization entitlements. It will be deducted from future payments. Once the advance is gone the old Danny Deal will be dead, just like the offset provisions of the Brian Deal.
There's no way to keep the Equalization offsets off the table.
After all, the 1985 Accord and the 2005 deal are both designed to hand this province Equalization as if oil revenues didn't exist.
The new Harper proposal is designed to hand us Equalization as if oil and gas and other non-renewables didn't exist.
And in the Rob Antle story below, you'll even see Loyola talking about the new Equalization proposal as an Atlantic Accord in perpetuity.
So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if the new Equalization deal is done, there is no need for Ottawa to double pay the province with offsets on things that don't need to be offset because they are already offset.
Confused? You would be if you listened to Loyola.
Or Loyola.
No one is going ask for the money back - Loyola is an old enough war horse to understand you can say something silly like that knowing full well it won't come true.
It's called misdirection.
Of course what neither Loyola will say is the simple truth:
In all likelihood, the money already received or provided under the Atlantic Accord (1985) will be looked on as an advance on any new Equalization entitlements. It will be deducted from future payments. Once the advance is gone the old Danny Deal will be dead, just like the offset provisions of the Brian Deal.
There's no way to keep the Equalization offsets off the table.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
"‘Can'’t turn back the clock"’
By Rob Antle, The Telegram
The Williams administration is welcoming prime minister-designate Stephen Harper'ss planned changes to the federal equalization program.
But Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan said the $2-billion up-front payment from last year'’s Atlantic Accord agreement should not factor into any modifications to the formula.
"“That was a deal, it was an up-front payment with no strings attached, as a minimum payment,"” Sullivan told The Telegram Wednesday.
"“We can only go forward, we can'’t go back in the annals of history and do adjustments to the past."”
Harper'’s policy platform included a pledge to exempt non-renewable resource revenues, such as oil and gas, from equalization calculations.
Such a change would likely add more dollars to the provincial treasury, Sullivan said.
It would also effectively enshrine the key principle of the Accord - — sheltering 100 per cent of non-renewable revenues, such as oil and gas, from equalization - — for all provinces.
"“We'’re going to get that break forever, if he took non-renewables out and left them out,"” Sullivan said. "“It'’s going to be an Atlantic Accord in perpetuity."
The Accord deal signed last year expires in 2012, with a renewal provision that could see it extended to 2020.
As part of the agreement with the outgoing Martin government, the province received an upfront payment of $2 billion for enhanced offshore benefits.
Sullivan insisted that cash should not be included in any future fiddling with equalization rules.
"“Look, the federal government has booked this and paid it out in the '’05-'’06 fiscal year. That'’s gone. That'’s an expenditure; that'’s booked. That'’s going to show up in their public accounts for the last fiscal year.
"“They can'’t come back and say, '‘Uh-oh, we want money back two years later on that.'’ If we go forward with a new formula - they can'’t turn the clock back on that."
Conservative MP Loyola Hearn - — pegged as a likely pick for Harper'’s cabinet - — said he doesn'’t think it will be a problem.
"“What we'’re talking about is something above and beyond the deal that was done entirely," ” said Hearn, MP for St. John'’s South-Mount Pearl.
"“It certainly shouldn'’t play any role, from my perspective. I don'’t think it will. I'’ve never heard it mentioned in that light.
"“When we got the commitment on the Accord, then (the Liberals) tried to fool around with every little loophole that they had. I mean, that'’s what we fought against, so we'’d be a bit hypocritical to try and play the same game."”
Harper is expected to take over as prime minister within two weeks.
Sullivan said he will write the new finance minister then to broach the topic.
By the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year, the province will have spent $541 million of the $2 billion Accord pre-payment, Sullivan said.
That leaves $1.46 billion he said should remain exempt from review.
Accord aside, the planned equalization changes should benefit the province, Sullivan said.
Nearly 20 per cent of the province'’s total revenues derive from the oil and gas sector, he noted. That'’s a much larger proportion than most other provinces.
And other non-renewable resources - — such as the mining sector, with Voisey'’s Bay coming on stream - — would also be exempted from equalization, the finance minister said.
"“We would benefit more than we would benefit just by having this Atlantic Accord now,"” Sullivan noted.
Equalization is an important issue for the province.
Newfoundland and Labrador received $861 million in equalization from Ottawa this year, according to the province'’s 2005-06 mid-year fiscal update.
That'’s in addition to hundreds of millions in offshore royalties and new Accord benefits.
The overall budget clocks in at about $4.3 billion.
The planned equalization changes could be detrimental to other provinces, however. Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for example, have relatively little or no revenues from non-renewable resources.
The Conservative platform promises "“we will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula,"” but does not offer further details.
rantle@thetelegram.com
26 January 2006
Vox populi
Canadian Publius has an interesting point on the results of Monday's election and an Environics poll conducted for CBC.
As Publius puts it:
Turn the dial on your time machine and head back to the Conservative minority of May 1979. As Jeffrey Simpson described it in Discipline of power, the Conservatives discovered that for all the promises of action and uplifting rhetoric, more than anything else voters crossed to the Conservatives "not because of the promises made during the campaign, but because they were tired of Trudeau and wanted a change."
Allan Gregg, then the Conservative's pollster, described it this way: "The reason for the nationwide impact on voting behaviour undoubtedly stemmed from the almost unanimous belief it was time for a change....Equally, our core support - that is, 1979 voters who identified with the PC Party and claimed they always voted PC - comprised a mere 18% of the electorate, or about one half of our May 22nd support...."
Back in 2006, the Environics poll found strong support for two Conservative promises. Canadians like getting tough on crime and on electing senators, but they were divided almost evenly on cutting the GST, getting rid of the gun registry and dismantling the national daycare system established by Paul Martin.
Health care and the health system remained the single most important issue for most Canadians polled by Environics with honesty/ethics and accountability coming second.
Respondents are almost evenly split on whether or not the Conservatives would be good for the country.
The upshot of all this is pretty straightforward. The Conservative minority will have a challenge as it moves to implement its platform. Some elements, such as the accountability sections, will likely garner easy support. Support for senate reform is such that the prime minister-elect could move quickly on that as well and could build support for even more significant changes than the ones he is proposing.
Of course, Environics did not poll the provincial premiers.
They are lining up for federal cash.
And that's a whole other can of political worms.
As Publius puts it:
According to Environics, of the 36% who voted conservative, 54% voted that way because they wanted a change, only 41% because they wanted a conservative government.
In plain English, only about 17% of Canadians want a Conservative government. The remaining 19% who voted conservative felt the Liberals needed a kick in the pants.
Turn the dial on your time machine and head back to the Conservative minority of May 1979. As Jeffrey Simpson described it in Discipline of power, the Conservatives discovered that for all the promises of action and uplifting rhetoric, more than anything else voters crossed to the Conservatives "not because of the promises made during the campaign, but because they were tired of Trudeau and wanted a change."
Allan Gregg, then the Conservative's pollster, described it this way: "The reason for the nationwide impact on voting behaviour undoubtedly stemmed from the almost unanimous belief it was time for a change....Equally, our core support - that is, 1979 voters who identified with the PC Party and claimed they always voted PC - comprised a mere 18% of the electorate, or about one half of our May 22nd support...."
Back in 2006, the Environics poll found strong support for two Conservative promises. Canadians like getting tough on crime and on electing senators, but they were divided almost evenly on cutting the GST, getting rid of the gun registry and dismantling the national daycare system established by Paul Martin.
Health care and the health system remained the single most important issue for most Canadians polled by Environics with honesty/ethics and accountability coming second.
Respondents are almost evenly split on whether or not the Conservatives would be good for the country.
The upshot of all this is pretty straightforward. The Conservative minority will have a challenge as it moves to implement its platform. Some elements, such as the accountability sections, will likely garner easy support. Support for senate reform is such that the prime minister-elect could move quickly on that as well and could build support for even more significant changes than the ones he is proposing.
Of course, Environics did not poll the provincial premiers.
They are lining up for federal cash.
And that's a whole other can of political worms.
Is this next time?
In 1990, the lapel buttons circulating on the floor of the convention read "Next time, Clyde."Earlier that year, there was widespread support across the country for him. He remains a widely respected leader who governed based on principles. Tackled a massive economic problem and helped turn it around.
So I say to you:
"The next is here!"
Process is the key
Andy Wells, still supposedly Danny Williams' choice to head up the board regulating offshore oil and gar operations, is in political hot water over the way in which he and his council colleagues gave themselves a raise.
Retroactive to 2002.
A nice raise.
How nice?
Well, 18% nice for Wells who will see his salary go from $81, 975 to $96402. The Telegram reported yesterday that Wells was due a cheque for retro pay worth over 20 large.
The issue here is not about the value of the job or running the city but of how council decided, unilaterally to give itself a raise and extend the raise back to include councilors defeated in the recent municipal election.
As CBC put it:
So much for his being honest and blunt, that is, unless we are to believe that he missed a minor detail like the fact he had just voted himself a hefty annual increase as well as a bonus cheque itself equal to what many minimum wage earners pouring Andy's double-double every morning would love to see.
Just once.
And this is the guy the premier wants to oversee an industry worth tens of billions of dollars to the province?
Retroactive to 2002.
A nice raise.
How nice?
Well, 18% nice for Wells who will see his salary go from $81, 975 to $96402. The Telegram reported yesterday that Wells was due a cheque for retro pay worth over 20 large.
The issue here is not about the value of the job or running the city but of how council decided, unilaterally to give itself a raise and extend the raise back to include councilors defeated in the recent municipal election.
As CBC put it:
Council made the decision without consulting with city staff or hiring an outside consultant, as previous councils have done in the past.Appearing on a radio call in show, Wells appeared to be somewhat confused about the whole matter, claiming he knew nothing about how much retroactive pay he was due.
So much for his being honest and blunt, that is, unless we are to believe that he missed a minor detail like the fact he had just voted himself a hefty annual increase as well as a bonus cheque itself equal to what many minimum wage earners pouring Andy's double-double every morning would love to see.
Just once.
And this is the guy the premier wants to oversee an industry worth tens of billions of dollars to the province?
25 January 2006
Hey, it's assault
Remember this incident?Some people e-mailed to take issue with my contention that the tall fellow in the turtleneck was likely guilty of assault for restraining the reporter, at right, who was attempting to follow a Conservative candidate and interview him at a campaign event in Toronto.
Well, here's the final paragraph of a decision rendered by Harold Porter, a judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in a case involving an altercation between several young women at a party. The context is different, but the law is clearly stated:
Thus, while there were some difficulties with the evidence, including the fact that the evidence of the complainant was not corroborated about being pushed over a table, ultimately the accused and the complainant agree that the accused touched the complainant without her consent. The non-consensual application of force by one person to another is an assault: the accused is guilty. [Emphasis added]The prosecution rests.
PMO 101: gimme your lunch money, dork
Stephen Harper will have a steep learning curve as he prepares for his new job.
When it comes to provincial premiers, it's actually really simple. Harper probably thinks that because he is a provincialist - Province, Province Uber Alles - he will have an easy time.
Perhaps Steve should have run to replace Ralph. I digress.
Anyway, in the interest of saving Steve some time, here it is in a nutshell:
As far as premiers are concerned, and irrespective of their individual political party, being prime minister means your job as prime minister is to be:
1. the scapegoat for everything wrong with the country; and
2. the source of endless cash to be transferred to the premiers' bank accounts without strings and with as little back-talk as possible.
In short, as far as Ralph, Danny and Dalton are concerned, Steve's new job is to be their bitch.
Or lemme put it another, slightly more familiar way:
It's Grade 5, Steve.
The jocks and jerks are coming for your lunch money.
Just like they used to.
Every day.
Every nerd in the country knows that pain.
[Left: Premier Ralph Klein said yesterday he was looking forward to his first meeting with incoming Prime Minister Stephen Harper.]
When it comes to provincial premiers, it's actually really simple. Harper probably thinks that because he is a provincialist - Province, Province Uber Alles - he will have an easy time.
Perhaps Steve should have run to replace Ralph. I digress.
Anyway, in the interest of saving Steve some time, here it is in a nutshell:
As far as premiers are concerned, and irrespective of their individual political party, being prime minister means your job as prime minister is to be:
1. the scapegoat for everything wrong with the country; and
2. the source of endless cash to be transferred to the premiers' bank accounts without strings and with as little back-talk as possible.
In short, as far as Ralph, Danny and Dalton are concerned, Steve's new job is to be their bitch.
Or lemme put it another, slightly more familiar way:
It's Grade 5, Steve.
The jocks and jerks are coming for your lunch money.
Just like they used to.
Every day.
Every nerd in the country knows that pain.
[Left: Premier Ralph Klein said yesterday he was looking forward to his first meeting with incoming Prime Minister Stephen Harper.]
Federal Liberal Leadership: the first truly interesting suggestion
Stephane Dion.
Inkless Well and then Le devoir.
The sense of humour evident at the end of the Le devoir piece: someone from Jean Chretien's camp - clan is indeed more accurate, Helene - talking about a campaign of ideas.
Inkless Well and then Le devoir.
The sense of humour evident at the end of the Le devoir piece: someone from Jean Chretien's camp - clan is indeed more accurate, Helene - talking about a campaign of ideas.
Offshore regulatory changes on Conservative agenda
A passing mention in Stephen Harper's victory speech Monday night could hold a clue to changes at the board that regulates the province's offshore oil and gas industry.
Harper mentioned allowing Atlantic Canadian provinces more control over their resources. What he meant by this is unclear since these provinces already control their resources. For Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador there was no specific mention in the Conservative platform of offshore oil and gas resource management.
One section of the platform, however, does mention the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation:
Some of the strongest recommendations made by the Smart Regulation group were for greater co-ordination not only within the federal government but also between the federal and provincial governments. [Recommendations 9, 10, 11]
Co-ordinators - single points of contact - were recommended for entire industry sectors such as offshore oil and gas.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, that single point of contact would logically be the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB). The offshore board is established under the Atlantic Accord (1985) as the joint federal and provincial regulatory authority for the oil and gas industry offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Currently, the regulatory process can be daunting in a competitive industrial environment that is global in scope. Industry representatives have pointed to problems for several years. As the Smart regulatory team reported:
The White Rose project - the most recent to be approved - took 21 months, compared to 10 months for a comparable project in the Gulf of Mexico and a mere 13 months for the much larger Hibernia project. This time does not include the period of negotiation between proponents and the provincial government over royalties and local benefits.
While recognizing that there are overlapping areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction in the offshore, the Smart Regulation group did not suggest any devolution of federal powers to the provinces, nor does the Conservative Party make such a recommendation. Rather, the Smart Regulation team believed that the correct approach would be agreements and memoranda of understanding to eliminate duplication of regulation and administration.
This Conservative commitment may put into a different light the possible appointment of Andy Wells as chairman and chief executive officer. Wells' evident lack of experience in federal and provincial regulatory administration would make him ill-suited to the day-to-day task of overseeing development of a new streamlined approach.
The changed regulatory process would also involve extensive changes to the communications processes, something not currently provided in the legislation governing the board and something Wells himself has never been keen on. As mayor of St. John's for example , Wells has steadfastly refused to employ communications professionals, believing his own blunt - some would say crass - approach is superior to anyone else's skills.
There is some possibility that Wells would be appointed to serve as chairman, a position already identified as a stand-alone appointment requiring the approval of both orders of government. In that scenario, Max Ruelokke, recommended by the three person panel that reported in December, would serve as chief executive officer of the offshore board, again, an arrangement provided in the Atlantic Accord (1985).
While Wells' possible appointment has slipped from public notice for some time, federal interest in changes to the offshore regulatory regime could bring the matter back into focus. It is not clear what position the incoming Harper government will take on its role and responsibilities in regulating offshore industries.
However, it is possible that Wells' appointment, if it occurs, will not be the full-time one he anticipated.
Harper mentioned allowing Atlantic Canadian provinces more control over their resources. What he meant by this is unclear since these provinces already control their resources. For Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador there was no specific mention in the Conservative platform of offshore oil and gas resource management.
One section of the platform, however, does mention the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation:
Streamline regulatory processes related to the mining industry. We will implement the recommendations of the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation related to mining, such as a "single window" approach to federal regulatory bodies in the North for the oil and gas and mining sectors.Set up in May 2003 by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the Smart Regulation advisory committee was a team of experts appointed to review federal regulatory processes, identify areas of concern and recommend new approaches.
Some of the strongest recommendations made by the Smart Regulation group were for greater co-ordination not only within the federal government but also between the federal and provincial governments. [Recommendations 9, 10, 11]
Co-ordinators - single points of contact - were recommended for entire industry sectors such as offshore oil and gas.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, that single point of contact would logically be the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB). The offshore board is established under the Atlantic Accord (1985) as the joint federal and provincial regulatory authority for the oil and gas industry offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Currently, the regulatory process can be daunting in a competitive industrial environment that is global in scope. Industry representatives have pointed to problems for several years. As the Smart regulatory team reported:
The Committee heard that the current regulatory framework for the offshore falls short of these objectives. For example, according to industry sources, the average regulatory approval time for projects in Canada's Atlantic offshore exceeds 600 days, compared to approximately 200 days in the United Kingdom and Norway and just under 400 days in the Gulf of Mexico.The Atlantic Energy Roundtable similarly notes that the regulatory process cycle time, that is the length of time for regulatory review and approvals for offshore projects, is longer in Newfoundland and Labrador than anywhere else globally.
The White Rose project - the most recent to be approved - took 21 months, compared to 10 months for a comparable project in the Gulf of Mexico and a mere 13 months for the much larger Hibernia project. This time does not include the period of negotiation between proponents and the provincial government over royalties and local benefits.
While recognizing that there are overlapping areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction in the offshore, the Smart Regulation group did not suggest any devolution of federal powers to the provinces, nor does the Conservative Party make such a recommendation. Rather, the Smart Regulation team believed that the correct approach would be agreements and memoranda of understanding to eliminate duplication of regulation and administration.
This Conservative commitment may put into a different light the possible appointment of Andy Wells as chairman and chief executive officer. Wells' evident lack of experience in federal and provincial regulatory administration would make him ill-suited to the day-to-day task of overseeing development of a new streamlined approach.
The changed regulatory process would also involve extensive changes to the communications processes, something not currently provided in the legislation governing the board and something Wells himself has never been keen on. As mayor of St. John's for example , Wells has steadfastly refused to employ communications professionals, believing his own blunt - some would say crass - approach is superior to anyone else's skills.
There is some possibility that Wells would be appointed to serve as chairman, a position already identified as a stand-alone appointment requiring the approval of both orders of government. In that scenario, Max Ruelokke, recommended by the three person panel that reported in December, would serve as chief executive officer of the offshore board, again, an arrangement provided in the Atlantic Accord (1985).
While Wells' possible appointment has slipped from public notice for some time, federal interest in changes to the offshore regulatory regime could bring the matter back into focus. It is not clear what position the incoming Harper government will take on its role and responsibilities in regulating offshore industries.
However, it is possible that Wells' appointment, if it occurs, will not be the full-time one he anticipated.
24 January 2006
Back to the future, redux?
Does any of this sound familiar?
It's also interesting to see the lengths that some Conservative spokesmen are going to distance themselves from the 1979 Clark experience of a disparate group cobbling together a platform and gaining power in a minority government from a Liberal Party which was tired and falling increasingly into disfavour with voters.
Take a gander at some of Clark's 1979 speeches, some of which Simpson reprints in part, and you can see their echoes in Harper's speeches. You can also find an interesting analysis by Allen Gregg pointing out that the Conservatives had gained power in May 1979 by capitalizing on negative attitudes toward Liberals rather than positive attitudes towards the Clark Conservatives. Their platform had been designed to appear competent and comprehensive; it was written to appeal to identifiable segments of the population but the whole platform betrayed internal contradictions that could not be concealed or ignored for very long.
There are some significant differences between the 1979 Conservatives and the 2006 version, but some of the similarities are quite striking. Some of the challenges remain the same; how Stephen Harper manages his newfound success will determine his longer-term future.
Seldom has a party leader put forward so many promises....To show that the Conservatives were ready to govern [the party leader] offered a dizzying array of goodies, most based on policies developed by the Conservative caucus, hoping that individual policies would appeal to particular segments of the population and produce a Conservative majority government. During the campaign, [one not-for-profit association] circulated to its members an outline of the Conservative platform containing 211 general or specific promises made by the party in Opposition and in the campaign.That's just one excerpt from Discipline of power, Jeffrey Simpson's 1980 study of the brief Clark regime, specifically, p. 64. While I am no fan of directly translating one historical episode into current events, it is rather interesting to see the parallels to the Harper election campaign.
It's also interesting to see the lengths that some Conservative spokesmen are going to distance themselves from the 1979 Clark experience of a disparate group cobbling together a platform and gaining power in a minority government from a Liberal Party which was tired and falling increasingly into disfavour with voters.
Take a gander at some of Clark's 1979 speeches, some of which Simpson reprints in part, and you can see their echoes in Harper's speeches. You can also find an interesting analysis by Allen Gregg pointing out that the Conservatives had gained power in May 1979 by capitalizing on negative attitudes toward Liberals rather than positive attitudes towards the Clark Conservatives. Their platform had been designed to appear competent and comprehensive; it was written to appeal to identifiable segments of the population but the whole platform betrayed internal contradictions that could not be concealed or ignored for very long.
There are some significant differences between the 1979 Conservatives and the 2006 version, but some of the similarities are quite striking. Some of the challenges remain the same; how Stephen Harper manages his newfound success will determine his longer-term future.
An elected, equal and effective senate
One of the things Stephen Harper can find agreement on among the parties in the House of Commons is reform of the national parliament.
It is long overdue.
Reform doesn't necessarily mean moving to proportional representation, although the New Democrats are pushing that issue again.
Rather, reform - genuine reform - would mean changing the composition and selection method of for the federal senate.
This election showed as much as any in Canadian history the extent to which national elections focus almost exclusively on the interests of the most populous regions of the country. The population is already well-represented in the Commons and , if you look at some of the Conservative promises, Stephen Harper's idea of reform is to add more seats to the already well represented people-rich provinces.
Stephen Harper's other idea is to merely elect senators by some means.
But that is the only change Harper has proposed for the chamber where Canadians should be represented based on where they live. Harper's version of senate reform as presented would merely add 100-odd new elected officials with the majority coming from the same places the majority of members of the Commons currently come from.
Let's elect senators; that reform is long overdue.
At the same time, let's move to a model of the senate that sees an equal number of senators coming from each of the provinces, with some possible allowances being made for specific aboriginal representation.
The advantages of this approach have been well-argued for decades and used to be part of the old Reform Party platform. Too bad that good idea didn't survive into the Conservative party agenda. One of the adv antages of an elected senate could be that a governmenr defeated in a inority parliament need not trigger an immediate election - Canadians could get a more responsive Commons without shfting the whole electroal system around radically.
If Stephen Harper wants to move quickly on a matter he can win with support across the legislature, let him reform the national parliament. Let him create a senate that is elected, effective and having equal representation from across the country, by province.
It is long overdue.
Reform doesn't necessarily mean moving to proportional representation, although the New Democrats are pushing that issue again.
Rather, reform - genuine reform - would mean changing the composition and selection method of for the federal senate.
This election showed as much as any in Canadian history the extent to which national elections focus almost exclusively on the interests of the most populous regions of the country. The population is already well-represented in the Commons and , if you look at some of the Conservative promises, Stephen Harper's idea of reform is to add more seats to the already well represented people-rich provinces.
Stephen Harper's other idea is to merely elect senators by some means.
But that is the only change Harper has proposed for the chamber where Canadians should be represented based on where they live. Harper's version of senate reform as presented would merely add 100-odd new elected officials with the majority coming from the same places the majority of members of the Commons currently come from.
Let's elect senators; that reform is long overdue.
At the same time, let's move to a model of the senate that sees an equal number of senators coming from each of the provinces, with some possible allowances being made for specific aboriginal representation.
The advantages of this approach have been well-argued for decades and used to be part of the old Reform Party platform. Too bad that good idea didn't survive into the Conservative party agenda. One of the adv antages of an elected senate could be that a governmenr defeated in a inority parliament need not trigger an immediate election - Canadians could get a more responsive Commons without shfting the whole electroal system around radically.
If Stephen Harper wants to move quickly on a matter he can win with support across the legislature, let him reform the national parliament. Let him create a senate that is elected, effective and having equal representation from across the country, by province.
It didn't take long...
for Loyola Hearn, Connie incumbent in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and likely federal cabinet minister from this province, to explain what he thinks about the federal presence issue.
After he was safely re-elected.
Speaking on a local radio call-in show, Hearn said that federal jobs just come from our tax dollars and aren't really sustainable. The real value in jobs will come from creating jobs in the private sector. Hearn linked the whole thing to the Connie Equalization changes which would remove non-renewable resources from the calculation of federal Equalization entitlements.
In one of his campaign brochures, Hearn said:
A new Connie government can send the dozen or so forecasters back to Gander and meet Hearn's total commitment. Whether they do it or not will depend heavily on the costs involved. As for the promises to Goose Bay, the only thing the Connies can actually do is send the unmanned aerial vehicle squadron to Goose, for a hundred full-time jobs or fewer.
Anyone who thought a Conservative federal government will relocate thousands or even hundreds of federal jobs to the province can guess again.
Here's the thing, Hearn also made a point that he noticed the two ridings involved went Liberal, despite the Conservative promises.
For those who drank the local Connie KoolAid on federal presence, this issue will be an interesting one to watch in the next 100 days or so.
After he was safely re-elected.
Speaking on a local radio call-in show, Hearn said that federal jobs just come from our tax dollars and aren't really sustainable. The real value in jobs will come from creating jobs in the private sector. Hearn linked the whole thing to the Connie Equalization changes which would remove non-renewable resources from the calculation of federal Equalization entitlements.
In one of his campaign brochures, Hearn said:
Since 1993, the number of people employed in Newfoundland and Labrador with the federal government has fallen by over 30 percent. This decline will stop under a Conservative government.He also pointed to putting a handful of weather forecasting jobs back in Gander.
A new Connie government can send the dozen or so forecasters back to Gander and meet Hearn's total commitment. Whether they do it or not will depend heavily on the costs involved. As for the promises to Goose Bay, the only thing the Connies can actually do is send the unmanned aerial vehicle squadron to Goose, for a hundred full-time jobs or fewer.
Anyone who thought a Conservative federal government will relocate thousands or even hundreds of federal jobs to the province can guess again.
Here's the thing, Hearn also made a point that he noticed the two ridings involved went Liberal, despite the Conservative promises.
For those who drank the local Connie KoolAid on federal presence, this issue will be an interesting one to watch in the next 100 days or so.
The Zen of Fabian Manning
Fabian manning won the Avalon riding for the Conservatives based on one thing:
Fabian Manning.
The guy is firm in his convictions and has displayed personal integrity throughout his career. His performance during the confrontation with Danny last year made Fabe look good and Danny look kinda dumb, but in the long run fabe won by simply being himself.
That stuff wins respect of constituents in a riding like Avalon and it gets rewarded.
Fabe traveled the riding, talking to constituents and meeting with them on their own turf. He went to their homes and asked for their support. His courage shone through.
That isn't to say that Bill Morrow and Eugene Conway are lesser humans than Fabe. Far from it. Manning just had a head start with his provincial political experience such that his political reputation and his actual performance matched up in what proved to be an unbeatable combination.
More people can learn from Fabe's example.
Fabian Manning.
The guy is firm in his convictions and has displayed personal integrity throughout his career. His performance during the confrontation with Danny last year made Fabe look good and Danny look kinda dumb, but in the long run fabe won by simply being himself.
That stuff wins respect of constituents in a riding like Avalon and it gets rewarded.
Fabe traveled the riding, talking to constituents and meeting with them on their own turf. He went to their homes and asked for their support. His courage shone through.
That isn't to say that Bill Morrow and Eugene Conway are lesser humans than Fabe. Far from it. Manning just had a head start with his provincial political experience such that his political reputation and his actual performance matched up in what proved to be an unbeatable combination.
More people can learn from Fabe's example.
A la prochaine
A. Biggest winner of the night?
Andy Wells, the acerbic mayor of St. John's who may finally get a job at the province's offshore board. Danny wants him, for some completely inscrutable reason, and Harper is unlikely to give a rat's ass.
The only question now is whether Wells become the unqualified chairman and chief executive officer or the part-time chairman with a full-time, highly qualified chief executive in Max Ruelokke. Smart money would say the latter, but this is a case of asymmetrical information and Williams isn't about to share what he's up to..
Runner-up goes to a bunch of Liberal candidates who won in ridings despite being targeted by a range of forces. Piss on all those forces, those without better things to do with bodily fluids.
B. Biggest loser of the night?
Yet to be determined.
1. Despite a clever games theory of a campaign, the Conservatives just couldn't crack through and win the elusive majority. There is lingering doubt about the team and what it may do. It remains a major contender for this award.
2. Among the loser nominees are Stephen Harper, who may find himself channeling either John Deifenbaker in 1957 or Joe Clark in 1979. We may find out the policy wonk from Calgary will set up his own model for prime minister in a minority government. Time will tell.
3. Big loser nominee would have to be some of the nation's pollsters, including former Conservative Party poll guru Allen Gregg. His polls and predications turned out to be as valuable as stuff pumped out by Jo Jo's psychic alliance for Jean Chretien. Warren the K can be embarrassed for his unreserved endorsement of Ipsos' last foray and in particular its spectacularly off-base seat projections.
C. Best Performance by a Prime Minister?
Paul Martin. In his speech tonight, Paul Martin proved why he was a competent and able prime minister who never deserved the schoolboy smears of the incoming government and its byte-sized lackeys.
Martin's resignation marks the end of his tenure as leader and Prime Minister and begins the process of rejuvenation of the party that has governed the country, with reason, for most of the last century.
Those who think they are dancing on its political grave should note the shifting sands already rising above their ankles.
Skip over most of the names already jockeying for contention. The list will quickly narrow down to the most likely choices. Don't count on it being anyone who served under Chretien.
Other coming changes?
The departure of Loyola Hearn. With his second pension assured, Hearn will fade into the woodwork before the next election to make room for Ed Byrne.
Hearn is unlikely to be a note-worthy federal cabinet minister from Newfoundland and Labrador.
He will likely occupy the only job he wanted - fish minister - and the only job the mainlanders think about when they think of the province, other than minister of employment insurance. Mainlanders seem to forget Don Jamieson (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister) or John Crosbie (International Trade and Connie wunderbar gauleiter of the east coast protectorate when it comes time to hand out the cabinet jobs.
At a time when our province should be in a more prominent national light, we are likely to be locked into being perceived as the place always with its hand out.
Paul Antle as provincial Liberal leader. It might be a faint hope, but someone needs to come forward who actually has had a genuinely new idea in the past 30 years and who isn't a captive of those in the party establishment who seem hell-bent on taking it on another lengthy sojourn in the Land of Political Irrelevance.
Andy Wells, the acerbic mayor of St. John's who may finally get a job at the province's offshore board. Danny wants him, for some completely inscrutable reason, and Harper is unlikely to give a rat's ass.
The only question now is whether Wells become the unqualified chairman and chief executive officer or the part-time chairman with a full-time, highly qualified chief executive in Max Ruelokke. Smart money would say the latter, but this is a case of asymmetrical information and Williams isn't about to share what he's up to..
Runner-up goes to a bunch of Liberal candidates who won in ridings despite being targeted by a range of forces. Piss on all those forces, those without better things to do with bodily fluids.
B. Biggest loser of the night?
Yet to be determined.
1. Despite a clever games theory of a campaign, the Conservatives just couldn't crack through and win the elusive majority. There is lingering doubt about the team and what it may do. It remains a major contender for this award.
2. Among the loser nominees are Stephen Harper, who may find himself channeling either John Deifenbaker in 1957 or Joe Clark in 1979. We may find out the policy wonk from Calgary will set up his own model for prime minister in a minority government. Time will tell.
3. Big loser nominee would have to be some of the nation's pollsters, including former Conservative Party poll guru Allen Gregg. His polls and predications turned out to be as valuable as stuff pumped out by Jo Jo's psychic alliance for Jean Chretien. Warren the K can be embarrassed for his unreserved endorsement of Ipsos' last foray and in particular its spectacularly off-base seat projections.
C. Best Performance by a Prime Minister?
Paul Martin. In his speech tonight, Paul Martin proved why he was a competent and able prime minister who never deserved the schoolboy smears of the incoming government and its byte-sized lackeys.
Martin's resignation marks the end of his tenure as leader and Prime Minister and begins the process of rejuvenation of the party that has governed the country, with reason, for most of the last century.
Those who think they are dancing on its political grave should note the shifting sands already rising above their ankles.
Skip over most of the names already jockeying for contention. The list will quickly narrow down to the most likely choices. Don't count on it being anyone who served under Chretien.
Other coming changes?
The departure of Loyola Hearn. With his second pension assured, Hearn will fade into the woodwork before the next election to make room for Ed Byrne.
Hearn is unlikely to be a note-worthy federal cabinet minister from Newfoundland and Labrador.
He will likely occupy the only job he wanted - fish minister - and the only job the mainlanders think about when they think of the province, other than minister of employment insurance. Mainlanders seem to forget Don Jamieson (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister) or John Crosbie (International Trade and Connie wunderbar gauleiter of the east coast protectorate when it comes time to hand out the cabinet jobs.
At a time when our province should be in a more prominent national light, we are likely to be locked into being perceived as the place always with its hand out.
Paul Antle as provincial Liberal leader. It might be a faint hope, but someone needs to come forward who actually has had a genuinely new idea in the past 30 years and who isn't a captive of those in the party establishment who seem hell-bent on taking it on another lengthy sojourn in the Land of Political Irrelevance.
23 January 2006
Hi ho, Steverino!
As Antonia Zerbisias points out, bloggers had very little discernible impact on this election campaign.
True that some, like Stephen Taylor of Blogging Connies will disagree, but when it all comes down to it, blogs and bloggers are little more than another course of commentary in a universe that is full of information and commentary.
We can forgive his insistence that bloggers provide "brilliant editorial opinion." There is no love quite like self-love but at some point even the masturbatory quality of that bit of self-stroking beggars credibility. The value of blogs is decided in part by the readers. Some blogs, like some news media, gain attention not for the quality of what they put out but because of their current popularity, their current score on the Chic-o-meter.
Taylor cites the income trust story as one that bloggers broke and which the mainstream media supposedly ignored. Truth is, they didn't. They just made a judgment about it early on that there was little evidence of a crime having been committed and chose to give it an appropriate level of coverage. Taylor thought it was exciting, not on the facts of the matter, but because as the chief Connie blogger in the country it fit his world view. It had to be a scandal since Liberals were involved and there was an election on in which his team was driving the Liberal scandal line.
Antonia has a solid point here. Blogs had very little impact on this election, at least in terms of breaking stories no one else would touch. Their impact came from being a source of commentary other than the usual talking head suspects.
Most bloggers became an easy source of streeters, the staple of news reporting for decades and one spoofed so cleverly by Steve Allen.
[Left, Don Knotts, as Bang Bang Morrison, in a streeter opposing gun control. Aired on The Steve Allen Show.]
As for the impact of this little corner of cyberspace, judge for yourself based on the frustrated outpourings of some local Connies.
I always wanted to channel Louis Nye.
Hi ho, Steverino!
True that some, like Stephen Taylor of Blogging Connies will disagree, but when it all comes down to it, blogs and bloggers are little more than another course of commentary in a universe that is full of information and commentary.
We can forgive his insistence that bloggers provide "brilliant editorial opinion." There is no love quite like self-love but at some point even the masturbatory quality of that bit of self-stroking beggars credibility. The value of blogs is decided in part by the readers. Some blogs, like some news media, gain attention not for the quality of what they put out but because of their current popularity, their current score on the Chic-o-meter.
Taylor cites the income trust story as one that bloggers broke and which the mainstream media supposedly ignored. Truth is, they didn't. They just made a judgment about it early on that there was little evidence of a crime having been committed and chose to give it an appropriate level of coverage. Taylor thought it was exciting, not on the facts of the matter, but because as the chief Connie blogger in the country it fit his world view. It had to be a scandal since Liberals were involved and there was an election on in which his team was driving the Liberal scandal line.
Antonia has a solid point here. Blogs had very little impact on this election, at least in terms of breaking stories no one else would touch. Their impact came from being a source of commentary other than the usual talking head suspects.
Most bloggers became an easy source of streeters, the staple of news reporting for decades and one spoofed so cleverly by Steve Allen.
[Left, Don Knotts, as Bang Bang Morrison, in a streeter opposing gun control. Aired on The Steve Allen Show.]As for the impact of this little corner of cyberspace, judge for yourself based on the frustrated outpourings of some local Connies.
I always wanted to channel Louis Nye.
Hi ho, Steverino!
Women voters
The candidate who better recognized and responded to issue-based appeals that speak to the concerns of women, especially career orientated women will win this election.
Over the course of this campaign, I've had a few e-mail exchanges with the guy who blogs under the name Warbicycle. His post on women voters is an interesting one since it reflects his experience of campaigning on behalf of a woman candidate and noting, albeit anecdotally, the response of women in the riding.
His post on women voters is an interesting one since it points to some observable differences between male and female voters. Rather than respond to an e-mail he just sent, I thought I'd toss in a few comments of my own.
There is a sex difference in vote intention: women tend to vote for a party other than Conservative
Most public opinion polls released during this campaign didn't report demographic data, even though every poll collects some information on reported or apparent sex, age and so forth. This is unusual since there is often useful information to be gleaned from doing what is called a cross-tabulation, that is of comparing vote preference by certain fixed characteristics like age and sex.
Ekos' most recent poll, released on 21 January, reports that 34% of women respondents are report their intention to vote Conservative, compared to 28.6% for Liberals and 20.8% for New Democrats.
A poll of Atlantic Canadians by Bristol/Omnifacts, a Halifax-based research firm, showed that 50% of decided females respondents favoured Paul Martin as prime minister, compared to 29% of decided females who felt Mr. Harper would be the best prime minister.
On the face of it, both these polls, one national and one regional, show a fairly clear difference between males and females in vote choice. An assessment by Simon Fraser University showed comparable differences in vote intention between males and females although, as the SFU assessment notes:
[b]y the end of the campaign period, however, the gender differences became much more muted as some shifts occurred. The differences in support for the Liberals had largely disappeared, but a new one emerged for the NDP. In the Ipsos poll conducted between January 17 to 19, even the gender differences in support for the Conservative Party had greatly narrowed; 36% of women and 40% of men said they would likely vote Conservative. 21% of women said they would vote NDP, compared to 16% of men; 27% of women were willing to support the Liberals, and 25% of men said the same. These results indicate a net movement of 8% of women away from the Liberals, with 3% going to the Conservatives and 5% to the NDP.Possible explanations of the sex gap
Differences in vote intention between males and females has been the subject of considerable academic research.
One study concluded that :
Despite the change in the economic context and the advent of budget surpluses, women clearly remain more skeptical of the virtues of free enterprise, more supportive of the welfare system, and more reluctant to endorse market solutions than men in the 2000 federal election. The fact that these gender gaps could not be explained in terms of differences in women'’s and men'’s material interests lends weight to the socio-psychological argument that women tend to be less individualistic than men. The gender gap in views about crime and punishment also provides support for a socio-psychological interpretation of the gender gap phenomenon.There are other studies that generally confirm the conclusions of the one cited here.
Whether or not one accepts any or all of the possible explanations for the difference, there's no question a difference exists.
So, the simple answer, Warbicycle is that your anonymous commenter would be correct if you actually said all women think alike. You didn't. You simply reported a phenomenon that has been reported for some time: women vote to the left of the political spectrum.
Anecdotally, I can add that some older males in one campaign found the male/female difference in vote intention difficult to comprehend or difficult to acknowledge. They dismissed the idea that Liberal media buys should be skewed toward 35+ females. It has been generally accepted for some time that women tend to vote to the left of the political spectrum and that they have considerable influence on household consumer decisions, including political decisions.
This admittedly small group of older males dismissed the idea out of hand. Go figure.
Another local Liberal candidate attracted some critical comment for his radio spot that focused on this very issue. Criticism of him came primarily from Conservative callers to local radio call-in shows. Too bad he didn't more argue forcefully in favour of his position: the facts were with him.
Will the male/female difference in voter intention make a difference in the final outcome, as Warbicycle contends?
Potentially. Women outnumber males in a number of ridings across the country, including my riding of St. John's South-Mount Pearl. The current election will depend very heavily on how many people are motivated enough to get out to vote.
Sadly, some of the local campaigns in the metro St. John's area on the political centre-left dismissed simple, factual arguments and/or failed to properly capitalize on the issues involved.
The fruits of those decisions may well be seen tomorrow evening.
22 January 2006
ctv.ca prompts head-scratching
Check out this little timeline compiled by ctv.ca on the Parti Quebecois political history.
For those of us who have found CTV's coverage of this election peculiar, perhaps it has something to do with this sort of goof-up:
The May 1979 general election brought us the Joe Clark government.
For those of us who have found CTV's coverage of this election peculiar, perhaps it has something to do with this sort of goof-up:
May 22, 1979Huh?
The Liberal Party led by Pierre Trudeau wins the federal election
The May 1979 general election brought us the Joe Clark government.
The last time a Conservative minority ruled Canada
Purely for the sake of nostalgia, let's all remember one of the high points of the 1979 Clark administration.
This is the one Harper referred to as being "stupid".
The world is a different place now and the Progressive Conservatives are long gone from the political landscape.
This is the one Harper referred to as being "stupid".
The world is a different place now and the Progressive Conservatives are long gone from the political landscape.
Mystery Man with the Harper national tour?
Is this guy with the Steve Harper tour or is he merely a "local volunteer" as some stories have identified him?Something tells me The Grabber wasn't some stereo salesman from Scarborough who got a little overzealous on his day off.
By the way, I kinda like the way Mr. Furious, The Spleen and The Blue Raja are there backstopping for the latest Mystery Man.
21 January 2006
Hunt on for missing Connie candidates
Thomas Steenburg of Mission, British Columbia is shown at right holding the cast of a footprint he claims is from a Sasquatch.Mr. Steenburg has been contacted by Elections Canada and many national news media outlets to organize a search for Conservative candidates missing from this election.
Mr. Steenburg said he won't take up the hunt for the Connies, noting that he has a better chance of finding the legendary, large hairy beast of the Rockies.
Connie staff assaults reporter...
CTV is reporting the second incident in as many days of a reporter (TVA's Lina Dib) being restrained by Connie campaign staff as she attempted to interview a candidate the Connies wanted to keep away from reporters. [Check for the video link on the right hand side of that CTv page linked above.]In the TVA photo above, Dib is seen confronting the Connie campaign staffer over the incident. He can be heard saying quite clearly in the video clip words to the effect that "you can't chase after them...".
The French language version of the story can be found here, from TVA.ca.
Simply put, it's a criminal offence to apply force to any person. It is called assault.
Getting it on tape is one thing and it was kinda interesting to watch the very tall guy who had grabbed a petite female reporter as he meekly apologized to her after the Connie candidate had successfully escaped.
The point is though that putting the guy in the dock will make it abundantly clear there is a limit to how far campaign staff can go in efforts to block access to people who ought to be available to news media.
If they think an apology will cover it, then they will be laying hands on people again. And that is definitely not something to be tolerated.
If the guys with the earpieces, short haircuts and lapel pins won't take the complaint, find a cop that will.
Have the guy arrested.
Williams to double provincial debt?
The Lower Churchill project will nearly double Newfoundland and Labrador's already crushing provincial debt, if the province opts for the go-it-alone option of constructing the hydro mega-project.
As CBC news reported yesterday, the estimated cost of the project has risen from government's initial projection of $3.5 billion in 2005 to $9.0 billion. The current provincial accrual debt is $12.0 billion, on an economy of slightly more than $20.0 billion. Both Premier Danny Williams and his finance minister have described the existing provincial debt in dire terms.
If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were to develop the Lower Churchill on its own, the entire debt for the project would count against the provincial coffers using the accrual method currently in use for budgeting purposes. The project should be self-financing through a long-term power purchase agreement, however, the provincial government has revealed no details of its efforts to find possible buyers for the power and financiers for the project overall.
Danny Williams announced yesterday that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is asking Quebec to estimate the cost of wheeling power from Labrador across HydroQuebec transmission lines, through Quebec to markets in Ontario or New York.
Wheeling in this case would likely involve building new transmission towers and lines since the Quebec grid can't handle extra power from the as-yet unbuilt Lower Churchill. The costs of those added lines and towers would be borne largely by Newfoundland and Labrador in a go-it-alone option.
A proposal to build the Lower Churchill project and upgrade transmission systems in Quebec and between Quebec and Ontario was substituted jointly by Ontario and Quebec last year.
While it wasn't included in the original official short-list, Premier Danny Williams publicly announced the option of having Newfoundland and Labrador build the project entirely on its own. That seems to be his preferred, if not only option, based on yesterday's announcement.
Favourite quote from yesterday's newser:
Second favourite quote:
The Upper Churchill market was Quebec. Efforts to find other markets failed due to cost problems and technical problems that couldn't be overcome. There were few companies capable of taking on the engineering work for such a massive enterprise.
Williams' comments on this, much like comments by previous premiers, capitalize on the mythology surrounding the Upper Churchill contract rather than on the facts then or now.
As CBC news reported yesterday, the estimated cost of the project has risen from government's initial projection of $3.5 billion in 2005 to $9.0 billion. The current provincial accrual debt is $12.0 billion, on an economy of slightly more than $20.0 billion. Both Premier Danny Williams and his finance minister have described the existing provincial debt in dire terms.
If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were to develop the Lower Churchill on its own, the entire debt for the project would count against the provincial coffers using the accrual method currently in use for budgeting purposes. The project should be self-financing through a long-term power purchase agreement, however, the provincial government has revealed no details of its efforts to find possible buyers for the power and financiers for the project overall.
Danny Williams announced yesterday that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is asking Quebec to estimate the cost of wheeling power from Labrador across HydroQuebec transmission lines, through Quebec to markets in Ontario or New York.
Wheeling in this case would likely involve building new transmission towers and lines since the Quebec grid can't handle extra power from the as-yet unbuilt Lower Churchill. The costs of those added lines and towers would be borne largely by Newfoundland and Labrador in a go-it-alone option.
A proposal to build the Lower Churchill project and upgrade transmission systems in Quebec and between Quebec and Ontario was substituted jointly by Ontario and Quebec last year.
While it wasn't included in the original official short-list, Premier Danny Williams publicly announced the option of having Newfoundland and Labrador build the project entirely on its own. That seems to be his preferred, if not only option, based on yesterday's announcement.
Favourite quote from yesterday's newser:
"It's very strategic," Williams told reporters Friday, adding the application indicates Newfoundland and Labrador is prepared to develop the Lower Churchill on its own.Williams takes a trip to the head and he'd call it strategic. "Strategy" and "strategic" are his favourite buzz words. They are typically overused or, as in this case, misused. Strategy doesn't have a variable intensity or a quantity. Something is either strategic or it isn't. It can't be less strategic, or very strategic.
Second favourite quote:
Williams added that the provincial government is using a "market approach" to avoid the pitfalls of the Upper Churchill contract with Hydro-Quebec. In the past, Newfoundland and Labrador has tried but always failed to launch the project as a partnership with Quebec.As with any project of this type, the Lower Churchill can't be built without having a market.
The Upper Churchill market was Quebec. Efforts to find other markets failed due to cost problems and technical problems that couldn't be overcome. There were few companies capable of taking on the engineering work for such a massive enterprise.
Williams' comments on this, much like comments by previous premiers, capitalize on the mythology surrounding the Upper Churchill contract rather than on the facts then or now.
20 January 2006
Connie platform 2004 on Equalization
Anyone care to recall this little gem?
Conservative plan for Equalization 2004:
Perhaps they'll offer some sort of transitional assistance so some provinces can get used to working with less money. That's what they promised in 2004.
The main problem here is that we just don't know what the Conservatives are actually planning this time around. At least last time, they were straightforward in their approach on Equalization.
This time around I can see the poke.
It's just harder to see if there is a porker inside to buy.
Conservative plan for Equalization 2004:
A Conservative government will also revisit the equalization formula. We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula (helping the Atlantic provinces and Saskatchewan, in particular), and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the currentformula provides.The current policy is similar but merely states something to the effect that the Conservatives will ensure no province is adversely affected by the changes. The platform just doesn't tell us how that will work.
Perhaps they'll offer some sort of transitional assistance so some provinces can get used to working with less money. That's what they promised in 2004.
The main problem here is that we just don't know what the Conservatives are actually planning this time around. At least last time, they were straightforward in their approach on Equalization.
This time around I can see the poke.
It's just harder to see if there is a porker inside to buy.
What they actually said: Lower Churchill
vocm.com is saying this about the Lower Churchill comments of Stephen Harper and Paul Martin, as well comments by Premier Danny Williams:
Williams: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System primarily for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Harper: We support this proposal in principle and believe 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 as the Hibernia Project. [Emphasis added]
[Comment: At no point does Stephen Harper provide a full guarantee on this project or even a partial guarantee. he simply welcomes discussions and offers the hope potential exists to move forward with the project.]
Martin: Our government is committed to the exploration of clean power sources that move Canada toward a clean energy future. The development of the Lower Churchill is an exciting opportunity for our shared goals of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic future and for the necessary investments in clean energy. We have funding in place to assist in the development of hydro power projects such as this and upon the province giving this project high priority, we want to ensure Labradorians, and in particular Aboriginal, Metis, Innu and Inuit communities, are central to consultations that will be undertaken.
[Comment: It's curious that Danny Williams is now characterizing the Martin response as being something far less than the "discussions' promised by Stephen Harper.
Williams is well aware of the memorandum of understanding signed last April that included these comments from his own natural resources minister:
As Williams himself put it at the time:
The Harper commitment to talks are clearly, significantly less than the current federal government position.]
In the meantime, Martin will not give a commitment to assist the province in getting access to a transmission corridor across Quebec for Lower Churchill power. Martin says he supports the development, but wants to see the details of the plan first. Premier Danny Williams says the fact that the Prime Minister is here with only a few days to go until the election means he's trying to shore up support for the Liberals.Well, here's what both Harper and Martin wrote in response to the Premier's question:
Williams says Martin has not given a full commitment to the Lower Churchill project, nor has he given a full guarantee.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper says he's prepared to work with the government to ensure the province is the principal beneficiary of the Lower Churchill. Speaking on VOCM Back Talk with Bill Rowe, Harper said the province will not be left out in the cold, similar to the Upper Churchill. [Emphasis and paragraphing added]
Williams: Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System primarily for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Harper: We support this proposal in principle and believe 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 as the Hibernia Project. [Emphasis added]
[Comment: At no point does Stephen Harper provide a full guarantee on this project or even a partial guarantee. he simply welcomes discussions and offers the hope potential exists to move forward with the project.]
Martin: Our government is committed to the exploration of clean power sources that move Canada toward a clean energy future. The development of the Lower Churchill is an exciting opportunity for our shared goals of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic future and for the necessary investments in clean energy. We have funding in place to assist in the development of hydro power projects such as this and upon the province giving this project high priority, we want to ensure Labradorians, and in particular Aboriginal, Metis, Innu and Inuit communities, are central to consultations that will be undertaken.
[Comment: It's curious that Danny Williams is now characterizing the Martin response as being something far less than the "discussions' promised by Stephen Harper.
Williams is well aware of the memorandum of understanding signed last April that included these comments from his own natural resources minister:
I am pleased that one of the priority areas in the MOU is to explore the role that hydroelectric projects, such as the development of Lower Churchill, can play in achieving national and provincial climate change objectives," said Minister Byrne. "Besides providing an economical source of electricity, the Lower Churchill project can provide a significant portion of Canada's greenhouse gas reduction target, which is good for the environment, the economy, and the country."That is in addition to comments by John Efford in St. John's two years ago that the federal government was prepared to assist with the Lower Churchill development.
As Williams himself put it at the time:
"I heard through the media that Minister Efford has opened the door for talks between the province and the federal government on the possible development of the Lower Churchill, and we would certainly be delighted to have those discussions. In my first and subsequent meetings with Prime Minister Martin, I indicated the province would like to see the federal government play a significant role in developing the Lower Churchill, so I am glad to see this moving forward....]In the intervening two years, the Martin administration has signed an agreement with the province that contains provisions that would support Lower Churchill development. The agreement does not preclude other assistance.
The Harper commitment to talks are clearly, significantly less than the current federal government position.]
Knit one, purl Peter
During a radio interview in Halifax yesterday, Peter MacKay told Alexa McDonough she should stick to her knitting.
The line came in response to Alexa's comment she was using her reputation to bolster other candidates.
He apologized, but in explaining the whole thing to CBC Radio said:
See? That's the thing, Petie, sweetie, you charmer you. That little explanation is utter crap.
But what's worse?
Alexa is a former national and provincial leader of the Dippers.
When she is handing your political ass to you during a debate, that is her knitting.
And she is sticking the needles, most likely, somewhere you found a bit uncomfortable.
The line came in response to Alexa's comment she was using her reputation to bolster other candidates.
He apologized, but in explaining the whole thing to CBC Radio said:
"My understanding was it meant 'mind your own business or stay with the things you know.' It certainly was never intended to offend anyone, particularly women," MacKay said.
See? That's the thing, Petie, sweetie, you charmer you. That little explanation is utter crap.
But what's worse?
Alexa is a former national and provincial leader of the Dippers.
When she is handing your political ass to you during a debate, that is her knitting.
And she is sticking the needles, most likely, somewhere you found a bit uncomfortable.
Layton, McLellan, Kenney take questions...
Just saw this headline in the Globe online and the brain saw something else.
The world is not ready for minister of anything Kenny.
"Mmmmfpppf. Mmmmmffpppff."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)