Flip around the net today and you'll see some stories on the offshore bill currently before parliament in Ottawa.
CBC Radio has Loyola Sullivan writing the feds, as noted in the Blarney post. This story also has Roger Grimes criticizing Danny Williams for not seeing this problem and negotiating a separate piece of federal legislation.
VOCM is quoting a number Bill Matthews encouraging his [former (?)] political soulmates Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle to pressure their party to vote the right way on the offshore bill.
So what is it all about in as few words as possible?
1. On one level, the federal Opposition parties are flexing their muscle to see what they can get the government to do to make them happy. It is a cosmic game of chicken among the parties in Ottawa, the Libs included.
Even Jean LaPierre's musing about not wanting an election feeds into the game since it is possible the Opposition types would be dumb enough to defeat the government and head to the polls. Since the Liberals are on an upswing and all the Other Guys are not, it isn't the government that stands to lose. LaPierre's comments about losing seats in Quebec is almost laughable; the Blocheads know full well they are about at their peak - they have to wonder if it's worth gambling their huge winnings last time on picking up a handful of new seats next time.
Contrary to appearances, the Cons still have some deep internal divisions, especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Everyone might blunder into an election, but no one should feel smug about the outcome. Expect the Martinites to fight a slightly better campaign than their last one.
2. On another level, the federal Conservatives are playing to their money base with the play against Kyoto. Irony of ironies, even though the provincial government here doesn't like some aspects of Kyoto either, the local take on this pits oil money against oil interests and oil interests are losing in popular opinion. The Harperites might be emboldeneed by some internal polling and their supposed convention bounce; personally if I were a Con strategist, I'd count on a few policy meltdowns on the trail. That is, unless you manage to dump every single one of your old Reform/Alliance members of parliament.
3. The Libs are trying to hide their Kyoto tardiness. Big announcement, but so far no plan and no progress. The measures in C-43 are little bits of Kyoto that look like action without being substantive moves forward. They will play well across the country, except in some segments of Alberta opinion. Truth is, health care is more important to Albertans than Kyoto. Ask any polling firm. The Martinites are looking strong on health and toher key issues.
4. On an individual level, Loyola Hearn is using this for his own purposes, aided and abetted by his buddy Loyola Sullivan and the letter to John Efford. They are identifying the wrong problem (it isn't the government, guys) and the jabs at Efford suggest the Loyola Twins are still setting one or both of the pair up for a run at federal politics next time out. It's a pretty crass game, boys. Be ashamed.
5. The provincial government stopped working before the fight was over. I had some government sources telling me a few months ago that no one on The Hill had bothered to do a count and see if the offshore bill would pass. They took it for granted; I was floored. Now we have the proof that the provincial government wanted to declare victory and start the floor show long before the job was actually done.
6. Roger Grimes scores big on other issues; flubs the offshore. Despite a strong and effective performance in the budget aftermath, especially on the Grand Falls cancer clinic, Grimes is just throwing something at the wall when he talks about negotiating some kind of deal beforehand on how the bill would proceed.
No government is going to stand for having its running of the House a subject for negotiation with the outside world. I don't tell you how to speak to your wife at breakfast, Roger. There are some things that are just none of anyone's business. If someone had suggested to Roger the format for government legislation, I would hope Roger would have told them to sod off.
More to the point, though: Look up, Roger, at point 4, and see a stronger argument.
7. Efford is shocked; Who cares? The CBC Radio story says Efford is shocked at this situation - that's their starting comment. Who cares how you feel John? Make a substantive comment. Too many politicians, Efford and Grimes included, like to start their media comments with phrases like "shocked", "dismayed" or "appalled" as in 'The politician in question is shocked at recent media reports..."
Short answer from the news rooms of the world: who gives a flying toss about your mental state? If you are feeling something try taking a pill, getting some exercise or seeing a psychiatrist. Your moods aren't news. Give me some substantive comment or get lost.
8. Efford may be sleeping. As I have noted, in Nova Scotia, their federal cabinet rep took the lead on the story. Here it was Blarney, the Dinosaur. Efford was unseen and unheard until a couple of days into the story. John needs to revamp his office in a big way. Start with yourself. When it comes to any staff changes, just make sure you hand out the pink slips correctly the first time, John.
9. Last but not least, VOCM needs new talk show hosts who actually understand current events. If Open Nite Line is actually pure entertainment, then by all means replace the current talking heads with actors and other performers. Brian Tobin is looking for work. Maybe you can cut a deal with Rogers to borrow their Out of the Fog team now that they have a stronger call-in show on Sunday nights to handle news and current events.
29 March 2005
Blarney - the Green Dinosaur from the Southern Shore
The ongoing whining about Bill C-43 reached a predictable pitch over the past 24 hours as more news media picked up the story and the Open Line shows displayed yet again that anyone can call and say anything without the hosts being able to correct misinformation and sometimes sheer bull****.
The spin, especially the Open Line spin, has been that the dastardly Liberals are jeopardizing the offshore revenue deals by lumping them with a bunch of other bits of controversial legislation. Loyola Sullivan, provincial finance minister and close ally of the future candidate for the federal riding of Avalon (i.e. the Whiner from Renews Loyola Hearn) has written to the federal government seeking reassurances that the offshore money bill deal will pass.
Well, let's just look at a few things:
1. Last year, like every year, the Official Opposition voted against the government budget bills. What would be different if they did the same thing this year?
2. Last year, Loyola Hearn voted against a government bill that changed the Atlantic Accord so that Newfoundland and Labrador would always be able to chose the offset mechanism that gave it the most cash. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Whiner voted against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
3. In a minority parliament, the Opposition parties actually have to make principled decisions, not reflexively vote the party line. Hence their quandary this time. As I noted before, Hearn's real complaint is two fold: first, he knows his party doesn't support the offshore revenue deal so that after an election, a Tory government would kill the cash. Second, in the short-term, Loyola Hearn lacks the political power to ensure his colleagues vote the right way on Bill C-43.
4. Rather than reflexively supporting his Tory Twin, the local Loyola should be writing to his federal leader, one Mr. Stephen Harper seeking his assurances that the federal Cons will support the provincial Tories and vote to pass C-43. Hint for the Loyolas: the Liberals are already behind this bill.
5. The dastardly bill C-43 includes 24 sections. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 23 and 24 all provide improved financial benefits to individuals, corporations and the provincial governments. Three sections, namely 5, 8 and 11, are ones that Loyola Sullivan should be very concerned about if the Cons vote against the bill and in so doing force an election. The Local Loyola should be screaming for Mr. Harper to hold his nose and pass the bill since those sections alone provide more cash for children, municipalities and, yes Loyola's own coffers from the offshore.
Basically, the only thing the federal Conservatives are upset about are three sections that make changes to environmental legislation. There is way more good in this bill than bad. Rather than threaten to defeat the bill maybe the Cons could try some old-fashioned political bargaining and see if they can cut a deal on the environmental provisions. Maybe a deal can be made that meets the needs of all Canadians and reflects the range of opinion in the country and in the Commons.
I'd strongly suggest Mr. Harper contact his Republican friends from the U.S. and ask them how to handle the kind of bargaining that is commonplace in the US federal congress and any state legislature.
Bottom line: Mr. Hearn and his colleagues are playing the worst kind of old-fashioned politics with this bill trying to blame others for their own lack of imagination and genuine political skill. Hearn has even taken to criticizing John Efford in an effort to divert attention away from his own impotence. Talk about playing the same old sound-track over and over again.
I won't engage in the sort of shameless hyperbole that Hearn has been using.
Nope.
I'll just say what I have heard since last Friday is sadly typical of the b/s Mr. Hearn has been spouting for the 23 years he has been a politician.
That he has a ready audience on Open Line is also sadly typical. If anyone - especially Linda or Bas - bothered to look at C-43, they'd see through the Blarney from Renews in a heartbeat.
The spin, especially the Open Line spin, has been that the dastardly Liberals are jeopardizing the offshore revenue deals by lumping them with a bunch of other bits of controversial legislation. Loyola Sullivan, provincial finance minister and close ally of the future candidate for the federal riding of Avalon (i.e. the Whiner from Renews Loyola Hearn) has written to the federal government seeking reassurances that the offshore money bill deal will pass.
Well, let's just look at a few things:
1. Last year, like every year, the Official Opposition voted against the government budget bills. What would be different if they did the same thing this year?
2. Last year, Loyola Hearn voted against a government bill that changed the Atlantic Accord so that Newfoundland and Labrador would always be able to chose the offset mechanism that gave it the most cash. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Whiner voted against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
3. In a minority parliament, the Opposition parties actually have to make principled decisions, not reflexively vote the party line. Hence their quandary this time. As I noted before, Hearn's real complaint is two fold: first, he knows his party doesn't support the offshore revenue deal so that after an election, a Tory government would kill the cash. Second, in the short-term, Loyola Hearn lacks the political power to ensure his colleagues vote the right way on Bill C-43.
4. Rather than reflexively supporting his Tory Twin, the local Loyola should be writing to his federal leader, one Mr. Stephen Harper seeking his assurances that the federal Cons will support the provincial Tories and vote to pass C-43. Hint for the Loyolas: the Liberals are already behind this bill.
5. The dastardly bill C-43 includes 24 sections. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 23 and 24 all provide improved financial benefits to individuals, corporations and the provincial governments. Three sections, namely 5, 8 and 11, are ones that Loyola Sullivan should be very concerned about if the Cons vote against the bill and in so doing force an election. The Local Loyola should be screaming for Mr. Harper to hold his nose and pass the bill since those sections alone provide more cash for children, municipalities and, yes Loyola's own coffers from the offshore.
Basically, the only thing the federal Conservatives are upset about are three sections that make changes to environmental legislation. There is way more good in this bill than bad. Rather than threaten to defeat the bill maybe the Cons could try some old-fashioned political bargaining and see if they can cut a deal on the environmental provisions. Maybe a deal can be made that meets the needs of all Canadians and reflects the range of opinion in the country and in the Commons.
I'd strongly suggest Mr. Harper contact his Republican friends from the U.S. and ask them how to handle the kind of bargaining that is commonplace in the US federal congress and any state legislature.
Bottom line: Mr. Hearn and his colleagues are playing the worst kind of old-fashioned politics with this bill trying to blame others for their own lack of imagination and genuine political skill. Hearn has even taken to criticizing John Efford in an effort to divert attention away from his own impotence. Talk about playing the same old sound-track over and over again.
I won't engage in the sort of shameless hyperbole that Hearn has been using.
Nope.
I'll just say what I have heard since last Friday is sadly typical of the b/s Mr. Hearn has been spouting for the 23 years he has been a politician.
That he has a ready audience on Open Line is also sadly typical. If anyone - especially Linda or Bas - bothered to look at C-43, they'd see through the Blarney from Renews in a heartbeat.
28 March 2005
Sex, biological weapons and not a condom in sight
Flip around the net long enough and other things appear on the Jennifer Murphy case. Flip down to the end of this post for some really interesting information about what is housed at Borden.
Here's the text of another Star story. Seems the "minor, unrelated matter" was Jennifer Murphy being in the single persons quarters at Camp Borden. Single quarters, known colloquial as the shacks have limitations on who can be there and when. As this Star story indicates, Ms. Murphy had been detained for "trespassing".
Former Canadian Forces members may be surprised to see the lackadaisical attitude that is taken to single quarters these days, since at least one person is quoted as saying that the shacks are like college dorms with lots of casual sex going on. Ms. Murphy is alleged to have gone from room to room in the shacks wearing nothing but panties and boots - here's that same story again but in another locale. Does anyone think there might just be tons of rumour going on here and not much fact?
Personally, as a former DND public affairs officer, I am gobsmacked by the freedom with which people are making comment, like the woman identified as Private Trisha Harnett. Canadian Forces members can speak to the media based on something called Defence Administrative Orders and Directives, specifically the 2008 series covering public affairs. The main thing that used to be taught was to "stick to your lane" meaning comment only on things you know about. Private Harnett's comments strike me as being damned close to rumour and gossip, not something she can attest to as a matter of fact.
It would seem that in DND/CF these days anybody is free to say anything to anyone at any time.
Consider this part of a CP story: "Borden resident Wanda Seymour, whose husband is a military police officer, recalled seeing Murphy at a local Tim Hortons dressed in only a miniskirt and tube top - in minus 20 C weather."
Now think about that. The woman who made that comment is married to a military police officer. Aside from the fact that Ms. Murphy's attire at a Timmy's had nothing at all to do with the charges against her - let's go back to my consistent comment that there is more gossip here than fact in the rapportage - one wonders what else this woman told reporters that didn't get into the actual story. She did manage to tell them she was married to a meathead so even her own gossip and speculation could be mistaken for something more credible than it is.
The more I see of this story, the more I am thinking there is a public affairs disaster brewing here - and it isn't just about the matter of sexual promiscuity and the threat of AIDS among CF personnel.
Nope. I am starting to think there has been a general breakdown in discipline in the CF to the point where public affairs officers have no idea what is being said by anyone and no one feels obliged to be circumspect in their comments to media (including PAOs).
Beyond that there is a complete breakdown of fundamental common sense to the point where this issue could mushroom into a major crisis in the CF. Forget Somalia. Apparently, Borden has turned into the CF's very own little Sodom and Gomorrah.
Take the sum total of all the stuff you have seen posted here over the past couple of days and you have this:
- rampant sexual activity on DND property contrary to good order and discipline (the old section 129 of the National Defence Act); Contrary to a comment from one soldier, DND shacks should not be like the mythical college dorm from Animal House.
- routine trespassing by civilians in personnel quarters on a base that includes the Canadian Forces Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Defence School and the Canadian Forces nuclear emergency response team. This bit of the story alone makes me wonder what is going on. It's not like NBC defence is a minor issue in these days of global terror; and,
- mature adults who have never heard of condoms. Talk about your Homer Simpson moment. Even if Jennifer Murphy was the skank some people are making her out to be, the phrase "unprotected sex" is enough for me to charge every single male who comes forward and confesses to having unprotected sex with her with:
- conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Canadian Forces (Sect 129 of the NDA); and,
- an offence related to willfully self-inflicted wounds since acquiring HIV will render the person unfit for active service (deployment overseas) in most instances.
There could be other things but that is a start.
I am thinking that as this story spreads, it will only get worse for DND/CF. It might be time for some Rick Hillier common sense to apply here.
Here's the text of another Star story. Seems the "minor, unrelated matter" was Jennifer Murphy being in the single persons quarters at Camp Borden. Single quarters, known colloquial as the shacks have limitations on who can be there and when. As this Star story indicates, Ms. Murphy had been detained for "trespassing".
Former Canadian Forces members may be surprised to see the lackadaisical attitude that is taken to single quarters these days, since at least one person is quoted as saying that the shacks are like college dorms with lots of casual sex going on. Ms. Murphy is alleged to have gone from room to room in the shacks wearing nothing but panties and boots - here's that same story again but in another locale. Does anyone think there might just be tons of rumour going on here and not much fact?
Personally, as a former DND public affairs officer, I am gobsmacked by the freedom with which people are making comment, like the woman identified as Private Trisha Harnett. Canadian Forces members can speak to the media based on something called Defence Administrative Orders and Directives, specifically the 2008 series covering public affairs. The main thing that used to be taught was to "stick to your lane" meaning comment only on things you know about. Private Harnett's comments strike me as being damned close to rumour and gossip, not something she can attest to as a matter of fact.
It would seem that in DND/CF these days anybody is free to say anything to anyone at any time.
Consider this part of a CP story: "Borden resident Wanda Seymour, whose husband is a military police officer, recalled seeing Murphy at a local Tim Hortons dressed in only a miniskirt and tube top - in minus 20 C weather."
Now think about that. The woman who made that comment is married to a military police officer. Aside from the fact that Ms. Murphy's attire at a Timmy's had nothing at all to do with the charges against her - let's go back to my consistent comment that there is more gossip here than fact in the rapportage - one wonders what else this woman told reporters that didn't get into the actual story. She did manage to tell them she was married to a meathead so even her own gossip and speculation could be mistaken for something more credible than it is.
The more I see of this story, the more I am thinking there is a public affairs disaster brewing here - and it isn't just about the matter of sexual promiscuity and the threat of AIDS among CF personnel.
Nope. I am starting to think there has been a general breakdown in discipline in the CF to the point where public affairs officers have no idea what is being said by anyone and no one feels obliged to be circumspect in their comments to media (including PAOs).
Beyond that there is a complete breakdown of fundamental common sense to the point where this issue could mushroom into a major crisis in the CF. Forget Somalia. Apparently, Borden has turned into the CF's very own little Sodom and Gomorrah.
Take the sum total of all the stuff you have seen posted here over the past couple of days and you have this:
- rampant sexual activity on DND property contrary to good order and discipline (the old section 129 of the National Defence Act); Contrary to a comment from one soldier, DND shacks should not be like the mythical college dorm from Animal House.
- routine trespassing by civilians in personnel quarters on a base that includes the Canadian Forces Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Defence School and the Canadian Forces nuclear emergency response team. This bit of the story alone makes me wonder what is going on. It's not like NBC defence is a minor issue in these days of global terror; and,
- mature adults who have never heard of condoms. Talk about your Homer Simpson moment. Even if Jennifer Murphy was the skank some people are making her out to be, the phrase "unprotected sex" is enough for me to charge every single male who comes forward and confesses to having unprotected sex with her with:
- conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Canadian Forces (Sect 129 of the NDA); and,
- an offence related to willfully self-inflicted wounds since acquiring HIV will render the person unfit for active service (deployment overseas) in most instances.
There could be other things but that is a start.
I am thinking that as this story spreads, it will only get worse for DND/CF. It might be time for some Rick Hillier common sense to apply here.
27 March 2005
The Nigeria scam spreads
About 10 years ago, the bunko artists in Nigeria - the oil-soaked country is actually one giant criminal wasteland, but that is another story - came up with a brilliant scam: write to people claiming to be a bank representative seeking to get some phantasmagorical sum out of Nigeria. All they need is your bank account number, branch and address, a specimen signature, your full name and address and some of your official letterhead if that is something you have.
In exchange, they promise to send you tens of millions of dollars.
What they do is drain your account since they have all the necessary bits.
The scam is so old now I doubt there are people who haven't heard of it. The con types stopped using paper a long time ago and now use e-mail to flip their messages around the world.
Here are the latest variations I found in one e-mail inbox of mine:
- Gina Gloria Bello - claiming to be an Afghan woman whose husband was killed in the war on terror. The interestingly named "Afghan" woman, who name sounds more like an Italian porn actress-cum-member-of-parliament than a farsi-speaking widow, supposedly has US$25 million stashed away that she wants to turn over to charity. My personal favourite Bello remains Maria. She starred alongside Mel Gibson in the movie Payback, which as we all know is a mother.
- one Cheung Pui of the Hang Seng Bank claiming to have $24.5 million belonging to a former Iraqi army officer. In order to subvert laws whereby this money will become property of the Hong Kong government (Hong Kong doesn't have its own government as such), I need to send this guy some paperwork so I can be made the next of kin for one Major Fadi Bassem. This one is so widespread, I am just gonna link you to the results of the google search using "fadi bassem".
- A Senator Gwarzo from Nigeria wants assistance in smuggling US$45 million in exchange for which I will get 30% of the gross. He claims to know Sani Abacha, the former president of Nigeria. He knows him so well in the e-mail Gwarzo claims Abacha is currently in power; the late General Abacha is dead. This particular scam is so old there is a website in its honour.
- MR.YANG CHEN,managing director of Hebei Metals & Minerals Import and Export Corporation (HMMIEC) wants me to be his agent in North America. There is a website for the company, whose rep is one Jacky Chan. Interestingly, the website lists no street address for the company. They might be legit. - Maybe Danny Williams would like to put these guys in touch with local business developers like he did with another Chinese company with a definitely shadey bunch of associations.
- Anthony Tunde of Nigeria who wants to squirrel away about US$27 million.
- Oko William and his US$36.8 million. This guy wants my passport photo too.
- Someone named Queensley Rhoda who advises I have won US$2.5 million with some lottery tickets.
All of these were sent to an e-mail address in the name of "horridlm", as in Horrid Little Man, a nick-name I picked up a long time ago.
Obviously, I know these offers are all legitimate ones since they weren't just sent to anyone on an e-mail list.
And for those in the trivia business, the name of the Mel Gibson character in Payback is the same as the guy who sent me the link to sign up for that particular e-mail account. He didn't tag me with the horridlm name; a mutual friend did. Porter just thought it was appropriate.
In exchange, they promise to send you tens of millions of dollars.
What they do is drain your account since they have all the necessary bits.
The scam is so old now I doubt there are people who haven't heard of it. The con types stopped using paper a long time ago and now use e-mail to flip their messages around the world.
Here are the latest variations I found in one e-mail inbox of mine:
- Gina Gloria Bello - claiming to be an Afghan woman whose husband was killed in the war on terror. The interestingly named "Afghan" woman, who name sounds more like an Italian porn actress-cum-member-of-parliament than a farsi-speaking widow, supposedly has US$25 million stashed away that she wants to turn over to charity. My personal favourite Bello remains Maria. She starred alongside Mel Gibson in the movie Payback, which as we all know is a mother.
- one Cheung Pui of the Hang Seng Bank claiming to have $24.5 million belonging to a former Iraqi army officer. In order to subvert laws whereby this money will become property of the Hong Kong government (Hong Kong doesn't have its own government as such), I need to send this guy some paperwork so I can be made the next of kin for one Major Fadi Bassem. This one is so widespread, I am just gonna link you to the results of the google search using "fadi bassem".
- A Senator Gwarzo from Nigeria wants assistance in smuggling US$45 million in exchange for which I will get 30% of the gross. He claims to know Sani Abacha, the former president of Nigeria. He knows him so well in the e-mail Gwarzo claims Abacha is currently in power; the late General Abacha is dead. This particular scam is so old there is a website in its honour.
- MR.YANG CHEN,managing director of Hebei Metals & Minerals Import and Export Corporation (HMMIEC) wants me to be his agent in North America. There is a website for the company, whose rep is one Jacky Chan. Interestingly, the website lists no street address for the company. They might be legit. - Maybe Danny Williams would like to put these guys in touch with local business developers like he did with another Chinese company with a definitely shadey bunch of associations.
- Anthony Tunde of Nigeria who wants to squirrel away about US$27 million.
- Oko William and his US$36.8 million. This guy wants my passport photo too.
- Someone named Queensley Rhoda who advises I have won US$2.5 million with some lottery tickets.
All of these were sent to an e-mail address in the name of "horridlm", as in Horrid Little Man, a nick-name I picked up a long time ago.
Obviously, I know these offers are all legitimate ones since they weren't just sent to anyone on an e-mail list.
And for those in the trivia business, the name of the Mel Gibson character in Payback is the same as the guy who sent me the link to sign up for that particular e-mail account. He didn't tag me with the horridlm name; a mutual friend did. Porter just thought it was appropriate.
Some questions for DND/CF
According to a Canadian Press (CP) story, the Canadian Forces (CF) has issued a CANFORGEN to all Canadian Forces personnel warning them to seek medical attention if they have had sexual relations with the woman accused of having unprotected sex with at least one soldier from Camp Borden.
In a gigantic nose-puller, the military public affairs officer assigned to the National Investigative Service said it would be a mistake to call this a military alert. What exactly is a CANFORGEN, then, Captain Mark Giles? CF members will recognize the spin Capt. Giles is applying here to a Canadian Forces General Order.
A CANFORGEN may not put the CF on some state of war readiness but it damned well constitutes an official communication from the very top of the chain of command. Canadian Forces members ignore it at their peril and I don't mean because of the health implications in this case.
Here's another curiosity from another CP story courtesy of the Lethbridge Herald. The story is titled "Woman charged with spreading HIV volunteered her status to investigators: Star" and datelined last Friday.
According to this report, Ms. Murphy was originally questioned in a "minor, unrelated matter" and volunteered her HIV status.
Two things:
First of all, since when should Captain Giles be releasing such information to the public about what a suspect revealed or didn't reveal in the course of any investigation? This may be a privacy violation not to mention a violation of just plain old common sense for police services not to talk about a matter which is currently before the courts.
Second of all, and more importantly, was Ms. Murphy cautioned? That is, was she advised of her right to counsel and to remain silent and did she knowingly waive that right before "volunteering" the incriminating information. I refer those curious about this to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Other media reports had the meatheads issuing an alert for a woman based on a complaint. This CP story has it the other way around: Ms. Murphy incriminated herself, named the victim and then was subsequently charged.
How then did Ms. Murphy wind up assisting police with their inquiries on another matter and just coincidentally happening to volunteer this information? What was the other "minor" matter, anyway?
Since Captain Giles is being quite liberal with his comments on this matter perhaps it's time he laid it all out for the public in a televised news conference.
In a gigantic nose-puller, the military public affairs officer assigned to the National Investigative Service said it would be a mistake to call this a military alert. What exactly is a CANFORGEN, then, Captain Mark Giles? CF members will recognize the spin Capt. Giles is applying here to a Canadian Forces General Order.
A CANFORGEN may not put the CF on some state of war readiness but it damned well constitutes an official communication from the very top of the chain of command. Canadian Forces members ignore it at their peril and I don't mean because of the health implications in this case.
Here's another curiosity from another CP story courtesy of the Lethbridge Herald. The story is titled "Woman charged with spreading HIV volunteered her status to investigators: Star" and datelined last Friday.
According to this report, Ms. Murphy was originally questioned in a "minor, unrelated matter" and volunteered her HIV status.
Two things:
First of all, since when should Captain Giles be releasing such information to the public about what a suspect revealed or didn't reveal in the course of any investigation? This may be a privacy violation not to mention a violation of just plain old common sense for police services not to talk about a matter which is currently before the courts.
Second of all, and more importantly, was Ms. Murphy cautioned? That is, was she advised of her right to counsel and to remain silent and did she knowingly waive that right before "volunteering" the incriminating information. I refer those curious about this to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Other media reports had the meatheads issuing an alert for a woman based on a complaint. This CP story has it the other way around: Ms. Murphy incriminated herself, named the victim and then was subsequently charged.
How then did Ms. Murphy wind up assisting police with their inquiries on another matter and just coincidentally happening to volunteer this information? What was the other "minor" matter, anyway?
Since Captain Giles is being quite liberal with his comments on this matter perhaps it's time he laid it all out for the public in a televised news conference.
Loyola's Latest Lamentations
Oh, my.
With Parliament closed for Easter, seems like Loyola Hearn has nothing better to do than bombard VOCM with his cryptic comments that are more motivated by advancing his own political interests than anything else.
Flip over to the revamped and much improved VOCM website to see Loyola pledging to vote "in the best interests of the province" when it comes to Bill C -43. That's the one he was complaining about the other day, although a closer inspection revealed he was actually complaining about his own lack of juice and his own party's stance on offshore revenues.
Now, Loyola, what exactly does it mean to vote "in the best interests of the province"?
That is the sort of meaningless drivel that old-fashioned politicians like Hearn love to throw out in utter contempt for their constituents' ability to think. It gets their name in the news without having to actually do anything or say anything. I'll bet Loyola actually thought about pledging to support the bill "in the fullness of time" and see if he can separate the offshore bits so this can be dealt with "on a go-forward basis".
Does it mean Loyola will buck his party and thereby jeopardize his chances of a cabinet seat in a future Harper government? Does it mean he will vote with his party, defeat the government and try to get himself in the cabinet in that future Harper government? Bonus points to anyone who can tell what Loyola will do based on his comments.
My money would be on the whole thing being more empty posturing on Loyola's part. There would have to be a conjunction of all Opposition parties voting against the bill or parts of it simultaneously to bring down the government. Loyola knows full well that none of the Opp parties want an election when the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are running ahead in the polls. They also have some cash problems left from the last election. Until all that gets into a better position, the Opposition would be a little wonky to force an election at this point.
So, Loyola spins out some gibberish comments and gets some coverage without having to take a clear position on anything.
When you have finished looking over Loyola's Latest Lamentation, have a look at two other sites.
One is Loyola's own website, particularly his news releases, out-of-date though they are. Go through them and count the number of times Hearn attacks John Efford even though Hearn isn't the Natural Resources critic. Remember what I said about Loyola planning to run against John next time? Don't forget that the chief provincial architect of the "Attack John" movement was Loyola Sullivan, Hearn's old buddy and campaign manager.
Of course the February 18 release is just hysterically funny: Loyola Hearn who doesn't even understand the Accord he voted in favour of in the House of Assembly 20 years ago criticizes John Efford for not getting it.
Maybe I need to post the series of Loyola-isms on the Accord.
The second link is to the text of Bill C-43, the one that has Loyola lamenting everything he can think of and more besides. It makes for some interesting reading, despite Loyola's moaning from Renews.
The next post will walk through the Bill to see what horrendous things Loyola might be opposed to other than the offshore revenue bits.
With Parliament closed for Easter, seems like Loyola Hearn has nothing better to do than bombard VOCM with his cryptic comments that are more motivated by advancing his own political interests than anything else.
Flip over to the revamped and much improved VOCM website to see Loyola pledging to vote "in the best interests of the province" when it comes to Bill C -43. That's the one he was complaining about the other day, although a closer inspection revealed he was actually complaining about his own lack of juice and his own party's stance on offshore revenues.
Now, Loyola, what exactly does it mean to vote "in the best interests of the province"?
That is the sort of meaningless drivel that old-fashioned politicians like Hearn love to throw out in utter contempt for their constituents' ability to think. It gets their name in the news without having to actually do anything or say anything. I'll bet Loyola actually thought about pledging to support the bill "in the fullness of time" and see if he can separate the offshore bits so this can be dealt with "on a go-forward basis".
Does it mean Loyola will buck his party and thereby jeopardize his chances of a cabinet seat in a future Harper government? Does it mean he will vote with his party, defeat the government and try to get himself in the cabinet in that future Harper government? Bonus points to anyone who can tell what Loyola will do based on his comments.
My money would be on the whole thing being more empty posturing on Loyola's part. There would have to be a conjunction of all Opposition parties voting against the bill or parts of it simultaneously to bring down the government. Loyola knows full well that none of the Opp parties want an election when the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are running ahead in the polls. They also have some cash problems left from the last election. Until all that gets into a better position, the Opposition would be a little wonky to force an election at this point.
So, Loyola spins out some gibberish comments and gets some coverage without having to take a clear position on anything.
When you have finished looking over Loyola's Latest Lamentation, have a look at two other sites.
One is Loyola's own website, particularly his news releases, out-of-date though they are. Go through them and count the number of times Hearn attacks John Efford even though Hearn isn't the Natural Resources critic. Remember what I said about Loyola planning to run against John next time? Don't forget that the chief provincial architect of the "Attack John" movement was Loyola Sullivan, Hearn's old buddy and campaign manager.
Of course the February 18 release is just hysterically funny: Loyola Hearn who doesn't even understand the Accord he voted in favour of in the House of Assembly 20 years ago criticizes John Efford for not getting it.
Maybe I need to post the series of Loyola-isms on the Accord.
The second link is to the text of Bill C-43, the one that has Loyola lamenting everything he can think of and more besides. It makes for some interesting reading, despite Loyola's moaning from Renews.
The next post will walk through the Bill to see what horrendous things Loyola might be opposed to other than the offshore revenue bits.
26 March 2005
Laughable Loyola
If he weren't so utterly annoying, the whiner from Renews Loyola Hearn would be the funniest member of parliament elected from this province since maybe Dave Rooney.
Dave used to spend most of his time as MP sending off entries to National Lampoon's "True Facts" page. Since it happened to be in his riding, Dave is the guy who sent the Lampoon the picture of the road sign that pointed to Dildo in one direction and Heart's Content in another.
Would that Loyola would send road signs out as news releases instead of the tripe he foists on the people of the riding he represents but doesn't even see fit to live in. Mr. Hearn has apparently described a budget bill tabled in the Commons on Thursday as the "sneakiest, lowest form of politics he's ever seen. " At least, that what the Telegram is reporting on Saturday.
The bill is an omnibus one, meaning it has a whole bunch of different subordinate ones inside the big bill. It is a budget measure so that if the government loses a vote on it, there would likely be an election.
Here's the truly laughable statement from Loyola, who has repeatedly assured us that his party will give Newfoundland and Labrador everything on the offshore it wants. Mr Hearn is apparently worried that "if something isn't done, the province may never see any of the $2 billion in Atlantic Accord funding."
How would that work exactly, Loyola? If the bill passes, the province gets all the money it signed on for. If the bill is defeated, we have an election. If the Liberals are returned to power, the bill gets passed and the province gets its money.
What happens if Mr. Hearn becomes a cabinet minister in a Harper government? Apparently, Loyola is worried he can't deliver the goods. Loyola knows that if the Tories get elected, the whole offshore deal is toast. We will get not a sausage; bugger all. Mr. Harper is committed to changing the Equalization formula, not to giving this province an offset deal like the one signed in January. That requires consent of all the provinces, so the chances of it happening are pretty slim.
So what Loyola is really saying is that we should work to get the Liberal bill through or get the Liberals re-elected because his guys just can't be trusted. The sneaky part of this whole exercise would be Loyola's assurances about the Cons supporting Loyola and the province on the offshore issue. The "lowest" part of this would be Loyola attacking the Liberals when he should be attacking his own guys or maybe apologizing to the people he represents for misleading them. Have I got that right, Loyola?
By the way, Mr. Harper also plans to sell off the Hibernia shares "for the good of all Canadians" as he put in in a letter to Danny Williams. Loyola doesn't want to talk about that, however.
Mr. Hearn: try telling the truth for once instead of launching into your partisan diatribes, most of which are built on saying things that are untrue, false and factually inaccurate.
If Loyola says this budget bill is the lowest thing he has seen, he knows of sneaky political behaviour. He has been witness to or perpetrated some of the lowest forms of political behaviour in Newfoundland history. Like, for example, slashing the Opposition budget as close to zero as possible after the 1982 election. One of Loyola's Tory buddies said the Liberals could go meet in a phone booth for all he cared. There went a democrat, hey, Loyola?
Of course, Loyola himself has been known to participate in some low forms of political behaviour.
Like spreading totally false information. His last constituency flyer issued right before the writ dropped for the 2004 election had some complete and utter falsehoods in it about the Atlantic Accord. Actually, throughout the Accord discussions, Mr. Hearn was fond of spreading misrepresentations and other falsehoods. They were all things Mr. Hearn knew to be untrue or ought to have known were untrue when he uttered them.
As for Mr. Hearn's behaviour during the campaign it was some of the most cowardly or arrogant behaviour imaginable. I can't decide which it is when the candidate runs on a platform of accountability and then steadfastly refuses to appear on any platform or at any event with any of his fellow candidates. I think the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce is still waiting for the arrogant Mr. Hearn to respond to their invitation to an all-candidates debate.
Some of us here in the riding thought of sending out search parties to find the little fellow from Renews when couldn't be found either campaigning or doing media interviews. He did participate in a CBC Radio forum but refused to show up in the studio with the others. Brave Mr. Hearn literally phoned it in.
Any guy who tells his constituents things that are simply not true in order to get ahead shouldn't be criticizing anyone else for anything.
If Mr. Hearn had an ounce of class, he'd apologize for his behaviour and then just clam up for a while.
Dave used to spend most of his time as MP sending off entries to National Lampoon's "True Facts" page. Since it happened to be in his riding, Dave is the guy who sent the Lampoon the picture of the road sign that pointed to Dildo in one direction and Heart's Content in another.
Would that Loyola would send road signs out as news releases instead of the tripe he foists on the people of the riding he represents but doesn't even see fit to live in. Mr. Hearn has apparently described a budget bill tabled in the Commons on Thursday as the "sneakiest, lowest form of politics he's ever seen. " At least, that what the Telegram is reporting on Saturday.
The bill is an omnibus one, meaning it has a whole bunch of different subordinate ones inside the big bill. It is a budget measure so that if the government loses a vote on it, there would likely be an election.
Here's the truly laughable statement from Loyola, who has repeatedly assured us that his party will give Newfoundland and Labrador everything on the offshore it wants. Mr Hearn is apparently worried that "if something isn't done, the province may never see any of the $2 billion in Atlantic Accord funding."
How would that work exactly, Loyola? If the bill passes, the province gets all the money it signed on for. If the bill is defeated, we have an election. If the Liberals are returned to power, the bill gets passed and the province gets its money.
What happens if Mr. Hearn becomes a cabinet minister in a Harper government? Apparently, Loyola is worried he can't deliver the goods. Loyola knows that if the Tories get elected, the whole offshore deal is toast. We will get not a sausage; bugger all. Mr. Harper is committed to changing the Equalization formula, not to giving this province an offset deal like the one signed in January. That requires consent of all the provinces, so the chances of it happening are pretty slim.
So what Loyola is really saying is that we should work to get the Liberal bill through or get the Liberals re-elected because his guys just can't be trusted. The sneaky part of this whole exercise would be Loyola's assurances about the Cons supporting Loyola and the province on the offshore issue. The "lowest" part of this would be Loyola attacking the Liberals when he should be attacking his own guys or maybe apologizing to the people he represents for misleading them. Have I got that right, Loyola?
By the way, Mr. Harper also plans to sell off the Hibernia shares "for the good of all Canadians" as he put in in a letter to Danny Williams. Loyola doesn't want to talk about that, however.
Mr. Hearn: try telling the truth for once instead of launching into your partisan diatribes, most of which are built on saying things that are untrue, false and factually inaccurate.
If Loyola says this budget bill is the lowest thing he has seen, he knows of sneaky political behaviour. He has been witness to or perpetrated some of the lowest forms of political behaviour in Newfoundland history. Like, for example, slashing the Opposition budget as close to zero as possible after the 1982 election. One of Loyola's Tory buddies said the Liberals could go meet in a phone booth for all he cared. There went a democrat, hey, Loyola?
Of course, Loyola himself has been known to participate in some low forms of political behaviour.
Like spreading totally false information. His last constituency flyer issued right before the writ dropped for the 2004 election had some complete and utter falsehoods in it about the Atlantic Accord. Actually, throughout the Accord discussions, Mr. Hearn was fond of spreading misrepresentations and other falsehoods. They were all things Mr. Hearn knew to be untrue or ought to have known were untrue when he uttered them.
As for Mr. Hearn's behaviour during the campaign it was some of the most cowardly or arrogant behaviour imaginable. I can't decide which it is when the candidate runs on a platform of accountability and then steadfastly refuses to appear on any platform or at any event with any of his fellow candidates. I think the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce is still waiting for the arrogant Mr. Hearn to respond to their invitation to an all-candidates debate.
Some of us here in the riding thought of sending out search parties to find the little fellow from Renews when couldn't be found either campaigning or doing media interviews. He did participate in a CBC Radio forum but refused to show up in the studio with the others. Brave Mr. Hearn literally phoned it in.
Any guy who tells his constituents things that are simply not true in order to get ahead shouldn't be criticizing anyone else for anything.
If Mr. Hearn had an ounce of class, he'd apologize for his behaviour and then just clam up for a while.
25 March 2005
Speaking of nailing people to trees...
It seems to be going around. My headline today is intended to be ironic rather than blasphemous.
On this Good Friday, take a little flip over to see Paul Wells, if you haven't been doing it lately.
Therein, you will find two stories on one Reuben John Efford under the head "Big defeat for the small preliminary emitter".
The first reference is to a story that a major environmental project that should be in John's department is being handed to Environment Minister Stephane Dion. The reason is simple, according to Paul: Dion can get the job done. The story is from Canadian Press, incidentally - not famous for spin - and describes a realignment of projects between two departments. The interpretation here is Paul's.
Is it an unreasonable interpretation? Not from my perspective. The original CP story rightly points out a conflict-of-interest problem with having a department represent both the energy industry and working on stuff related to Kyoto, which the industry opposes.
There is a rationale to the CP story. But if Paul is taking another tack, then expect that there are other voices on the hill - including within the Liberal Party - who are telling a slightly different version behind the scenes. I am speculating here but Efford still hasn't recovered from the Accord schlamozzle.
What became clear during the entire Accord fiasco (from the federal Liberal politico standpoint) is that from the beginning John never understood either the politics of it (Danny sandbagged him - John helped pile the bags up) or the substance of the file (Equalization, oil revenues or royalties not interchangeable terms etc. etc. etc.) It was also pretty obvious that Efford fancied himself more "the Premier who should have been the Fighting Newfoundlander" rather than "the much more powerful guy in Ottawa fighting for Newfoundland for real".
While everyone else may point to his supposed take-it or leave-it ultimatum, federales will point to a whole bunch of other stuff. Certainly they weren't any more impressed with his "owe poor me crap" after February 14. They really resented finding themselves in a situation where there was no cabinet representative from Newfoundland able to tell the federal side of things.
If John takes a hit on anything, they won't be crying. Payback, as Gus Hasford once wrote, is a mother.
Therefore, in the second Efford story that won't go away, there are likely Liberal staffers who are smiling at Paul Wells' links to a CBC Radio story on the incomprehensible case of one Rodney Mercer. Mercer is a former political staffer for Efford who was dumped unceremoniously, Mercer alleges, once he was diagnosed with epilepsy. Some of the evidence Mercer offers to back up the story are "termination letters" he received that differ widely from one another. The generous one dates from the initial termination; the less generous one dates from after a human rights case was filed.
Personally, I don't know Mercer from a hole in the ground. I do know Efford. This story hasn't looked right from the beginning on a whole bunch of levels. If nothing else, the termination letters as CBC describes them are merely internal memoranda in which the minister orders severance.
Maybe things are different with the feds, but in my experience in these situations, there is usually a nice letter. The one thing the minister would definitely do is leave the administrative details to his staff. The letter confirming severance would come from someone like say the political chief of staff.
First of all, it isn't Efford's job - why should a guy focused on mega-billion dollar oil plays spend time confirming that severance at two weeks per annum works out to 2.7 weeks for Mercer - and secondly, it prevents even the appearance of just exactly the sort of political mess in which Efford finds himself.
It takes a lot for a political staffer to go public with a complaint like this. That Mercer has persisted suggests there is something here he feels genuinely aggrieved about. That he can offer evidence that seems to support his case- changes, timing and Efford's signatures - is troubling.
The story now gets uglier, since Mercer is alleging that Efford has arranged to have his campaign co-chair appointed to the human rights commission before it hears Mercer's complaint.
And once again, the public response from Efford and his office isn't even close to the standard. If there is more to the story than meets the eye there are ways of getting it out there. If Efford and his people screwed up, then they should know when to stop with the nonsense that isn't working
Like I said to Danny Williams the other day John via this blog, politics is a funny business.
You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before someone takes the gun away from you.
Same thing goes for a hammer and nails and a tree. You can only nail yourself on so many times...
On this Good Friday, take a little flip over to see Paul Wells, if you haven't been doing it lately.
Therein, you will find two stories on one Reuben John Efford under the head "Big defeat for the small preliminary emitter".
The first reference is to a story that a major environmental project that should be in John's department is being handed to Environment Minister Stephane Dion. The reason is simple, according to Paul: Dion can get the job done. The story is from Canadian Press, incidentally - not famous for spin - and describes a realignment of projects between two departments. The interpretation here is Paul's.
Is it an unreasonable interpretation? Not from my perspective. The original CP story rightly points out a conflict-of-interest problem with having a department represent both the energy industry and working on stuff related to Kyoto, which the industry opposes.
There is a rationale to the CP story. But if Paul is taking another tack, then expect that there are other voices on the hill - including within the Liberal Party - who are telling a slightly different version behind the scenes. I am speculating here but Efford still hasn't recovered from the Accord schlamozzle.
What became clear during the entire Accord fiasco (from the federal Liberal politico standpoint) is that from the beginning John never understood either the politics of it (Danny sandbagged him - John helped pile the bags up) or the substance of the file (Equalization, oil revenues or royalties not interchangeable terms etc. etc. etc.) It was also pretty obvious that Efford fancied himself more "the Premier who should have been the Fighting Newfoundlander" rather than "the much more powerful guy in Ottawa fighting for Newfoundland for real".
While everyone else may point to his supposed take-it or leave-it ultimatum, federales will point to a whole bunch of other stuff. Certainly they weren't any more impressed with his "owe poor me crap" after February 14. They really resented finding themselves in a situation where there was no cabinet representative from Newfoundland able to tell the federal side of things.
If John takes a hit on anything, they won't be crying. Payback, as Gus Hasford once wrote, is a mother.
Therefore, in the second Efford story that won't go away, there are likely Liberal staffers who are smiling at Paul Wells' links to a CBC Radio story on the incomprehensible case of one Rodney Mercer. Mercer is a former political staffer for Efford who was dumped unceremoniously, Mercer alleges, once he was diagnosed with epilepsy. Some of the evidence Mercer offers to back up the story are "termination letters" he received that differ widely from one another. The generous one dates from the initial termination; the less generous one dates from after a human rights case was filed.
Personally, I don't know Mercer from a hole in the ground. I do know Efford. This story hasn't looked right from the beginning on a whole bunch of levels. If nothing else, the termination letters as CBC describes them are merely internal memoranda in which the minister orders severance.
Maybe things are different with the feds, but in my experience in these situations, there is usually a nice letter. The one thing the minister would definitely do is leave the administrative details to his staff. The letter confirming severance would come from someone like say the political chief of staff.
First of all, it isn't Efford's job - why should a guy focused on mega-billion dollar oil plays spend time confirming that severance at two weeks per annum works out to 2.7 weeks for Mercer - and secondly, it prevents even the appearance of just exactly the sort of political mess in which Efford finds himself.
It takes a lot for a political staffer to go public with a complaint like this. That Mercer has persisted suggests there is something here he feels genuinely aggrieved about. That he can offer evidence that seems to support his case- changes, timing and Efford's signatures - is troubling.
The story now gets uglier, since Mercer is alleging that Efford has arranged to have his campaign co-chair appointed to the human rights commission before it hears Mercer's complaint.
And once again, the public response from Efford and his office isn't even close to the standard. If there is more to the story than meets the eye there are ways of getting it out there. If Efford and his people screwed up, then they should know when to stop with the nonsense that isn't working
Like I said to Danny Williams the other day John via this blog, politics is a funny business.
You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before someone takes the gun away from you.
Same thing goes for a hammer and nails and a tree. You can only nail yourself on so many times...
24 March 2005
Would they have said she had an Albertan or Jamaican accent?
When a buddy of mine went off to graduate school about 20 years ago, he marveled at the subtle and ever-present tendency among the politically correct Torontonians to treat Newfoundlanders as being a special case.
By special, I refer to a case where a criminal suspect was described by local media as being "a Newfoundlander". When he called the news director to inquire he was told that the word Newfoundlander was included in the description of the suspect because it would help identify him.
It wasn't a question of funny dialect or a cute accent. Nope. This guy was described as a Newfoundlander solely based on appearance.
Do we look different from other white people?
My buddy, who at the time had a pronounced St. John's accent, may have stood out a little different from the others in a crowd once he spoke. But then, most mainlanders would have mistaken him for Irish, as they often do. In my own case, the only mainlander who ever identified my home province by my speech was my future father-in-law. Then again, having spent his career as an army signaller, he got used to hearing the flattened vowel sounds and clipped words that almost every other mainlander I encountered just missed. With anyone else, I could pass, as the saying goes.
Today, we have the second story in The Toronto Star about a woman originally from Newfoundland charged with several criminal counts for having unprotected sex with a male acquaintance despite the fact she is HIV positive. The woman didn't disclose her medical condition. This happened at Camp Borden one of the oldest and largest military bases in the country.
Oh yes, and the woman hasn't lived in Newfoundland for at least 18 months. She would be accurately described as being a woman from the small town near Camp Borden where she actually lived. I doubt she hopped a CanJet flight every weekend just to get laid.
The Star's coverage has quickly descended into gossip, reporting on the woman's attire, her rumoured presence at parties dressed in nothing but boots and panties and everything else you can think of.
Here's the lead from yesterday's story, the one that first reported the story:
"CFB Borden—By most accounts, Jennifer Murphy was a party girl. But according to military investigators at Canadian Forces Base Borden, she kept a terrible secret: She had AIDS. Murphy, 31, has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault after allegedly engaging in unprotected sex at CFB Borden, Sonia Verma reports..."
Here's the lead on the Day Two story:
" Rumours swirled yesterday at Canadian Forces Base Borden as stunned residents tried to make sense of allegations that a woman knowingly spread HIV by having unprotected sex with a soldier. "A lot of the guys are thinking, `Oh my God.'" said Tara Perry, who is stationed there with her husband while he completes a military course. Isabel Teotonio and Sonia Verma report..."
Ted Blade's of CBC radio's On the Go interviewed The Star reporter this afternoon who has been on this one from the beginning. The thing that stood out most of all was the ease with which this reporter descended into the salacious details of this woman's allegedly "promiscuous" activity. The reporter even went so far as to comment on the woman's "bizarre" or unusual behaviour in court during her first appearance.
When Ted asked why the woman was in court, the reporter couldn't even explain the fundamentals of the court process: appear in court to be charged, enter a plea and set a date for trial. If it wasn't that, then there may have been a preliminary hearing to determine if there was enough evidence to send the matter to trial. The reporter was obviously there for the skin, not the law.
Three things struck me about the story and The Star's less than stellar coverage.
First of all, there is no independent confirmation that the woman is in fact HIV positive or that she failed to disclose her condition to the men she knew in the biblical sense. That stuff will come out at trial - months from now.
Second, there was the obvious "ethnicism" in the alert issued by DND cops. They issued a general physical description and then added the women they sought for questioning had an "east Coast" or "Newfoundland" accent. They wouldn't reveal her name so as not to violate her privacy rights. Pull the other one, there Corporal.
Having spent more than my share of time around Canadian Forces personnel and having been to places like Camp Borden, or Camp Barriefield or Camp Petawawa or even at Halifax and Shearwater, a 31 year-old attractive blonde with a Newfoundland accent is nothing rare.
Les tetes de viandes - either in their traditional Red Cap version or in the National Investigative Service (NCIS) model are not famous for being too swift. The NIS guys, more commonly known as NCIS, like the US Navy version have been known on occasion to more closely resemble a television Jethro other than the one currently played by Mark Harmon.
Third and perhaps most curious, The Star reporter seems to have missed that the Canadian Forces is one big small town. An attractive woman who is friendly suddenly appearing among a bunch of testosterone charged males will set most girl-friends, wives and significant others into a suspicious mode at best. With the mostly male soldiers spending a lot of time away from home on courses and on deployment, homelife gets pretty strained. Suspicions and insecurities set in among men and women. it isn't too hard for the group to pull together and try to undermine an individual who is perceived as a threat to their world.
This may or may not be the case here. It is a possibility and The Star reporter, didn't give me any sense she was even vaguely aware of the possibility she might be getting something less than the straight skinny. In any event, even if this woman spent most of her spare time horizontal, inverted, vertical and sideways with every available person of any sex in Borden, that certainly does not make her guilty of the charges against her. It is irrelevant to the story - unless the goal is solely moving newspapers.
What I heard from The Star reporter was a load of gossip that is unsubstantiated at best. While it makes racey copy, it may ultimately prove to be of questionable accuracy. It wouldn't be the first time the meatheads cocked-up an investigation.
The woman deserves her day in court and for all the evidence to be presented.
And at some point, someone needs to send the meatheads back to their classes on stereotyping and tolerance. I seriously doubt they would have been able to issue a public alert that described anyone of any other ethnicity in the way they did in this case without having The Star rip them to shreds for racism.
As for this reporter being interviewed, I got a bit confused as to which Star she wrote for.
By special, I refer to a case where a criminal suspect was described by local media as being "a Newfoundlander". When he called the news director to inquire he was told that the word Newfoundlander was included in the description of the suspect because it would help identify him.
It wasn't a question of funny dialect or a cute accent. Nope. This guy was described as a Newfoundlander solely based on appearance.
Do we look different from other white people?
My buddy, who at the time had a pronounced St. John's accent, may have stood out a little different from the others in a crowd once he spoke. But then, most mainlanders would have mistaken him for Irish, as they often do. In my own case, the only mainlander who ever identified my home province by my speech was my future father-in-law. Then again, having spent his career as an army signaller, he got used to hearing the flattened vowel sounds and clipped words that almost every other mainlander I encountered just missed. With anyone else, I could pass, as the saying goes.
Today, we have the second story in The Toronto Star about a woman originally from Newfoundland charged with several criminal counts for having unprotected sex with a male acquaintance despite the fact she is HIV positive. The woman didn't disclose her medical condition. This happened at Camp Borden one of the oldest and largest military bases in the country.
Oh yes, and the woman hasn't lived in Newfoundland for at least 18 months. She would be accurately described as being a woman from the small town near Camp Borden where she actually lived. I doubt she hopped a CanJet flight every weekend just to get laid.
The Star's coverage has quickly descended into gossip, reporting on the woman's attire, her rumoured presence at parties dressed in nothing but boots and panties and everything else you can think of.
Here's the lead from yesterday's story, the one that first reported the story:
"CFB Borden—By most accounts, Jennifer Murphy was a party girl. But according to military investigators at Canadian Forces Base Borden, she kept a terrible secret: She had AIDS. Murphy, 31, has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault after allegedly engaging in unprotected sex at CFB Borden, Sonia Verma reports..."
Here's the lead on the Day Two story:
" Rumours swirled yesterday at Canadian Forces Base Borden as stunned residents tried to make sense of allegations that a woman knowingly spread HIV by having unprotected sex with a soldier. "A lot of the guys are thinking, `Oh my God.'" said Tara Perry, who is stationed there with her husband while he completes a military course. Isabel Teotonio and Sonia Verma report..."
Ted Blade's of CBC radio's On the Go interviewed The Star reporter this afternoon who has been on this one from the beginning. The thing that stood out most of all was the ease with which this reporter descended into the salacious details of this woman's allegedly "promiscuous" activity. The reporter even went so far as to comment on the woman's "bizarre" or unusual behaviour in court during her first appearance.
When Ted asked why the woman was in court, the reporter couldn't even explain the fundamentals of the court process: appear in court to be charged, enter a plea and set a date for trial. If it wasn't that, then there may have been a preliminary hearing to determine if there was enough evidence to send the matter to trial. The reporter was obviously there for the skin, not the law.
Three things struck me about the story and The Star's less than stellar coverage.
First of all, there is no independent confirmation that the woman is in fact HIV positive or that she failed to disclose her condition to the men she knew in the biblical sense. That stuff will come out at trial - months from now.
Second, there was the obvious "ethnicism" in the alert issued by DND cops. They issued a general physical description and then added the women they sought for questioning had an "east Coast" or "Newfoundland" accent. They wouldn't reveal her name so as not to violate her privacy rights. Pull the other one, there Corporal.
Having spent more than my share of time around Canadian Forces personnel and having been to places like Camp Borden, or Camp Barriefield or Camp Petawawa or even at Halifax and Shearwater, a 31 year-old attractive blonde with a Newfoundland accent is nothing rare.
Les tetes de viandes - either in their traditional Red Cap version or in the National Investigative Service (NCIS) model are not famous for being too swift. The NIS guys, more commonly known as NCIS, like the US Navy version have been known on occasion to more closely resemble a television Jethro other than the one currently played by Mark Harmon.
Third and perhaps most curious, The Star reporter seems to have missed that the Canadian Forces is one big small town. An attractive woman who is friendly suddenly appearing among a bunch of testosterone charged males will set most girl-friends, wives and significant others into a suspicious mode at best. With the mostly male soldiers spending a lot of time away from home on courses and on deployment, homelife gets pretty strained. Suspicions and insecurities set in among men and women. it isn't too hard for the group to pull together and try to undermine an individual who is perceived as a threat to their world.
This may or may not be the case here. It is a possibility and The Star reporter, didn't give me any sense she was even vaguely aware of the possibility she might be getting something less than the straight skinny. In any event, even if this woman spent most of her spare time horizontal, inverted, vertical and sideways with every available person of any sex in Borden, that certainly does not make her guilty of the charges against her. It is irrelevant to the story - unless the goal is solely moving newspapers.
What I heard from The Star reporter was a load of gossip that is unsubstantiated at best. While it makes racey copy, it may ultimately prove to be of questionable accuracy. It wouldn't be the first time the meatheads cocked-up an investigation.
The woman deserves her day in court and for all the evidence to be presented.
And at some point, someone needs to send the meatheads back to their classes on stereotyping and tolerance. I seriously doubt they would have been able to issue a public alert that described anyone of any other ethnicity in the way they did in this case without having The Star rip them to shreds for racism.
As for this reporter being interviewed, I got a bit confused as to which Star she wrote for.
To govern is to choose
Politics is about choices.
It is about voters making choices.
It is about politicians making choices.
On that level, there is no surprise in the government's defence of its decision not to build a cancer clinic in central Newfoundland. We had choices to make; the cancer clinic was something we decided not to do.
Ok.
What's missing from that answer?
The why.
Why did the government decide not to build the clinic or even refurbish it?
Is it because they didn't have enough money? Nope. They were willing, as anyone can see, to spend $117 million paying off The Rooms and some school construction, thereby pushing the budget in deficit by $14 million.
Loyola Sullivan has excused that by saying they won't have to borrow to make up that $14 million. There is a loan from the Government of Canada for $378 million interest free that we will draw from.
Is it because the regional health authority didn't recommend it? Nope again. The clinic is the top priority. It got axed from last year's budget because last year there genuinely wasn't enough money.
The government's talking points on this issue have been conspicuously weak.
There have been attempts at misdirection, like the Premier's initial response today in which he brought up an interview given by Opposition Leader on Roger Grimes last week on reviewing salaries for Members of the House of Assembly.
There have been pious claims that cancer is important. "Next to of course God, America, I..." time again. The Premier has said repeatedly over the last few days what he said in the House today: " I have indicated previously that the issue of cancer is an issue that is very dear to my heart because we lost a family member within the last two weeks to cancer. So, it is something that I am very concerned about. "
I sympathize with the Premier; my grandmother has inoperable and essentially untreatable lymphoma. But so what, Premier Williams? If cancer was so important, then one would expect you were offering your personal bereavement as a reason to forgive you for spending too much money.
Premier Williams, if cancer was indeed so important to you and you could wave around a clipping from The Independent to rebut Roger Grimes, and, since we know you saw the NTV piece last week, why didn't you simply say that cabinet met after the NTV story and added a few bucks to the budget for Grand Falls. It isn't in the budget document because it had to be printed and that was finalized 10 days or so ago. Last minute addition. Urgent need. I think people would understand that.
There has been an attempt to claim that the Premier didn't know how bad things were there, making reference to the graphic images from last weeks' NTV documentary. The Premier is claiming, one supposes, that in all the time he has been Premier no one has ever managed to convey to him - not John Ottenheimer - not Beth Marshall - not the current health deputy or a previous one who is Clerk of the Executive Council - nor anyone else on the planet - that cancer is so important that a new facility or a refurbished one is need in central Newfoundland.
Then there is this statement made by the Premier in the legislature today:
"I also had an opportunity first-hand to see the cramped quarters which these people were in and, believe me, it certainly had an impact on me, there is absolutely no doubt about it.
The other thing, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, there has been a request for over $4 million for this particular clinic. We do have scarce funds in government. We are trying to be fiscally prudent and not waste money, not the extravagance that was carried on by previous governments with the Cabinet ministers and everybody flying all over the world at considerable expense. If they had been conservative in the money ..."
After acknowledging that he knew exactly how bad things were, the Premier then tries to pretend that all the money he brought back from Ottawa has disappeared. We are somehow in a time warp transported back to last spring. The problem for the Premier is that we attended the news conference, read the news reports and saw the TV ads about your great victory.
The Premier's comments quoted above are nothing less than a shameful attempt at obfuscation, a close cousin of deceit.
Then, there is the issue of John Ottenheimer's visit to the area for a first-hand look. This was the Day One government political response. It was an attempt to get the issue off the screen by expressing shock and taking seemingly spontaneous action - "it is so serious and shocking and cancer is so important, the Premier is putting the minister on a bus today". That served only to raise expectations which then had to be dampened. Hence the efforts on Wednesday at deflection.
But it turns out that Ottenheimer's sojourn in central is not in response to the clinic issue at all. Turns out he was already going to open a new dialysis unit. This will be a side trip.
Oh. I see.
And when all else failed, the Premier fell back on the old stand-by: "We had to clean up the mess left by that crowd on the Other Side, who didn't deal with this issue anyways when they were here."
After riding so high in the polls and after seeming to have mastered finally the political craft, on the second day of the Cancer Clinic Crisis, the Premier and his ministers are flopping around for some plausible response. Their political staff remains apparently so inept or unaware that they either never anticipated this issue arising or they can't figure out a good response. Fire the lot and send them packing with the same crowd that wrote the hideous speech in January last year.
Here's a novel idea: how about telling people the truth?
To govern is to choose. That's a "gimme". So the choice was made, Premier Williams and you made it.
To govern is also to be accountable to the voters.
To be accountable, the Premier need only explain why government chose not to build a cancer clinic that they all knew about. It's much simpler than the nonsense in which the Premier and other ministers are now engaged.
If the reasons were sound, if the judgment was clear, then the Premier need worry about nothing.
But here's the other side of it, Premier Williams, in case you want to take advice from someone else and keep on your current course:
In politics, you can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before someone takes the gun away from you.
It is about voters making choices.
It is about politicians making choices.
On that level, there is no surprise in the government's defence of its decision not to build a cancer clinic in central Newfoundland. We had choices to make; the cancer clinic was something we decided not to do.
Ok.
What's missing from that answer?
The why.
Why did the government decide not to build the clinic or even refurbish it?
Is it because they didn't have enough money? Nope. They were willing, as anyone can see, to spend $117 million paying off The Rooms and some school construction, thereby pushing the budget in deficit by $14 million.
Loyola Sullivan has excused that by saying they won't have to borrow to make up that $14 million. There is a loan from the Government of Canada for $378 million interest free that we will draw from.
Is it because the regional health authority didn't recommend it? Nope again. The clinic is the top priority. It got axed from last year's budget because last year there genuinely wasn't enough money.
The government's talking points on this issue have been conspicuously weak.
There have been attempts at misdirection, like the Premier's initial response today in which he brought up an interview given by Opposition Leader on Roger Grimes last week on reviewing salaries for Members of the House of Assembly.
There have been pious claims that cancer is important. "Next to of course God, America, I..." time again. The Premier has said repeatedly over the last few days what he said in the House today: " I have indicated previously that the issue of cancer is an issue that is very dear to my heart because we lost a family member within the last two weeks to cancer. So, it is something that I am very concerned about. "
I sympathize with the Premier; my grandmother has inoperable and essentially untreatable lymphoma. But so what, Premier Williams? If cancer was so important, then one would expect you were offering your personal bereavement as a reason to forgive you for spending too much money.
Premier Williams, if cancer was indeed so important to you and you could wave around a clipping from The Independent to rebut Roger Grimes, and, since we know you saw the NTV piece last week, why didn't you simply say that cabinet met after the NTV story and added a few bucks to the budget for Grand Falls. It isn't in the budget document because it had to be printed and that was finalized 10 days or so ago. Last minute addition. Urgent need. I think people would understand that.
There has been an attempt to claim that the Premier didn't know how bad things were there, making reference to the graphic images from last weeks' NTV documentary. The Premier is claiming, one supposes, that in all the time he has been Premier no one has ever managed to convey to him - not John Ottenheimer - not Beth Marshall - not the current health deputy or a previous one who is Clerk of the Executive Council - nor anyone else on the planet - that cancer is so important that a new facility or a refurbished one is need in central Newfoundland.
Then there is this statement made by the Premier in the legislature today:
"I also had an opportunity first-hand to see the cramped quarters which these people were in and, believe me, it certainly had an impact on me, there is absolutely no doubt about it.
The other thing, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, there has been a request for over $4 million for this particular clinic. We do have scarce funds in government. We are trying to be fiscally prudent and not waste money, not the extravagance that was carried on by previous governments with the Cabinet ministers and everybody flying all over the world at considerable expense. If they had been conservative in the money ..."
After acknowledging that he knew exactly how bad things were, the Premier then tries to pretend that all the money he brought back from Ottawa has disappeared. We are somehow in a time warp transported back to last spring. The problem for the Premier is that we attended the news conference, read the news reports and saw the TV ads about your great victory.
The Premier's comments quoted above are nothing less than a shameful attempt at obfuscation, a close cousin of deceit.
Then, there is the issue of John Ottenheimer's visit to the area for a first-hand look. This was the Day One government political response. It was an attempt to get the issue off the screen by expressing shock and taking seemingly spontaneous action - "it is so serious and shocking and cancer is so important, the Premier is putting the minister on a bus today". That served only to raise expectations which then had to be dampened. Hence the efforts on Wednesday at deflection.
But it turns out that Ottenheimer's sojourn in central is not in response to the clinic issue at all. Turns out he was already going to open a new dialysis unit. This will be a side trip.
Oh. I see.
And when all else failed, the Premier fell back on the old stand-by: "We had to clean up the mess left by that crowd on the Other Side, who didn't deal with this issue anyways when they were here."
After riding so high in the polls and after seeming to have mastered finally the political craft, on the second day of the Cancer Clinic Crisis, the Premier and his ministers are flopping around for some plausible response. Their political staff remains apparently so inept or unaware that they either never anticipated this issue arising or they can't figure out a good response. Fire the lot and send them packing with the same crowd that wrote the hideous speech in January last year.
Here's a novel idea: how about telling people the truth?
To govern is to choose. That's a "gimme". So the choice was made, Premier Williams and you made it.
To govern is also to be accountable to the voters.
To be accountable, the Premier need only explain why government chose not to build a cancer clinic that they all knew about. It's much simpler than the nonsense in which the Premier and other ministers are now engaged.
If the reasons were sound, if the judgment was clear, then the Premier need worry about nothing.
But here's the other side of it, Premier Williams, in case you want to take advice from someone else and keep on your current course:
In politics, you can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before someone takes the gun away from you.
23 March 2005
Loyola Hearn - More blarney from Renews
Here's VOCM story on Loyola Hearn who asked the federal fisheries minister to stop foreign fishing vessel owners from paying bounties to their captains for fishing species under moratorium.
Here's the complete exchange from Hansard.
"Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently confirmed what we have been saying for years. Foreign fishing companies continue to break fishing regulations in the NAFO regulated zone. Skippers and crews are even rewarded for breaking the law by using illegal gear and catching species under moratoria.
Canada pays half the cost of operating NAFO and yet the government sits by and says absolutely nothing while abuses go on and on. He who pays the piper should call the tune.
When will the minister put his mouth where his money is?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague ought to know that the Prime Minister of the government and I take this issue very seriously. We have fought hard on the issue of overfishing. In fact, our strategy is seeing results.
Both the Prime Minister and myself have raised it at the UN. Last year we had more than 240 inspections, an increase of some 50% over the previous year. We saw a drop of about 32% in the number of infractions last year. We are seeing results from our strategies.
It is a shame the member was muzzled and did not rise to vote in the House for the budget that contained money to fight overfishing."
Two things:
1. How exactly does a Canadian minister stop the illegal practices of foreign vessels? The feds will keep up the pressure, no doubt, but ultimately the ocean is a big place and it is damned hard to put a complete stop to some of these things.
2. Loyola Hearn is a grand-stander of the highest order. At other times recently he has complained about perfectly legitimate and legal practices (hiring vessels to fish quotas in Canadian waters) that went on while he was a provincial cabinet minister here in the 1980s.
Now he slams away at foreign overfishing as if Canadian-owned companies like FPI never engaged in any practices like highgrading, although former fisheries inspector Owen Myers says something very different. He also ignores the fact that when his team was last in power - in the 1980s - they didn't really do anything to curb overfishing domestically or internationally.
To make matters worse, the government of which Mr. Hearn was a part had a deliberate policy of encouraging as many people as possible to get into the fishery, thereby increasing the pressure to overfish the stocks.
None of that excuses the illegal practices involved in overfishing, but it does make it pretty clear that Loyola Hearn will say just about anything irrespective of the details or his own record.
BTW, Mr. Hearn is the member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
He retains a residence in Renews, two hours drive outside the riding.
In the last federal election, he refused to run against John Efford choosing instead the portion of his old riding where he figured he'd have an easier time getting re-elected. Instead he won by the narrowest of margins, at least for Loyola Hearn. And he displayed his bitterness and anger, rather than graciousness, on election night, despite winning the seat.
My guess is that Loyola is planning to run in Avalon next time out, anticipating that John Efford won't be running or will be weakened enough for Loyola to have a chance at winning the seat where he lives.
Here's the complete exchange from Hansard.
"Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently confirmed what we have been saying for years. Foreign fishing companies continue to break fishing regulations in the NAFO regulated zone. Skippers and crews are even rewarded for breaking the law by using illegal gear and catching species under moratoria.
Canada pays half the cost of operating NAFO and yet the government sits by and says absolutely nothing while abuses go on and on. He who pays the piper should call the tune.
When will the minister put his mouth where his money is?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague ought to know that the Prime Minister of the government and I take this issue very seriously. We have fought hard on the issue of overfishing. In fact, our strategy is seeing results.
Both the Prime Minister and myself have raised it at the UN. Last year we had more than 240 inspections, an increase of some 50% over the previous year. We saw a drop of about 32% in the number of infractions last year. We are seeing results from our strategies.
It is a shame the member was muzzled and did not rise to vote in the House for the budget that contained money to fight overfishing."
Two things:
1. How exactly does a Canadian minister stop the illegal practices of foreign vessels? The feds will keep up the pressure, no doubt, but ultimately the ocean is a big place and it is damned hard to put a complete stop to some of these things.
2. Loyola Hearn is a grand-stander of the highest order. At other times recently he has complained about perfectly legitimate and legal practices (hiring vessels to fish quotas in Canadian waters) that went on while he was a provincial cabinet minister here in the 1980s.
Now he slams away at foreign overfishing as if Canadian-owned companies like FPI never engaged in any practices like highgrading, although former fisheries inspector Owen Myers says something very different. He also ignores the fact that when his team was last in power - in the 1980s - they didn't really do anything to curb overfishing domestically or internationally.
To make matters worse, the government of which Mr. Hearn was a part had a deliberate policy of encouraging as many people as possible to get into the fishery, thereby increasing the pressure to overfish the stocks.
None of that excuses the illegal practices involved in overfishing, but it does make it pretty clear that Loyola Hearn will say just about anything irrespective of the details or his own record.
BTW, Mr. Hearn is the member for St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
He retains a residence in Renews, two hours drive outside the riding.
In the last federal election, he refused to run against John Efford choosing instead the portion of his old riding where he figured he'd have an easier time getting re-elected. Instead he won by the narrowest of margins, at least for Loyola Hearn. And he displayed his bitterness and anger, rather than graciousness, on election night, despite winning the seat.
My guess is that Loyola is planning to run in Avalon next time out, anticipating that John Efford won't be running or will be weakened enough for Loyola to have a chance at winning the seat where he lives.
The view from the cape
Here's a link to some comments by Peter Fenwick, former leader of the provincial New Democrats and now a commentator and researcher associated with The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.
Among Peter's observations:
"There’s lots of money, but much of it is from non-repeatable windfalls that if properly spent could have put Newfoundland and Labrador firmly on the road to debt reduction, and therefore more sustainable public finances. Instead, the opportunity was squandered by short-term decisions to spend much of the money, often unwisely, on schemes that have already proven that they produce little of value." [Emphasis added]
Peter doesn't have many friends left among the New Democrats and I suspect he isn't on many inviter lists of Grits and Tories. He doesn't get paid to be liked; he gets paid to give a pointed opinion and he does so here in spades.
Whether or not you agree with him, read Peter Fenwick regularly.
and if you google search him to find other comments he's made, make sure to add a qualifier like Newfoundland or AIMS. Otherwise you'll get a site in New Zealand.
Among Peter's observations:
"There’s lots of money, but much of it is from non-repeatable windfalls that if properly spent could have put Newfoundland and Labrador firmly on the road to debt reduction, and therefore more sustainable public finances. Instead, the opportunity was squandered by short-term decisions to spend much of the money, often unwisely, on schemes that have already proven that they produce little of value." [Emphasis added]
Peter doesn't have many friends left among the New Democrats and I suspect he isn't on many inviter lists of Grits and Tories. He doesn't get paid to be liked; he gets paid to give a pointed opinion and he does so here in spades.
Whether or not you agree with him, read Peter Fenwick regularly.
and if you google search him to find other comments he's made, make sure to add a qualifier like Newfoundland or AIMS. Otherwise you'll get a site in New Zealand.
How many employees do you need, Danny?
How many can I afford?
Last year during the budget fiasco, or the fiasco budget, Loyola Sullivan made a big issue about how this province had more public servants than any other jurisdiction in North America.
Now this year - when there is tons of cash - suddenly Loyola and Danny are talking about how many people haven't been let go and how nobody will be let go as long as there is money to pay for them.
That's a bit of what I meant when I talked about one strategy last year and one strategy this year.
Last year during the budget fiasco, or the fiasco budget, Loyola Sullivan made a big issue about how this province had more public servants than any other jurisdiction in North America.
Now this year - when there is tons of cash - suddenly Loyola and Danny are talking about how many people haven't been let go and how nobody will be let go as long as there is money to pay for them.
That's a bit of what I meant when I talked about one strategy last year and one strategy this year.
Some of that big debt jump
Remember I mentioned that big jump in the provincial direct debt yesterday?
Well Loyola did throw out something on it yesterday in the House of Assembly that explains at least part of it, although not that well. A phone call and some e-mails to one of the people who understand these things put me on the trail of the cash.
Following is what Loyola said - word for word. I am going to cut the man some slack since he was turning beet-red yesterday dealing with Opposition questions. If the strategy works, Roger, keep piling on the pressure and see if you can cause a stroke. But man, it is a hard way to do politics.
Also, I am going to check on this in greater detail since Loyola's explanation is just nutty. If I read Loyola correctly, we were supposed to be given Equalization at a steady rate and to do that we get a loan of almost $400 million that we have to pay back. Equalization comes with no strings attached. This shows up on our books as a debt, even if it is interest-free.
More to the point though, this whole line of questioning was about whether or not the government "cash" deficit was real or not. Mr. Sullivan appears to be saying that we don't have to borrow to make up a shortfall. What colour is the sky in your world, Loyola? Now if that $14 million shortfall this year is coming from that loan, we still wound up borrowing it - from the Government of Canada!
He also said there is only one deficit. Then he proceeds to talk about a "cash" deficit and how government will balance the books on a "cash" basis. But Loyola, if that was true, then your budget speech wouldn't have made a distinction between the "cash" deficit and the accrual deficit. That last one is one you talk up whenever you want to throw around a frightening number. Get your story straight, Loyola.
"Loyola Sullivan: When money collapses as a surplus it goes to our debt, that is automatic; besides, we are not in the position where we are going to have to borrow. In fact, we just received a cheque from the federal government for $378 million, a ten-year interest free loan, because prior to the Budget 2004, the Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada indicated that no province would get less than the four year average for equalization. So, if we got a loan - we have a cash flow now that would necessitate borrowing for that. He should understand - if he asked these questions, Mr. Speaker, I will explain them to him. We are not in a position where we are going to borrow that. He should understand that. He was Premier of this Province for two-and-a-half years."
Stay tuned for more. I don't think I am going to be eating any crow on this one.
Well Loyola did throw out something on it yesterday in the House of Assembly that explains at least part of it, although not that well. A phone call and some e-mails to one of the people who understand these things put me on the trail of the cash.
Following is what Loyola said - word for word. I am going to cut the man some slack since he was turning beet-red yesterday dealing with Opposition questions. If the strategy works, Roger, keep piling on the pressure and see if you can cause a stroke. But man, it is a hard way to do politics.
Also, I am going to check on this in greater detail since Loyola's explanation is just nutty. If I read Loyola correctly, we were supposed to be given Equalization at a steady rate and to do that we get a loan of almost $400 million that we have to pay back. Equalization comes with no strings attached. This shows up on our books as a debt, even if it is interest-free.
More to the point though, this whole line of questioning was about whether or not the government "cash" deficit was real or not. Mr. Sullivan appears to be saying that we don't have to borrow to make up a shortfall. What colour is the sky in your world, Loyola? Now if that $14 million shortfall this year is coming from that loan, we still wound up borrowing it - from the Government of Canada!
He also said there is only one deficit. Then he proceeds to talk about a "cash" deficit and how government will balance the books on a "cash" basis. But Loyola, if that was true, then your budget speech wouldn't have made a distinction between the "cash" deficit and the accrual deficit. That last one is one you talk up whenever you want to throw around a frightening number. Get your story straight, Loyola.
"Loyola Sullivan: When money collapses as a surplus it goes to our debt, that is automatic; besides, we are not in the position where we are going to have to borrow. In fact, we just received a cheque from the federal government for $378 million, a ten-year interest free loan, because prior to the Budget 2004, the Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada indicated that no province would get less than the four year average for equalization. So, if we got a loan - we have a cash flow now that would necessitate borrowing for that. He should understand - if he asked these questions, Mr. Speaker, I will explain them to him. We are not in a position where we are going to borrow that. He should understand that. He was Premier of this Province for two-and-a-half years."
Stay tuned for more. I don't think I am going to be eating any crow on this one.
Budget Spin Control 2: the good, the bad and the ugly
After a couple of days of sifting through the budget and listening to the various comments on it, I thought I'd offer a general opinion on the whole package.
The Good: On the whole, this is a decent budget. There are sensible investments and good programs being funded. The health investments are well placed, especially the long-term care facility in Goose Bay. Whether the new money is all federal or not, the provincial government has spent it on health, despite musing earlier about doing something else with it.
The same can be said of education spending. Government needed to spend some cash on infrastructure especially as crumbling ceilings due to poor maintenance or no maintenance create a potential legal liability. Adding a new culture program is a minor outlay in the greater scheme of things but it looks good and government can claim to be saving a few teaching jobs.
And yes, Danny Williams, the amounts are "small money". A few hundred thou here. Even two or three million are tiny in government terms. The big expenditures like the $26 million in education capital actually gets broken down into small packets. The key thing is that the money is handed out all over the place. Is there anybody out there unhappy enough to go to war with you over anything in this budget? Since the future promises only more cash, anyone who didn't get their school roof redone this year or find a fresh can of paint by their door courtesy of John or Tom can just keep talking it up until next year when you'll even more cash to hand out. At worst they wait 'til election year and find out how much cash you do have to toss around.
Politically, the investments are smart since health care and education consistently poll at the top of people's issues. The government has been doing a lot of polling and I am sure they know what is irking people. This is a budget full of balm.
Politically, the budget also trumps the Opposition. As much as the Liberals have been making some solid comments since Monday - full marks Roger and company - the hard reality is that they really can't get very much mileage out of saying "You didn't spend enough, Danny". Wally Anderson complaining about a lack of a theatre space in Goose Bay doesn't trump the long-term care facility. Besides from what I hear, there could be a workable solution to the theatre problem if people weren't clamouring for a new-build hall.
Politically, Danny Williams has used the word "miraculous" twice today - at least twice - in describing his triumph over the deficit demons. My spin metre redlined badly on that one since Danny Williams didn't do a single thing to generate the bulk of the cash he got this year. Thank George Bush and the invasion of Iraq for driving up oil prices. Thank Paul Martin for shovelling out bags of federal cash.
In the end, though, even after we counteract all the stroke-me spin, this budget is a good document. It delivers the promise of sensible fiscal management coupled with social responsibility. Politically, that lines you up with the majority of the electorate (See my post on "The Independents") and therefore you are safe, Danny. Safe, that is unless the political Opposition attacks you where you are vulnerable.
The Bad: Oddity that I am, this is one public relations guy who hates spin. It makes me physically ill. Whenever I hear it, I itch in places mortals shouldn't have to scratch . This budget is full of spin - like the claims of Saint Daniel in the Deficit Lion's Den for example. Self-massage in public is a crime and political self-massage in public is no less distasteful.
As I said in a post on the budget already, the government would do well to make a really simple set of promises on the budget and deliver them. Paul Martin's secret of restoring confidence in federal budgets was to make consistent predictions and then failing to meet them, but in a good way. He coupled that with a clear commitment to spend every extra nickel on paying down the debt. He hit the target time and time again and people re-elected the government based on nothing more spectacular than accountability and credibility.
In 2003, the Tories promised to balance the current and capital account. Rather than spin out the old "cash" balance hooey, Loyola Sullivan should be sticking to the "Promise made; promise kept" line. Tell us now exactly where the extra oil money will go. When you get it, spend it exactly that way. Don't wait 'til mid-year and then claim yet another demon has been slayed. Don't drop it on The Rooms without telling us when you do it. It is my money I want to know what you are doing with it.
That's the sole basis of accountability.
The Ugly: The ugly part of this budget for me remains the lack of a longer term plan to tackle the deficit and debt. Government has everything at their disposal to map out a three to five year plan and stick to it. We had one plan last year. This year we actually have a different one. What will next year bring?
More importantly though, I do find it a little offputting when Loyola Sullivan - a man not prone to exaggeration - starts opining about a provincial debt running somewhere beyond $14 billion. When he shamelessly tosses out the figure of $17 billion, I shudder.
Let's start seeing the long-range fiscal plan.
Summary: Overall, this is a fine budget for the times. It is smart politically and smart financially. What else can I say?
The Good: On the whole, this is a decent budget. There are sensible investments and good programs being funded. The health investments are well placed, especially the long-term care facility in Goose Bay. Whether the new money is all federal or not, the provincial government has spent it on health, despite musing earlier about doing something else with it.
The same can be said of education spending. Government needed to spend some cash on infrastructure especially as crumbling ceilings due to poor maintenance or no maintenance create a potential legal liability. Adding a new culture program is a minor outlay in the greater scheme of things but it looks good and government can claim to be saving a few teaching jobs.
And yes, Danny Williams, the amounts are "small money". A few hundred thou here. Even two or three million are tiny in government terms. The big expenditures like the $26 million in education capital actually gets broken down into small packets. The key thing is that the money is handed out all over the place. Is there anybody out there unhappy enough to go to war with you over anything in this budget? Since the future promises only more cash, anyone who didn't get their school roof redone this year or find a fresh can of paint by their door courtesy of John or Tom can just keep talking it up until next year when you'll even more cash to hand out. At worst they wait 'til election year and find out how much cash you do have to toss around.
Politically, the investments are smart since health care and education consistently poll at the top of people's issues. The government has been doing a lot of polling and I am sure they know what is irking people. This is a budget full of balm.
Politically, the budget also trumps the Opposition. As much as the Liberals have been making some solid comments since Monday - full marks Roger and company - the hard reality is that they really can't get very much mileage out of saying "You didn't spend enough, Danny". Wally Anderson complaining about a lack of a theatre space in Goose Bay doesn't trump the long-term care facility. Besides from what I hear, there could be a workable solution to the theatre problem if people weren't clamouring for a new-build hall.
Politically, Danny Williams has used the word "miraculous" twice today - at least twice - in describing his triumph over the deficit demons. My spin metre redlined badly on that one since Danny Williams didn't do a single thing to generate the bulk of the cash he got this year. Thank George Bush and the invasion of Iraq for driving up oil prices. Thank Paul Martin for shovelling out bags of federal cash.
In the end, though, even after we counteract all the stroke-me spin, this budget is a good document. It delivers the promise of sensible fiscal management coupled with social responsibility. Politically, that lines you up with the majority of the electorate (See my post on "The Independents") and therefore you are safe, Danny. Safe, that is unless the political Opposition attacks you where you are vulnerable.
The Bad: Oddity that I am, this is one public relations guy who hates spin. It makes me physically ill. Whenever I hear it, I itch in places mortals shouldn't have to scratch . This budget is full of spin - like the claims of Saint Daniel in the Deficit Lion's Den for example. Self-massage in public is a crime and political self-massage in public is no less distasteful.
As I said in a post on the budget already, the government would do well to make a really simple set of promises on the budget and deliver them. Paul Martin's secret of restoring confidence in federal budgets was to make consistent predictions and then failing to meet them, but in a good way. He coupled that with a clear commitment to spend every extra nickel on paying down the debt. He hit the target time and time again and people re-elected the government based on nothing more spectacular than accountability and credibility.
In 2003, the Tories promised to balance the current and capital account. Rather than spin out the old "cash" balance hooey, Loyola Sullivan should be sticking to the "Promise made; promise kept" line. Tell us now exactly where the extra oil money will go. When you get it, spend it exactly that way. Don't wait 'til mid-year and then claim yet another demon has been slayed. Don't drop it on The Rooms without telling us when you do it. It is my money I want to know what you are doing with it.
That's the sole basis of accountability.
The Ugly: The ugly part of this budget for me remains the lack of a longer term plan to tackle the deficit and debt. Government has everything at their disposal to map out a three to five year plan and stick to it. We had one plan last year. This year we actually have a different one. What will next year bring?
More importantly though, I do find it a little offputting when Loyola Sullivan - a man not prone to exaggeration - starts opining about a provincial debt running somewhere beyond $14 billion. When he shamelessly tosses out the figure of $17 billion, I shudder.
Let's start seeing the long-range fiscal plan.
Summary: Overall, this is a fine budget for the times. It is smart politically and smart financially. What else can I say?
22 March 2005
Outside the box - The Independents
Here's a reprint of the first column I wrote for The Independent in the fall of 2003. In light of the recent budget and its mantra of fiscal and social responsibility, it seems appropriate to reprint it here.
The Independents
If you listen to some, voters on the Northeast Avalon are always Tory, have always been Tory and will always be Tory. Danny Williams is Premier today because he had such a strong political base in St. John's and the surrounding areas that he could focus his campaign on other districts and turn them to the Tory Tide. Simple, neat and tidy.
And wrong.
What traditional wisdom like that ignores is the fundamental change in the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate that occurred over the past 20 years. The political centre of gravity these days is shaped by the Independents.
They are the voters who do not faithfully vote for the same party time and again. As a group, they are better educated than the average voter. They are more likely to be part of a middle class that simply did not exist here for much of the past century, let alone most of the 50 years or so since Confederation. They are well-traveled and well read, and whether they live in St. John's, Corner Brook, Goose Bay or Shoal Harbour, they are perhaps better described as being urbane rather than urban or rural.
Independents also tend to hold certain core values. They value honesty, integrity and plain speaking. In politicians, they expect accountability - saying what you will do and doing what you said. Substance talks; spin walks.
They are fiscally conservative and socially responsible. Fairness and equity (or its synonym, balance) are much more important than rewarding those who share your views and punishing those that don't. Who you are personally is more important to an Independent than what colour you are.
Don't be surprised if these ideas sound familiar. Liberal government policy between 1989 and 1996 was built around those core values. Voters rewarded the Liberal party with three majority governments - including returning Liberals in St. John's seats in 1989, 1993 and 1996.
Things began to shift only after the Liberals under Brian Tobin showed their choices, their future and their time were actually in the past. The gap between what they said and what actually occurred was enormous. Sure the Liberals won big in 1999, but look more closely at that election. Liberals had to fight for 18 seats, coming close to losing six of them when faced with an opposition that really was not supposed to amount to anything. The undecided vote broke after the debate in '99, but it didn't pick Tobin: undecideds, likely including a large number of Independents, went heavily Tory.
In 2003, the Tory faithful mobilized strongly when they smelled victory, but what Danny Williams captured and held, like Clyde Wells before him, were the Independents. His New Approach is only new in comparison to what voters rejected in 1989 and that returned, briefly, under the second Brian administration.
For Danny Williams to stay in power, he now has to deliver, not on mega-projects and massive job creation, nor on some definition of leadership wearing steel-toed boots and making glitzy announcements. The challenge for Danny is proving he meant what he said about honesty, integrity, living within our means and doing the right thing.
In politics these days, substance talks.
Spin walks.
The Independents
If you listen to some, voters on the Northeast Avalon are always Tory, have always been Tory and will always be Tory. Danny Williams is Premier today because he had such a strong political base in St. John's and the surrounding areas that he could focus his campaign on other districts and turn them to the Tory Tide. Simple, neat and tidy.
And wrong.
What traditional wisdom like that ignores is the fundamental change in the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate that occurred over the past 20 years. The political centre of gravity these days is shaped by the Independents.
They are the voters who do not faithfully vote for the same party time and again. As a group, they are better educated than the average voter. They are more likely to be part of a middle class that simply did not exist here for much of the past century, let alone most of the 50 years or so since Confederation. They are well-traveled and well read, and whether they live in St. John's, Corner Brook, Goose Bay or Shoal Harbour, they are perhaps better described as being urbane rather than urban or rural.
Independents also tend to hold certain core values. They value honesty, integrity and plain speaking. In politicians, they expect accountability - saying what you will do and doing what you said. Substance talks; spin walks.
They are fiscally conservative and socially responsible. Fairness and equity (or its synonym, balance) are much more important than rewarding those who share your views and punishing those that don't. Who you are personally is more important to an Independent than what colour you are.
Don't be surprised if these ideas sound familiar. Liberal government policy between 1989 and 1996 was built around those core values. Voters rewarded the Liberal party with three majority governments - including returning Liberals in St. John's seats in 1989, 1993 and 1996.
Things began to shift only after the Liberals under Brian Tobin showed their choices, their future and their time were actually in the past. The gap between what they said and what actually occurred was enormous. Sure the Liberals won big in 1999, but look more closely at that election. Liberals had to fight for 18 seats, coming close to losing six of them when faced with an opposition that really was not supposed to amount to anything. The undecided vote broke after the debate in '99, but it didn't pick Tobin: undecideds, likely including a large number of Independents, went heavily Tory.
In 2003, the Tory faithful mobilized strongly when they smelled victory, but what Danny Williams captured and held, like Clyde Wells before him, were the Independents. His New Approach is only new in comparison to what voters rejected in 1989 and that returned, briefly, under the second Brian administration.
For Danny Williams to stay in power, he now has to deliver, not on mega-projects and massive job creation, nor on some definition of leadership wearing steel-toed boots and making glitzy announcements. The challenge for Danny is proving he meant what he said about honesty, integrity, living within our means and doing the right thing.
In politics these days, substance talks.
Spin walks.
Oil money mysteries solved
In earlier posts on the new provincial budget I raised some issues that struck me as odd. I undertook to provide further information once I had obtained it.
Here it is, courtesy of two phone calls to people who understand these things far better than I do. I am in their debt; they know who they are.
Never let it be said I didn't correct information I provided or give the full and accurate answer to questions I raised.
1. The missing money isn't actually missing. As noted before, the provincial government changed the way it reports Equalization offsets in the new budget. It appeared that entitlements under the Real Atlantic Accord for this fiscal year were missing. They aren't, apparently, at least as it was explained to me this evening.
Under Section 39 of the Atlantic Accord, the provincial government is entitled to Equalization offset payments if the province experiences a decline in its Equalization entitlements resulting from oil revenue growth.
Since the federal government increased Equalization payments this year, there is no entitlement to offsets under the Real Accord. Therefore, the line in the budget is blank.
The only extra oil cash this year is the money negotiated under the January deal and set at $188 million under the deal. That combined with the $70 million increase in Equalization adds up to $250 million so we will likely come pretty close to doubling our oil revenues, as we should under the new deal.
On the face of it, I'd still wonder if there shouldn't have been some number inserted here since we do get a benefit or should get a benefit from the generic solution when the Equalization entitlements are calculated. Basically, though, that is a minor quibble.
A simple footnote in the budget could have explained this pretty neatly. Had the provincial government left the reporting of this money alone from last year's budget, I wouldn't have noticed it at all.
2. Lowballing oil prices actually makes sense. Loyola Sullivan is good with the numbers but not the explanations. Those are best left to finance officials who apparently laid out a simple explanation of this in the budget lock-in. I have heard a couple of interviews with Loyola and I sure didn't get this simple explanation out of what he said. If someone wants to send me the transcript of an interview where he did say it, I'll post it and eat crow. Deal?
The province bases its oil revenue estimates on Brent crude, but lowers the price per barrel by about $5 to allow for potential production slowdowns or other problems related to offshore production that might lower output. They work off a combination of estimates and basically took a price per barrel of around US$42, dropped it by five bucks or so and worked out a number. That sounds like a prudent practice.
In all likelihood, we'll make as much as $100 million more than the budget estimate if oil prices hold above US$45 per barrel this year. The higher the price of oil, the higher the Terra Nova-related revenues go because of the royalty regime. The same thing will apply if White Rose pays off its costs quickly, like Terra Nova did and oil prices continue at these high levels well into the future.
My suggestion: video tape the budget lock-in news conference with government officials and either broadcast the thing over the internet or on the government cable channel or post the transcript on the government web site after the budget speech is out.
Doing that would actually push a lot more hard information into the public domain and prevent people from asking well-intentioned but poorly informed questions. It also stops the Opposition or anyone else from getting excited over nothing.
All I will offer in my own defence is the old saying about a cynic being an idealist with experience. Having sat through one too many bulls*** budgets, I cast a cynical eye on provincial government claims regardless of which party is in power.
Just for the record, I didn't earn a lot of friends among Liberals in the late 1990s when I pointed out that Tobin was claiming financial miracles when he was actually running deficits masked behind a raft of one-time borrowing.
Here it is, courtesy of two phone calls to people who understand these things far better than I do. I am in their debt; they know who they are.
Never let it be said I didn't correct information I provided or give the full and accurate answer to questions I raised.
1. The missing money isn't actually missing. As noted before, the provincial government changed the way it reports Equalization offsets in the new budget. It appeared that entitlements under the Real Atlantic Accord for this fiscal year were missing. They aren't, apparently, at least as it was explained to me this evening.
Under Section 39 of the Atlantic Accord, the provincial government is entitled to Equalization offset payments if the province experiences a decline in its Equalization entitlements resulting from oil revenue growth.
Since the federal government increased Equalization payments this year, there is no entitlement to offsets under the Real Accord. Therefore, the line in the budget is blank.
The only extra oil cash this year is the money negotiated under the January deal and set at $188 million under the deal. That combined with the $70 million increase in Equalization adds up to $250 million so we will likely come pretty close to doubling our oil revenues, as we should under the new deal.
On the face of it, I'd still wonder if there shouldn't have been some number inserted here since we do get a benefit or should get a benefit from the generic solution when the Equalization entitlements are calculated. Basically, though, that is a minor quibble.
A simple footnote in the budget could have explained this pretty neatly. Had the provincial government left the reporting of this money alone from last year's budget, I wouldn't have noticed it at all.
2. Lowballing oil prices actually makes sense. Loyola Sullivan is good with the numbers but not the explanations. Those are best left to finance officials who apparently laid out a simple explanation of this in the budget lock-in. I have heard a couple of interviews with Loyola and I sure didn't get this simple explanation out of what he said. If someone wants to send me the transcript of an interview where he did say it, I'll post it and eat crow. Deal?
The province bases its oil revenue estimates on Brent crude, but lowers the price per barrel by about $5 to allow for potential production slowdowns or other problems related to offshore production that might lower output. They work off a combination of estimates and basically took a price per barrel of around US$42, dropped it by five bucks or so and worked out a number. That sounds like a prudent practice.
In all likelihood, we'll make as much as $100 million more than the budget estimate if oil prices hold above US$45 per barrel this year. The higher the price of oil, the higher the Terra Nova-related revenues go because of the royalty regime. The same thing will apply if White Rose pays off its costs quickly, like Terra Nova did and oil prices continue at these high levels well into the future.
My suggestion: video tape the budget lock-in news conference with government officials and either broadcast the thing over the internet or on the government cable channel or post the transcript on the government web site after the budget speech is out.
Doing that would actually push a lot more hard information into the public domain and prevent people from asking well-intentioned but poorly informed questions. It also stops the Opposition or anyone else from getting excited over nothing.
All I will offer in my own defence is the old saying about a cynic being an idealist with experience. Having sat through one too many bulls*** budgets, I cast a cynical eye on provincial government claims regardless of which party is in power.
Just for the record, I didn't earn a lot of friends among Liberals in the late 1990s when I pointed out that Tobin was claiming financial miracles when he was actually running deficits masked behind a raft of one-time borrowing.
Find the missing cash in the budget
While you're at it, notice that the government is reporting some of its revenues differently than it used to do.
Go to the Estimates. Flip down to "Statement V, Comparative summary of federal and provincial revenues", which you can find on page viii.
Notice that suddenly we have this (add three zeros for the full amount):
Go to the Estimates. Flip down to "Statement V, Comparative summary of federal and provincial revenues", which you can find on page viii.
Notice that suddenly we have this (add three zeros for the full amount):
2004-05 (revised)
Equalization: 790, 613
Atlantic Accord: 128, 324*
Arrangement on offshore revenues: 133, 600**
*[This is the Real Atlantic Accord offsets, never previously revealed.]
**[This is the January deal by its real name.]
Now in the column for 2005-06 (the new fiscal year), the number next to Atlantic Accord is blank. It shouldn't be. The new arrangement figure is there and government should provide a number for the offsets; the new deal didn't eliminate the original offsets - it added to them.
This budget is missing at least $129 million in revenue that this government will positively receive in Fiscal Year 2005.
There is absolutely no reason why the figure should be left off.
The new deal money is there. There is no offset figure reported.
It is obviously omitted deliberately and without explanation.
Why?
N.B.: One implication of the omission is that the budget is actually in surplus by $67 million, rather than in deficit. That is a surplus without adding in the real projections for oil revenues.
Stay tuned. As I find more I'll fill in this multi-million dollar blank spot.
Loyola's Oil
Remember the movie about a boy named Lorenzo and the combination of oils that temporarily relieved his medical condition.
Alright, so the tie-in is a bit vague.
Just a bit.
Well, here are a couple of links to oil pricing to help you understand why most people think Loyola Sullivan's projected oil royalties numbers are as useless as they can be.
This one is to a site that quote for Brent light crude (a benchmark for our crude) and includes some futures out to 2007 (!). Brent is currently trading at around US$55 per bbl and the futures market has it running in the same neighbourhood out for another two years.
Here's another one that shows some trending charts for Brent. Note that in the previous 12 months, Brent has spent way more time above US$38 per bbl than it has at or below that price.
I appreciate that economists and accountants are conservative people, but surely there must be some basis for making a reasonable projection that oil revenues will be higher than the number Loyola included in his budget. Even with oil production down 6% last year over 2003, we still raked in $100 million more than forecast due entirely to higher oil prices.
If oil production goes back up to where it ought to be this year we will hardly make less money this year than last. If we look ahead to the next fiscal year, namely 2006, we should expect ever larger amounts of money.
Loyola has a problem with oil revenues; always has and I would venture always will.
Alright, so the tie-in is a bit vague.
Just a bit.
Well, here are a couple of links to oil pricing to help you understand why most people think Loyola Sullivan's projected oil royalties numbers are as useless as they can be.
This one is to a site that quote for Brent light crude (a benchmark for our crude) and includes some futures out to 2007 (!). Brent is currently trading at around US$55 per bbl and the futures market has it running in the same neighbourhood out for another two years.
Here's another one that shows some trending charts for Brent. Note that in the previous 12 months, Brent has spent way more time above US$38 per bbl than it has at or below that price.
I appreciate that economists and accountants are conservative people, but surely there must be some basis for making a reasonable projection that oil revenues will be higher than the number Loyola included in his budget. Even with oil production down 6% last year over 2003, we still raked in $100 million more than forecast due entirely to higher oil prices.
If oil production goes back up to where it ought to be this year we will hardly make less money this year than last. If we look ahead to the next fiscal year, namely 2006, we should expect ever larger amounts of money.
Loyola has a problem with oil revenues; always has and I would venture always will.
21 March 2005
Budget Spin Control 1: You read some of it here first!
The budget for fiscal year (FY) 2005 is now public.
It makes for some interesting reading and I'll have more in the days ahead.
Here are a couple of interesting little things that I noticed, some of which will sound awfully familiar to those who read this blog faithfully.
One thing to make clear up front. Forget any spin that you are hearing about all this new spending being due to the new oil deal. That's a crock of the highest order. All the new spending is due to a combination of direct provincial revenues that have no connection whatsoever to the new oil deal, new federal money for health care and, well, good old fashioned deficit spending. The only new oil money that shows up in this budget is the relatively small amounts from the first two years of the deal. We haven't seen the money flying yet from the rest of the new $2.0 billion federal transfer.
1. Record increase in direct debt. Loyola Sullivan - the man who supposedly hates deficits - added more to the direct debt in one year than any other finance minister in the province's history. Over the last years of the Tobin and Grimes administrations, the province's direct debt (the amount owed directly by the provincial government) declined annually. Yes, that's right. It declined, as in went down, lessened, was reduced, got smaller, shrank.
This year alone it climbed by 10% from $6.087 billion to $6.743 billion.
There is no obvious explanation, although it is possible this may be related to government contributions to deal with the unfunded liability for some public sector pensions. If it is, then consider this an Emily Litella moment.
Loyola needs to give an answer for that one; I suspect most reporters in the budget lock-up missed it.
2. Mysterious Government focus on "cash" accounting. While in Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party criticized government for reporting budget information on a cash basis. They claimed this hid the significant deficit in the annual budget, especially for capital spending.
The Blue Book election platform pledged to balance the current and capital account budgets by 2007-2008.
For the last two budgets, Loyola Sullivan has consistently focused on the "cash" surplus or deficit. The confusion between last year's pledge to balance the books on a "cash" basis and the Blue Book commitment is just one of the problems with Loyola's conversion to the traditional way of spinning the budget.
The other problem is that by mixing "cash" and "accrual" reporting, Loyola gets to spread some whopping great falsehoods, like the one about the Liberals causing these record high deficits. The "cash" deficit Loyola faced last year is actually less than the ones faced in the early 1990s. Loyola's "cash deficits" are actually fictional ones created by his spinning the budget numbers, rather than by an accurate reporting of the government accounts.
3. Danny loves deficits or I have money and I'm not afraid to spend it. There is a lot of small cash being spent in this budget, but there have been some other expenditures that are, well, shall we say curious.
For example, and for some currently unexplained reason, the provincial government had so much cash on hand this year that it actually spent $117 million to pay off the entire cost of building The Rooms and something called the Education Investment Corporation. If they hadn't done that, the government would have posted at least a $103 million surplus on current account instead of the $14 million deficit they are reporting on a "cash" basis.
Government predicts it will continue to run deficits on an accrual basis, as noted in a couple of posts here on Loyola's prediction the total debt load will hit $17 billion before the Tories are finished. Government is also planning run some "cash" deficits over the next couple of years even though the government books were actually in surplus this year and likely will be in surplus next year as well.
Check out the budget speech where Loyola forecasts a "cash" deficit next year of $62 million. If he carried forward his surplus from this year - even if he paid off The Rooms alone - Loyola could have had a surplus this year and balanced the books next year, thereby achieving his pledge in a single year. That doesn't even take into account his lowballing of oil revenues.
Forget the "cash" nonsense. This government plans to keep overspending by record amounts for their entire first term and beyond if re-elected despite their Blue Book commitments to tackle the debt and deficit.
Colour me disappointed.
4. Last year's budget was a crock. It looks to me like the provincial government undertook a lot of spending in the last little while to save the embarrassment of showing that their first budget was just completely out-to-lunch when it came to reporting revenues.
The provincial government was never in the financial mess Loyola and Danny claimed.
It wasn't even close.
Thank heavens these guys weren't around when things were really bad.
Like say, 1992.
5. You read it here first! In yet another example of shameless self-promotion, I have to draw attention to yet another accurate prediction from the Bond Papers. In previous posts, I predicted that offshore revenues plus offsets from the Real Atlantic Accord would be over $300 million in FY 2004 and would likely top $400 million.
Guess what?
I was dead on.
Combined royalties plus offsets last year was officially $363, 762, 000 according to Budget 2005. Add to it the other revenues the province collects under the Real Atlantic Accord and you can see we were way over $400 million. [Guesstimate the other revenues at about $ 100 million.]
But that's not all.
6. Pull the other one, Loyola. Despite having a nice chart in his budget speech that forecasts continued high oil production and continued high oil prices, Loyola Sullivan forecasts that his oil royalties will actually drop next year. Pardon me, Mr. Sullivan?
Offshore royalties, Budget 2004: $136, 970, 000
Offshore royalties, Actual 2004: $234, 420, 000
Offshore royalties, Budget 2005: $215, 370, 000
Expect next year's revenues to be at least the same as this year since everyone predicts continued high oil prices. In fact, some forecasts suggest that oil prices will be higher in future, but certainly not below US$40 per barrel. Government forecasts are apparently lowballed, using US$38 per barrel for next year and US$32 per barrel for 2006.
7. 100% is 100%. or is it? As a last point, I'll leave you with this little poser.
During the Great Crusade for the Atlantic Accord, Danny Williams eventually got around to insisting on offsetting 100% of provincial offshore revenues.
He claims he got that.
Well, let me put it this way:
Offshore royalties - not revenues - this fiscal year were around $234 million. The existing Accord offsets plus the amount agreed upon by Williams add up to $263 million. That would mean other revenues like corporate taxes added up to only $29 million.
Hmmm.
Something isn't right there, and based on what has been happening all along with government's reporting of its oil revenues, I don't think the problem is here at the Bond Papers.
Of course, the combined amount is still $500 million, slightly more than the accrual deficit this year!
But I digress.
It makes for some interesting reading and I'll have more in the days ahead.
Here are a couple of interesting little things that I noticed, some of which will sound awfully familiar to those who read this blog faithfully.
One thing to make clear up front. Forget any spin that you are hearing about all this new spending being due to the new oil deal. That's a crock of the highest order. All the new spending is due to a combination of direct provincial revenues that have no connection whatsoever to the new oil deal, new federal money for health care and, well, good old fashioned deficit spending. The only new oil money that shows up in this budget is the relatively small amounts from the first two years of the deal. We haven't seen the money flying yet from the rest of the new $2.0 billion federal transfer.
1. Record increase in direct debt. Loyola Sullivan - the man who supposedly hates deficits - added more to the direct debt in one year than any other finance minister in the province's history. Over the last years of the Tobin and Grimes administrations, the province's direct debt (the amount owed directly by the provincial government) declined annually. Yes, that's right. It declined, as in went down, lessened, was reduced, got smaller, shrank.
This year alone it climbed by 10% from $6.087 billion to $6.743 billion.
There is no obvious explanation, although it is possible this may be related to government contributions to deal with the unfunded liability for some public sector pensions. If it is, then consider this an Emily Litella moment.
Loyola needs to give an answer for that one; I suspect most reporters in the budget lock-up missed it.
2. Mysterious Government focus on "cash" accounting. While in Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party criticized government for reporting budget information on a cash basis. They claimed this hid the significant deficit in the annual budget, especially for capital spending.
The Blue Book election platform pledged to balance the current and capital account budgets by 2007-2008.
For the last two budgets, Loyola Sullivan has consistently focused on the "cash" surplus or deficit. The confusion between last year's pledge to balance the books on a "cash" basis and the Blue Book commitment is just one of the problems with Loyola's conversion to the traditional way of spinning the budget.
The other problem is that by mixing "cash" and "accrual" reporting, Loyola gets to spread some whopping great falsehoods, like the one about the Liberals causing these record high deficits. The "cash" deficit Loyola faced last year is actually less than the ones faced in the early 1990s. Loyola's "cash deficits" are actually fictional ones created by his spinning the budget numbers, rather than by an accurate reporting of the government accounts.
3. Danny loves deficits or I have money and I'm not afraid to spend it. There is a lot of small cash being spent in this budget, but there have been some other expenditures that are, well, shall we say curious.
For example, and for some currently unexplained reason, the provincial government had so much cash on hand this year that it actually spent $117 million to pay off the entire cost of building The Rooms and something called the Education Investment Corporation. If they hadn't done that, the government would have posted at least a $103 million surplus on current account instead of the $14 million deficit they are reporting on a "cash" basis.
Government predicts it will continue to run deficits on an accrual basis, as noted in a couple of posts here on Loyola's prediction the total debt load will hit $17 billion before the Tories are finished. Government is also planning run some "cash" deficits over the next couple of years even though the government books were actually in surplus this year and likely will be in surplus next year as well.
Check out the budget speech where Loyola forecasts a "cash" deficit next year of $62 million. If he carried forward his surplus from this year - even if he paid off The Rooms alone - Loyola could have had a surplus this year and balanced the books next year, thereby achieving his pledge in a single year. That doesn't even take into account his lowballing of oil revenues.
Forget the "cash" nonsense. This government plans to keep overspending by record amounts for their entire first term and beyond if re-elected despite their Blue Book commitments to tackle the debt and deficit.
Colour me disappointed.
4. Last year's budget was a crock. It looks to me like the provincial government undertook a lot of spending in the last little while to save the embarrassment of showing that their first budget was just completely out-to-lunch when it came to reporting revenues.
The provincial government was never in the financial mess Loyola and Danny claimed.
It wasn't even close.
Thank heavens these guys weren't around when things were really bad.
Like say, 1992.
5. You read it here first! In yet another example of shameless self-promotion, I have to draw attention to yet another accurate prediction from the Bond Papers. In previous posts, I predicted that offshore revenues plus offsets from the Real Atlantic Accord would be over $300 million in FY 2004 and would likely top $400 million.
Guess what?
I was dead on.
Combined royalties plus offsets last year was officially $363, 762, 000 according to Budget 2005. Add to it the other revenues the province collects under the Real Atlantic Accord and you can see we were way over $400 million. [Guesstimate the other revenues at about $ 100 million.]
But that's not all.
6. Pull the other one, Loyola. Despite having a nice chart in his budget speech that forecasts continued high oil production and continued high oil prices, Loyola Sullivan forecasts that his oil royalties will actually drop next year. Pardon me, Mr. Sullivan?
Offshore royalties, Budget 2004: $136, 970, 000
Offshore royalties, Actual 2004: $234, 420, 000
Offshore royalties, Budget 2005: $215, 370, 000
Expect next year's revenues to be at least the same as this year since everyone predicts continued high oil prices. In fact, some forecasts suggest that oil prices will be higher in future, but certainly not below US$40 per barrel. Government forecasts are apparently lowballed, using US$38 per barrel for next year and US$32 per barrel for 2006.
7. 100% is 100%. or is it? As a last point, I'll leave you with this little poser.
During the Great Crusade for the Atlantic Accord, Danny Williams eventually got around to insisting on offsetting 100% of provincial offshore revenues.
He claims he got that.
Well, let me put it this way:
Offshore royalties - not revenues - this fiscal year were around $234 million. The existing Accord offsets plus the amount agreed upon by Williams add up to $263 million. That would mean other revenues like corporate taxes added up to only $29 million.
Hmmm.
Something isn't right there, and based on what has been happening all along with government's reporting of its oil revenues, I don't think the problem is here at the Bond Papers.
Of course, the combined amount is still $500 million, slightly more than the accrual deficit this year!
But I digress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)