Premier Williams held a newser (news conference) today to comment on Fabian Manning's ouster from the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Radio Noon played some of his comments, focusing on three ideas.
First, the Premier picked up on the idea of confidential information being leaked and pinning that on Fabe. Note that the puppet caller to Open Line used this line first thing yesterday morning. This is no accident. It's also an interesting idea in that Fabian Manning, Ultra-Tory, is being accused of high treason against Tories. Proof would be interesting concept here - rather than the mere accusation - but don't count on anything coming soon.
Second, he picked up on the idea that a government caucus member has to toe the line on every government issue. The caucus and leader get to set their own rules in a parliamentary democracy. Let's just observe that this is a tight regime being set here.
This is an understandable idea in that this is an extremely tough issue for some government members. Fabe just happens to be the one, most likely, who is being used pour encourager les autres. French army commanders in the Great War used to shoot some of their soldiers who may or may not have been guilty of anything actually to accomplish the same purpose.
Of course, it also suggests that there is a lot of tension within caucus or that caucus solidarity is fragile. The French army shot people when it was on the brink of wide-spread mutiny. Even if the caucus is rock solid, some of the Premier's political opponents will draw conclusions from this action.
Third, the Premier mentioned the news release and other action following from the Nite Line fiasco. Ok. Maybe Fabe could have handled the issue a little more circumspectly, but even floating the accusation in an effort to discredit Manning was a weak tactic.
I'll toss out an observation on a line from Peter Gullage's national radio report earlier today that a member of the Premier's staff was present in the caucus room for the deliberations on Manning's future. Every caucus is different but I have never heard of unelected people being present for confidential caucus discussions. A caucus, like a cabinet, is the ultimate privileged club. Having an appointed political staffer in the room is unusual in local political circles.
06 May 2005
Williams explains - later today
Fresh back from the oil trade conference in Houston, Premier Danny Williams plans to explain today what happened with Fabe.
This oughta be good.
Let's hope there is something more substantive than the stuff we have seen so far.
By the way, Danny, if you want to fire a troublemaker, save cash in the process AND accomplish something substantive, think of another "F".
This oughta be good.
Let's hope there is something more substantive than the stuff we have seen so far.
By the way, Danny, if you want to fire a troublemaker, save cash in the process AND accomplish something substantive, think of another "F".
05 May 2005
A floor walker speaks, or soft-shelled excuses
Sometimes you hear interesting things on the way to Tim Horton's.
Like this evening, when cabinet minister Tom Rideout called Nite Line to explain why Fabian Manning got the flick from the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Rideout began by listing his experience as probably the longest serving member in the House of Assembly and the one who has sat in more caucuses than any currently sitting member.
Fair enough on that score, Tom, although those of us with memories recall that you switched from the Liberal Opposition benches in 1984 to the Peckford team in order to get a cabinet seat. Bill Rowe once listed you among the legion of fellows who practiced the old-fashioned political art in this province of wearing out carpets by crossing the floor of the House to sit with another team.
Rideout's explanation of the caucus move was that the government needed to have complete support of its members to get government business through the legislature.
Here are three reasons why Rideout's argument makes no sense:
1. The government party has so many members that even if half the back benchers voted against the government, they'd still win any vote as long as everyone showed up.
2. Manning has given absolutely no indication that he intends to vote against the government on any bill, especially a money bill or other confidence vote.
3. The whole crab deal is not contained in any bill scheduled to come before the House.
So what exactly was the problem, Tom?
If it is as trivial the Premier and Mr. Manning getting bent over a misunderstanding of which Manning is which, surely goodness they can find enough common ground to kiss and make up.
This is hardly like Tom's floor crossing, the Wells/Crosbie business, Ross Wiseman's cover of a tune by Tom Rideout or even the Wilson Callan thing.
Maybe the Premier found old strategy notes stuck in a filing cabinet somewhere from the Grimes-Efford fiasco and used them as a guide.
Like this evening, when cabinet minister Tom Rideout called Nite Line to explain why Fabian Manning got the flick from the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Rideout began by listing his experience as probably the longest serving member in the House of Assembly and the one who has sat in more caucuses than any currently sitting member.
Fair enough on that score, Tom, although those of us with memories recall that you switched from the Liberal Opposition benches in 1984 to the Peckford team in order to get a cabinet seat. Bill Rowe once listed you among the legion of fellows who practiced the old-fashioned political art in this province of wearing out carpets by crossing the floor of the House to sit with another team.
Rideout's explanation of the caucus move was that the government needed to have complete support of its members to get government business through the legislature.
Here are three reasons why Rideout's argument makes no sense:
1. The government party has so many members that even if half the back benchers voted against the government, they'd still win any vote as long as everyone showed up.
2. Manning has given absolutely no indication that he intends to vote against the government on any bill, especially a money bill or other confidence vote.
3. The whole crab deal is not contained in any bill scheduled to come before the House.
So what exactly was the problem, Tom?
If it is as trivial the Premier and Mr. Manning getting bent over a misunderstanding of which Manning is which, surely goodness they can find enough common ground to kiss and make up.
This is hardly like Tom's floor crossing, the Wells/Crosbie business, Ross Wiseman's cover of a tune by Tom Rideout or even the Wilson Callan thing.
Maybe the Premier found old strategy notes stuck in a filing cabinet somewhere from the Grimes-Efford fiasco and used them as a guide.
Manning on Voice Activated
The Williams government crab quota kerfuffle has claimed its first political victim.
PC MHA Fabian Manning decided voice the concerns of his constituents, many of whom are fishermen and plant workers, and speak out against Williams plan to give crab production quotas to processors.
He expected to lose his position as a Parliamentary Secretary but he wasn't ready for what happened next. He was tossed out of Caucus by his one time friends and colleagues.
When he tried to get into his office the next morning the locks had been changed.
Once again, the issue of who our elected politicians really represent comes to the fore.
Has the party political system finally had its day?
You can ask Fabian Manning yourself on Voice Activated, Sunday night, 8:30 PM on Rogers Television. Channel 9 in St. John's.
Tune in.
Call in.
757-0777
PC MHA Fabian Manning decided voice the concerns of his constituents, many of whom are fishermen and plant workers, and speak out against Williams plan to give crab production quotas to processors.
He expected to lose his position as a Parliamentary Secretary but he wasn't ready for what happened next. He was tossed out of Caucus by his one time friends and colleagues.
When he tried to get into his office the next morning the locks had been changed.
Once again, the issue of who our elected politicians really represent comes to the fore.
Has the party political system finally had its day?
You can ask Fabian Manning yourself on Voice Activated, Sunday night, 8:30 PM on Rogers Television. Channel 9 in St. John's.
Tune in.
Call in.
757-0777
Up a tree
Two examples of the strange workings in politics and government came today courtesy of the provincial Progressive Conservative caucus and the City of St. John's.
CBC news reported on a demolition order issued by the City of St. John's for the tree house in the backyard of a city resident. TV news had pictures of the structure which is actually sturdier than some of the cabins people spend the May 24th weekend in.
City officials defend their actions on the grounds of safety.
I am thinking they have done one of three things.
Either they have decided to become the treehouse nazis - a la the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld - extending their considerable jurisdiction into even the tiniest aspect of life in the city
or
They are using the national building code as a cheap excuse to quiet complaints from neighbours who may object to the treehouse for other grounds.
or
In light of a complaint they don't want to endorse the structure out of fear that someone can sue them.
Either way - or even if there is another explanation, the city officials have made a decision that is rightly exposing them to national attention and likely considerable national ridicule.
Hint: when the public has a commonsense reaction that a government policy is silly, maybe the public is right.
Over in the other forest known as provincial politics, there is considerable chatter among the tree-dwellers about the ouster of one Fabian Manning from his particular troop of political great apes. The other troops are looking on in bewilderment.
Personally, I am gonna have to wait for this one to evolve a bit or for some people to give me calls with information. The whole thing leaves me gobsmacked, if for no other reason than when you think Tory, you think Manning. The idea this guy has been given the flick is almost too bizarre for words.
Let's put this in political context for you.
In 1968, Clyde Wells and John Crosbie resigned from cabinet and were booted out of caucus for challenging then Premier Joe Smallwood over financing for the Come by Chance deal. Crosbie has dislocated his shoulders over the years patting himself on the back for being the one who stood up to Joe. I have a sneaking suspicion that in the fullness of time another account will emerge that will pop JC's arm back into its socket and set the record straight on this and a whole bunch of other matters. But I digress.
Other than that one, I can't really think of a time when any caucus in the House of Assembly punted one of its members. Some premiers, like Brians Peckford or Tobin, bought the silence of members by giving everyone some extra stipend. Others just tolerated the dissidents.
When Wells became Premier he eliminated the raft of parliamentary secretaries jobs and loosened the reigns on government members. After all, reasoned Wells, they were elected to represent their constituents. Since they weren't in cabinet they needn't be constrained by any rules of confidentiality and solidarity. Besides, except on crucial matters like money bills, government had such a sizeable majority that one or two voting with the other guys wouldn't harm anyone.
Before Tobin bought him off with a made-up cabinet seat, for example, Wally Noel used to be one of those dissidents who frequently spoke against a particular government policy. He was still a welcome member of caucus though since he never ever sided with the opposition when it came time to vote. Plus he made a valuable contribution to public debate by raising ideas and issues that otherwise wouldn't have been raised most likely.
If I can presume to give some analysis on Wells' policy, Wells could hardly criticize a contrarian after being one himself. More to the point though, his actions reflected a view of what members of the House of Assembly were sent there to do. It also reflected a fundamental respect for the equal status of individual members.
The Premier, for his part, seems never content to let things be as they are. His opponents or those he opposes must be working a conspiracy. In this case, the conspiracy is supposedly Manning's plot to run federally. Chaulk this up as completely inane theory number five or six now; I have truly lost count. The fact Peter MacKay, DDS, himself has publicly disavowed the Premier's comments should speak for itself.
Another telling factor is the Tory Slander Society which has taken to attacking Manning from the time the phone lines opened on VOCM this morning. One caller, who claimed to watch the House every day, reported having noticed on the TV broadcasts the shocked look on government member's faces as Opposition members asked questions supposedly containing sensitive inside information.
Whoever sits in the Confed Building earning tax dollars spreading these pinocchiosis baccilli better do some fact checking.
On TV, you can't see reaction shots since the camera is focused on the ones doing the speaking. When a question is asked, it isn't fixed on the government side. When a minister answers, their looks of shock would have dissipated in the minutes it takes to ask a typical Opposition question.
Apart from that, spreading the idea that Fabian the Ultra-Tory must be some sinister traitor either by flat out statement or shitty innuendo - like the cookie tossed by the open-line puppet - is just beneath contempt. Deal with the facts, people. When you attack a guy's character so blatantly, I question your motives and your personal integrity.
I can't say I know Fabian well enough to invite him to dinner at my house but I can say this. In my dealings with him, he has been a fairminded, decent guy. He has been a staunch spokesman for his district and its people. His brother, likely the one Danny got mixed up about, is also a stand-up guy with a lot of well-earned respect out there.
The truth will emerge.
Let's just hope Fabe doesn't do anything rash in the meantime like resign.
Meanwhile, across the country, the political jungle is growing ever more tangly.
Where did I put that machete anyways?
CBC news reported on a demolition order issued by the City of St. John's for the tree house in the backyard of a city resident. TV news had pictures of the structure which is actually sturdier than some of the cabins people spend the May 24th weekend in.
City officials defend their actions on the grounds of safety.
I am thinking they have done one of three things.
Either they have decided to become the treehouse nazis - a la the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld - extending their considerable jurisdiction into even the tiniest aspect of life in the city
or
They are using the national building code as a cheap excuse to quiet complaints from neighbours who may object to the treehouse for other grounds.
or
In light of a complaint they don't want to endorse the structure out of fear that someone can sue them.
Either way - or even if there is another explanation, the city officials have made a decision that is rightly exposing them to national attention and likely considerable national ridicule.
Hint: when the public has a commonsense reaction that a government policy is silly, maybe the public is right.
Over in the other forest known as provincial politics, there is considerable chatter among the tree-dwellers about the ouster of one Fabian Manning from his particular troop of political great apes. The other troops are looking on in bewilderment.
Personally, I am gonna have to wait for this one to evolve a bit or for some people to give me calls with information. The whole thing leaves me gobsmacked, if for no other reason than when you think Tory, you think Manning. The idea this guy has been given the flick is almost too bizarre for words.
Let's put this in political context for you.
In 1968, Clyde Wells and John Crosbie resigned from cabinet and were booted out of caucus for challenging then Premier Joe Smallwood over financing for the Come by Chance deal. Crosbie has dislocated his shoulders over the years patting himself on the back for being the one who stood up to Joe. I have a sneaking suspicion that in the fullness of time another account will emerge that will pop JC's arm back into its socket and set the record straight on this and a whole bunch of other matters. But I digress.
Other than that one, I can't really think of a time when any caucus in the House of Assembly punted one of its members. Some premiers, like Brians Peckford or Tobin, bought the silence of members by giving everyone some extra stipend. Others just tolerated the dissidents.
When Wells became Premier he eliminated the raft of parliamentary secretaries jobs and loosened the reigns on government members. After all, reasoned Wells, they were elected to represent their constituents. Since they weren't in cabinet they needn't be constrained by any rules of confidentiality and solidarity. Besides, except on crucial matters like money bills, government had such a sizeable majority that one or two voting with the other guys wouldn't harm anyone.
Before Tobin bought him off with a made-up cabinet seat, for example, Wally Noel used to be one of those dissidents who frequently spoke against a particular government policy. He was still a welcome member of caucus though since he never ever sided with the opposition when it came time to vote. Plus he made a valuable contribution to public debate by raising ideas and issues that otherwise wouldn't have been raised most likely.
If I can presume to give some analysis on Wells' policy, Wells could hardly criticize a contrarian after being one himself. More to the point though, his actions reflected a view of what members of the House of Assembly were sent there to do. It also reflected a fundamental respect for the equal status of individual members.
The Premier, for his part, seems never content to let things be as they are. His opponents or those he opposes must be working a conspiracy. In this case, the conspiracy is supposedly Manning's plot to run federally. Chaulk this up as completely inane theory number five or six now; I have truly lost count. The fact Peter MacKay, DDS, himself has publicly disavowed the Premier's comments should speak for itself.
Another telling factor is the Tory Slander Society which has taken to attacking Manning from the time the phone lines opened on VOCM this morning. One caller, who claimed to watch the House every day, reported having noticed on the TV broadcasts the shocked look on government member's faces as Opposition members asked questions supposedly containing sensitive inside information.
Whoever sits in the Confed Building earning tax dollars spreading these pinocchiosis baccilli better do some fact checking.
On TV, you can't see reaction shots since the camera is focused on the ones doing the speaking. When a question is asked, it isn't fixed on the government side. When a minister answers, their looks of shock would have dissipated in the minutes it takes to ask a typical Opposition question.
Apart from that, spreading the idea that Fabian the Ultra-Tory must be some sinister traitor either by flat out statement or shitty innuendo - like the cookie tossed by the open-line puppet - is just beneath contempt. Deal with the facts, people. When you attack a guy's character so blatantly, I question your motives and your personal integrity.
I can't say I know Fabian well enough to invite him to dinner at my house but I can say this. In my dealings with him, he has been a fairminded, decent guy. He has been a staunch spokesman for his district and its people. His brother, likely the one Danny got mixed up about, is also a stand-up guy with a lot of well-earned respect out there.
The truth will emerge.
Let's just hope Fabe doesn't do anything rash in the meantime like resign.
Meanwhile, across the country, the political jungle is growing ever more tangly.
Where did I put that machete anyways?
Local Journalists Honoured
For all that can be said about journalists, when they are recognized by their peers for exemplary work, there is nothing but praise that is deserved.
Here's a quick synopsis of the recent Atlantic Journalism Awards, but feel free to go check out the full release here.
Print:
- A gold award for enterprise reporting to The Independent for its six-part "balance sheet" on Confederation.
- A gold award for feature writing to Stephanie Porter of The Independent for a piece titled "Things you can't forget". Hint: She's another reason to read the Indy, besides the outstanding photography.
Radio:
- A gold award to Denis Molloy of VOCM for spot news.
- A gold award in continuing coverage to David Zelcer, Jon Soper, Kevin Harvey and Leigh Anne Power of CBC Radio for their work reporting the Ryan's Commander loss.
- A gold award for feature writing to Chris Brookes for "Not fit for it", his series on the Amulree Commission and the collapse of Responsible Government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Unfortunately, no one from television in the province earned a gold award, although Deanne Fleet at CBC was a finalist in the enterprise reporting category for a piece called "The Gambler".
Some other reporters in the province also received nominations. Go check them out at the link above. Next time you run into them on the street, make sure you give them their well-earned congratulations.
The big disappointment for me though was that Jeff Ducharme's touching photojournalism essay on his mother's treatment for cancer never got an award. I clipped that piece and his column; they are examples of sensitive and touching work that will leave you deeply moved.
Sometimes the deserving work goes without proper recognition.
Not this time.
At least from me.
Well done, Jeff.
Here's a quick synopsis of the recent Atlantic Journalism Awards, but feel free to go check out the full release here.
Print:
- A gold award for enterprise reporting to The Independent for its six-part "balance sheet" on Confederation.
- A gold award for feature writing to Stephanie Porter of The Independent for a piece titled "Things you can't forget". Hint: She's another reason to read the Indy, besides the outstanding photography.
Radio:
- A gold award to Denis Molloy of VOCM for spot news.
- A gold award in continuing coverage to David Zelcer, Jon Soper, Kevin Harvey and Leigh Anne Power of CBC Radio for their work reporting the Ryan's Commander loss.
- A gold award for feature writing to Chris Brookes for "Not fit for it", his series on the Amulree Commission and the collapse of Responsible Government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Unfortunately, no one from television in the province earned a gold award, although Deanne Fleet at CBC was a finalist in the enterprise reporting category for a piece called "The Gambler".
Some other reporters in the province also received nominations. Go check them out at the link above. Next time you run into them on the street, make sure you give them their well-earned congratulations.
The big disappointment for me though was that Jeff Ducharme's touching photojournalism essay on his mother's treatment for cancer never got an award. I clipped that piece and his column; they are examples of sensitive and touching work that will leave you deeply moved.
Sometimes the deserving work goes without proper recognition.
Not this time.
At least from me.
Well done, Jeff.
04 May 2005
War Museum - local connection
As you watch any coverage of the new War Museum in Ottawa, remember that one of their most senior positions is occupied by a guy from Rabbittown.
Dr. Dean Oliver grew up on Malta Street, took an undergraduate degree from Memorial in history, then went on to earn a doctorate in history at York University. He studied under Jack Granatstein, one of the country's foremost historians.
He has been at the War Museum for several years now and is currently the Director of Historical Research and Exhibit Development. For the past couple of years he has been face-and-eyes into the new museum project overseeing a completely new set of exhibits.
Since I have known Dean for almost 25 years, I can tell you he is a thoughtful and accomplished historian. In addition to his historical work - including publications - he is also a frequent lecturer on modern defence topics. It's not unusual to find him lecturing at the Canadian Forces Staff College in Toronto, south of the border or across the pond at NATO.
The museum is his full-time job and he brings to the task of planning exhibits a sensitivity to all aspects of Canada's military history that we all should appreciate. Exhibits, such as one on Somalia which Cliff Chadderton has criticized, usually go through a great deal of thought and planning before they get set up. Nothing is sugar-coated, nor should it be. War is one of the most devastating of human experiences, and it should be understood on many more levels than the obvious respect for great accomplishments and sacrifice.
The museum has some artifacts with strong connections to this province, including paintings of World War 2 from members of the Group of Seven. Maybe the new Rooms complex can arrange a loan of some items and create a strong connection between the museum here and the museums in Ottawa.
Personally, I wish I could be in Ottawa for the official opening.
I'll just have to watch it from afar and send a public atta-boy to a guy who stood for me at my wedding.
Dr. Dean Oliver grew up on Malta Street, took an undergraduate degree from Memorial in history, then went on to earn a doctorate in history at York University. He studied under Jack Granatstein, one of the country's foremost historians.
He has been at the War Museum for several years now and is currently the Director of Historical Research and Exhibit Development. For the past couple of years he has been face-and-eyes into the new museum project overseeing a completely new set of exhibits.
Since I have known Dean for almost 25 years, I can tell you he is a thoughtful and accomplished historian. In addition to his historical work - including publications - he is also a frequent lecturer on modern defence topics. It's not unusual to find him lecturing at the Canadian Forces Staff College in Toronto, south of the border or across the pond at NATO.
The museum is his full-time job and he brings to the task of planning exhibits a sensitivity to all aspects of Canada's military history that we all should appreciate. Exhibits, such as one on Somalia which Cliff Chadderton has criticized, usually go through a great deal of thought and planning before they get set up. Nothing is sugar-coated, nor should it be. War is one of the most devastating of human experiences, and it should be understood on many more levels than the obvious respect for great accomplishments and sacrifice.
The museum has some artifacts with strong connections to this province, including paintings of World War 2 from members of the Group of Seven. Maybe the new Rooms complex can arrange a loan of some items and create a strong connection between the museum here and the museums in Ottawa.
Personally, I wish I could be in Ottawa for the official opening.
I'll just have to watch it from afar and send a public atta-boy to a guy who stood for me at my wedding.
DBRS upgrades province's debt rating
In a news release issued on 02 May 05, the Dominion Bond rating Service (DBRS) upgraded the provincial government's long- and short-term debt rating.
Long-term debt is now set at BBB (High) and short-term debt is rated at R-1 (low).
According to DBRS, the rating changes are due to several factors, including a 20% reduction in the province's debt over the past seven years.
DBRS noted the offshore revenue agreement with Ottawa also supports the improvement in the province's rating. In light of recent comments by the premier that suggest the $2.0 billion cash advance may be sued to finance hydroelectric, development in Labrador, it is interesting to note this comment by DBRS: "No use has been earmarked for the money yet, but balance sheet improvement is likely to be a priority, given earlier statements made by the Premier." [Emphasis added]
DBRS is obviously basing its rating in part on the commitment that the offshore money will be used for debt reduction.
According to DBRS, they have calculated that the province's cash deficit was eliminated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.
When Budget 2004 was introduced, the government stressed the growing debt and deficit situation affecting the province. It is interesting to note that DBRS highlighted a significant reduction in debt over a seven year period. In other words, they are upgrading the debt rating based on actions that date back to Liberal administrations who were pilloried in last year's partisan rhetoric.
As noted in other posts on the Robert Bond Papers, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador achieved significant debt reduction since at least FY1998. In fact, the province's direct debt declined each year between FY2000 and FY2003.
Further debt load improvements started in the early 1990s with a concerted plan to reduce both the total amount and the percentage of debt held in foreign currencies. From a position of almost 50% of debt being in foreign currencies in FY 1994 - and subject to increased costs from currency fluctuations, the province currently holds less than 25% of its direct debt in foreign currency. This foreign currency debt is now entirely held in American dollars. This further reduces the cost of servicing this debt, given the relatively strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to its American counterpart.
So much for the argument about Liberal fiscal mismanagement.
Long-term debt is now set at BBB (High) and short-term debt is rated at R-1 (low).
According to DBRS, the rating changes are due to several factors, including a 20% reduction in the province's debt over the past seven years.
DBRS noted the offshore revenue agreement with Ottawa also supports the improvement in the province's rating. In light of recent comments by the premier that suggest the $2.0 billion cash advance may be sued to finance hydroelectric, development in Labrador, it is interesting to note this comment by DBRS: "No use has been earmarked for the money yet, but balance sheet improvement is likely to be a priority, given earlier statements made by the Premier." [Emphasis added]
DBRS is obviously basing its rating in part on the commitment that the offshore money will be used for debt reduction.
According to DBRS, they have calculated that the province's cash deficit was eliminated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.
When Budget 2004 was introduced, the government stressed the growing debt and deficit situation affecting the province. It is interesting to note that DBRS highlighted a significant reduction in debt over a seven year period. In other words, they are upgrading the debt rating based on actions that date back to Liberal administrations who were pilloried in last year's partisan rhetoric.
As noted in other posts on the Robert Bond Papers, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador achieved significant debt reduction since at least FY1998. In fact, the province's direct debt declined each year between FY2000 and FY2003.
Further debt load improvements started in the early 1990s with a concerted plan to reduce both the total amount and the percentage of debt held in foreign currencies. From a position of almost 50% of debt being in foreign currencies in FY 1994 - and subject to increased costs from currency fluctuations, the province currently holds less than 25% of its direct debt in foreign currency. This foreign currency debt is now entirely held in American dollars. This further reduces the cost of servicing this debt, given the relatively strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to its American counterpart.
So much for the argument about Liberal fiscal mismanagement.
Prime Minister affirms commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador
VOCM news is reporting today that Prime Minister Paul Martin wants to help develop the Lower Churchill hydro electric potential.
For those who may have forgotten, the PM said this last year and the year before, as far as I recall.
It is certainly the same message John Efford carried to a Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association meeting in April 2004.
In fact, the Premier noted that commitment in a news release on the offshore oil revenue talks a day or two after Efford's speech. Here's the link to that release.
As I recall - and I stand to be corrected - the Premier didn't move the Lower Churchill offer forward at that time because he was focused on other issues, including the budget controversy at the time. Aside from the fact the government had already decided in the spring of 2004 to move to an expressions of interest process in October, the government had also entered into secret talks with the Sino-Energy consortium to share information on the Lower Churchill - and presumably receive a proposal eventually from that group. Existence of that deal wasn't revealed until July 2004 and the details weren't made public until September. In April, none of us outside government knew anything about Sino-Energy.
What's the next step? Someone from the Premier's Office or Hydro needs to get in touch with the Prime Minister's Office and John Efford's office ASAP.
It's been a year since the commitment; let's take the PM up on the offer. The only reason the offshore talks took so long is that the province didn't push the issue seriously until October.
Before anyone screams a partisan foul, I'd be more than happy to provide the documentary evidence to back up that point.
For those who may have forgotten, the PM said this last year and the year before, as far as I recall.
It is certainly the same message John Efford carried to a Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association meeting in April 2004.
In fact, the Premier noted that commitment in a news release on the offshore oil revenue talks a day or two after Efford's speech. Here's the link to that release.
As I recall - and I stand to be corrected - the Premier didn't move the Lower Churchill offer forward at that time because he was focused on other issues, including the budget controversy at the time. Aside from the fact the government had already decided in the spring of 2004 to move to an expressions of interest process in October, the government had also entered into secret talks with the Sino-Energy consortium to share information on the Lower Churchill - and presumably receive a proposal eventually from that group. Existence of that deal wasn't revealed until July 2004 and the details weren't made public until September. In April, none of us outside government knew anything about Sino-Energy.
What's the next step? Someone from the Premier's Office or Hydro needs to get in touch with the Prime Minister's Office and John Efford's office ASAP.
It's been a year since the commitment; let's take the PM up on the offer. The only reason the offshore talks took so long is that the province didn't push the issue seriously until October.
Before anyone screams a partisan foul, I'd be more than happy to provide the documentary evidence to back up that point.
Grimey cameras
Maybe there is some irony in having the two defeated, terminal premiers of long party regimes (Tom "43 days" Rideout for the Tories and Roger Grimes for the Liberals) duking it out on the completely irrelevant issue of security cameras in government buildings.
At a time when the crab fishery is closed, crimes are being committed regularly and going unpunished by government, the best thing Roger Grimes can come up with is to ask questions about security cameras installed at the Confederation Building.
If ever there was evidence of an Opposition having nothing to say, this is it.
Where are the concrete suggestions on how to solve the crisis - other than government caving in?
Where are the observations about the long-term problems in the fishery?
Where is the concern about the House of Assembly, government building being trashed and confidential files being thrown about (let alone read)?
Where is the concern that government is condoning criminal activity with its inept handling of the protests? Hint. Hint. Hint.
Then to cap it all, Grimes makes a silly comment about Loyola Sullivan and provokes his ejection from the House for a day.
Roger, we have known each other a long time so I say this in all sincerity: either find something substantial for you and your caucus to say or just let the whole crab mess work itself out with the Opposition staying silent. The government is bumbling here, particularly Rideout in the past couple of days, so odds are high they will shag this whole thing up.
The camera thing is just making people roll their eyes in their head.
Oh yeah, and while we are at it, I have some words for Tom Rideout.
Cops can't install anything in your buildings without a court order or permission.
Stop bullshitting and pussyfooting.
Your comments yesterday sounded like someone desperate to be cute or clever without being either. You just sounded like Roger did: irrelevant.
At a time when the crab fishery is closed, crimes are being committed regularly and going unpunished by government, the best thing Roger Grimes can come up with is to ask questions about security cameras installed at the Confederation Building.
If ever there was evidence of an Opposition having nothing to say, this is it.
Where are the concrete suggestions on how to solve the crisis - other than government caving in?
Where are the observations about the long-term problems in the fishery?
Where is the concern about the House of Assembly, government building being trashed and confidential files being thrown about (let alone read)?
Where is the concern that government is condoning criminal activity with its inept handling of the protests? Hint. Hint. Hint.
Then to cap it all, Grimes makes a silly comment about Loyola Sullivan and provokes his ejection from the House for a day.
Roger, we have known each other a long time so I say this in all sincerity: either find something substantial for you and your caucus to say or just let the whole crab mess work itself out with the Opposition staying silent. The government is bumbling here, particularly Rideout in the past couple of days, so odds are high they will shag this whole thing up.
The camera thing is just making people roll their eyes in their head.
Oh yeah, and while we are at it, I have some words for Tom Rideout.
Cops can't install anything in your buildings without a court order or permission.
Stop bullshitting and pussyfooting.
Your comments yesterday sounded like someone desperate to be cute or clever without being either. You just sounded like Roger did: irrelevant.
03 May 2005
Out of the Fog on fisheries matters
I just finished watching an edition of Out of the Fog featuring a panel of four reporters who have covered the fishery in this province. Given the panelists, I'd highly recommend watching for experienced professionals commenting on their work and on a major news subject these days.
OOTF had Jim Wellman and Kathryn King both of whom navigated the Fish Broadcast on CBC Radio through some tough times, Dene Moore, local correspondent for the Canadian Press, and Greg Locke, an accomplished shooter, former managing editor of The Independent and lately host of Voice Activated on Rogers.
I'll have to go back and watch the whole thing because it looked like a good show.
Krysta asked about the problems journalists face with being spun - that is of falling for a media line from some public relations person or politician. I caught Jim's and Kathryn's response before control of the clicker reverted to She Who Must Be Obeyed. Being on the other side of the fence - The Dark Side, according to some reporters, I am always interested in that sort of question; hence my eagerness to see the rest of the show when it repeats tomorrow or on the weekend.
Speaking of spin, to the best of my knowledge, no person on the panel - all journalists - has ever sent a tee shirt to someone they interview regularly or routinely asked fawning, softball questions of provincial cabinet ministers and the premier.
Can the same be said of the person tossing the questions at the panelists?
It was a bit of unintentional irony, I guess.
OOTF had Jim Wellman and Kathryn King both of whom navigated the Fish Broadcast on CBC Radio through some tough times, Dene Moore, local correspondent for the Canadian Press, and Greg Locke, an accomplished shooter, former managing editor of The Independent and lately host of Voice Activated on Rogers.
I'll have to go back and watch the whole thing because it looked like a good show.
Krysta asked about the problems journalists face with being spun - that is of falling for a media line from some public relations person or politician. I caught Jim's and Kathryn's response before control of the clicker reverted to She Who Must Be Obeyed. Being on the other side of the fence - The Dark Side, according to some reporters, I am always interested in that sort of question; hence my eagerness to see the rest of the show when it repeats tomorrow or on the weekend.
Speaking of spin, to the best of my knowledge, no person on the panel - all journalists - has ever sent a tee shirt to someone they interview regularly or routinely asked fawning, softball questions of provincial cabinet ministers and the premier.
Can the same be said of the person tossing the questions at the panelists?
It was a bit of unintentional irony, I guess.
Polls and something called a poll
Here's a link to the latest poll conducted by a professional opinion research firm.
It shows the Liberals are slightly ahead of the CPC led by Stephen Harper.
Meanwhile, NTV has released the results of a poll done for them by Telelink, a local call centre, on the upcoming federal bye-election in Labrador.
I was struck by a number of things in Ken Regular's report, not the least of which was the enormous undecided: 42%.
Telelink president Cindy Roma said the results were too close to call, with Liberals having 29% of decided supporters and the CPC having 23%. Even if Roma had used a standard approach of distributing the undecideds the same as the 60% who knew what they were going to do, the results would be a win for the Liberals - no question.
As it is, the undecideds are almost half the sample and Telelink apparently didn't probe them at all. Therefore, the best Roma could have said reliably is that she didn't have a clue based on the data her callers collected. Her conclusion is the research equivalent of a shrug.
Telelink also asked decided voters - obviously staunchly committed voters - if current controversies were affecting their choice. Surprise of surprises, something like at least 75% said no the controversies didn't affect their party choice.
Again, this is a penetrating insight into sweet fanny adams.
But to give benefit of the doubt, the questions I have about the poll might be related to the news story, not the research itself
In the interests of fairness, I have asked NTV for a copy of the research report. I'll let you know if I get it. If I do, I'll let you know what I found in detail.
If I can't get my hands on the detailed report, I'll make some observations based on what was reported.
More to follow.
It shows the Liberals are slightly ahead of the CPC led by Stephen Harper.
Meanwhile, NTV has released the results of a poll done for them by Telelink, a local call centre, on the upcoming federal bye-election in Labrador.
I was struck by a number of things in Ken Regular's report, not the least of which was the enormous undecided: 42%.
Telelink president Cindy Roma said the results were too close to call, with Liberals having 29% of decided supporters and the CPC having 23%. Even if Roma had used a standard approach of distributing the undecideds the same as the 60% who knew what they were going to do, the results would be a win for the Liberals - no question.
As it is, the undecideds are almost half the sample and Telelink apparently didn't probe them at all. Therefore, the best Roma could have said reliably is that she didn't have a clue based on the data her callers collected. Her conclusion is the research equivalent of a shrug.
Telelink also asked decided voters - obviously staunchly committed voters - if current controversies were affecting their choice. Surprise of surprises, something like at least 75% said no the controversies didn't affect their party choice.
Again, this is a penetrating insight into sweet fanny adams.
But to give benefit of the doubt, the questions I have about the poll might be related to the news story, not the research itself
In the interests of fairness, I have asked NTV for a copy of the research report. I'll let you know if I get it. If I do, I'll let you know what I found in detail.
If I can't get my hands on the detailed report, I'll make some observations based on what was reported.
More to follow.
Don Martin: cartooning as news
Over at the National Lampoon today, their resident comedian..errr...reporter...errr...columnist Don Martin has adopted the Pinocchio theme to talk about the Prime Minister.
This is obviously another entry in Don's campaign to be a communications director for some future CPC cabinet minister.
Regular readers of these e-scribbles will recall that Don appeared in a less than flattering moment in CBC News Sunday's doc on the last days of the last federal election campaign. Don was a tad miffed in one memorable scene because he had to go back and re-write a column or news story in which he had become ecstatic at the newly-elected Harper majority government.
Don was miffed at the Canadian public who, for some strange reason, had decided to follow their own decision rather than conform to Don's time-saving efforts.
Ah, well, Don, here's a little test to see how well you can diagnose pinocchiosis:
Which federal party leader said he would go to the polls only if Canadians wanted it?
I'll help you out, Don. He wasn't a Liberal, New Democrat or BlocHead.
Don's namesake was much funnier and he knew how to dig deeper.
This is obviously another entry in Don's campaign to be a communications director for some future CPC cabinet minister.
Regular readers of these e-scribbles will recall that Don appeared in a less than flattering moment in CBC News Sunday's doc on the last days of the last federal election campaign. Don was a tad miffed in one memorable scene because he had to go back and re-write a column or news story in which he had become ecstatic at the newly-elected Harper majority government.
Don was miffed at the Canadian public who, for some strange reason, had decided to follow their own decision rather than conform to Don's time-saving efforts.
Ah, well, Don, here's a little test to see how well you can diagnose pinocchiosis:
Which federal party leader said he would go to the polls only if Canadians wanted it?
I'll help you out, Don. He wasn't a Liberal, New Democrat or BlocHead.
Don's namesake was much funnier and he knew how to dig deeper.
Stevie Harper - rabid loon
Here's a quote that just screams "idiot".
It's from the National Lampoon today. One Stephen Harper -
"After his caucus meeting, Harper dismissed questions about the polls:
"What I've said all along is I don't care what the polls say.''
He added:"What I know is that every poll in the last four years since I've been Leader of the Opposition has turned out to be wrong.''
Every poll, Steve?
Like the one from SES Research before the last election that showed the final results with a point?
Count on some enterprising reporter tackling that bit of Harper crap. It's the kind of idiotic comment that politicians blurt out every once in a while in what is obviously an overheated moment.
The proof of the its complete inaccuracy usually leads to a major ding in the old credibility armour. Steve can't take too many more of those.
Meanwhile over at the Liberal bunker, they'll be pointing to this simple formula:
Poll = election.
"No poll has been right since I have been Leader": Stevie Harper
Stephen Harper tells Canadians they don't know what they are doing.
If this Reform-a-Tory strategy works, I'll be the most surprised politico in the country. That is, right after all the in-house Reform-a-Tory strategists.
It's from the National Lampoon today. One Stephen Harper -
"After his caucus meeting, Harper dismissed questions about the polls:
"What I've said all along is I don't care what the polls say.''
He added:"What I know is that every poll in the last four years since I've been Leader of the Opposition has turned out to be wrong.''
Every poll, Steve?
Like the one from SES Research before the last election that showed the final results with a point?
Count on some enterprising reporter tackling that bit of Harper crap. It's the kind of idiotic comment that politicians blurt out every once in a while in what is obviously an overheated moment.
The proof of the its complete inaccuracy usually leads to a major ding in the old credibility armour. Steve can't take too many more of those.
Meanwhile over at the Liberal bunker, they'll be pointing to this simple formula:
Poll = election.
"No poll has been right since I have been Leader": Stevie Harper
Stephen Harper tells Canadians they don't know what they are doing.
If this Reform-a-Tory strategy works, I'll be the most surprised politico in the country. That is, right after all the in-house Reform-a-Tory strategists.
Doyle and Hearn to vote down oil money
The National Lampoon, unofficial propaganda organ of the CPC, is reporting that Reform-aTory members of parliament voted unanimously last night to bring down the government at the earliest opportunity and force an election on an unwilling Canadian public.
"Harper said he doesn't care what public opinion polls are saying, now is the time to act." Feed me, Seymour, indeed!
Well ladies and gentleman, that means that the Reform-a-Tories have unanimously agreed to defeat the government before the offshore accord money can be voted through the House.
Before they start sputing the "separate bill" bull, read the prime minister's letter. I have been saying for weeks that the government had tried to accommodate Reform-a-Tory objections on Kyoto to speed passage of Danny's Billions.
The money is being held up by Stephen Harper and now we learn that both Norm Doyle And Loyola Hearn have decided to join him in defeating the government.
When it came down to the wire, Norm and Loyola voted with their party.
Party before province.
What a concept.
Remember that at the end of June.
"Harper said he doesn't care what public opinion polls are saying, now is the time to act." Feed me, Seymour, indeed!
Well ladies and gentleman, that means that the Reform-a-Tories have unanimously agreed to defeat the government before the offshore accord money can be voted through the House.
Before they start sputing the "separate bill" bull, read the prime minister's letter. I have been saying for weeks that the government had tried to accommodate Reform-a-Tory objections on Kyoto to speed passage of Danny's Billions.
The money is being held up by Stephen Harper and now we learn that both Norm Doyle And Loyola Hearn have decided to join him in defeating the government.
When it came down to the wire, Norm and Loyola voted with their party.
Party before province.
What a concept.
Remember that at the end of June.
Doyle deked?
Connie caucus chair Norm Doyle appears to have been deked by his Leader or maybe Norm was trying to deke us. I doubt that second one Norm is a stand-up guy. Any erroneous comments he made last week must have been based on sincere - but badly misinformed - beliefs.
Actually, from watching CBC news last night, I think the Connies were split between the Reformers who desperately want to flay alive any Liberal in sight and the Progressive Conservatives who are worried about going to the polls when people don't want it.
The Reformers won and so they are gling to try and force an election against their own commitment to heed the wishes of Canadians. (Pssst. Stevie, Canadians don't want an election.).
So in the matter of a few short days I have to drop the Connie label and go back to one I picked up last year from a buddy of mine. Reflecting the deep divisions in the Official Opposition, we must reflect both the Reform and the Progressive Conservative factions.
Hence: Reform-a-Tory.
Meanwhile, VOCM is quoting Norm Doyle about a letter he wrote to the prime minister seeking to split the offshore accord money out of the budget bill. Well, in the interests of a whole bunch of thing, here's the PM's reply to the gang of Reform-a-Tories from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador who wrote him on the matter.
Note that deputy Reform-a-Tory leader Peter MacKay, DDS is on the list.
Peter MacKay, M.P.
Central Nova
Gerald Keddy, M.P.
South Shore-St. Margaret’s
Norman Doyle, M.P.
St. John’s East
Loyola Hearn, M.P.
St. John’s South-Mount Pearl
Bill Casey, M.P.
Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley
I received your letter of April 25, 2005 concerning the implementation of the offshore arrangements reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on February 14, 2005.
These agreements were made as a result of the commitment that I made to the people of those two provinces, in acknowledgement of the importance of these resources for their future and in recognition of the unique fiscal and economic circumstances faced by these two provinces. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the importance of these agreements for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, after 20 years of discussions on this matter, it was this government that committed, delivered and finalized these complicated arrangements in under 1 year. This government's commitment and follow-through sits in stark contrast to Mr. Harper's proposal of a year ago which would have resulted in no increased benefits to equalization entitlements to 3 of the 4 Atlantic provinces. [Emphasis added]
Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided nothing new to Nova Scotia. This government's arrangement with Nova Scotia has an estimated worth of $1.1 Billion over 8 years. Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided Newfoundland and Labrador with an extra $185 million in 2003/04 terms. This government's arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador equates to $2.6 Billion over the next 8 years. The government has worked out a fair and generous agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
We are willing to work with opposition parties to make Parliament function and to facilitate the expeditious consideration and passage of the Budget Bill that is currently before Parliament. However, the proposal to separate the Accord deals from Bill C-43 is misleading to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and excludes the reality of parliamentary procedure and the Bloc Quebecois' position on this matter. Coupling the Accord deals with the budget actually speeds the progress of the Accords through legislative procedures. The Budget Bill is given priority time in the House and Senate to ensure its expeditious passage, given its importance to the government's functions. Thus, this government has given the Atlantic Accords the same priority as our own budget.
You further choose to ignore the fact that removal of the Accords from the Budget Bill for immediate passage as a stand-alone bill would require unanimous consent from all parties in the House - all members of the House of Commons would have to agree. While there is no doubt that the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives would vote for the speedy passage of a stand alone Atlantic Accord bill, Mr. Duceppe has made no indication he would support it. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois have never voted in favour of a budget and have a long stated opposition to the deal we have made with these two provinces. [Emphasis added]
So then, with only a simple majority approving the bill, the Accords would be set to proceed as would any other piece of legislation and would be subject to the numerous readings and committees that could take another year. This government wants the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately receive their benefits.
Mr. Harper is on the record as saying that he supports the Accords when he is in Atlantic Canada. However, as recently as last weekend, he expressed his opposition to such "one-off deals." This therefore raises questions about the sincerity of your offer. Your leader is now allied with the separatist Bloc party and committed to bring down the government at the earliest opportunity and further jeopardizing the Accords.
Gentlemen, your colleagues and your leader Mr. Harper should state your unqualified support for the Accords, vote for the budget and see it passed.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, of Nova Scotia, and indeed the people of Canada expect and deserve that this legislation be passed as expeditiously as possible. Members of Parliament from all parties must step forward and assume the responsibility that Canadians have entrusted in us to ensure this outcome.
Sincerely,
//original signed by Paul Martin//
Actually, from watching CBC news last night, I think the Connies were split between the Reformers who desperately want to flay alive any Liberal in sight and the Progressive Conservatives who are worried about going to the polls when people don't want it.
The Reformers won and so they are gling to try and force an election against their own commitment to heed the wishes of Canadians. (Pssst. Stevie, Canadians don't want an election.).
So in the matter of a few short days I have to drop the Connie label and go back to one I picked up last year from a buddy of mine. Reflecting the deep divisions in the Official Opposition, we must reflect both the Reform and the Progressive Conservative factions.
Hence: Reform-a-Tory.
Meanwhile, VOCM is quoting Norm Doyle about a letter he wrote to the prime minister seeking to split the offshore accord money out of the budget bill. Well, in the interests of a whole bunch of thing, here's the PM's reply to the gang of Reform-a-Tories from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador who wrote him on the matter.
Note that deputy Reform-a-Tory leader Peter MacKay, DDS is on the list.
Peter MacKay, M.P.
Central Nova
Gerald Keddy, M.P.
South Shore-St. Margaret’s
Norman Doyle, M.P.
St. John’s East
Loyola Hearn, M.P.
St. John’s South-Mount Pearl
Bill Casey, M.P.
Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley
I received your letter of April 25, 2005 concerning the implementation of the offshore arrangements reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on February 14, 2005.
These agreements were made as a result of the commitment that I made to the people of those two provinces, in acknowledgement of the importance of these resources for their future and in recognition of the unique fiscal and economic circumstances faced by these two provinces. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the importance of these agreements for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, after 20 years of discussions on this matter, it was this government that committed, delivered and finalized these complicated arrangements in under 1 year. This government's commitment and follow-through sits in stark contrast to Mr. Harper's proposal of a year ago which would have resulted in no increased benefits to equalization entitlements to 3 of the 4 Atlantic provinces. [Emphasis added]
Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided nothing new to Nova Scotia. This government's arrangement with Nova Scotia has an estimated worth of $1.1 Billion over 8 years. Stephen Harper's election commitment would have provided Newfoundland and Labrador with an extra $185 million in 2003/04 terms. This government's arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador equates to $2.6 Billion over the next 8 years. The government has worked out a fair and generous agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
We are willing to work with opposition parties to make Parliament function and to facilitate the expeditious consideration and passage of the Budget Bill that is currently before Parliament. However, the proposal to separate the Accord deals from Bill C-43 is misleading to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and excludes the reality of parliamentary procedure and the Bloc Quebecois' position on this matter. Coupling the Accord deals with the budget actually speeds the progress of the Accords through legislative procedures. The Budget Bill is given priority time in the House and Senate to ensure its expeditious passage, given its importance to the government's functions. Thus, this government has given the Atlantic Accords the same priority as our own budget.
You further choose to ignore the fact that removal of the Accords from the Budget Bill for immediate passage as a stand-alone bill would require unanimous consent from all parties in the House - all members of the House of Commons would have to agree. While there is no doubt that the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives would vote for the speedy passage of a stand alone Atlantic Accord bill, Mr. Duceppe has made no indication he would support it. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois have never voted in favour of a budget and have a long stated opposition to the deal we have made with these two provinces. [Emphasis added]
So then, with only a simple majority approving the bill, the Accords would be set to proceed as would any other piece of legislation and would be subject to the numerous readings and committees that could take another year. This government wants the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately receive their benefits.
Mr. Harper is on the record as saying that he supports the Accords when he is in Atlantic Canada. However, as recently as last weekend, he expressed his opposition to such "one-off deals." This therefore raises questions about the sincerity of your offer. Your leader is now allied with the separatist Bloc party and committed to bring down the government at the earliest opportunity and further jeopardizing the Accords.
Gentlemen, your colleagues and your leader Mr. Harper should state your unqualified support for the Accords, vote for the budget and see it passed.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, of Nova Scotia, and indeed the people of Canada expect and deserve that this legislation be passed as expeditiously as possible. Members of Parliament from all parties must step forward and assume the responsibility that Canadians have entrusted in us to ensure this outcome.
Sincerely,
//original signed by Paul Martin//
02 May 2005
Hey IFAW! Over here!
International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Seal Hunt.
Rob Antle.
Great words for google, especially that last one today in which The Robert Bond Papers was the first hit on some people's google searches.
But guys, rather than waste time hunting for stuff on Rob Antle via google, try reading this post from several weeks ago.
It speaks to the abject hypocrisy of the anti-sealing movement. Yes, I know it's about Paul Watson, but is there any substantive difference between Paul and his personal showboat and a group that uses whitecoat pictures because baby seals are "icons"?
Seal Hunt.
Rob Antle.
Great words for google, especially that last one today in which The Robert Bond Papers was the first hit on some people's google searches.
But guys, rather than waste time hunting for stuff on Rob Antle via google, try reading this post from several weeks ago.
It speaks to the abject hypocrisy of the anti-sealing movement. Yes, I know it's about Paul Watson, but is there any substantive difference between Paul and his personal showboat and a group that uses whitecoat pictures because baby seals are "icons"?
Reading the Riot Act
Let's make it clear up front: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
That said, it seems to me to be a waste of the court's time for government to go seek an injuction to order people to stop breaching the Criminal Code of Canada, when by definition, they are not supposed to be breaking the criminal law in the first place.
After a day in which a mob closed government buildings, forcibly entered one of them and then proceeded to occupy the offices and trash files, former premier and current public works minister Tom Rideout held a news conference to announce that the provincial government is seeking a court order to stop people from behaving badly.
Actually, it isn't just bad behaviour. It is criminal behaviour.
In the past four weeks, the mob, organized by the Fish, Food and Allied Works have:
1. Caused repeated disturbances in a public place. This is most likely a breach of section 175 (1) (a) and (c) of the Criminal Code.
2. Participated in a riot, under sections 64 and 65 and 68 of the Criminal Code, provided that an appropriate authority follows the provisions of section 67. This is the section I would have suggsted using in relations to events at the Petten Building today.
3. That doesn't include breaches of other statues, the sections about forcible entry, trespass, and maybe even conspiracy.
4. That doesn't include the breaches under provisions of the House of Assembly standing orders.
There is simply no circumstance that justifies the commission of criminal acts by the union and/or its supporters.
Period.
Make no mistake, this is not a matter of free speech and human rights. The perpetrators of these acts have deliberately and maliciously set about to undermine democracy. They have rejected legitimate means of being heard in favour of what is nothing short of thuggery.
There is no place in a free society for people who would deny rights and freedoms to further their cause. The union president and his followers have infringed on my rights and those of others for far too long.
It must be stopped immediately either voluntarily by the fish union and its supporters or by government using the legal and appropriate means at its disposal.
Tom Rideout's actions today are as weak and vacillating as those of the inept Speaker of the legislature. Their tepid responses to acts of intimidation have actually emboldened the mob who know that they can do just about anything they wish with impunity.
It is time for law and order to be restored.
That said, it seems to me to be a waste of the court's time for government to go seek an injuction to order people to stop breaching the Criminal Code of Canada, when by definition, they are not supposed to be breaking the criminal law in the first place.
After a day in which a mob closed government buildings, forcibly entered one of them and then proceeded to occupy the offices and trash files, former premier and current public works minister Tom Rideout held a news conference to announce that the provincial government is seeking a court order to stop people from behaving badly.
Actually, it isn't just bad behaviour. It is criminal behaviour.
In the past four weeks, the mob, organized by the Fish, Food and Allied Works have:
1. Caused repeated disturbances in a public place. This is most likely a breach of section 175 (1) (a) and (c) of the Criminal Code.
2. Participated in a riot, under sections 64 and 65 and 68 of the Criminal Code, provided that an appropriate authority follows the provisions of section 67. This is the section I would have suggsted using in relations to events at the Petten Building today.
3. That doesn't include breaches of other statues, the sections about forcible entry, trespass, and maybe even conspiracy.
4. That doesn't include the breaches under provisions of the House of Assembly standing orders.
There is simply no circumstance that justifies the commission of criminal acts by the union and/or its supporters.
Period.
Make no mistake, this is not a matter of free speech and human rights. The perpetrators of these acts have deliberately and maliciously set about to undermine democracy. They have rejected legitimate means of being heard in favour of what is nothing short of thuggery.
There is no place in a free society for people who would deny rights and freedoms to further their cause. The union president and his followers have infringed on my rights and those of others for far too long.
It must be stopped immediately either voluntarily by the fish union and its supporters or by government using the legal and appropriate means at its disposal.
Tom Rideout's actions today are as weak and vacillating as those of the inept Speaker of the legislature. Their tepid responses to acts of intimidation have actually emboldened the mob who know that they can do just about anything they wish with impunity.
It is time for law and order to be restored.
Peter MacKay: Dental as anything
Last week Conservative national caucus chairman Norm Doyle told CBC Radio that his party would be meeting today to decide whether or not they would force an election on the Canadian public
Doyle was trying desperately to make it sound like the Connies hadn't already decided to bring down the government. In fact that was something Norm said as plain as day - No decision has been made.
Well, the National Lampoon, unofficial propaganda organ of the CPC is saying something very different yet again this morning, as they did the same day Doyle was talking nonsense.
In the realm of bizarre metaphors, Peter MacKay is actually suggesting we should think dentistry when thinking election.
"Think of it as kind of root canal for the body politic, suggested Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay.
"An election may be something like a visit to the dentist: it may not be something you want to do, but something you have to do," MacKay said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBC Newsworld.
Thanks Peter.
Now it is all making sense to me.
The House of Commons has become the Little House of Horrors. The giant plant intent on eating anything in sight is, of course, the Conservative Party. Seymour Krelborne, the nebbishy guy who must feed the plant from outer space on human flesh is none other than CPC Leader Stephen Harper.
The deputy Conservative leader is actually one Orin Scrivello, DDS, not Peter MacKay as it has seemed all along.
That would make Norm Doyle perhaps Mr. Mushnik, the lovable plant shop owner.
Sadly, Mr. Mushnik gets eaten.
But the plant had an insatiable appetite for blood, as I recall, and Seymour was prepared to feed anyone to it because the plant brought him power.
Ok.
So much for fun.
The real point here is simple: someone within the CPC needs to get a grip on some of their wingnuts, like MacKay.
Who in their right freakin' mind would tell a Canadian public that already doesn't want an election, that having an election is just really like a root canal?
I can only wait for the TV spots: Steve slapping on latex and telling us all to turn our heads to the right and cough.
Doyle was trying desperately to make it sound like the Connies hadn't already decided to bring down the government. In fact that was something Norm said as plain as day - No decision has been made.
Well, the National Lampoon, unofficial propaganda organ of the CPC is saying something very different yet again this morning, as they did the same day Doyle was talking nonsense.
In the realm of bizarre metaphors, Peter MacKay is actually suggesting we should think dentistry when thinking election.
"Think of it as kind of root canal for the body politic, suggested Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay.
"An election may be something like a visit to the dentist: it may not be something you want to do, but something you have to do," MacKay said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBC Newsworld.
Thanks Peter.
Now it is all making sense to me.
The House of Commons has become the Little House of Horrors. The giant plant intent on eating anything in sight is, of course, the Conservative Party. Seymour Krelborne, the nebbishy guy who must feed the plant from outer space on human flesh is none other than CPC Leader Stephen Harper.
The deputy Conservative leader is actually one Orin Scrivello, DDS, not Peter MacKay as it has seemed all along.
That would make Norm Doyle perhaps Mr. Mushnik, the lovable plant shop owner.
Sadly, Mr. Mushnik gets eaten.
But the plant had an insatiable appetite for blood, as I recall, and Seymour was prepared to feed anyone to it because the plant brought him power.
Ok.
So much for fun.
The real point here is simple: someone within the CPC needs to get a grip on some of their wingnuts, like MacKay.
Who in their right freakin' mind would tell a Canadian public that already doesn't want an election, that having an election is just really like a root canal?
I can only wait for the TV spots: Steve slapping on latex and telling us all to turn our heads to the right and cough.
When insight is gossip
This past week, John Efford was more like the John Efford we have seen over the past 20 years of his political career. He was focused, handled media questions with clarity and participated in strong, positive announcements on everything from economic development in his riding to support - albeit indirect - for the Lower Churchill.
Truthfully, that's what political commentary should be focused on - actual performance. For someone who has taken to commenting on politics and public life, it is refreshing to have something positive to say.
Personal digs, especially ones divorced from substantive issues, are corrosive and can only be looked upon with scorn by anyone interested in contributing positively to our province and its political life.
The reason Norm Doyle got a bit of a roasting here lately has been the fact his comments are so far out of character for him that it had to be noted forcefully. I'd expect Norm to continue giving us all some solid performance again soon. That's why he has been a successful and well-regarded politician over the past two decades or so. Norm's inherently strong qualities are why, in the last federal election, my Conservative neighbours volunteered to work on Norm's campaign rather than help in their own riding. They voted with their feet and people should notice that.
In the comments, I did not attack Norm personally or lampoon either his intelligence or integrity. I poked some fun, hopefully taken in the good-natured spirit with which it was intended, in order to get at the larger point, namely the political bind in which Doyle finds himself.
In dealing with recent events in the House of Assembly, I have argued that Harvey Hodder should resign because his performance is lacking. I do not doubt that Hodder is a man of good intention and integrity. I simply find that his performance as Speaker of the House of Assembly is actually such that he is calling the House itself into disrepute.
Where I have taken to speaking on integrity or ability I have endeavoured to base it on something substantial like the gap between claim and fact. Norm Doyle's colleague from Renews, I mean St. John's South-Mount Pearl, falls into this category.
In Loyola Hearn's case, the contrast between his claims and his behaviour lends itself easily to pointing out that the erstwhile minister in a Conservative government has scarcely a credible tad to clothe his form. His efforts on tackling the non-existent problem of post office closures are just a case in point. His fisheries comments ignore completely the depth of the challenges involved and on more than one occasion Hearn appears to be acting less in the best interests of the public than in his own.
Hearn is also deserving of special attention since he has never failed to launch into vicious, personal attacks on John Efford at every turn. In that context, Hearn cannot expect to receive different treatment himself. Brian Tobin was the last politician I recall who engage in political tactics that, when turned on him, made him cry foul with just a hint of hypocrisy. Let's at least be thankful Hearn has had the strength to take it as well as he has dished it out, his miserable behaviour on the most recent federal election night notwithstanding.
As much as possible, the commentaries posted here have strived to work with information, some insight derived from experience and less of the gossipy or catty stuff one usually finds in coffee shops or at local bars. Others can judge the success or failure rate. Sure there has been some strong opinion and no one is expected to agree with any of the opinion or the conclusions reached. Make up your own mind on the arguments advanced here.
All that leads to a comment on Bill Rowe's column in The Telegram on Saturday.
The radio spots flooding over VOCM speak of "staggering insights" from this column, a phrase I have heard people around town tear to shreds for its pomposity and fatuousness. The eating of the Rowe pudding, though, seems to leave one consistently without any proof that there are insights at all, let alone ones that would leave a reader staggered by their profundity.
On Saturday, his comments on John Efford were based entirely on gossip. There is an extensive list of the catty, biting, condescending remarks of mainlanders and others about John Efford's performance as a federal cabinet minister over the past year. Since we are not given the context in which some were offered, we only have Rowe's interpretation that allows him to fit them into the negative cast of the column.
Despite his protests to the contrary, Rowe is merely letting others tear down John without having to sully his hands with doing the job himself. Others are his mouthpiece.
One would reasonably expect some perspective from Rowe, some balance based on Rowe's knowledge of Efford's career. One would expect something a little better than jokes made by unnamed small minds about Mr. Efford's speech patterns. After all, that is the sum total of Rowe's column arguing that Efford should stand again for election so that Efford's constituents may vote on his performance. Mr. Rowe should wish for such a personal record of electoral success either for the party he led or the one he aspired to represent and which latterly has paid his salary.
The superficial nature of Rowe's column tell us little of Efford and more of the columnist and those he quotes. Rowe neglects to offer any balance in his piece. He endorses the snotty remarks as his own even when he may protest mildly one or two aspects. If Bill didn't think accents were important, as he claims, he wouldn't then repeat a litany of jokes about Efford's speech made by people who, one supposes, were like Bill himself in Ottawa - lacking influence.
What makes this column all the more distasteful is that Rowe knows full-well, both from his time as open line host and in his time as employee of the provincial government, that the offshore revenue debate was deliberately directed by some away from matters of substance and fact and toward petty, personal issues. While Rowe obviously lacked the ability or willingness to challenge knowledgeable callers, he frequently allowed superficial nonsense to dominate thereby abetting some of the attacks on Efford.
By continuing those attacks, Rowe can never again be viewed as a credible analyst or commentator. He is an active propagandist and should be treated accordingly.
Even worse, though, Rowe has treated his audience with contempt.
That is an unforgivable sin for a talk-show host or political commentator.
Perhaps Bill would have the courage to once again stand for election and let his audience vote on his merits or demerits before presuming to suggest the same approach for someone else.
Truthfully, that's what political commentary should be focused on - actual performance. For someone who has taken to commenting on politics and public life, it is refreshing to have something positive to say.
Personal digs, especially ones divorced from substantive issues, are corrosive and can only be looked upon with scorn by anyone interested in contributing positively to our province and its political life.
The reason Norm Doyle got a bit of a roasting here lately has been the fact his comments are so far out of character for him that it had to be noted forcefully. I'd expect Norm to continue giving us all some solid performance again soon. That's why he has been a successful and well-regarded politician over the past two decades or so. Norm's inherently strong qualities are why, in the last federal election, my Conservative neighbours volunteered to work on Norm's campaign rather than help in their own riding. They voted with their feet and people should notice that.
In the comments, I did not attack Norm personally or lampoon either his intelligence or integrity. I poked some fun, hopefully taken in the good-natured spirit with which it was intended, in order to get at the larger point, namely the political bind in which Doyle finds himself.
In dealing with recent events in the House of Assembly, I have argued that Harvey Hodder should resign because his performance is lacking. I do not doubt that Hodder is a man of good intention and integrity. I simply find that his performance as Speaker of the House of Assembly is actually such that he is calling the House itself into disrepute.
Where I have taken to speaking on integrity or ability I have endeavoured to base it on something substantial like the gap between claim and fact. Norm Doyle's colleague from Renews, I mean St. John's South-Mount Pearl, falls into this category.
In Loyola Hearn's case, the contrast between his claims and his behaviour lends itself easily to pointing out that the erstwhile minister in a Conservative government has scarcely a credible tad to clothe his form. His efforts on tackling the non-existent problem of post office closures are just a case in point. His fisheries comments ignore completely the depth of the challenges involved and on more than one occasion Hearn appears to be acting less in the best interests of the public than in his own.
Hearn is also deserving of special attention since he has never failed to launch into vicious, personal attacks on John Efford at every turn. In that context, Hearn cannot expect to receive different treatment himself. Brian Tobin was the last politician I recall who engage in political tactics that, when turned on him, made him cry foul with just a hint of hypocrisy. Let's at least be thankful Hearn has had the strength to take it as well as he has dished it out, his miserable behaviour on the most recent federal election night notwithstanding.
As much as possible, the commentaries posted here have strived to work with information, some insight derived from experience and less of the gossipy or catty stuff one usually finds in coffee shops or at local bars. Others can judge the success or failure rate. Sure there has been some strong opinion and no one is expected to agree with any of the opinion or the conclusions reached. Make up your own mind on the arguments advanced here.
All that leads to a comment on Bill Rowe's column in The Telegram on Saturday.
The radio spots flooding over VOCM speak of "staggering insights" from this column, a phrase I have heard people around town tear to shreds for its pomposity and fatuousness. The eating of the Rowe pudding, though, seems to leave one consistently without any proof that there are insights at all, let alone ones that would leave a reader staggered by their profundity.
On Saturday, his comments on John Efford were based entirely on gossip. There is an extensive list of the catty, biting, condescending remarks of mainlanders and others about John Efford's performance as a federal cabinet minister over the past year. Since we are not given the context in which some were offered, we only have Rowe's interpretation that allows him to fit them into the negative cast of the column.
Despite his protests to the contrary, Rowe is merely letting others tear down John without having to sully his hands with doing the job himself. Others are his mouthpiece.
One would reasonably expect some perspective from Rowe, some balance based on Rowe's knowledge of Efford's career. One would expect something a little better than jokes made by unnamed small minds about Mr. Efford's speech patterns. After all, that is the sum total of Rowe's column arguing that Efford should stand again for election so that Efford's constituents may vote on his performance. Mr. Rowe should wish for such a personal record of electoral success either for the party he led or the one he aspired to represent and which latterly has paid his salary.
The superficial nature of Rowe's column tell us little of Efford and more of the columnist and those he quotes. Rowe neglects to offer any balance in his piece. He endorses the snotty remarks as his own even when he may protest mildly one or two aspects. If Bill didn't think accents were important, as he claims, he wouldn't then repeat a litany of jokes about Efford's speech made by people who, one supposes, were like Bill himself in Ottawa - lacking influence.
What makes this column all the more distasteful is that Rowe knows full-well, both from his time as open line host and in his time as employee of the provincial government, that the offshore revenue debate was deliberately directed by some away from matters of substance and fact and toward petty, personal issues. While Rowe obviously lacked the ability or willingness to challenge knowledgeable callers, he frequently allowed superficial nonsense to dominate thereby abetting some of the attacks on Efford.
By continuing those attacks, Rowe can never again be viewed as a credible analyst or commentator. He is an active propagandist and should be treated accordingly.
Even worse, though, Rowe has treated his audience with contempt.
That is an unforgivable sin for a talk-show host or political commentator.
Perhaps Bill would have the courage to once again stand for election and let his audience vote on his merits or demerits before presuming to suggest the same approach for someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)