Aside from the sudden appearance of anonymous postings to the comments section of my blog from someone spouting Conservative talking points, I was almost floored to see Norm Doyle on NTV this evening and read Loyola's comments in the Telly. Things must be getting hot for the Reformatories if they are sending what looks to me like their paid staff onto blogs in order to spread what is really nothing more than piffle.
On NTV, Norm kept repeating a call for Liberals to promise the offshore money is safe is the Liberals are re-elected. He seemed to lose focus at one point and just kept rambling on and on.
Let me put it this way: Liberals will be voting for the deal their prime minister signed whether the thing is in bill C-43, a stand alone bill or delivered baked in a pizza and written in mandarin Chinese.
The Liberal commitment on this point is clear. Except for desperate Connie partisans flailing around for excuses, the main issue is what the two Conservative members of parliament will do when the real vote comes on the offshore money.
Remember that the vote the Liberals sided with before was just a hollow partisan gesture by Doyle, Hearn and a few others. They picked province over party and PM and they never suffered a bit.
This time it matters, Norm and Loyola. That's why everyone expects you to stand up and state what you plan to do rather than weasel around as you have been doing.
So which way are you going to vote, Norm: Party or Province?
Meanwhile over in the Hearn bunker deep in the heart of Renews (not in the riding he nominally represents), the wannabe fish minister is spreading some nonsense of his own.
He is trying to pretend that the Connies were going to vote for the budget but can't do it now because of all the new spending. For further detail see the Telly story in today's edition on page A4.
Here are the facts - something Loyola has a historical problem with irrespective of the subject -
1. The Conservative Party has never indicated it would vote for the government's budget. Their initial objection was because of the bill's Kyoto provisions. They were removed and so then the Connies decided to object to the offshore money being included in what they called a "complex" piece of legislation.
Mr. Hearn's line of argument is nothing more than an effort to divert attention from the truth.
2. The reason Messrs Doyle and Hearn are nervous is because their party is soft on the offshore deal.
- Their leader rejected the Williams proposal in his written reply to the Premier almost a year ago. Harper also promised to sell the federal Hibernia shares on the open market " for the benefit of all Canadians".
- No one has seen this recent letter from Harper so we don't know what it says. Apparently, the Premier is concerned about it to the point where he is willing to start again from the beginning to negotiate with a Harper government. So much for a done deal.
- Danny Williams has also said he would welcome re-opening the deal to make it better.
- Flip over to Andrew Coyne's website and you'll see the Connie view of the offshore deals reflected in some of the comments on the site from Coyne readers.
3. Danny Williams now considers voting against the offshore money to be "not in the best interests of the province."
A few short months ago, Loyola was praising Danny. Today's Telly has the premier making a stark, negative comment on Hearn's intentions. All is not well in the Connie camp.
To switch back to my own interpretation, I'll toss this on the table. Hearn is going to have a hard time getting workers in the next federal election. It was bad enough that traditional Tory supporters abandoned him to work for Norm Doyle last time.
The Osborne machine deserted him because of some serious disagreements on policy - like the death penalty and Hearn's role in the shotgun wedding with the Reformers.
Added to all that will be Hearn's turning his back on Newfoundland and Labrador. How can any provincial Tory work for Doyle or Hearn in this instance when they plan to put Stephen Harper ahead of their province's interests?
Loyola remembers very well that he only won St. John's South Mount Pearl by a mere 4.5% last time over political newcomer Siobhan Coady. Slightly less than 40% of the electorate supported the Renews-based Hearn. Coady polled 35% and the New Democrats' Peg Norman polled 24%.
Loyola ducked every possible opportunity to debate his opponents and was decidedly miserable and ungracious in his victory. That didn't win him any new friends.
Peg may not run again and in a stark contest between the Connies candidate Hearn, backed by the likes of Stockwell "Culture of Life" Day and Peter MacKay, DDS, I would lay odds on NDP supporters holding their noses and voting Liberal just to keep the Reformatories from taking power.
Add to that the spectre of a country run by a majority federal party with no or almost no support in one of the country's most populous provinces.
Gomery and the $100 million pilfered by what most Canadians consider a bunch of bad apples will rapidly drift off the minds of most Canadians when they start to consider which party would make the best government for the country.
12 May 2005
Coyne's readers comment on the Premier
Grab that mouse and click on over to Andrew Coyne's blog.
Note especially the comments posted thus far. I like the last one from some guy who wants to give the premier a "talking to" for daring suggest that all members of parliament from this province should support bill C-43.
Note especially the comments posted thus far. I like the last one from some guy who wants to give the premier a "talking to" for daring suggest that all members of parliament from this province should support bill C-43.
Norm and Loyola: you have your orders! (updated)
Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn aren't on the greatest terms with Danny Williams anyway but it is interesting to see the premier's comments, at least as attributed to him by VOCM.
"It's a vote that may be the federal Conservatives' best hope of bringing down the Paul Martin Liberals, but Premier Danny Williams wants this province's MP's, be they Liberal or Tory, to vote with the government. MP's will vote on the federal budget next Thursday. Williams says a vote against it will be a conscious decision to vote against the Atlantic Accord and he'd prefer to see the Accord passed as soon as possible."
Expect the calls to Open Line from the two boys in Ottawa to become increasingly shrill in their denunciation of the Liberals for putting the offshore money in the budget bill in the first place.
Politics is about hard choices, Loyola.
Just think of it like you did in 1985 when you voted in favour of the clawbacks.
UPDATE: CBC Radio's version of this story has a slightly different take on it. The Premier is not worried about losing the offshore money, in part because of an unsolicited letter from Stephen Harper that pledges "to follow through on the accord", as CBC puts it.
Let's see the actual letter, please.
Wade Locke was quoted in a CBC TV piece last night saying that since the NDP and Conservatives supported the deal all along, there really wasn't a problem. Maybe he misspoke. The Conservatives initially did not support the Williams proposal.
As for the current guarantee, then, I find this quote a little curious:
{"I can say categorically, as premier of this province, that if the Conservatives or NDP form the next government, then I'm prepared to go through the exactly the same process that I went through the last time," Williams says.}
Why would the premier need to go back through the same negotiating process again if the current deal is already assured?
As for Norm Doyle, here's what CBC attributes to him:
{Norm Doyle, the MP for St. John's North, said he had considered voting for the budget because of the accord provisions.
However, he said a separate bill should be introduced.
"We could put it through immediately," Doyle said Thursday.}
Norm Doyle knows this just is not true; not even close to being factual and accurate.
A separate bill would have to be introduced from scratch thereby resetting the process to the beginning. It would take as long or longer to get a separate bill through as it would for people to vote for the current budget bill. Norm knows this. Loyola knows it too. They know their position just isn't true.
What they are presenting is a media line that avoids having to deal with the fundamental fact:
Their leader wants to bring down the government today - before any approval could be given to this province's new offshore revenue. It doesn't matter whether the offshore money was a separate bill or in C-43 as it is now. It will die one way or another if Doyle's Conservatives and the Bloc partner up to defeat the government.
Following the logical implication of the premier's comments, he will likely have to start from scratch re-negotiating a deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"It's a vote that may be the federal Conservatives' best hope of bringing down the Paul Martin Liberals, but Premier Danny Williams wants this province's MP's, be they Liberal or Tory, to vote with the government. MP's will vote on the federal budget next Thursday. Williams says a vote against it will be a conscious decision to vote against the Atlantic Accord and he'd prefer to see the Accord passed as soon as possible."
Expect the calls to Open Line from the two boys in Ottawa to become increasingly shrill in their denunciation of the Liberals for putting the offshore money in the budget bill in the first place.
Politics is about hard choices, Loyola.
Just think of it like you did in 1985 when you voted in favour of the clawbacks.
UPDATE: CBC Radio's version of this story has a slightly different take on it. The Premier is not worried about losing the offshore money, in part because of an unsolicited letter from Stephen Harper that pledges "to follow through on the accord", as CBC puts it.
Let's see the actual letter, please.
Wade Locke was quoted in a CBC TV piece last night saying that since the NDP and Conservatives supported the deal all along, there really wasn't a problem. Maybe he misspoke. The Conservatives initially did not support the Williams proposal.
As for the current guarantee, then, I find this quote a little curious:
{"I can say categorically, as premier of this province, that if the Conservatives or NDP form the next government, then I'm prepared to go through the exactly the same process that I went through the last time," Williams says.}
Why would the premier need to go back through the same negotiating process again if the current deal is already assured?
As for Norm Doyle, here's what CBC attributes to him:
{Norm Doyle, the MP for St. John's North, said he had considered voting for the budget because of the accord provisions.
However, he said a separate bill should be introduced.
"We could put it through immediately," Doyle said Thursday.}
Norm Doyle knows this just is not true; not even close to being factual and accurate.
A separate bill would have to be introduced from scratch thereby resetting the process to the beginning. It would take as long or longer to get a separate bill through as it would for people to vote for the current budget bill. Norm knows this. Loyola knows it too. They know their position just isn't true.
What they are presenting is a media line that avoids having to deal with the fundamental fact:
Their leader wants to bring down the government today - before any approval could be given to this province's new offshore revenue. It doesn't matter whether the offshore money was a separate bill or in C-43 as it is now. It will die one way or another if Doyle's Conservatives and the Bloc partner up to defeat the government.
Following the logical implication of the premier's comments, he will likely have to start from scratch re-negotiating a deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
After a good night's sleep
It helps to let things die down a bit before making any big decisions.
Here are a few links to ponder as you sip your morning coffee.
Paul Wells has done the invaluable service to thinking Canadians of providing the text to the Conservative so-called non-confidence motion. It's pretty clear that it is just an instruction to a committee to reconsider something.
Put that in the context of the continued nonsense on Wednesday over "non-confidence" motions, as reported by the Globe.
Then have a gander at the poll results compiled by SES Research for the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel. SES did the CPAC nightly polling during the last federal election and was deadly for its accuracy.
Note especially the high number of respondents who want to wait until after Gomery for an election.
Then, just for curiosity sake, flip over to this piece from last week about Stephen Harper's love of game theory and the fact that he now has two of the country's leading game theory proponents (more of the U Calgary Mafia) on his payroll. This single fact explains much of Harper's ongoing strategic problems, but I'll develop that in another post.
I don't want to burst any Conservative bubbles here but game theory has been around for a while. It was tremendously popular in the 1950s and 1960s among American academics many of whom wound up helping Robert Strange MacNamara run the war in Vietnam. You can see perhaps where I might wind up going in my discussion of game theory and crap strategy.
Mapping scenarios is one thing and running simulations is all fine and good. Here's a little reality check: game theory is not exactly the most precise of sciences. In fact, the political scientist/ historian in me wants to scream that game theory is to the practice of policy making as Intelligent Design is to science. Or maybe astrology to psychology.
Game Theory has a number of fundamental flaws one of which is the tendency to assume rationality, or more correctly, to assume that people behave according to the game parameters and the game-related definition of reality. Like economics, it is built around assumptions and that, as my faithful readers well know, is the second most abysmal science of all. I am still hunting for the first.
Remember the joke?
[Hold up one hand.]
"First, we assume a can opener."
If you can't go back to here, and scroll down to the post entitled "Morning smile - here's the real can opener joke".
Here's one link I came across from 2002 on the application of game theory to the current Iraq conflict and the broader revival of Thomas Schelling's The strategy of conflict. If you want to buy the book, try the local Chapters. Better still get it from a library. Here's the online info and it is relatively cheap.
While it is all neatly laid out, the whole approach seems to be a peculiarly American approach to strategy that rests in part on the exclusion of anything which cannot be quantified. It is also an approach with very limited successes, as I will discuss in that other post to come right next to the discussion of Trevor Dupuy.
If you want a well-presented critique of the application of "rational actor" models to life, try reading Voltaire's bastards by His Excellency John Ralston Saul.
Armed with all those threads, you can now go off and weave some kind of afghan to ward off the chill of the pending election.
Personally, I am heading to Tim's for another large double-double. This one game theory thing may now give me enough to figure out the peculiar world of Harper's Conservatives.
Here are a few links to ponder as you sip your morning coffee.
Paul Wells has done the invaluable service to thinking Canadians of providing the text to the Conservative so-called non-confidence motion. It's pretty clear that it is just an instruction to a committee to reconsider something.
Put that in the context of the continued nonsense on Wednesday over "non-confidence" motions, as reported by the Globe.
Then have a gander at the poll results compiled by SES Research for the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel. SES did the CPAC nightly polling during the last federal election and was deadly for its accuracy.
Note especially the high number of respondents who want to wait until after Gomery for an election.
Then, just for curiosity sake, flip over to this piece from last week about Stephen Harper's love of game theory and the fact that he now has two of the country's leading game theory proponents (more of the U Calgary Mafia) on his payroll. This single fact explains much of Harper's ongoing strategic problems, but I'll develop that in another post.
I don't want to burst any Conservative bubbles here but game theory has been around for a while. It was tremendously popular in the 1950s and 1960s among American academics many of whom wound up helping Robert Strange MacNamara run the war in Vietnam. You can see perhaps where I might wind up going in my discussion of game theory and crap strategy.
Mapping scenarios is one thing and running simulations is all fine and good. Here's a little reality check: game theory is not exactly the most precise of sciences. In fact, the political scientist/ historian in me wants to scream that game theory is to the practice of policy making as Intelligent Design is to science. Or maybe astrology to psychology.
Game Theory has a number of fundamental flaws one of which is the tendency to assume rationality, or more correctly, to assume that people behave according to the game parameters and the game-related definition of reality. Like economics, it is built around assumptions and that, as my faithful readers well know, is the second most abysmal science of all. I am still hunting for the first.
Remember the joke?
[Hold up one hand.]
"First, we assume a can opener."
If you can't go back to here, and scroll down to the post entitled "Morning smile - here's the real can opener joke".
Here's one link I came across from 2002 on the application of game theory to the current Iraq conflict and the broader revival of Thomas Schelling's The strategy of conflict. If you want to buy the book, try the local Chapters. Better still get it from a library. Here's the online info and it is relatively cheap.
While it is all neatly laid out, the whole approach seems to be a peculiarly American approach to strategy that rests in part on the exclusion of anything which cannot be quantified. It is also an approach with very limited successes, as I will discuss in that other post to come right next to the discussion of Trevor Dupuy.
If you want a well-presented critique of the application of "rational actor" models to life, try reading Voltaire's bastards by His Excellency John Ralston Saul.
Armed with all those threads, you can now go off and weave some kind of afghan to ward off the chill of the pending election.
Personally, I am heading to Tim's for another large double-double. This one game theory thing may now give me enough to figure out the peculiar world of Harper's Conservatives.
Harper for PM!
Stephen Harper is proving or is intent on proving that the Official Opposition in concert with the Bloc Quebecois controls the House of Commons.
In keeping with parliamentary tradition, there is no reason to hold an election in a case where a minority government loses a vote of confidence.
Soooo, if the government loses the budget vote, Paul Martin should take a walk to Rideau Hall some day soon and before he tenders his resignation, offer the GG the advice that she should contact Mr. Harper to ask him to form a government.
How can he legitimately refuse having proven day in and day out that he controls the House?
I bet Harper's game theory dweebs never factored that one into their calculations.
Oh yeah, notice the savage rhetoric Harper is using. I just point it out since this is the guy who wants to be your leader.
Does Stephen Harper look and act like a prime minister?
In keeping with parliamentary tradition, there is no reason to hold an election in a case where a minority government loses a vote of confidence.
Soooo, if the government loses the budget vote, Paul Martin should take a walk to Rideau Hall some day soon and before he tenders his resignation, offer the GG the advice that she should contact Mr. Harper to ask him to form a government.
How can he legitimately refuse having proven day in and day out that he controls the House?
I bet Harper's game theory dweebs never factored that one into their calculations.
Oh yeah, notice the savage rhetoric Harper is using. I just point it out since this is the guy who wants to be your leader.
Does Stephen Harper look and act like a prime minister?
Who skipped the vote on crab? (Updated)
Did anyone else notice the Tories missing from the vote on the government's plan - the only vote that will come before the House on it?
Well, aside from the speaker and John Ottenheimer - absent due to illness - there were at least four missing from the government benches. NEW: After an e-mail from a reliable, non-partisan source who was in the House, I made some big errors in my quickie assessment. So I went back and double checked against Hansard. Here are the three names I came up with:
Missing :
Kathy Goudie
John Hickey
Dave Denine
I am curious to know where these three members were.
Even putting that aside, the funniest thing yesterday was Harvey the Imaginary Speaker declaring the motion "lost" as opposed to defeated.
It is customary to say something as simple as "The nays have it". Perhaps when you go to the CPA conference, Harv, you can take a course in "Mr. Speaker 101".
[reposted at 1900 hrs NDT with new information correcting previous comments]
Well, aside from the speaker and John Ottenheimer - absent due to illness - there were at least four missing from the government benches. NEW: After an e-mail from a reliable, non-partisan source who was in the House, I made some big errors in my quickie assessment. So I went back and double checked against Hansard. Here are the three names I came up with:
Missing :
Kathy Goudie
John Hickey
Dave Denine
I am curious to know where these three members were.
Even putting that aside, the funniest thing yesterday was Harvey the Imaginary Speaker declaring the motion "lost" as opposed to defeated.
It is customary to say something as simple as "The nays have it". Perhaps when you go to the CPA conference, Harv, you can take a course in "Mr. Speaker 101".
[reposted at 1900 hrs NDT with new information correcting previous comments]
11 May 2005
Conservatives are posturing? Say it ain't so
The National Lampoon is reporting today that the Opposition Conservatives are considering bringing in an adjournment motion to shut down the Commons before the budget can be brought to a vote.
There's an interesting idea. A group of people who claim to have no confidence in the government and who have been threatening an election would actually avoid the ultimate parliamentary non-confidence vote and, as the Lampoon notes, try to get the prime minister to call an election.
We should hope this is posturing.
Shutting down the Commons without a budget vote would leave the federal government in the financial slings.
Pushing through an adjournment motion would also show the Conservatives to be manoeuvering for political optics since voting down the budget would inevitably have them vote against money for seniors, health care, towns and cities, and of course, the offshore agreements with the eastern-most provinces.
Shutting the House before the budget vote also puts Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle in yet another political jam. They have a hard-enough choice deciding whether to vote for the budget and their province and alienate their leader's aspirations or vote for their political buddies in the Conservatives and the Bloc and against their province's financial interests. Having argued for so long about the offshore money, these guys will have to flip back after flopping over on this matter repeatedly.
Sure, they'll blame Liberals for everything but hey, their politically convenient spin doesn't erase their actions. Where will they stand? With their party or with their province? I can see the political ads now pointing out the hypocrisy of two guys who said others should vote with their province but who then turned around and voted against their province when they had the choice.
It sure won't erase concerns that a Harper government will wipe out the whole set of financial agreements on all those matters currently in Bill C-43. (By the way, Loyola, it is not a complex bill as you well know. It is only complex for you because your leader and party want to do something that isn't in your best political interests. Like I said before, I'd never wish that dilemma on anyone...except maybe Hearn.)
There's an interesting idea. A group of people who claim to have no confidence in the government and who have been threatening an election would actually avoid the ultimate parliamentary non-confidence vote and, as the Lampoon notes, try to get the prime minister to call an election.
We should hope this is posturing.
Shutting down the Commons without a budget vote would leave the federal government in the financial slings.
Pushing through an adjournment motion would also show the Conservatives to be manoeuvering for political optics since voting down the budget would inevitably have them vote against money for seniors, health care, towns and cities, and of course, the offshore agreements with the eastern-most provinces.
Shutting the House before the budget vote also puts Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle in yet another political jam. They have a hard-enough choice deciding whether to vote for the budget and their province and alienate their leader's aspirations or vote for their political buddies in the Conservatives and the Bloc and against their province's financial interests. Having argued for so long about the offshore money, these guys will have to flip back after flopping over on this matter repeatedly.
Sure, they'll blame Liberals for everything but hey, their politically convenient spin doesn't erase their actions. Where will they stand? With their party or with their province? I can see the political ads now pointing out the hypocrisy of two guys who said others should vote with their province but who then turned around and voted against their province when they had the choice.
It sure won't erase concerns that a Harper government will wipe out the whole set of financial agreements on all those matters currently in Bill C-43. (By the way, Loyola, it is not a complex bill as you well know. It is only complex for you because your leader and party want to do something that isn't in your best political interests. Like I said before, I'd never wish that dilemma on anyone...except maybe Hearn.)
Harvey Hodder: Best before date expired (updated)
CBC Radio woke me up this morning to word that Opposition Leader Roger Grimes is writing the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to complain about Harvey Hodder. Here's a link to the web story.
If nothing else, this will embarrass the hell out of Harvey, who plans to attend the next CPA conference this summer. After all, Newfoundland was one of the charter members of what used to be the Empire Parliamentary Association when it was formed in 1911.
It is important to note, however, that the CPA has absolutely no authority to discipline or censure parliamentarians. This move by Grimes is designed solely to embarrass Hodder.
I long ago lost any vestiges of sympathy for Hodder who has demonstrated bias and incompetence in equal measures over the past six weeks. He is rapidly becoming a joke and to make things worse his behaviour is bringing the legislature itself into a state of dysfunction and disrepute.
Ed Byrne was quoted in the CBC Radio story complaining about the endless points of order from the Opposition. Surprise, surprise, Ed. The Opposition is using whatever tactics it can in order to frustrate Hodder and raw attention to his evident shortcomings. Hodder, for his part, takes forever to make a ruling on even a straightforward point. Overload him with work and the poor guy may just crack from the strain.
But more to the point, the increase in points of order on the Speaker's rulings might be a clue that Hodder is causing problems. Parliamentarians seldom complain about the Speaker. They are even less likely to question a Speaker like Hodder, who was popularly appointed. However, if Hodder isn't working out, then it is only reasonable to expect more and more complaints. The points of order cannot be simply dismissed as a case of whining or being a nuisance.
Personally, I'd go a step farther than Grimes has done. If I was in the Opposition, I'd use my next Opposition Day to debate a motion of non-confidence in the speaker. Even though the government will ultimately defend Hodder and defeat the motion, a three hour litany of his incompetence may well be enough to push him out the door. At the very least it will emphatically make the point that Hodder needs to take some corrective action on his own performance.
Does this happen very often in legislatures? Not really, but then again it is rare for a Speaker to demonstrate persistent disregard for the rules of the House or for bias. Here's a link to one speech from the Saskatchewan legislature from 1992.
Maybe the Opposition here needs to bring the matter into the House in a more direct manner.
If nothing else, this will embarrass the hell out of Harvey, who plans to attend the next CPA conference this summer. After all, Newfoundland was one of the charter members of what used to be the Empire Parliamentary Association when it was formed in 1911.
It is important to note, however, that the CPA has absolutely no authority to discipline or censure parliamentarians. This move by Grimes is designed solely to embarrass Hodder.
I long ago lost any vestiges of sympathy for Hodder who has demonstrated bias and incompetence in equal measures over the past six weeks. He is rapidly becoming a joke and to make things worse his behaviour is bringing the legislature itself into a state of dysfunction and disrepute.
Ed Byrne was quoted in the CBC Radio story complaining about the endless points of order from the Opposition. Surprise, surprise, Ed. The Opposition is using whatever tactics it can in order to frustrate Hodder and raw attention to his evident shortcomings. Hodder, for his part, takes forever to make a ruling on even a straightforward point. Overload him with work and the poor guy may just crack from the strain.
But more to the point, the increase in points of order on the Speaker's rulings might be a clue that Hodder is causing problems. Parliamentarians seldom complain about the Speaker. They are even less likely to question a Speaker like Hodder, who was popularly appointed. However, if Hodder isn't working out, then it is only reasonable to expect more and more complaints. The points of order cannot be simply dismissed as a case of whining or being a nuisance.
Personally, I'd go a step farther than Grimes has done. If I was in the Opposition, I'd use my next Opposition Day to debate a motion of non-confidence in the speaker. Even though the government will ultimately defend Hodder and defeat the motion, a three hour litany of his incompetence may well be enough to push him out the door. At the very least it will emphatically make the point that Hodder needs to take some corrective action on his own performance.
Does this happen very often in legislatures? Not really, but then again it is rare for a Speaker to demonstrate persistent disregard for the rules of the House or for bias. Here's a link to one speech from the Saskatchewan legislature from 1992.
Maybe the Opposition here needs to bring the matter into the House in a more direct manner.
Loyola Hearn: Pinocchiosis case zero
Alright, I take the words I use very seriously.
But when I hear Loyola Hearn on CBC Radio spouting nonsense about how a stand-alone offshore revenue bill would pass the House in a second while the current bill will take forever because it is "complicated", then I know we have found case zero in the spread of pinochiosis.
He is telling fibs, untruths, spreading falsehoods deliberately to bolster his political cause. He spews them faster and in greater numbers than any politician I have ever known.
Loyola knows full well that what he is saying is simply not true according to the processes of the House. A stand alone bill will take just as long if not longer than Bill C-43.
Then there's another one he just spit out about supposed problems finding Liberal candidates.
His Connies just closed calls for nominations with not even a single person coming forward.
Hearn's problem with Bill C-43 is that his leader and Peter Kent, their newest candidate oppose the offshore deals.
Hearn knows the money is doomed if Harper becomes prime minister, yet in the meantime, Loyola will say anything to advance his personal interests.
It is long past time for someone to rid us all of this corrupt member. His desire for power outstrips his commitment to integrity in relationships with his constituents.
But when I hear Loyola Hearn on CBC Radio spouting nonsense about how a stand-alone offshore revenue bill would pass the House in a second while the current bill will take forever because it is "complicated", then I know we have found case zero in the spread of pinochiosis.
He is telling fibs, untruths, spreading falsehoods deliberately to bolster his political cause. He spews them faster and in greater numbers than any politician I have ever known.
Loyola knows full well that what he is saying is simply not true according to the processes of the House. A stand alone bill will take just as long if not longer than Bill C-43.
Then there's another one he just spit out about supposed problems finding Liberal candidates.
His Connies just closed calls for nominations with not even a single person coming forward.
Hearn's problem with Bill C-43 is that his leader and Peter Kent, their newest candidate oppose the offshore deals.
Hearn knows the money is doomed if Harper becomes prime minister, yet in the meantime, Loyola will say anything to advance his personal interests.
It is long past time for someone to rid us all of this corrupt member. His desire for power outstrips his commitment to integrity in relationships with his constituents.
10 May 2005
Harper: Fixed election fixes nothing
Canadian Press is reporting today the federal Conservative are planning to offer Canadians several changes to federal policy as a way of demonstrating that they will take action to combat what they see as corruption in government.
Nice idea.
Here is one of the ideas, along with some comment:
- A fixed election date so the government can't manipulate public opinion by increasing spending before it decides on an election date.
Comment: Fixed election dates don't affect the possibility a government will ramp up the warm and fuzzy spending to win votes. A fixed election merely gives you fixed election dates. If it is like the recent changes in Newfoundland and Labrador, it doesn't even offer you that. The very first clause of the bill supposedly bringing in fixed dates for elections reserved the right of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to call an election at any time for any purpose.
The other Connie changes, like letting the Auditor General look into federal foundations, are good ideas but they are really just housekeeping.
Let's see if something more substantive comes out of the Harper campaign once it finally gets around to talking about something other than Gomery.
Nice idea.
Here is one of the ideas, along with some comment:
- A fixed election date so the government can't manipulate public opinion by increasing spending before it decides on an election date.
Comment: Fixed election dates don't affect the possibility a government will ramp up the warm and fuzzy spending to win votes. A fixed election merely gives you fixed election dates. If it is like the recent changes in Newfoundland and Labrador, it doesn't even offer you that. The very first clause of the bill supposedly bringing in fixed dates for elections reserved the right of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to call an election at any time for any purpose.
The other Connie changes, like letting the Auditor General look into federal foundations, are good ideas but they are really just housekeeping.
Let's see if something more substantive comes out of the Harper campaign once it finally gets around to talking about something other than Gomery.
Argentia and Nuclear Weapons - Background
CBC Radio's story today - updated link - on the possibility a US serviceman may have been exposed to nuclear radiation at Argentia raises the issue of American nuclear weapons and Newfoundland and Labrador.
While the idea of nuclear weapons at Argentia would have been controversial a decade or more ago, there is enough research to conclude that nuclear weapons were present there for most of the Cold War although the presence of fissionable materials would most likely have been of very limited duration.
Mk 7, Lulu and Betty depth bombs, based on the original atomic weapons designs were introduced to the US navy in the 1950s and remained in service into the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is reasonable to assume that nuclear weapons components for these systems were either temporarily stored at Argentia or transitted through there on various American naval vessels and aircraft.
Components include the bomb casing, the firing and ranging systems and the high-explosive charge used to trigger a fission explosion. Fissionable material (the core) was legally in the hands of the US Atomic Energy Commission unless specifically released to the military. That normally happened in North America for frontline deterrent units.
At Argentia, fissionable material was deployed during the Cuban Missile Crisis and for a short period afterward, as far as I have been able to determine. This was not routine and certainly would not have involved large numbers of cores. Long term storage would have produced a detectable radiation signature and to the best of my knowledge there has never been such a signature detected at or near Argentia.
Here's the single most detailed account published recently. Here's another commentary that makes reference to the same book.
In short:
1. The US military routinely moved nuclear weapons around its various bases and stored them at many overseas bases throughout the Cold War.
2. These weapons often did not contain the nuclear cores needed to make them true nuclear weapons. What they did consist of was the casing, the high explosive detonating device and any electronics that go with the weapon.
3. The Canadian and American governments agreed on the deployment of nuclear weapons to Canada on many occasions and in the post-Cuban Missile Crisis period, the federal government understood and approved what was occurring. Nuclear weapons and their nuclear cores were stored on Canadian soil with the full knowledge of the Canadian government from time to time. There was a specific agreement for Argentia signed in 1968.
4. There have never been any tests of biological, chemical or radiological weapons at Argentia or anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador.
5. Project SHAD was a series of tests, some of which were conducted at Argentia, in which materials were released to study the distribution of radioactive particles and biological agents in the atmosphere. The tests also served to evaluate decontaminating procedures. No radioactive particles were used; rather the tests involved inert agents that simulated the behavior in the air of radioactive and biological particles.
A specific project summary for the COPPER HEAD test can be found here.
While the idea of nuclear weapons at Argentia would have been controversial a decade or more ago, there is enough research to conclude that nuclear weapons were present there for most of the Cold War although the presence of fissionable materials would most likely have been of very limited duration.
Mk 7, Lulu and Betty depth bombs, based on the original atomic weapons designs were introduced to the US navy in the 1950s and remained in service into the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is reasonable to assume that nuclear weapons components for these systems were either temporarily stored at Argentia or transitted through there on various American naval vessels and aircraft.
Components include the bomb casing, the firing and ranging systems and the high-explosive charge used to trigger a fission explosion. Fissionable material (the core) was legally in the hands of the US Atomic Energy Commission unless specifically released to the military. That normally happened in North America for frontline deterrent units.
At Argentia, fissionable material was deployed during the Cuban Missile Crisis and for a short period afterward, as far as I have been able to determine. This was not routine and certainly would not have involved large numbers of cores. Long term storage would have produced a detectable radiation signature and to the best of my knowledge there has never been such a signature detected at or near Argentia.
Here's the single most detailed account published recently. Here's another commentary that makes reference to the same book.
In short:
1. The US military routinely moved nuclear weapons around its various bases and stored them at many overseas bases throughout the Cold War.
2. These weapons often did not contain the nuclear cores needed to make them true nuclear weapons. What they did consist of was the casing, the high explosive detonating device and any electronics that go with the weapon.
3. The Canadian and American governments agreed on the deployment of nuclear weapons to Canada on many occasions and in the post-Cuban Missile Crisis period, the federal government understood and approved what was occurring. Nuclear weapons and their nuclear cores were stored on Canadian soil with the full knowledge of the Canadian government from time to time. There was a specific agreement for Argentia signed in 1968.
4. There have never been any tests of biological, chemical or radiological weapons at Argentia or anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador.
5. Project SHAD was a series of tests, some of which were conducted at Argentia, in which materials were released to study the distribution of radioactive particles and biological agents in the atmosphere. The tests also served to evaluate decontaminating procedures. No radioactive particles were used; rather the tests involved inert agents that simulated the behavior in the air of radioactive and biological particles.
A specific project summary for the COPPER HEAD test can be found here.
Better fewer but better
A few weeks ago, provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor placed a stark choice in front of the province, particularly those involved in the crab business. His choice was more honest that the proposals from Earl McCurdy within the past two days for reasons that will become obvious below.
Since the status quo will not work, he argued, either the industry moves towards a management system like the proposed raw materials sharing system or it accepts a completely free market.
In assessing the government's position it is important to look at the overall management of the fishery. The federal government regulates the number of harvesters in the business. Fisheries and Oceans sets quotas for catching crab and it issues licenses to people to catch the quota.
The provincial government is responsible for managing the processing sector and that's where the most labour is involved. As the provincial government's current backgrounder points out, between 1996 and 2002, the provincial government allowed the processing sector to expand rapidly to meet growing supply but it did so to absorb more and more workers in rural communities who were unable to find other work.
Naturally, there is now a problem in the local processing sector, namely overcapacity. This is just a current buzz-word for too many plants, and with it, too many plant workers for the volume of crab being landed.
It should be noted that the fishing industry globally has too much capacity for processing compared to the volume of fish landings. Increased efficiency in plants has meant that fewer plants can handle landings. As others have noted, changes in the processing sector, changes in currency values and other factors have allowed fish companies in the North Atlantic to ship product to China, finish it and return it to markets here and abroad for less than it would cost to process the same fish at home.
As noted, the current over-supply of fish processing is, in part, the result of decisions taken after 1996 by the provincial government. These decisions were designed, as the government backgrounder notes, to increase the work available in fishplants.
Effectively, this was a return to the disastrous policies of the 1980s in which more and more people were encouraged to enter the fishing industry in one way or another to the point where every fish plant worker barely worked long enough to qualify for basic employment insurance payments. The plant workers, for one group, displaced by the cod moratorium were transferred into processing another species which itself was placed under severe pressure.
Many of the problems currently being faced in the crab industry are due to poor management practices like the ones proposed by the provincial government in the late 1990s. Stress on the stocks has produced an increased incidence of soft shell, a decline in overall landings due to declining stocks and, not surprisingly, a reluctance of people to leave the jobs despite the obvious need to reduce the number of plants and the number of plant workers in the province.
Economically, the current system is unsustainable and, in fact, would have long ago collapsed were it not for the federal government's income supplement programs like Employment Insurance.
The crab problem is a familiar one in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.
The provincial government's solution is equally familiar. In order to preserve the existing plant capacity - and with it the existing employment levels - the government is proposing to distribute crab landings evenly among all plants. This system will keep plants open as long as possible. It will secure as many land-based jobs as possible, but it means a reduction in income for fishermen who, until now, have been able to earn record prices for the crab catches as a result of the artificially increased level of competition among crab processors. They have been able to gain not only the very best prices in the marketplace; they have also earned premiums and other incentives from crab processors who need raw material to keep their plants operating. The notion of the despotic fish merchant is hardly applicable.
The government plan is familiar since it avoids any drastic action. It spreads a declining resource as thinly as possible in exactly the way cod stocks were managed before 1992.
Those who think the Williams administration is harsh or that it is simply favouring business interests had better take a closer look. Their simplistic view obviously sits behind the Indy's front page story this week that implies some sort of plot between the processors and government simply because the Premier's chief of staff used to employ one of the fish processor's staffers.
The reality is that the current provincial government is following a time-honoured political approach to managing the fishery as a social enterprise rather than an economic one. Danny Williams is no different from Brian Tobin, Brian Peckford or Frank Moores in this respect. In truth, Williams' administration is in line with virtually every provincial government since 1949.
The goal of the raw materials management plan is solely to keep plants open as long as possible so that they can keep as many people working as possible, even if they all make a relative pittance. It is considered more important to preserve a job or a plant or a community or the backbone of our society and economy, to paraphrase the icthiophiles, than it is to have a healthy fishing industry in which each person can gain a living wage from direct labour alone.
There is no small irony that Williams is being vilified in this case for being exactly what he is not or that he is being blamed for a situation when in fact actual power rests with another set of hands.
The crab industry as it exists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador depends almost entirely on the fishermen who for the last month have staged various criminal acts to support their supposedly disadvantaged position.
The reality is that in any system proposed by the provincial government, the province cannot enforce it. The fishermen alone decide to whom they will sell their raw material. If prices are better in Nova Scotia, then local plants will sit idle as modern, locally owned crab-boats sail from the fishing grounds offshore Newfoundland to the docksides of Cape Breton. Those whose boats can't make the voyage can easily truck the crab, or hire a boat that can make the voyage if they themselves do not wish to sell for the prices available locally.
From time to time, someone will look to Iceland as a model for this province to follow. Iceland does offer a worthwhile model, but not in the way it is often presented. Iceland long ago dismissed the idea of the fishery as an exercise in social engineering. Instead, the fishery is a business, prosecuted as a business.
Were that approach taken in this province, we would have a very hard time for a few years. The provincial government would merely issue licenses to qualifying companies. Whether those companies survived or closed would depend entirely on market forces. There would be no government bail-outs.
If we want to look at approaches from overseas, we might do well to look at the failed eastern European solution which we seem bent on repeating. In Poland, for example, the government withdrew from the economy. Despite initial upheavals the transition to a market economy and with it economic development was largely completed within a year of the collapse of communism in the early 1990s. Neighbouring countries, which took a different approach are still struggling some 15 years later.
In this province, provincial cabinet ministers resisted the opportunity offered by the cod moratorium to restructure the fishery, end the tendency toward state interference and put the industry on a sound economic footing for the benefit of everyone.
Instead, today, we are left struggling with the vestiges of old-style government management approaches that continue in other guises. They have failed utterly in the past time and time again. They will fail again.
Meanwhile, the fish union trots out the old villains for blame, even though the economic circumstances in the fishery have changed dramatically in recent years, and at the same time engages in criminal behaviour and intimidation to advance their position.
The union also embodies a conflict of interest. Their members who process crab on land will surely benefit from the government's proposal. Their harvester-members - who are predominantly male and who clearly dominate the union - would suffer little or nothing at all from it.
The union has been incredibly successful in wresting concessions from government and herein can be found the lie in any notions that the current administration is somehow intrasigent or that the government is about to break the fish union.
Without giving anything except threats and intimidation, the fish union succeeded in having government cut its program from two years to a mere one. Just this past week, and again with nothing but threats and intimidation, the Premier mused about a compensation package for fish plant workers.
Even if the crab plants stay closed, Earl McCurdy has become one of the most powerful political figures imaginable in the province. He can have one set of his members paid entirely by the government for not working. His other members can catch and sell their products for market prices.
And in the meantime, the other business of the government has slowed to a crawl. News headlines are dominated by the fish union members and their illegal actions. Government can scarcely talk of anything else save crab, either inside or outside the Confederation Building.
Yet in the end, the province remains with a fishing industry desparately in need of serious attention and public talk of the industry mired in myths and half-truths.
Most unfortunately of all, the most powerful man in the fishing industry has no incentive to change anything at all.
It is a shame.
Since the status quo will not work, he argued, either the industry moves towards a management system like the proposed raw materials sharing system or it accepts a completely free market.
In assessing the government's position it is important to look at the overall management of the fishery. The federal government regulates the number of harvesters in the business. Fisheries and Oceans sets quotas for catching crab and it issues licenses to people to catch the quota.
The provincial government is responsible for managing the processing sector and that's where the most labour is involved. As the provincial government's current backgrounder points out, between 1996 and 2002, the provincial government allowed the processing sector to expand rapidly to meet growing supply but it did so to absorb more and more workers in rural communities who were unable to find other work.
Naturally, there is now a problem in the local processing sector, namely overcapacity. This is just a current buzz-word for too many plants, and with it, too many plant workers for the volume of crab being landed.
It should be noted that the fishing industry globally has too much capacity for processing compared to the volume of fish landings. Increased efficiency in plants has meant that fewer plants can handle landings. As others have noted, changes in the processing sector, changes in currency values and other factors have allowed fish companies in the North Atlantic to ship product to China, finish it and return it to markets here and abroad for less than it would cost to process the same fish at home.
As noted, the current over-supply of fish processing is, in part, the result of decisions taken after 1996 by the provincial government. These decisions were designed, as the government backgrounder notes, to increase the work available in fishplants.
Effectively, this was a return to the disastrous policies of the 1980s in which more and more people were encouraged to enter the fishing industry in one way or another to the point where every fish plant worker barely worked long enough to qualify for basic employment insurance payments. The plant workers, for one group, displaced by the cod moratorium were transferred into processing another species which itself was placed under severe pressure.
Many of the problems currently being faced in the crab industry are due to poor management practices like the ones proposed by the provincial government in the late 1990s. Stress on the stocks has produced an increased incidence of soft shell, a decline in overall landings due to declining stocks and, not surprisingly, a reluctance of people to leave the jobs despite the obvious need to reduce the number of plants and the number of plant workers in the province.
Economically, the current system is unsustainable and, in fact, would have long ago collapsed were it not for the federal government's income supplement programs like Employment Insurance.
The crab problem is a familiar one in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.
The provincial government's solution is equally familiar. In order to preserve the existing plant capacity - and with it the existing employment levels - the government is proposing to distribute crab landings evenly among all plants. This system will keep plants open as long as possible. It will secure as many land-based jobs as possible, but it means a reduction in income for fishermen who, until now, have been able to earn record prices for the crab catches as a result of the artificially increased level of competition among crab processors. They have been able to gain not only the very best prices in the marketplace; they have also earned premiums and other incentives from crab processors who need raw material to keep their plants operating. The notion of the despotic fish merchant is hardly applicable.
The government plan is familiar since it avoids any drastic action. It spreads a declining resource as thinly as possible in exactly the way cod stocks were managed before 1992.
Those who think the Williams administration is harsh or that it is simply favouring business interests had better take a closer look. Their simplistic view obviously sits behind the Indy's front page story this week that implies some sort of plot between the processors and government simply because the Premier's chief of staff used to employ one of the fish processor's staffers.
The reality is that the current provincial government is following a time-honoured political approach to managing the fishery as a social enterprise rather than an economic one. Danny Williams is no different from Brian Tobin, Brian Peckford or Frank Moores in this respect. In truth, Williams' administration is in line with virtually every provincial government since 1949.
The goal of the raw materials management plan is solely to keep plants open as long as possible so that they can keep as many people working as possible, even if they all make a relative pittance. It is considered more important to preserve a job or a plant or a community or the backbone of our society and economy, to paraphrase the icthiophiles, than it is to have a healthy fishing industry in which each person can gain a living wage from direct labour alone.
There is no small irony that Williams is being vilified in this case for being exactly what he is not or that he is being blamed for a situation when in fact actual power rests with another set of hands.
The crab industry as it exists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador depends almost entirely on the fishermen who for the last month have staged various criminal acts to support their supposedly disadvantaged position.
The reality is that in any system proposed by the provincial government, the province cannot enforce it. The fishermen alone decide to whom they will sell their raw material. If prices are better in Nova Scotia, then local plants will sit idle as modern, locally owned crab-boats sail from the fishing grounds offshore Newfoundland to the docksides of Cape Breton. Those whose boats can't make the voyage can easily truck the crab, or hire a boat that can make the voyage if they themselves do not wish to sell for the prices available locally.
From time to time, someone will look to Iceland as a model for this province to follow. Iceland does offer a worthwhile model, but not in the way it is often presented. Iceland long ago dismissed the idea of the fishery as an exercise in social engineering. Instead, the fishery is a business, prosecuted as a business.
Were that approach taken in this province, we would have a very hard time for a few years. The provincial government would merely issue licenses to qualifying companies. Whether those companies survived or closed would depend entirely on market forces. There would be no government bail-outs.
If we want to look at approaches from overseas, we might do well to look at the failed eastern European solution which we seem bent on repeating. In Poland, for example, the government withdrew from the economy. Despite initial upheavals the transition to a market economy and with it economic development was largely completed within a year of the collapse of communism in the early 1990s. Neighbouring countries, which took a different approach are still struggling some 15 years later.
In this province, provincial cabinet ministers resisted the opportunity offered by the cod moratorium to restructure the fishery, end the tendency toward state interference and put the industry on a sound economic footing for the benefit of everyone.
Instead, today, we are left struggling with the vestiges of old-style government management approaches that continue in other guises. They have failed utterly in the past time and time again. They will fail again.
Meanwhile, the fish union trots out the old villains for blame, even though the economic circumstances in the fishery have changed dramatically in recent years, and at the same time engages in criminal behaviour and intimidation to advance their position.
The union also embodies a conflict of interest. Their members who process crab on land will surely benefit from the government's proposal. Their harvester-members - who are predominantly male and who clearly dominate the union - would suffer little or nothing at all from it.
The union has been incredibly successful in wresting concessions from government and herein can be found the lie in any notions that the current administration is somehow intrasigent or that the government is about to break the fish union.
Without giving anything except threats and intimidation, the fish union succeeded in having government cut its program from two years to a mere one. Just this past week, and again with nothing but threats and intimidation, the Premier mused about a compensation package for fish plant workers.
Even if the crab plants stay closed, Earl McCurdy has become one of the most powerful political figures imaginable in the province. He can have one set of his members paid entirely by the government for not working. His other members can catch and sell their products for market prices.
And in the meantime, the other business of the government has slowed to a crawl. News headlines are dominated by the fish union members and their illegal actions. Government can scarcely talk of anything else save crab, either inside or outside the Confederation Building.
Yet in the end, the province remains with a fishing industry desparately in need of serious attention and public talk of the industry mired in myths and half-truths.
Most unfortunately of all, the most powerful man in the fishing industry has no incentive to change anything at all.
It is a shame.
09 May 2005
Victory! (correction)
Since 1945, May 9 is the day on which Russians commemorate their sacrifice and ultimate victory in the Great Patriotic War.
The defeat of Nazi Germany came at a terrible price with more than 27 million dead and most of the European portion of the Soviet Union devastated.
Here's a link to the official Victory Day site. Drop in. It's worth the visit to get a different perspective on the Second World War.
I still remember the shock expressed by many Westerners on the 40th anniversary when legions of vintage T-34/85 tanks in perfect working order rolled down the Moscow streets and into Red Square. They may have been more menacing than this parade of period transport trucks, but the idea is the same. The communists kept anything military and serviceable in storage just in case.
Correction: Earlier I thought Canada was not represented at the Ksocw events. Turns out that Her Excellency the Governor General was the official Canadian representative in Red Square.
The defeat of Nazi Germany came at a terrible price with more than 27 million dead and most of the European portion of the Soviet Union devastated.
Here's a link to the official Victory Day site. Drop in. It's worth the visit to get a different perspective on the Second World War.
I still remember the shock expressed by many Westerners on the 40th anniversary when legions of vintage T-34/85 tanks in perfect working order rolled down the Moscow streets and into Red Square. They may have been more menacing than this parade of period transport trucks, but the idea is the same. The communists kept anything military and serviceable in storage just in case.
Correction: Earlier I thought Canada was not represented at the Ksocw events. Turns out that Her Excellency the Governor General was the official Canadian representative in Red Square.
08 May 2005
Peter Kent: offshore deals "not good government"
Appearing on CBC Radio's The House, Peter Kent, former television news anchor and newly announced Conservative party candidate in an Ontario riding, told program host Anthony Germain that the offshore revenue deal signed with Newfoundland and Labrador is an example of what Kent termed $7.5 billion in spending that Prime Minister Paul Martin "is scattering across the country very irresponsibly".
Kent called the offshore deals with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia "not good government". While Kent said he was "sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands," Kent said "you don't make government on the fly."
The criticism of the offshore deals came after Kent gushed about one example of government spending, an investment in a human rights museum which, coincidentally, is owned by Kent's former employers.
Here's the full section of the interview, for the record:
GERMAIN: April 14th, the Liberal government announced it was giving $70 million to your employers, the Aspers, for the Human Rights Museum, bringing the total to $100 million. Does it by the Liberal government favourable media coverage from your employer?
KENT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. My employers encouraged me to run. My employer knows the, the political stripe I will be wearing and am wearing now, and absolutely not. That's a great project., the CanWest Media Works has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to a variety of charities. This Human Rights Museum in the geographical centre of Canada represents a first in terms of a human rights museum and recognizing not just the holocaust, but then the Holocaust is a part of it, but representing human rights as they apply to all of the political.....or all of the geographical and ethnic and national origins of the people that make up this country.
GERMAIN: So it's one example of Liberal spending that you endorse?
KENT: Absolutely. I mean, there is, you know, and it's an outstanding promise, some things can be thoughtfully spent. That stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the seven-and-a-half billion dollars that Mr. Martin is scattering across the country very irresponsibly, you know, trying to fulfill an NDP budget. The deals that he has made with Newfoundland on the fly on those resource royalties, that's not good government. You've got to....And I, quite frankly, am sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands, but you don't make government spontaneously on the fly. Mr. Martin is threatening the economy of Canada. This from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Conference Board of Canada, the CD Howe Institute among others by taking this, first of all, the $4.6 billion out of the surplus, which represents over-taxation. You know, these consecutive Liberal surpluses are by any measure excess taxation, gouging of the taxpayers and now he's blowing over half of this year's surplus to keep, to buy Jack Layton's loyalty for a very short period of time.
GERMAIN: Peter Kent....
KENT: Am I ranting, Anthony?
GERMAIN: (Laughs) I didn't say that.
KENT: I've only been doing it for five days.
Rant on, Peter Kent. Rant on.
And while you are ranting please explain your economic ideas. If Liberal surpluses represent overtaxation, then presumably you are about to launch a crusade to lower taxes. But if you lower taxes and eliminate the surpluses, how exactly do you find the cash to reduce the federal debt load?
Take back the Asper's museum money?
Kent called the offshore deals with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia "not good government". While Kent said he was "sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands," Kent said "you don't make government on the fly."
The criticism of the offshore deals came after Kent gushed about one example of government spending, an investment in a human rights museum which, coincidentally, is owned by Kent's former employers.
Here's the full section of the interview, for the record:
GERMAIN: April 14th, the Liberal government announced it was giving $70 million to your employers, the Aspers, for the Human Rights Museum, bringing the total to $100 million. Does it by the Liberal government favourable media coverage from your employer?
KENT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. My employers encouraged me to run. My employer knows the, the political stripe I will be wearing and am wearing now, and absolutely not. That's a great project., the CanWest Media Works has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to a variety of charities. This Human Rights Museum in the geographical centre of Canada represents a first in terms of a human rights museum and recognizing not just the holocaust, but then the Holocaust is a part of it, but representing human rights as they apply to all of the political.....or all of the geographical and ethnic and national origins of the people that make up this country.
GERMAIN: So it's one example of Liberal spending that you endorse?
KENT: Absolutely. I mean, there is, you know, and it's an outstanding promise, some things can be thoughtfully spent. That stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the seven-and-a-half billion dollars that Mr. Martin is scattering across the country very irresponsibly, you know, trying to fulfill an NDP budget. The deals that he has made with Newfoundland on the fly on those resource royalties, that's not good government. You've got to....And I, quite frankly, am sympathetic to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia position in their offshore, in their offshore demands, but you don't make government spontaneously on the fly. Mr. Martin is threatening the economy of Canada. This from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Conference Board of Canada, the CD Howe Institute among others by taking this, first of all, the $4.6 billion out of the surplus, which represents over-taxation. You know, these consecutive Liberal surpluses are by any measure excess taxation, gouging of the taxpayers and now he's blowing over half of this year's surplus to keep, to buy Jack Layton's loyalty for a very short period of time.
GERMAIN: Peter Kent....
KENT: Am I ranting, Anthony?
GERMAIN: (Laughs) I didn't say that.
KENT: I've only been doing it for five days.
Rant on, Peter Kent. Rant on.
And while you are ranting please explain your economic ideas. If Liberal surpluses represent overtaxation, then presumably you are about to launch a crusade to lower taxes. But if you lower taxes and eliminate the surpluses, how exactly do you find the cash to reduce the federal debt load?
Take back the Asper's museum money?
Helicopters to Holyrood? Doyle and Hearn spend big on travel
In the Indy this week are two things worth reading. I'll post more on the issue of custodial management and Jeff Ducharme's excellent front-page story, later on Sunday.
But for this little waker-upper, let's flip to page 9, wherein managing editor Ryan Cleary buried the results of a little bit of research in spending by the province's members of parliament.
The MPs are listed from most expensive to least expensive for the fiscal year ending March 31 2004. In other words, these figures are a year old.
Not surprisingly, Bill Matthews and the late Lawrence O'Brien come out on top, largely because of their high travel costs. Try buying an airline ticket to Labrador and the get around the riding and you'll see why O'Brien racked up more in travel costs than in staff salaries.
Matthews also represents a huge riding, so, again, his travel costs outstrip his staff budget.
But here's a little bit of information the Indy didn't find peculiar in the slightest. Personally, I thought this was more of a page one piece than Craig's testimony - especially since TransCon already covered their own reporter's comments. [coughcough]
At the time these expenses were racked up, Progressive Conservative MPs Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn represented ridings on the Avalon Peninsula.
Doyle's was confined to much of the same space he currently represents.
Hearn used to have to truck down past his home in Renews to Trepassey and Placentia on his jaunts to the riding but here's the funky thing. Unlike, say O'Brien or Matthews, the two PCs could actually drive from one end of their ridings - let alone drive in a few hours at most - from the airport in St. John's to any point they needed to visit.
So why then did Mr. Doyle rack up $172, 904 in travel expenses?
And why did Loyola Hearn cost taxpayers $164, 159 for travel?
The Indy story concludes with a little bit of editorialising, a testament to its high journalistic standards, no doubt:
"The most frugal of the province's MPs was a bit of a surprise - Natural Resources Minister and Avalon MP John Efford."
There's no explanation of why that was surprising any more than there is an explanation of why the Indy decided to avoid asking two St. John's MPs why they spent so much on travelling in two of the province's smallest ridings.
But for this little waker-upper, let's flip to page 9, wherein managing editor Ryan Cleary buried the results of a little bit of research in spending by the province's members of parliament.
The MPs are listed from most expensive to least expensive for the fiscal year ending March 31 2004. In other words, these figures are a year old.
Not surprisingly, Bill Matthews and the late Lawrence O'Brien come out on top, largely because of their high travel costs. Try buying an airline ticket to Labrador and the get around the riding and you'll see why O'Brien racked up more in travel costs than in staff salaries.
Matthews also represents a huge riding, so, again, his travel costs outstrip his staff budget.
But here's a little bit of information the Indy didn't find peculiar in the slightest. Personally, I thought this was more of a page one piece than Craig's testimony - especially since TransCon already covered their own reporter's comments. [coughcough]
At the time these expenses were racked up, Progressive Conservative MPs Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn represented ridings on the Avalon Peninsula.
Doyle's was confined to much of the same space he currently represents.
Hearn used to have to truck down past his home in Renews to Trepassey and Placentia on his jaunts to the riding but here's the funky thing. Unlike, say O'Brien or Matthews, the two PCs could actually drive from one end of their ridings - let alone drive in a few hours at most - from the airport in St. John's to any point they needed to visit.
So why then did Mr. Doyle rack up $172, 904 in travel expenses?
And why did Loyola Hearn cost taxpayers $164, 159 for travel?
The Indy story concludes with a little bit of editorialising, a testament to its high journalistic standards, no doubt:
"The most frugal of the province's MPs was a bit of a surprise - Natural Resources Minister and Avalon MP John Efford."
There's no explanation of why that was surprising any more than there is an explanation of why the Indy decided to avoid asking two St. John's MPs why they spent so much on travelling in two of the province's smallest ridings.
By the gallon or the shovel-full?
There's an old saying that editors always get the last word and they buy their ink by the gallon.
The editorial in this week's Independent proves the point to a tee.
"Chief concern" takes issue with Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering's treatment of the Indy reporter who published a story recently on an external investigation the chief ordered. The Indy's sources were reputed to be within the ranks of the RNC itself.
As Ronalda Nakonechny related the story on CBC Radio, both she and Indy reporter Alisha Morrissey had requested interviews with Deering only to find themselves both in the same interview.
The Indy editorial disputes this version saying: "[t]he next week Chief Deering called the reporter to his office." Personally, and until there is some substantive evidence to back it up, I'll buy the CBC version since it doesn't come laden with the implication of the Indy's account.
After recounting a portion of the interview, in which Deering chastised the Indy report, there's this opinion from the Indy anonymous editorialist: "The chief's behaviour was nothing short of unprofessional."
In a word: nonsense.
The chief took the opportunity in an interview to make clear his concerns about the use of anonymous informants breaching their oath of confidentiality by leaking information - inaccurate information at that - to reporters. He didn't sugar-coat his words nor could anyone doubt his seriousness from the forcefulness of his tone. CBC Radio played the same sections of the interview the Indy subsequently printed.
His tone and his comments reflected the strength of his views but it is a long way from bullying.
Reporting is a tough business. When a reporter puts a story into print based on anonymous sources - at least anonymous to the public - then he or she can expect to hear a few strong comments from the people being talked about. Suck it up and move on.
Chief Deering was well within his rights to speak directly to the reporter who wrote the first story and he is perfectly within his right - and professional responsibility - to defend the integrity of the police service and emphasize the need for confidentiality.
The editorial repeats a quote from RNC Association president Tim Buckle saying that officers are concerned that if there was "another Mount Cashel" they'd have no one to turn to if the chief were "to quash the investigation". That's a powerful accusation by Buckle and if the Indy wants to take up his cudgels, they'd better present something much better than they have so far in the way of evidence.
The major problem in the Indy stories and in the editorial is that it misses the point:
There is no evidence that Chief Deering ordered the prostitution investigation to be quashed. An external investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not recommend laying charges, as the Indy editorial notes. Therefore, Buckle's comments are totally without foundation. There simply isn't any proof to back them up.
Period.
The major problem with the Indy series, as noted here last week, is that their source or sources turned out to be, in a word: wrong. Dead wrong actually, as confirmed by the Ontario Provincial Police who are conducting external investigations into two matters as requested by Chief Deering.
Now we have a second wrong in the Indy is launching an attack on Deering's professionalism rather than deal with the point he raised.
Newspapers who traffick in leaked confidential information from police sources - information that turns out to be wrong - undermine the administration of justice. The public must be assured that information in police hands will not become public without due process. Brown envelopes and meetings in doughnut shops or downtown parking lots just don't cut the standard of due process.
If anyone had presented evidence to the Indy that demonstrated Deering had quashed investigations, then the editorial would have a point and one that would need to be answered by the ministry of justice not the chief of police.
No evidence.
No point.
No story.
Reporters are often faced with an ethical question on the use of confidential information that may fall into their laps. Editors have to apply a high standard to the use of such information, often withholding material they'd like to print simply because it doesn't meet the extremely high standards needed to avoid the problem so evident in the Morrissey reporting.
If standards aren't high, then stories sometimes wind up being more innuendo than information. There is plenty of innuendo on page one of this week's Indy. Something about Ross Reid of the Premier's Office and Derick Butler of the fish processor's group having once worked together on Parliament Hill. That is followed by paragraphs of people denying things that never happened. Sheer crap, but it made page one based solely on its high "National Enquirer" score.
Then there were the stories on NAPE, published shortly after Ryan Cleary took over as managing editor of The Independent. The background information came literally from a brown envelope someone within NAPE figuratively tossed over the newspaper's transom. No one at the Indy ever questioned the motives and context of the leaker, even though NAPE was in a labour dispute at the time. The Indy interpretation of the material just coincidentally happened to match government's need to discredit the union.
But here's the big point: there was no proof on any wrong-doing, yet the stories were laced with veiled suggestions of nefarious deeds. One story in particular focused on a subsidiary of NAPE that the Indy story seemed to suggest might be a slush fund of some kind. In fact, the company was the mechanism by which NAPE owned the building in which they were housed and kept the liability for it separate from the union's main business. It's a simple practice. Ask Danny Williams or Brian Dobbin about it.
When anyone receives leaked confidential information one must look both at the information itself and the source. Leakers aren't always do-gooders protecting the public. They may have other agendas of their own. That's why most editors usually apply a fairly high standard - much higher than the usual high standards - before running a story from leaked information.
Until the Indy gets evidence in the prostitution/quashing story, all we have here is apparently a case of an editor proving once more that he buys his ink by the gallon and will try to get the last word.
Innuendo seems to be once again doled out by the shovel full, but that isn't proof either.
"Unprofessional" is a word people should throw around carefully. Sometimes it might plop into a vat of the dark printing liquid and splash onto the one who threw it in the first place.
The editorial in this week's Independent proves the point to a tee.
"Chief concern" takes issue with Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering's treatment of the Indy reporter who published a story recently on an external investigation the chief ordered. The Indy's sources were reputed to be within the ranks of the RNC itself.
As Ronalda Nakonechny related the story on CBC Radio, both she and Indy reporter Alisha Morrissey had requested interviews with Deering only to find themselves both in the same interview.
The Indy editorial disputes this version saying: "[t]he next week Chief Deering called the reporter to his office." Personally, and until there is some substantive evidence to back it up, I'll buy the CBC version since it doesn't come laden with the implication of the Indy's account.
After recounting a portion of the interview, in which Deering chastised the Indy report, there's this opinion from the Indy anonymous editorialist: "The chief's behaviour was nothing short of unprofessional."
In a word: nonsense.
The chief took the opportunity in an interview to make clear his concerns about the use of anonymous informants breaching their oath of confidentiality by leaking information - inaccurate information at that - to reporters. He didn't sugar-coat his words nor could anyone doubt his seriousness from the forcefulness of his tone. CBC Radio played the same sections of the interview the Indy subsequently printed.
His tone and his comments reflected the strength of his views but it is a long way from bullying.
Reporting is a tough business. When a reporter puts a story into print based on anonymous sources - at least anonymous to the public - then he or she can expect to hear a few strong comments from the people being talked about. Suck it up and move on.
Chief Deering was well within his rights to speak directly to the reporter who wrote the first story and he is perfectly within his right - and professional responsibility - to defend the integrity of the police service and emphasize the need for confidentiality.
The editorial repeats a quote from RNC Association president Tim Buckle saying that officers are concerned that if there was "another Mount Cashel" they'd have no one to turn to if the chief were "to quash the investigation". That's a powerful accusation by Buckle and if the Indy wants to take up his cudgels, they'd better present something much better than they have so far in the way of evidence.
The major problem in the Indy stories and in the editorial is that it misses the point:
There is no evidence that Chief Deering ordered the prostitution investigation to be quashed. An external investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not recommend laying charges, as the Indy editorial notes. Therefore, Buckle's comments are totally without foundation. There simply isn't any proof to back them up.
Period.
The major problem with the Indy series, as noted here last week, is that their source or sources turned out to be, in a word: wrong. Dead wrong actually, as confirmed by the Ontario Provincial Police who are conducting external investigations into two matters as requested by Chief Deering.
Now we have a second wrong in the Indy is launching an attack on Deering's professionalism rather than deal with the point he raised.
Newspapers who traffick in leaked confidential information from police sources - information that turns out to be wrong - undermine the administration of justice. The public must be assured that information in police hands will not become public without due process. Brown envelopes and meetings in doughnut shops or downtown parking lots just don't cut the standard of due process.
If anyone had presented evidence to the Indy that demonstrated Deering had quashed investigations, then the editorial would have a point and one that would need to be answered by the ministry of justice not the chief of police.
No evidence.
No point.
No story.
Reporters are often faced with an ethical question on the use of confidential information that may fall into their laps. Editors have to apply a high standard to the use of such information, often withholding material they'd like to print simply because it doesn't meet the extremely high standards needed to avoid the problem so evident in the Morrissey reporting.
If standards aren't high, then stories sometimes wind up being more innuendo than information. There is plenty of innuendo on page one of this week's Indy. Something about Ross Reid of the Premier's Office and Derick Butler of the fish processor's group having once worked together on Parliament Hill. That is followed by paragraphs of people denying things that never happened. Sheer crap, but it made page one based solely on its high "National Enquirer" score.
Then there were the stories on NAPE, published shortly after Ryan Cleary took over as managing editor of The Independent. The background information came literally from a brown envelope someone within NAPE figuratively tossed over the newspaper's transom. No one at the Indy ever questioned the motives and context of the leaker, even though NAPE was in a labour dispute at the time. The Indy interpretation of the material just coincidentally happened to match government's need to discredit the union.
But here's the big point: there was no proof on any wrong-doing, yet the stories were laced with veiled suggestions of nefarious deeds. One story in particular focused on a subsidiary of NAPE that the Indy story seemed to suggest might be a slush fund of some kind. In fact, the company was the mechanism by which NAPE owned the building in which they were housed and kept the liability for it separate from the union's main business. It's a simple practice. Ask Danny Williams or Brian Dobbin about it.
When anyone receives leaked confidential information one must look both at the information itself and the source. Leakers aren't always do-gooders protecting the public. They may have other agendas of their own. That's why most editors usually apply a fairly high standard - much higher than the usual high standards - before running a story from leaked information.
Until the Indy gets evidence in the prostitution/quashing story, all we have here is apparently a case of an editor proving once more that he buys his ink by the gallon and will try to get the last word.
Innuendo seems to be once again doled out by the shovel full, but that isn't proof either.
"Unprofessional" is a word people should throw around carefully. Sometimes it might plop into a vat of the dark printing liquid and splash onto the one who threw it in the first place.
07 May 2005
and the award goes to...
Ryan Cleary, managing editor of The Independent, for missing a simple fact.
On the front page of this week's Indy is Craig Westcott's testimony at a senate committee hearing into media ownership.
Cleary concludes his own column this week with a little bit of insight into the soul-searching he apparently endured before putting Westcott on the Indy's front page.
Apparently, Ryan was worried about attracting "added publicity" to Westcott.
Oddly, Cleary was worried too that people might be thinking the Indy was taking shots at the competition. Don't visit newsrooms around town on Monday as they are likely to be full of people rolling on the floor with laughter at that one.
Cleary never misses a chance - including in that column - to hold up the Indy as something superior in the world of journalism throughout the province. A "perceived bias" Ryan? Geez, me son, how many times have we endured the self-massage in your column that does all but say the Indy is the home of the only unadulterated journalism in the place?
My favourite is this line: "But there's another reason why The Indy decided to go with Westcott's story on the front page: you won't read it anywhere else."
So why the worry about "added publicity", Ryan?
I already read an account of Westcott's testimony.
In The Telegram.
Which is owned by Transcontinental.
Which also owns the Express.
Where Craig Westcott is still employed.
And as for The Indy being independent - as Ryan points out at the start of his column - we are still waiting for the investigative reporting on Brian Dobbin's business relationship with Taiwanese interests.
Independence is a relative thing.
On the front page of this week's Indy is Craig Westcott's testimony at a senate committee hearing into media ownership.
Cleary concludes his own column this week with a little bit of insight into the soul-searching he apparently endured before putting Westcott on the Indy's front page.
Apparently, Ryan was worried about attracting "added publicity" to Westcott.
Oddly, Cleary was worried too that people might be thinking the Indy was taking shots at the competition. Don't visit newsrooms around town on Monday as they are likely to be full of people rolling on the floor with laughter at that one.
Cleary never misses a chance - including in that column - to hold up the Indy as something superior in the world of journalism throughout the province. A "perceived bias" Ryan? Geez, me son, how many times have we endured the self-massage in your column that does all but say the Indy is the home of the only unadulterated journalism in the place?
My favourite is this line: "But there's another reason why The Indy decided to go with Westcott's story on the front page: you won't read it anywhere else."
So why the worry about "added publicity", Ryan?
I already read an account of Westcott's testimony.
In The Telegram.
Which is owned by Transcontinental.
Which also owns the Express.
Where Craig Westcott is still employed.
And as for The Indy being independent - as Ryan points out at the start of his column - we are still waiting for the investigative reporting on Brian Dobbin's business relationship with Taiwanese interests.
Independence is a relative thing.
06 May 2005
The Premier on Fabian
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)