Sullivan financial statement masks deeper issue
Finance minister Loyola Sullivan today released an update on the province's fiscal position. This was done outside the legislature; no word yet on when the session will begin but guesses are that it won't be much before the end of November.
Sullivan said that a combination of increases in different revenues plus changing the way offshore revenue money is accounted have reduced last spring's budgeted deficit of $492 million and turned it into a modest surplus of about $1.5 million.
Other changes to the financial situation include marginal declines in revenue from gasoline taxes and equally marginal increases in operating budgets due to increased gasoline and heating oil prices.
In the news release and actual statement, government is claiming credit for greatly improved finances on the one hand and warning that a major problem remains in the form of the provincial government's $12.0 billion debt.
What all that means is actually pretty simple. If we add up all the provincial government's assets and liabilities on an annual basis, we wind up $1.5 million to the good.
Look more closely at the financial statement and something else pops up: if all other things stay the same, when Loyola Sullivan checks his bank balance next March, he'll find over $300 million in cash he didn't plan on having at hand.
The forecast accrual deficit - the $492 million figure - was comprised largely of unfunded pension liabilities. In other words, the provincial government forecast that while prudent financial management would see government setting aside over $450 million to cover future expenses from public sector pension plans, it wasn't able to do so.
Therefore, there was a large deficit totaling almost $500 million. Just remember, though, that this is a theoretical deficit annually; no money was borrowed to cover it - government actually planned to borrow only $62 million in new money to pay for day-to-day operations.
Remember as well, that with all the new revenue, government hasn't really put anything toward dealing with the unfunded liabilities beyond the modest amounts already negotiated. Nor has government done anything at all to deal with the $12.0 billion accumulated debt other than use it as a boogey man to frighten people who might ask for extra spending this year.
That is the deeper problem with Loyola Sullivan's financial management over the past three years.
Under the Williams administration, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have no idea what the government will do with the extra cash. In fact, the way Loyola Sullivan likes to report the numbers, he is actually hiding the true picture, all the while claiming he is not telling the fables of some previous provincial finance ministers. He isn't - that much is true. Sullivan simply tells other fiscal fibs.
When the federal government ends up with massive annual surpluses, it has already told people how that money will be spent. Since the late 1990s, the surpluses that in some years add up to almost the total debt in this province have been spent paying off Ottawa's own debt, increasing spending on programs like health care or a combination of the two.
Predictably, Liberal leader Gerry Reid wants to spend the money on something here and now. He has spoken of running small deficits on a cash basis.
In doing so, Reid plays right into Loyola Sullivan's hands. Sullivan's presentation of the province's finances is designed to hide the extra cash in the bank every year. By calling for deficits, Reid allows Sullivan to simple hold up the debt-on-a-stick, wave it about and frighten people, all the while shaking his head at how the approach Reid proposes is what created the province's financial mess in the first place. Sullivan can and will heap praise on himself for having balanced the provincial books in two years when they predicted it might take eight years.
The balanced-books miracle is entirely made up, of course, at least insofar as Sullivan and Premier Williams claiming credit for it is concerned. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report two years ago deliberately underestimated the short- and medium-term provincial revenues to make the province's financial problems look far worse than they are. The revenues we have actually seen were predictable, even two years ago and even on a conservative - i.e. prudent - basis.
The source of the added cash is also worth noting. The new money does not come from the January deal with Paul Martin. The added money, both the royalties and the added corporate taxes, come entirely from the Real Atlantic Accord from 1985. The royalty regimes put in place by successive Liberal governments, building on the landmark deal under the Peckford Conservatives is pushing the provincial government well into the black. Taken together, the Real Atlantic Accord will add $302 million to the provincial accounts. On an accrual basis, those figures will total at least $330 million above the numbers in the spring budget. Note that this is almost bang on the offshore revenue projections made previously on the Bond Papers.
In fact, aside from the annual draw-downs allowed under the January deal, the interest income from the federal Equalization-like transfer payment is entirely absent from this little financial up-date. Media reports have quoted provincial officials to the effect that the interest on this money is accumulating at a rate of $5.0 million a month. That works out to about $45 million by the end of the fiscal year and that money, in its entirety is available for the province to spend.
Sullivan makes no mention of it at all.
Both Reid and Sullivan miss the point, however, the latter by obvious design.
The public discussion should be about how to be dispose of that cash in the long-term interest of the province. Loyola Sullivan's statement should have contained an honest presentation of the province's finances and a clear statement of what government will do with the hundreds of millions in extra money it has and will have year after year into the future.
Instead, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be bamboozled by numbers. They will be denied the chance to participate in a substantive public policy debate. In the end, and from the perspective of truth in accounting, it is hard to distinguish Sullivan from some of his immediate predecessors.
If past experience is any guide, though, we can make a reasonable prediction as to what government will do with its added cash. Come January 2006, there will be a spending spree, as there was in January 2005. What is genuinely a significant cash surplus will be spent on one-time projects, some of which may be of dubious long-term value. The penchant of this government for quick cash-fixes has been noted here on previous occasions.
And the long-term debt?
It will remain at $12.0 billion, growing steadily each year, all so that Loyola may have a boogeyman with which to frighten the natives.
Update - TD Waterhouse's senior economist made a number of interesting points, but also a number of errors in his comments on CBC radio this morning.
1. As noted above there has been NO action by the provincial government to date to reduce the debt load. The Grimes administration actually managed to retire some of the province's direct debt - a figure the economist referred to when he spoke of a debt t- GDP ratio of 20%. Total and accrual indebtedness continues to climb and will continue to climb under the Conservatives unless corrective action is taken.
2. The January deal is worth more than $2.0 billion. No way. As long as the provincial economy pushes the province off the Equalization rolls, the provincial government will get nothing from the January deal beyond the $321 million already drawn down. The only way to make the deal worth more than the initial hand-out is if oil prices fall well below the TD predictions, i.e. well below US$35, rebounding to US$50.
04 November 2005
03 November 2005
Yet another who are you quiz
Since this show first aired, I have been a big fan.
Turns out I match up to the guy who is now a congressman (at least on the show).
Of course, these days I am seldom younger than everyone else. *sigh*.
[via John Gushue, aka Toby Zeigler]
The idealistic speechwriter is well-liked by just about everyone. He's known for his excellent writing, sense of humor, and tendency to be clutzy. Although being younger than the rest of the staff, he's often treated as so, much to his dismay.
:: Which West Wing character are you? ::
Turns out I match up to the guy who is now a congressman (at least on the show).
Of course, these days I am seldom younger than everyone else. *sigh*.
[via John Gushue, aka Toby Zeigler]
The idealistic speechwriter is well-liked by just about everyone. He's known for his excellent writing, sense of humor, and tendency to be clutzy. Although being younger than the rest of the staff, he's often treated as so, much to his dismay.
:: Which West Wing character are you? ::
Chinooks to make come-back?
Sold off to Holland by the Mulroney administration at the same time that the military was organizing a light, heli-mobile brigade, Chinook helicopters may be coming back to the Canadian Forces, according to the Canadian Press.
Other purchases include new transport aircraft and a replacement for the Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft.
The army needs new heavy helicopters to assist in places like Afghanistan. Contenders for the purchase are said to include the CH-47 Chinook, the CH-53 Sea Stallion and the Sikorsky S-92. Last time I checked, the S-92 wasn't considered in the same class as the other two for sheer lift capacity.
Interoperability with the United States army would favour the Chinook.
The transport aircraft will replace the C-130E Hercules, some of which have been in service since the early 1960s. Most likely candidate to win the competition would be the J-model Herc already in service with the Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force.
Other purchases include new transport aircraft and a replacement for the Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft.
The army needs new heavy helicopters to assist in places like Afghanistan. Contenders for the purchase are said to include the CH-47 Chinook, the CH-53 Sea Stallion and the Sikorsky S-92. Last time I checked, the S-92 wasn't considered in the same class as the other two for sheer lift capacity.
Interoperability with the United States army would favour the Chinook.
The transport aircraft will replace the C-130E Hercules, some of which have been in service since the early 1960s. Most likely candidate to win the competition would be the J-model Herc already in service with the Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force.
02 November 2005
Sheila knew nothing? C'mon.
People sometimes have short memories.
Sheila Copps, disgruntled former Liberal leadership candidate, is intent on contradicting the findings of Justice Gomery in his conclusions about who knew what about the sponsorship scandal and when. Mind you, she has no evidence. She can't even do anything except suggest what might theoretically have happened.
But what about Copps herself, cause after all, Sheila, two can play the silly game she follows in her column.
Let's wander a bit through Sheila's own ministerial appointments.
1993 - 1997. Appointed deputy prime minister to Jean Chretien. For those who may not know, that put her closer to the centre of power and the sponsorship mess (by Sheila's own logic) than Paul Martin ever was.
1996 - 2003 Minister of Canadian Heritage, among other portfolios.
Given Sheila's position in the Chretien administration and her own logic, then Sheila knew all about sponsorship and its irregularities. We know that she was involved in the disastrous 1995 federalist referendum strategy and blew $16 million of taxpayers money on a ludicrous scheme to spread Canadian flags everywhere.
Was that sponsorship money? Nope. Not as far as I know. But it was a monumental waste of public funds.
But the really important question is this: how could the deputy prime minister of Canada - the second most powerful person in the cabinet - not have known about a scheme to defraud Canadians of hundreds of millions of dollars, especially considering the scheme was intimately related to the fight against separatism in which Copps herself was involved?
By the logic Copps herself uses against Paul Martin, then Gomery should have dragged her in the dock along with everyone else.
If the Canadian public are cynical, Sheila, then you ought to know. Your commentaries - and perhaps hypocrisy - fuel their doubts about politicians every time you open your mouth or tap your keyboard.
At least the public can read the Gomery report and understand that he has no ulterior motives in his commentary.
Sheila Copps, disgruntled former Liberal leadership candidate, is intent on contradicting the findings of Justice Gomery in his conclusions about who knew what about the sponsorship scandal and when. Mind you, she has no evidence. She can't even do anything except suggest what might theoretically have happened.
But what about Copps herself, cause after all, Sheila, two can play the silly game she follows in her column.
Let's wander a bit through Sheila's own ministerial appointments.
1993 - 1997. Appointed deputy prime minister to Jean Chretien. For those who may not know, that put her closer to the centre of power and the sponsorship mess (by Sheila's own logic) than Paul Martin ever was.
1996 - 2003 Minister of Canadian Heritage, among other portfolios.
Given Sheila's position in the Chretien administration and her own logic, then Sheila knew all about sponsorship and its irregularities. We know that she was involved in the disastrous 1995 federalist referendum strategy and blew $16 million of taxpayers money on a ludicrous scheme to spread Canadian flags everywhere.
Was that sponsorship money? Nope. Not as far as I know. But it was a monumental waste of public funds.
But the really important question is this: how could the deputy prime minister of Canada - the second most powerful person in the cabinet - not have known about a scheme to defraud Canadians of hundreds of millions of dollars, especially considering the scheme was intimately related to the fight against separatism in which Copps herself was involved?
By the logic Copps herself uses against Paul Martin, then Gomery should have dragged her in the dock along with everyone else.
If the Canadian public are cynical, Sheila, then you ought to know. Your commentaries - and perhaps hypocrisy - fuel their doubts about politicians every time you open your mouth or tap your keyboard.
At least the public can read the Gomery report and understand that he has no ulterior motives in his commentary.
Go read Gomery
As much as there will be a bunch of people running about telling you what Gomery said about the sponsorship scandal, the easiest thing to do is read it for yourself.
Consider this:
"Prior to November 1993 [i.e. under the Mulroney administration] ... the selection and engagement of advertising agencies to assist the government in its advertising activities were openly done on a political basis. ... Advertising and communication agencies having Liberal Party sympathies or connections had little or no chance of getting government business."
"[Then, after the Liberals came to power], what appears to have been a sincere attempt to depoliticize an openly biased procurement policy was subverted almost from the very beginning."
or this:
"Just as it is important to identify persons who failed to fulfill their responsibilities or who might have been guilty of misconduct, it is equally important in this Report to identify persons who, on the basis of the evidence, are innocent of any misconduct or mismanagement. Such persons who, in the publicity surrounding the Commission or elsewhere, might have been accused or suspected of improprieties, are entitled to have any blemishes to their reputations explained or removed."
and this:
"One of the main purposes of a public inquiry is to enable concerned citizens to learn firsthand what occurred when allegations of the improper use of public funds have been made. By following the public hearings they are able to arrive at informed opinions as to who might be held responsible for any errors or mismanagement that might have occurred affecting what the Inquiries Act calls "the good government of Canada." The first role of the Commissioner is to conduct hearings that serve to facilitate the understanding of the public, while ensuring at the same time that the presentation of the evidence is done fairly and dispassionately, to avoid premature or unfounded conclusions from being reached which risk damaging the reputations of persons innocent of any wrongdoing, impropriety or negligence."
What Justice Gomery has accomplished herfulfillsls exactly the mandate he received.
Consider this:
"Prior to November 1993 [i.e. under the Mulroney administration] ... the selection and engagement of advertising agencies to assist the government in its advertising activities were openly done on a political basis. ... Advertising and communication agencies having Liberal Party sympathies or connections had little or no chance of getting government business."
"[Then, after the Liberals came to power], what appears to have been a sincere attempt to depoliticize an openly biased procurement policy was subverted almost from the very beginning."
or this:
"Just as it is important to identify persons who failed to fulfill their responsibilities or who might have been guilty of misconduct, it is equally important in this Report to identify persons who, on the basis of the evidence, are innocent of any misconduct or mismanagement. Such persons who, in the publicity surrounding the Commission or elsewhere, might have been accused or suspected of improprieties, are entitled to have any blemishes to their reputations explained or removed."
and this:
"One of the main purposes of a public inquiry is to enable concerned citizens to learn firsthand what occurred when allegations of the improper use of public funds have been made. By following the public hearings they are able to arrive at informed opinions as to who might be held responsible for any errors or mismanagement that might have occurred affecting what the Inquiries Act calls "the good government of Canada." The first role of the Commissioner is to conduct hearings that serve to facilitate the understanding of the public, while ensuring at the same time that the presentation of the evidence is done fairly and dispassionately, to avoid premature or unfounded conclusions from being reached which risk damaging the reputations of persons innocent of any wrongdoing, impropriety or negligence."
What Justice Gomery has accomplished herfulfillsls exactly the mandate he received.
Two down, one more to go.
The Dion thing was scarcely on the blog for five minutes when the first e-mail arrived yesterday from one of three people I expected to hear from in short order.
Number two is over at Responsible Government League in which spleen is vented once more at the evils of Canada and the evils of the central government and well, basically proving Dion's point that there is a lamentable tendency to view everything in Canadian politics as a unity issue.
Now I just have one more voice to hear from, like by e-mail to know I have hit the hat-trick.
Number two is over at Responsible Government League in which spleen is vented once more at the evils of Canada and the evils of the central government and well, basically proving Dion's point that there is a lamentable tendency to view everything in Canadian politics as a unity issue.
Now I just have one more voice to hear from, like by e-mail to know I have hit the hat-trick.
01 November 2005
Nothing can justify secession in Canada
At the risk of making yet another lengthy post, I thought I'd post this recent column by Stephane Dion that appeared in the Toronto Star.
There's always a chance it will get lost in cyberspace.
_____
Nothing can justify secession in Canada
Stephane Dion says it is time to stop treating all problems as unity issues
_____
Ten years after the 1995 referendum, 25 years after the 1980 referendum, I know that the resurgence of the secessionist debate in Quebec continues to create its fair share of exasperation across the country.
How is it that this old threat to our unity is back again? Many ask themselves what they can do to help in these circumstances. If I had only one suggestion to offer, it would be the following: We need to be fairer to our country.
I have in mind a particular bad habit that is far too entrenched in Canadian political culture. Too often we over-dramatize the normal disagreements that we have in our democracy, while at the same time trivializing the use of arguments for separatism in the course of these otherwise normal debates.
This is certainly the case in Quebec where the separatist leaders never miss an opportunity to turn any intergovernmental disagreement into an argument for Quebec separation. Those tensions inherent in any federal system are always portrayed as proof that Canada is dysfunctional, unfair and insensitive to Quebec.
But now, how many times have we heard pro-Canada politicians - and not only from Quebec - using the same argument? Oh, they will not say: "I will become a separatist if things do not go my way." But they will be quick to say that separatism will have a stronger case if they don't get their way. The last example that comes to mind is Conservative leader Stephen Harper's recent intervention in the House of Commons when he described the federal initiative to help provincial day-care systems as a potential threat to Canadian unity.
In 10 years in politics - eight as unity minister - I have heard this argument in the strangest situations: from the Pacific salmon to the Atlantic cod. Is there any other country where the ratification of an environmental protocol (Kyoto) has been described as a unity issue?
Recently, we have seen adults claiming the unity of the country is threatened because one of our provinces is becoming too rich! Or because the federal surpluses are too big! Only in Canada, I tell you.
And you have the opposite argument: those politicians who cannot refrain from celebrating a political result that went their way as the proof that "Canada works." Because a different outcome, obviously, would have been the proof that Canada does not work.
And if you show that you do not take these separatist musings seriously, you may be accused of insensitivity. I remember once in Alberta, a journalist asked me if I thought that Albertan separatism was a serious threat. I answered that I had no doubts about the iron-clad commitment of Albertans to their country. The headline the next day was: "Our unity minister doesn't care about Western alienation." I suppose that I should have expressed doubt about Albertans' loyalty to Canada in order to show that I care about this part of my country.
Ah, the Canadian media and their frenzy for anything that can be twisted into a unity problem. Okay, I won't go there this time.
If the Canadian political class continues to portray Canada as a fragile country, a loose union, always close to disintegration at the first difficulty, how can we hope that the separatist debate will end in Quebec?
There will always be some disagreement down the road, some source of frustration that the separatist movement will describe as the "new" proof that Canada does not work. And what will be the counterargument? To find an agreement that proves Canada works - at least until the next disagreement? That is a never-ending cycle.
One of the worst examples that I have seen about how separatism is trivialized occurred during the last federal election when I discovered that some NDP candidates in Quebec were acknowledged separatists. Today, I ask NDP leader Jack Layton to declare that from now on a commitment to Canadian unity is a sine qua non condition to be an NDP candidate. This is the minimal respect a national leader owes to Canada.
In fact, it would be so simple to stop showing such disrespect to Canada. We just have to say that nothing justifies secession in Canada. Nothing in Quebec. Nothing in any other province. And to hold to that, despite the inevitable disagreements that will arise in our lively democracy.
And then, yes, we will show respect for Canada. Believe me, this respect will be contagious.
_____
Stephane Dion is the federal Minister of the Environment.
There's always a chance it will get lost in cyberspace.
_____
Nothing can justify secession in Canada
Stephane Dion says it is time to stop treating all problems as unity issues
_____
Ten years after the 1995 referendum, 25 years after the 1980 referendum, I know that the resurgence of the secessionist debate in Quebec continues to create its fair share of exasperation across the country.
How is it that this old threat to our unity is back again? Many ask themselves what they can do to help in these circumstances. If I had only one suggestion to offer, it would be the following: We need to be fairer to our country.
I have in mind a particular bad habit that is far too entrenched in Canadian political culture. Too often we over-dramatize the normal disagreements that we have in our democracy, while at the same time trivializing the use of arguments for separatism in the course of these otherwise normal debates.
This is certainly the case in Quebec where the separatist leaders never miss an opportunity to turn any intergovernmental disagreement into an argument for Quebec separation. Those tensions inherent in any federal system are always portrayed as proof that Canada is dysfunctional, unfair and insensitive to Quebec.
But now, how many times have we heard pro-Canada politicians - and not only from Quebec - using the same argument? Oh, they will not say: "I will become a separatist if things do not go my way." But they will be quick to say that separatism will have a stronger case if they don't get their way. The last example that comes to mind is Conservative leader Stephen Harper's recent intervention in the House of Commons when he described the federal initiative to help provincial day-care systems as a potential threat to Canadian unity.
In 10 years in politics - eight as unity minister - I have heard this argument in the strangest situations: from the Pacific salmon to the Atlantic cod. Is there any other country where the ratification of an environmental protocol (Kyoto) has been described as a unity issue?
Recently, we have seen adults claiming the unity of the country is threatened because one of our provinces is becoming too rich! Or because the federal surpluses are too big! Only in Canada, I tell you.
And you have the opposite argument: those politicians who cannot refrain from celebrating a political result that went their way as the proof that "Canada works." Because a different outcome, obviously, would have been the proof that Canada does not work.
And if you show that you do not take these separatist musings seriously, you may be accused of insensitivity. I remember once in Alberta, a journalist asked me if I thought that Albertan separatism was a serious threat. I answered that I had no doubts about the iron-clad commitment of Albertans to their country. The headline the next day was: "Our unity minister doesn't care about Western alienation." I suppose that I should have expressed doubt about Albertans' loyalty to Canada in order to show that I care about this part of my country.
Ah, the Canadian media and their frenzy for anything that can be twisted into a unity problem. Okay, I won't go there this time.
If the Canadian political class continues to portray Canada as a fragile country, a loose union, always close to disintegration at the first difficulty, how can we hope that the separatist debate will end in Quebec?
There will always be some disagreement down the road, some source of frustration that the separatist movement will describe as the "new" proof that Canada does not work. And what will be the counterargument? To find an agreement that proves Canada works - at least until the next disagreement? That is a never-ending cycle.
One of the worst examples that I have seen about how separatism is trivialized occurred during the last federal election when I discovered that some NDP candidates in Quebec were acknowledged separatists. Today, I ask NDP leader Jack Layton to declare that from now on a commitment to Canadian unity is a sine qua non condition to be an NDP candidate. This is the minimal respect a national leader owes to Canada.
In fact, it would be so simple to stop showing such disrespect to Canada. We just have to say that nothing justifies secession in Canada. Nothing in Quebec. Nothing in any other province. And to hold to that, despite the inevitable disagreements that will arise in our lively democracy.
And then, yes, we will show respect for Canada. Believe me, this respect will be contagious.
_____
Stephane Dion is the federal Minister of the Environment.
31 October 2005
Le maudit CBC
In a break from watching the two-part CBC special on the 1995 referendum, I decided to check out the program's website.
It's pretty thin in many respects.
Then I came across the bit titled "Tobin takes charge". Scary thought that it is.
But try this little quote on for size:
"From Halifax to Victoria, a huge campaign is organized: thousands of Canadians send postcards to Quebecers with messages of friendship, pleading with them not to give up their country." [Emphasis added]
Was this written by someone whose memory stopped on 31 March 1949?
I trust the rest of the program does not suffer from a similar lack of adequate research.
It's pretty thin in many respects.
Then I came across the bit titled "Tobin takes charge". Scary thought that it is.
But try this little quote on for size:
"From Halifax to Victoria, a huge campaign is organized: thousands of Canadians send postcards to Quebecers with messages of friendship, pleading with them not to give up their country." [Emphasis added]
Was this written by someone whose memory stopped on 31 March 1949?
I trust the rest of the program does not suffer from a similar lack of adequate research.
Up the dose, Sheila
When it looked like the Gomery Commission was going to skewer the Martin Liberals, Sheila Copps and her associates danced with glee on the grave that had yet to be dug.
Now that it looks like Gomery won't follow the course Sheila et al. would have preferred, she is seeking to sink the thing with rumour, speculation and innuendo.
The Sun, of course, is that bastion of journalism that tried to paint a bull's eye on people like Rick Mercer by outing their morale-boosting trip to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
Sheila, of course, is the bitter Liberal leadership candidate who got creamed by Paul Martin in the leadership run and then capped it off by self-immolating with a bad tactical decision during a nomination fight in her own riding.
The former deputy prime minister during the near-debacle referendum a decade ago and the one who came up with the Print Millions of Flags to Save Canada nonsense is now attacking Paul Martin with a degree of hatred that would make Brian Pallister look like a wuss.
Somehow Sheila seems to think that a well-respected judge with no known partisan affiliations and a process that included Brian Mulroney's former chief of staff as one of the inquiry's lead counsel will now do something other than tell the truth.
Give it a rest, Sheila.
Or up the dose on the meds.
Looks like Rick Mercer made a good call, albeit for other reasons.
Now that it looks like Gomery won't follow the course Sheila et al. would have preferred, she is seeking to sink the thing with rumour, speculation and innuendo.
The Sun, of course, is that bastion of journalism that tried to paint a bull's eye on people like Rick Mercer by outing their morale-boosting trip to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
Sheila, of course, is the bitter Liberal leadership candidate who got creamed by Paul Martin in the leadership run and then capped it off by self-immolating with a bad tactical decision during a nomination fight in her own riding.
The former deputy prime minister during the near-debacle referendum a decade ago and the one who came up with the Print Millions of Flags to Save Canada nonsense is now attacking Paul Martin with a degree of hatred that would make Brian Pallister look like a wuss.
Somehow Sheila seems to think that a well-respected judge with no known partisan affiliations and a process that included Brian Mulroney's former chief of staff as one of the inquiry's lead counsel will now do something other than tell the truth.
Give it a rest, Sheila.
Or up the dose on the meds.
Looks like Rick Mercer made a good call, albeit for other reasons.
SQFT egale square head
In the Canadian Forces, Secteur du Quebec de la Force Terrestre, the Army's Quebec region is known by its acronym SQFT, sometimes pronounced square foot.
Here, in French, is a brief story on results of as recent CROP survey of Francophone recruits being trained at the Canadian Forces Base, Valcartier .
It reveals a group of recruits prone to disobedience, who are less tolerant of immigrants and less supportive of sexual equality than their Anglophone counterparts.
Seems that in Quebec, SQFT actually stands for square head.
Here, in French, is a brief story on results of as recent CROP survey of Francophone recruits being trained at the Canadian Forces Base, Valcartier .
It reveals a group of recruits prone to disobedience, who are less tolerant of immigrants and less supportive of sexual equality than their Anglophone counterparts.
Seems that in Quebec, SQFT actually stands for square head.
30 October 2005
The Constitutional Fish - the decision
On Friday, October 28, 2005 Rick Bouzan and George Nichol were found guilty of breaching federal fisheries regulations during the 2004 recreational fishery.
The decision by Provincial Court Judge Harold Porter was covered by news media, although both the Telegram and Independent versions didn't accurately reflect the decision. Both included comments by the lawyer for Bouzan and Nichol and comments by the defendants that the decision was based, in part, on the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador was a colony at the time of Confederation.
Here is a summary of the decision rendered by the court, taken from the written decision. An online version will be available from the Canadian Legal Information Institute, CanLII.
The decision can be broken into two parts. First there is the offense itself, which was a breach of federal fisheries regulations requiring that fish caught had to be taken on being landed. The purpose of the regulation, while not mentioned in the decision, appears to be aimed at preventing highgrading. This is the practice of catching many more fish than allowed (in this case 15) and the keeping only the best ones.
Both the prosecution and the defence filed an agreed statement of facts. Here it is in part:
The decision by Provincial Court Judge Harold Porter was covered by news media, although both the Telegram and Independent versions didn't accurately reflect the decision. Both included comments by the lawyer for Bouzan and Nichol and comments by the defendants that the decision was based, in part, on the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador was a colony at the time of Confederation.
Here is a summary of the decision rendered by the court, taken from the written decision. An online version will be available from the Canadian Legal Information Institute, CanLII.
The decision can be broken into two parts. First there is the offense itself, which was a breach of federal fisheries regulations requiring that fish caught had to be taken on being landed. The purpose of the regulation, while not mentioned in the decision, appears to be aimed at preventing highgrading. This is the practice of catching many more fish than allowed (in this case 15) and the keeping only the best ones.
Both the prosecution and the defence filed an agreed statement of facts. Here it is in part:
"As the Officers were coming alongside [the defendants' boat] they told both gentlemen not to bother tagging any more fish. Officer Walsh who was at the front of the patrol boat observed Mr. Nicholls tag approximately 3 to 4 codfish while the other man, Mr. Bouzan, had not tagged any fish as he had just found his tags and had them placed on the seat of the boat next to him.
Once alongside Officers Walsh and Ward told the men they would be conducting an inspection of their vessel. Officer Walsh obtained both men's Department of Fisheries and Oceans 3Ps recreational cod licenses and began filling out an inspection form. Officer Ward next asked the men to hand over their catch so that he could inspect it.
The men handed over a fish pan full of cod with one redfish in it as well to Officer Ward who then inspected the catch aboard the patrol vessel. Twelve cod fish were found tagged with tag # 012259 belonging to Mr. Nicholl and 17 cod fish were not tagged. No cod were tagged from Mr. Bouzan's license which was tag # 010857. Fifteen of the cod had been gutted prior to tagging and appeared to the officers to have been caught for some time.
Officer Ward asked the men when they had come out fishing and both men said they had been out "most of the day." No fish entrails were present aboard the vessel or floating in the water next to the boat. The men said they were just going to stop fishing and head to port. Both officers told both men they could return to port and that they would follow them in.
After arriving at a wharf in Little Bay East, Newfoundland both officers separated the tagged cod from the untagged ones and then headed over to where both men landed and returned the tagged cod and their fish pan to them. At that time both officers identified themselves to both men with their badges and identification cards.
Officer Walsh told both men that an investigation had been initiated. At approximately 1510 hours both men were read the standard caution by Officer Walsh and rights to council [sic] were extended. Both men said they understood all parts and did not want to contact duty council [sic] at that time.
Officer Walsh told both men that they may be charged with failing to tag cod immediately after catching the cod. Officer Walsh told both men that their untagged cod was seized and that their unused cod tags would be seized as part of the investigation. Both men supplied Officer Walsh with their tags at that time. All fifteen of Mr. Bouzan's recreational cod tags were seized and three unused tags were seized from Mr. Nichol's license.
After caution Mr. Bouzan said, "I didn't read my license. It's my own fault, I should have read the fine print." Mr. Bouzan said this after the officers told both men that all cod caught must be tagged immediately after catching the cod while recreational cod fishing. Both men were told by the Officers that they would be in touch with them at a later date. Both officers then left the area and continued their patrol.
The seized fish were stored at the DFO Warehouse in Marystown and the unused tags were stored at the DFO Office in Marystown. It was a condition of both mens''’ license that any cod caught must "‘be tagged immediately after it is caught in the following manner: A non- used tag, issued with this license and valid for the NAFO division being fished, must be affixed through the gill and mouth of each Atlantic Cod. The tag must be properly sealed such that the tag cannot be re-opened or removed."’ Each license had 15 tags issued with it."”
That's pretty straightforward and, on that basis, the men were found guilty. The court was asked to consider a constitutional challenge to the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada over fisheries within three miles of the low water mark around Newfoundland and Labrador. The first question posed was as follows:
"Does the government of Canada have the jurisdiction to regulate the catching of groundfish, including cod, within three miles of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador going from headland to headland?"
On this matter, Judge Porter concluded based on case law before and after 1949 as well as the Terms of Union that the Government of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries matters in and around Newfoundland and Labrador. The court was asked to consider a second question, namely:
"If the government of Canada has the jurisdiction to regulate the catching of groundfish, including cod, within three miles of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador going from headland to headland, does that jurisdiction include the right to regulate the catching of groundfish, including cod, for personal consumption?"
Judge Porter found that the federal jurisdiction over fisheries matters and that this jurisdiction includes fisheries within three miles of Canadian land as well as offshore islands. He rejects the notion of a three mile limit as having any grounds since the provincial government exercises jurisdiction for bird and land animal conservation over islands which are more than three miles from shore.
As well, he found that established case law held that a provincial government has jurisdiction over matters within its legislative competence within its boundaries. Since the Terms of Union do not include fisheries matters within the jurisdiction of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the issue of where the provincial boundary exists isn't relevant in this matter. As to the issue of using fish for personal consumption, it is worthwhile to quote the decision in its entirety:
[73] The third part of the second question narrows the focus to not just fishing for cod, but to fishing for cod "“for personal consumption"”. In this regard, say the Defendants, they are in the same situation as the Powleys were. The Powleys were Metis in Ontario who said that they had a right to take moose, withoulicensece, for personal consumption: see Powley [2003] 2S.C.R. 207.
[74] Contrary to the Metis in Ontario, there are no indigenous aboriginal communities on the island of Newfoundland: see Drew [2003] N.J. 177. Even if there were, there is no suggestion that the Defendants claim membership in such a community.
[75] As a matter of Crown honour, say the defendants, the federal government must have a referendum among the residents of this Province before they can find the jurisdiction to regulate the taking of fish for personal consumption.
[76] This position is untenable: there was a referendum prior to Newfoundland entering Confederation. On entry into Confederation, Newfoundland assumed the same position as if Confederation had been achieved in 1867. As earlier discussed, this included recognition of exclusive jurisdiction over the fishery in the Federal Crown. There is no reason to distinguish between fishing for trade, barter, or personal consumption.
At no point in the decision did Judge Porter make any reference to the notion that Newfoundland and Labrador was a colony at the time of Confederation. Since I wasn't in court, I cannot say for certain he made no mention of this issue in his remarks.
But let's be clear: there is nothing about this issue at all in the written decision.
Judge Porter's decision is based on both the agreed upon statement of facts presented by both parties in court with respect to the offence. On the constitutional issues, Porter relied on case law, the Terms of Union and a variety of statutes and proclamations dating back to the 18th century.
Nichol and Bouzan were fined $100 each for having untagged cod in the possession. in news reports, Bouzan has indicated the case has cost the two defendents $11, 000 so far. They intend to appeal the conviction.
It will be interesting to see what happens when and if the matter gets to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal. I'd wager the thing will never get to thSuprememe Court of Canada.
The whole thing is black letter law.
Once alongside Officers Walsh and Ward told the men they would be conducting an inspection of their vessel. Officer Walsh obtained both men's Department of Fisheries and Oceans 3Ps recreational cod licenses and began filling out an inspection form. Officer Ward next asked the men to hand over their catch so that he could inspect it.
The men handed over a fish pan full of cod with one redfish in it as well to Officer Ward who then inspected the catch aboard the patrol vessel. Twelve cod fish were found tagged with tag # 012259 belonging to Mr. Nicholl and 17 cod fish were not tagged. No cod were tagged from Mr. Bouzan's license which was tag # 010857. Fifteen of the cod had been gutted prior to tagging and appeared to the officers to have been caught for some time.
Officer Ward asked the men when they had come out fishing and both men said they had been out "most of the day." No fish entrails were present aboard the vessel or floating in the water next to the boat. The men said they were just going to stop fishing and head to port. Both officers told both men they could return to port and that they would follow them in.
After arriving at a wharf in Little Bay East, Newfoundland both officers separated the tagged cod from the untagged ones and then headed over to where both men landed and returned the tagged cod and their fish pan to them. At that time both officers identified themselves to both men with their badges and identification cards.
Officer Walsh told both men that an investigation had been initiated. At approximately 1510 hours both men were read the standard caution by Officer Walsh and rights to council [sic] were extended. Both men said they understood all parts and did not want to contact duty council [sic] at that time.
Officer Walsh told both men that they may be charged with failing to tag cod immediately after catching the cod. Officer Walsh told both men that their untagged cod was seized and that their unused cod tags would be seized as part of the investigation. Both men supplied Officer Walsh with their tags at that time. All fifteen of Mr. Bouzan's recreational cod tags were seized and three unused tags were seized from Mr. Nichol's license.
After caution Mr. Bouzan said, "I didn't read my license. It's my own fault, I should have read the fine print." Mr. Bouzan said this after the officers told both men that all cod caught must be tagged immediately after catching the cod while recreational cod fishing. Both men were told by the Officers that they would be in touch with them at a later date. Both officers then left the area and continued their patrol.
The seized fish were stored at the DFO Warehouse in Marystown and the unused tags were stored at the DFO Office in Marystown. It was a condition of both mens''’ license that any cod caught must "‘be tagged immediately after it is caught in the following manner: A non- used tag, issued with this license and valid for the NAFO division being fished, must be affixed through the gill and mouth of each Atlantic Cod. The tag must be properly sealed such that the tag cannot be re-opened or removed."’ Each license had 15 tags issued with it."”
That's pretty straightforward and, on that basis, the men were found guilty. The court was asked to consider a constitutional challenge to the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada over fisheries within three miles of the low water mark around Newfoundland and Labrador. The first question posed was as follows:
"Does the government of Canada have the jurisdiction to regulate the catching of groundfish, including cod, within three miles of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador going from headland to headland?"
On this matter, Judge Porter concluded based on case law before and after 1949 as well as the Terms of Union that the Government of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries matters in and around Newfoundland and Labrador. The court was asked to consider a second question, namely:
"If the government of Canada has the jurisdiction to regulate the catching of groundfish, including cod, within three miles of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador going from headland to headland, does that jurisdiction include the right to regulate the catching of groundfish, including cod, for personal consumption?"
Judge Porter found that the federal jurisdiction over fisheries matters and that this jurisdiction includes fisheries within three miles of Canadian land as well as offshore islands. He rejects the notion of a three mile limit as having any grounds since the provincial government exercises jurisdiction for bird and land animal conservation over islands which are more than three miles from shore.
As well, he found that established case law held that a provincial government has jurisdiction over matters within its legislative competence within its boundaries. Since the Terms of Union do not include fisheries matters within the jurisdiction of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the issue of where the provincial boundary exists isn't relevant in this matter. As to the issue of using fish for personal consumption, it is worthwhile to quote the decision in its entirety:
[73] The third part of the second question narrows the focus to not just fishing for cod, but to fishing for cod "“for personal consumption"”. In this regard, say the Defendants, they are in the same situation as the Powleys were. The Powleys were Metis in Ontario who said that they had a right to take moose, withoulicensece, for personal consumption: see Powley [2003] 2S.C.R. 207.
[74] Contrary to the Metis in Ontario, there are no indigenous aboriginal communities on the island of Newfoundland: see Drew [2003] N.J. 177. Even if there were, there is no suggestion that the Defendants claim membership in such a community.
[75] As a matter of Crown honour, say the defendants, the federal government must have a referendum among the residents of this Province before they can find the jurisdiction to regulate the taking of fish for personal consumption.
[76] This position is untenable: there was a referendum prior to Newfoundland entering Confederation. On entry into Confederation, Newfoundland assumed the same position as if Confederation had been achieved in 1867. As earlier discussed, this included recognition of exclusive jurisdiction over the fishery in the Federal Crown. There is no reason to distinguish between fishing for trade, barter, or personal consumption.
At no point in the decision did Judge Porter make any reference to the notion that Newfoundland and Labrador was a colony at the time of Confederation. Since I wasn't in court, I cannot say for certain he made no mention of this issue in his remarks.
But let's be clear: there is nothing about this issue at all in the written decision.
Judge Porter's decision is based on both the agreed upon statement of facts presented by both parties in court with respect to the offence. On the constitutional issues, Porter relied on case law, the Terms of Union and a variety of statutes and proclamations dating back to the 18th century.
Nichol and Bouzan were fined $100 each for having untagged cod in the possession. in news reports, Bouzan has indicated the case has cost the two defendents $11, 000 so far. They intend to appeal the conviction.
It will be interesting to see what happens when and if the matter gets to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal. I'd wager the thing will never get to thSuprememe Court of Canada.
The whole thing is black letter law.
Sunday morning, 8:00 AM, Quality Time
I once suggested a variation on this Bloom County panel as a billboard ad. The client didn't take it, but hey not every idea passes client-muster.
After all these years, I still find it both funny and fitting at the same time.
Piece and quiet, a cup of hot coffee and something decent to read.
29 October 2005
Saturday Night, 10:00 PM, Same ole Spindy
It's actually a great thing to be able to get the local hotbed of investigative reporting on Saturday night while most people wait until sometime Sunday to find out how far short of its own billing the Independent has fallen again this week.
A cuppa Tim's finest, some peace with the door locked and the Spindy.
The best thing about the Spindy - every single week, without fail - is Paul Daly's spectacular photography. It remains the only positive reason to read Brian Dobbin's rag. Check out the page one shot of Constable Stephen Knight. You just can't get that composition and clarity anywhere else in the province. Heck, I don't think you find Daly-quality shooting in most other papers in the country. (Photo: Paul Daly/The Independent - from last week)
On the front page there's a really puffy, flattering profile of PetroNewf boss Ed Martin. In a week where both Martin and his boss the Premier talked a bit about this whole idea of taking the Crown hydro corp and sticking it in the oil patch, the Spindy didn't see fit to dive into some detail. Poke and probe a bit. Maybe take a critical look. Nope. More butt-kissing fluff of the kind we got when Danny re-appointed his ole buddy Dean MacDonald to run the board over on the Crosstown Arterial.
Try and find anything substantive on the Abitibi subsidies and you are excrementally devoid of good fortune. The story that seems to mark a real turning point in the Premier's popularity and political life garners a tiny mention in managing editor Ryan Cleary's column. On the front page, there's instead a focus on a mill in New Brunswick with some references - unenlightening ones at that - to Stephenville. Cleary was in Stephenville for the announcement, too.
Cleary does bitch about other media outlets taking a couple of Spindy stories and covering them as well, without giving the Spindy any reference. That happens all the time, as Ryan well knows, especially when the stories he mentions have been covered and will be covered in any event by everyone else, anyway. The Spindy didn't break anything here of substance so he really can't complain. What he should do is thank his lucky stars other media outlets don't point to the number of times the old Spinner has cranked out stories based on a sole source that turned out to be completely lacking in any substance or foundation.
My fave front-pager this week is the result of an Access to Information Act request that netted a whole bunch of e-mails the Prime Minister got about the offshore oil deal. Wow. Like we needed the Spindy to tell us - for the umpteenth time - about Danny's Greatest Triumph.
There's a page two story on the Bouzan conviction that, like its Telegram counterpart demonstrates that the two reporters didn't actually sit in court for the decision or if they did, they missed the pretty straightforward reasoning of Judge Harold Porter. (More on that tomorrow, since I actually have a copy of the decision.)
There's a decent story on page 3 about the Royal Canadian Legion and the closure of 15 branches in the past year. There's also a little piece about the lack of information Canadian officials have on oil spills outside the 200 mile economic zone. Hint: The Spindy hates DFO for a whole bunch of reasons, so don't ever expect to see a balanced story on the federal fish department.
The Spindy decided this week to do yet another attendance poll of federal members of parliament from this province. Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle top the list. But hey. If they spend so much time in Ottawa, why exactly do they claim really high amounts of travel from the taxpayers? For those who missed it, the most recent figures are here for Messers Hearn and Doyle. High attendance and high travel bills seem to contradict each other, but then again if the Spindy actually poked at these two former Peckford cabinet ministers, they wouldn't be able to rely on them for anti-DFO quotes every week or so.
Incidentally, given the rules under which those claims are filed, you and I can't get access to the receipts for the claims as we can for any other senior official of government. Heck, we can't even get the kind of detail available from the fed's Proactive Disclosure. It's worth taking a look at those sections of departmental websites sometimes to just how little actually does get spent for things like travel every quarter of the year.
Fight your way through to the editorial page and find that Brian Dobbin is back, this week spilling ink about the lack of capital in the province. He takes a smack at the fact Canadian investment money seems to sit in Toronto and then launches into a little story about his travels to places like Hong Kong and the United Kingdom looking for investors.
Don't expect any insights here; Dobbin neglects to point out that having a thriving and diverse private sector would actually give investment capital, as would creating jobs and wealth such that ordinary people could invest in strong local, free enterprise.
Problem with that approach is that it would lead to Dobbin doing two things he would never do: a. criticise the PetroNewf decision of his new patron on the Ireland thing and b. lead to questions about how much government capital it takes to actually run a local bastion of capitalism. I am thinking Gander and Brian's hatred of the CBC, in case one example isn't coming readily to your mind.
Oh. But wait, Brian doesn't buy shares in anything himself since he feels that the value is often hyped as opposed to being substantive. Hmmm. An interesting attitude. Not one I'd agree with in every case, but it is curious. I'd love to hear brian explian to his uncle, Craig, that shares in the second-largest helicopter company in the world are built on a mound of crap.
Well, the Tim's was good as usual. The Spindy was not, as usual, except for Paul's photography and Stephanie Porter's reporting. Take away the stuff they lift from the Toronto Star and some New Brunswick papers and the paper thins out quite a bit after the op-ed page.
What a way to spend Saturday night.
I need to check the guide.
Maybe there's a Golden Girls rerun on.
A cuppa Tim's finest, some peace with the door locked and the Spindy.
The best thing about the Spindy - every single week, without fail - is Paul Daly's spectacular photography. It remains the only positive reason to read Brian Dobbin's rag. Check out the page one shot of Constable Stephen Knight. You just can't get that composition and clarity anywhere else in the province. Heck, I don't think you find Daly-quality shooting in most other papers in the country. (Photo: Paul Daly/The Independent - from last week)On the front page there's a really puffy, flattering profile of PetroNewf boss Ed Martin. In a week where both Martin and his boss the Premier talked a bit about this whole idea of taking the Crown hydro corp and sticking it in the oil patch, the Spindy didn't see fit to dive into some detail. Poke and probe a bit. Maybe take a critical look. Nope. More butt-kissing fluff of the kind we got when Danny re-appointed his ole buddy Dean MacDonald to run the board over on the Crosstown Arterial.
Try and find anything substantive on the Abitibi subsidies and you are excrementally devoid of good fortune. The story that seems to mark a real turning point in the Premier's popularity and political life garners a tiny mention in managing editor Ryan Cleary's column. On the front page, there's instead a focus on a mill in New Brunswick with some references - unenlightening ones at that - to Stephenville. Cleary was in Stephenville for the announcement, too.
Cleary does bitch about other media outlets taking a couple of Spindy stories and covering them as well, without giving the Spindy any reference. That happens all the time, as Ryan well knows, especially when the stories he mentions have been covered and will be covered in any event by everyone else, anyway. The Spindy didn't break anything here of substance so he really can't complain. What he should do is thank his lucky stars other media outlets don't point to the number of times the old Spinner has cranked out stories based on a sole source that turned out to be completely lacking in any substance or foundation.
My fave front-pager this week is the result of an Access to Information Act request that netted a whole bunch of e-mails the Prime Minister got about the offshore oil deal. Wow. Like we needed the Spindy to tell us - for the umpteenth time - about Danny's Greatest Triumph.
There's a page two story on the Bouzan conviction that, like its Telegram counterpart demonstrates that the two reporters didn't actually sit in court for the decision or if they did, they missed the pretty straightforward reasoning of Judge Harold Porter. (More on that tomorrow, since I actually have a copy of the decision.)
There's a decent story on page 3 about the Royal Canadian Legion and the closure of 15 branches in the past year. There's also a little piece about the lack of information Canadian officials have on oil spills outside the 200 mile economic zone. Hint: The Spindy hates DFO for a whole bunch of reasons, so don't ever expect to see a balanced story on the federal fish department.
The Spindy decided this week to do yet another attendance poll of federal members of parliament from this province. Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle top the list. But hey. If they spend so much time in Ottawa, why exactly do they claim really high amounts of travel from the taxpayers? For those who missed it, the most recent figures are here for Messers Hearn and Doyle. High attendance and high travel bills seem to contradict each other, but then again if the Spindy actually poked at these two former Peckford cabinet ministers, they wouldn't be able to rely on them for anti-DFO quotes every week or so.
Incidentally, given the rules under which those claims are filed, you and I can't get access to the receipts for the claims as we can for any other senior official of government. Heck, we can't even get the kind of detail available from the fed's Proactive Disclosure. It's worth taking a look at those sections of departmental websites sometimes to just how little actually does get spent for things like travel every quarter of the year.
Fight your way through to the editorial page and find that Brian Dobbin is back, this week spilling ink about the lack of capital in the province. He takes a smack at the fact Canadian investment money seems to sit in Toronto and then launches into a little story about his travels to places like Hong Kong and the United Kingdom looking for investors.
Don't expect any insights here; Dobbin neglects to point out that having a thriving and diverse private sector would actually give investment capital, as would creating jobs and wealth such that ordinary people could invest in strong local, free enterprise.
Problem with that approach is that it would lead to Dobbin doing two things he would never do: a. criticise the PetroNewf decision of his new patron on the Ireland thing and b. lead to questions about how much government capital it takes to actually run a local bastion of capitalism. I am thinking Gander and Brian's hatred of the CBC, in case one example isn't coming readily to your mind.
Oh. But wait, Brian doesn't buy shares in anything himself since he feels that the value is often hyped as opposed to being substantive. Hmmm. An interesting attitude. Not one I'd agree with in every case, but it is curious. I'd love to hear brian explian to his uncle, Craig, that shares in the second-largest helicopter company in the world are built on a mound of crap.
Well, the Tim's was good as usual. The Spindy was not, as usual, except for Paul's photography and Stephanie Porter's reporting. Take away the stuff they lift from the Toronto Star and some New Brunswick papers and the paper thins out quite a bit after the op-ed page.
What a way to spend Saturday night.
I need to check the guide.
Maybe there's a Golden Girls rerun on.
Calvin and Hobbes
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.- Calvin, to Hobbes
This strip is apparently the most successful cartoon one since Peanuts. I got hooked on it at some point and was mighty sad when it ceased publication.
Calvin is the stereotypical boy, but with an adult's sense of the world. His tiger, Hobbes, was apparently named for the English philosopher who told us that in the state of nature life was poor, nasty, brutish and short.
I have used Calvin sometimes in my posts and people might find the references a bit obscure or odd. So as I post this on Friday night - dated ahead for sticklers - I thought I'd share a little cartoon and one of my favourite Calvinisms.
28 October 2005
A blow for plain English
When I can get my hands on an electronic copy I'll post it here.
If I get a link, I'll post that.
But anyone who wants to read what is undoubtedly a straightforward legal decision written in plain English, check out Judge Harold Porter's decision today in the case of R v. Bouzan. Click here for an earlier posting that gives some detail of the actual constiutional provisions, that is actual as opposed to the goof-ball interpretation Bouzan and da byes were foisting.
Rick Bouzan is the executive director of something called the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife federation. He's a close associate of Jim Morgan and among the crowd of them there's twice as many groups that they represent all clogging call-in shows in favour of the Damn-Fool Fishery (copyright pending).
Anyway, Bouzan and a fishing companion were caught with untagged cod in their boat during last year's recreational fishing season. They tried to turn the whole matter into a constitutional issue by claiming that since they were only 500 metres offshore, the feds didn't have jurisdiction. Provincial boundaries extend out three miles.
Seems their legal help (no, it wasn't Lewis Tully) didn't actually read far enough through the constitution. As any lawyer worth 20 bucks and a pint at the Duke will tell you, the fishery is entirely in federal jurisdiction. The provincial boundaries don't enter into it.
(Left) Lewis Tully, nightschool-trained lawyer and erstwhile Ghostbuster.
Da byes were slapped with a fine of $100 each for violating the appropriate regulations and emerged from court promising to take their fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We can only hold our breath waiting for the peals of laughter from the learned justices as yet another dingbat constitutional case comes their way.
If I get a link, I'll post that.
But anyone who wants to read what is undoubtedly a straightforward legal decision written in plain English, check out Judge Harold Porter's decision today in the case of R v. Bouzan. Click here for an earlier posting that gives some detail of the actual constiutional provisions, that is actual as opposed to the goof-ball interpretation Bouzan and da byes were foisting.
Rick Bouzan is the executive director of something called the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife federation. He's a close associate of Jim Morgan and among the crowd of them there's twice as many groups that they represent all clogging call-in shows in favour of the Damn-Fool Fishery (copyright pending).
Anyway, Bouzan and a fishing companion were caught with untagged cod in their boat during last year's recreational fishing season. They tried to turn the whole matter into a constitutional issue by claiming that since they were only 500 metres offshore, the feds didn't have jurisdiction. Provincial boundaries extend out three miles.
Seems their legal help (no, it wasn't Lewis Tully) didn't actually read far enough through the constitution. As any lawyer worth 20 bucks and a pint at the Duke will tell you, the fishery is entirely in federal jurisdiction. The provincial boundaries don't enter into it.
(Left) Lewis Tully, nightschool-trained lawyer and erstwhile Ghostbuster. Da byes were slapped with a fine of $100 each for violating the appropriate regulations and emerged from court promising to take their fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We can only hold our breath waiting for the peals of laughter from the learned justices as yet another dingbat constitutional case comes their way.
In the Land of Irony
At the risk of not using the word "irony" correctly, I note this post on Jack Harris' resignation as leader of the provincial New Democratic Party. At least, I am confident that in this instance, this word doesn't apply.
It is passing strange that someone who enthusiastically supports [but in a completely non-partisan way] a federal political party that repeatedly demonstrates its inability to connect with Canadian public opinion beyond a small portion presumes to criticize the NDP for the same thing on a local level.
Jack's departure does indeed mark the passing from public life of someone who has served longer in the current session of the House of Assembly than most others. The exceptions would be Tom "Backupable" Rideout and Jim Hodder, both of who were first elected in the 1970s. They had a break in their service; Jack's been sitting continuously in the legislature since the early 1990s.
The provincial New Democrats have enjoyed some measure of success over the past 20 years, managing to keep two members in the House for a significant chunk of that time. They just haven't managed to widen their appeal beyond a couple of seats. I'll leave it to a full-time political scientist to delve into the reasons for that inability to climb beyond the NDP's current status.
A more interesting thing to ponder is going to be Jack's replacement. The Liberals are having a hard time getting anyone to declare an interest in their head-honcho job. We probably won't hear a name or two until the spring. In the NDP case, aside from somebody like Wayne Lucas, there doesn't seem to be anyone who might want to lead the Orange Machine provincially.
Maybe Jack's departure, which doesn't include resigning his seat, will end speculation Danny was about to appoint his former law partner to the provincial court bench.
The hard and the easy: Abitibi and government subsidies
In dealing with Abitibi Consolidated, the Williams administration faced a Hobbesian choice. Had it followed through with Premier Danny Williams' pledge from July, mills in Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville would now be shutting down with the loss of more than 700 jobs and the loss of over $500 million in newsprint sales from the local economy.
With the choice it made, the Williams administration is committed to subsidizing a particular company at a rate which exceeds or almost exceeds the government revenue generated by the company.
27 October 2005
Connie expense accounts
In a post Rarely Graced by Logic, Liam O'Brien claims a number of things that should strike a reader of the post here on Dave Dingwall's expenses as a little bizarre.
First of all, O'Brien claims the post stated that Dingwall had been exonerated by two audit reports on his expenses at the Royal Canadian Mint.
What it actually pointed out was the huge gap between what Connie partisans had claimed to be factual and what the facts were. The post was less a straight-up defence of Dingwall as a critique of bad political communications by Connies like Brian Pallister.
Maybe that wasn't clear.
Maybe it struck too close to home.
Second, O'Brien issued a few challenges in between following a now shop-worn tactic of attacking the person when he can't refute an argument.
One challenge was to point out any case I had where I suspected a Conservative member of parliament might have submitted dubious expense claims or, as in the cases - plural - I'll toss him, of where the size of the claims raises some fairly obvious questions.
Oddly enough, this case was covered in what I suspect is O'Brien's favourite newspaper, the pink white and green Spindy back in May.
Here's the link to my original post.
"Why then did Mr. Doyle rack up $172, 904 in travel expenses?
And why did Loyola Hearn cost taxpayers $164, 159 for travel?"
These two Conservative members of parliament live in ridings that are easily accessible by air and car and yet their travel claims look like they were heading from Ottawa to Alert and back again. Every weekend.
Even after we allow that Hearn lives in Renews, about two hours south of the riding he represents, his mileage shouldn't be pushing his travel claims into the low six digits. Since he and benchmate Norm Doyle both know when they need to travel back and forth to the riding, surely they could book some seats far enough in advance to get a discount.
or stay in cheaper hotels.
or stop gnoshing at Hy's.
To bring those figures up to date, here is the report for 2004-05.
Norm Doyle's travel, as covered by the House of Commons - i.e. you and me - was $157, 768. Bear in mind that for some of that period, Norman was on the campaign trail and off the public payroll. Otherwise, his total travel would likely look just like it did the year before when he was obviously doing alot of stormin' around.
Hearn's travel clocked in at $103, 608. Consider that Hearn was off the payroll for a little while in there. Consider too that his riding is now a heckuva lot smaller than it used to be. He can bicycle from one end to the other in a few hours or better still take the bus to all but a few corners of it. (Pssst. That's a facetious comment about the bike and the bus)
But ya still have to wonder what he was doing to rack up that kind of travel costs.
Before anyone tries to wave a wand and turn that into nothing, look at some other expenses.
Jim Abbott, from Kootenay-Interlake, British Columbia came in between the two of these guys. But he's actually farther away from Ottawa than either of our two Connie friends and he represents a largely rural riding.
Alexa MacDougall, the Dipper from Halifax only spent about $71, 500 to visit her riding once in a while.
And what of Pallister, the Connie from the Prairies? He only spent about $73, 500 getting back and forth to a lovely riding in Saskatchewan.
So why the heck are Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle so much more expensive?
Using Brian as the Benchmark, Hearn is 41% higher than Brian while Doyle is a whopping 114% above the Connie Guardian of Expense Account virtue.
First of all, O'Brien claims the post stated that Dingwall had been exonerated by two audit reports on his expenses at the Royal Canadian Mint.
What it actually pointed out was the huge gap between what Connie partisans had claimed to be factual and what the facts were. The post was less a straight-up defence of Dingwall as a critique of bad political communications by Connies like Brian Pallister.
Maybe that wasn't clear.
Maybe it struck too close to home.
Second, O'Brien issued a few challenges in between following a now shop-worn tactic of attacking the person when he can't refute an argument.
One challenge was to point out any case I had where I suspected a Conservative member of parliament might have submitted dubious expense claims or, as in the cases - plural - I'll toss him, of where the size of the claims raises some fairly obvious questions.
Oddly enough, this case was covered in what I suspect is O'Brien's favourite newspaper, the pink white and green Spindy back in May.
Here's the link to my original post.
"Why then did Mr. Doyle rack up $172, 904 in travel expenses?
And why did Loyola Hearn cost taxpayers $164, 159 for travel?"
These two Conservative members of parliament live in ridings that are easily accessible by air and car and yet their travel claims look like they were heading from Ottawa to Alert and back again. Every weekend.
Even after we allow that Hearn lives in Renews, about two hours south of the riding he represents, his mileage shouldn't be pushing his travel claims into the low six digits. Since he and benchmate Norm Doyle both know when they need to travel back and forth to the riding, surely they could book some seats far enough in advance to get a discount.
or stay in cheaper hotels.
or stop gnoshing at Hy's.
To bring those figures up to date, here is the report for 2004-05.
Norm Doyle's travel, as covered by the House of Commons - i.e. you and me - was $157, 768. Bear in mind that for some of that period, Norman was on the campaign trail and off the public payroll. Otherwise, his total travel would likely look just like it did the year before when he was obviously doing alot of stormin' around.
Hearn's travel clocked in at $103, 608. Consider that Hearn was off the payroll for a little while in there. Consider too that his riding is now a heckuva lot smaller than it used to be. He can bicycle from one end to the other in a few hours or better still take the bus to all but a few corners of it. (Pssst. That's a facetious comment about the bike and the bus)
But ya still have to wonder what he was doing to rack up that kind of travel costs.
Before anyone tries to wave a wand and turn that into nothing, look at some other expenses.
Jim Abbott, from Kootenay-Interlake, British Columbia came in between the two of these guys. But he's actually farther away from Ottawa than either of our two Connie friends and he represents a largely rural riding.
Alexa MacDougall, the Dipper from Halifax only spent about $71, 500 to visit her riding once in a while.
And what of Pallister, the Connie from the Prairies? He only spent about $73, 500 getting back and forth to a lovely riding in Saskatchewan.
So why the heck are Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle so much more expensive?
Using Brian as the Benchmark, Hearn is 41% higher than Brian while Doyle is a whopping 114% above the Connie Guardian of Expense Account virtue.
Dingwall's expenses - updated
While Connies like this local one, this big Mainland one, and this one, have been attacking former Royal Canadian Mint boss David Dingwall over his expense account claims, two reports released today add up to yet another failure of the Connies to garner any sort of credibility.(Left) Former Royal Canadian Mint chief executive officer David Dingwall. Photo: Canadian Press
Turns out what they claimed was wrong - substantively wrong.
The big loser here (after Steve Harper) is a guy named Brian Pallister, much loved over at Reflexive Grit Loathing, who was part of the Dingwall attack pack and whose claims have been shown to be, in a word, false. Take a gander at this little piece of video the Connies were passing around earlier in October but which now looks kind of dumb in light of today's revelations.
Updated - Pallister's argument is now that he wants to complain about the rules not about the specific claims made by Dingwall. This is the kind of moving target approach that just doesn't garner cred either. Every time one of your arguments is shot down by facts, you just claim you never argued that in the first place and then pick up on something.
As CBC reports, "Among the [PriceWaterhouseCoopers] audit's findings:
- The $5,800 allegedly spent on one meal was for a two-day seminar involving 24 mint personnel.
- The money allegedly spent on chewing gum was covered under the allowable $20/day incidental expenses.
- There was no evidence of the alleged $13,000 for one day of travel but two claims for $13, 693.83 for a four-day conference in Phoenix and mint-related meetings in New Brunswick, the UK, Switzerland and Germany.
The audit did find that $2,570.66 was determined to be reimbursable to the mint. In addition, $4,198.35 was deemed recoverable due to a clerical payroll error and car insurance prepayments issued by the mint." [emphasis added]
As reported by the Globe and Mail, a second review, carried out by Peter Dey of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, "found that the governance process followed by the Mint with respect to the approval and reimbursement of its CEO's expenses was sufficient to ensure that the Corporation's funds were 'expended in a manner consistent with the Mint's policy.' "
Apparently, there's also no evidence that Dingwall dinged the Mint for a pack of chewing gum.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper is quoted as slamming Dingwall for not using "political judgment" in his travel claims and criticizing the reports since the rules were supposedly made by Dingwall.
Wow.
It really isn't clear what "political judgment" Dingwall is supposed to have lacked since the expenses turn out to be legitimate and were totally misrepresented by Harper and his party. It also isn't clear how Dingwall made up his own rules since the claims policy is set by the board of directors, of which Dingwall used to be just one member.
Perhaps the biggest failing of the Connie attack on Dingwall is that the totals are way off. As the Mint board of directors noted in early October, more than 70% of the figure of almost $750,000 Dingwall critics had claimed were "expenses" was actually salaries.
Then there is the matter of Dingwall's ability to actually spend some cash doing what he got paid to do: bring in new business for the Mint. This contract with Thailand is one example.
I am no fan of David Dingwall, but when someone is attacked and personally vilified without any cause other than rank partisanship, the facts of the matter must be presented.
Incidentally, this sort of political attack may go a long way to explaining why the Conservatives have a hard time making any headway with public support. It is much like the Grewal affair.
Claims are made.
A media feeding frenzy ensues.
Then the bubble bursts, in this case the chewing gum bubble.
The facts emerge at which point everyone realizes that the Conservatives are making unsubstantiated claims.
Credibility takes a huge nosedive.
The Conservatives blame everyone else except themselves and their leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)