Jerome’s shaved off his moustache.
Last time the province’s health minister went out in public sans ‘stache, he came up with some explanation for it and grew the thing back.
After your humble e-scribbler pointed it out and someone asked him about it, of course.
So what happened this time?
- srbp -
A complex series of events involving 16 significant factors contributed to the crash of Cougar Helicopters Flight 491 in early 2009 and the loss of 17 souls according to the Transportation Safety Board released Wednesday after a two year investigation.
The complete report is available here: S-92 investigation report. It is comprehensive and covers all relevant factors from crew backgrounds to key operating systems to passenger injuries and safety equipment.
The TSB investigation made four recommendations:
- srbp -
The audio is now available online. [mp3]
CBC set this up correctly: in-studio interviews so that none of the candidates can hear the others’ interviews and then airing them by random draw. Watton wound up on first.
Mark got the chance to highlight his considerable experience dealing with issues that are important to Newfoundland and Labrador and talk up his connection to the district.
Then he turned to dealing with issues he’s getting on the doorstep: housing, concern about pensions and retirement. The housing one is particularly striking since, as Mark points out, the city is experiencing a housing shortage despite growth.
Mark nails a number of hard critiques of the current administration - if housing is so important for the Conservatives it is odd they’ve never raised it in the legislature - and then and delivers his ballot question cleanly: do you want a member who speaks for the government or one who speaks for you?
No one can say that voters don’t have a clear choice in Humber West.
- srbp -
Now it can be stuck in someone’s head like Level 42 has been haunting your humble e-scribbler for a week now.
- srbp -
Seriously, gang…
Is it more disturbing that someone started an obviously fake Twitter account for Kathy Dunderdale in the general style of a dozen humourous fake accounts, including one during her predecessor’s term of office?
Or that she was so shit-baked people couldn’t tell the difference between the real Kathy and the fake Kathy that she sent out a media advisory proclaiming she doesn’t have a Twitter account?
- srbp -
There was, of course, nothing responsible or prudent about Danny Williams’ tenure as Premier, and nothing, other than name, that was conservative about it. He chose a different track.
That is why a government that collected over $9-billion in oil revenues during its tenure still presides over a $9-billion net provincial debt.
And that is why the provincial net debt per capita this fiscal year was over $17,000 and rising, when in the alternative universe it would have been $7,000 and falling, and falling fast.
Last fall when the provincial government debated a resolution to appoint the current child advocate, the minister then responsible for the department of child, youth and family services - Joan Burke - reminded everyone that the advocate’s position came from a recommendation by some very thoughtful members of the House of Assembly.
They comprised a Select Committee on Children’s Interests created by the House of Assembly in 1994. Their report, issued in 1996 after two years of study and consultation recommended a number of actions designed to change fundamentally the way the provincial government approached children's’ issues
Those thoughtful members, interestingly enough, specifically rejected the very idea Burke embodied as minister, namely the creation of a separate department to deal with children, youth and family issues within government. They were concerned that such an approach was unnecessarily costly, may serve to marginalize family issues with government and would not encourage the fundamental change in attitudes to children and family issues they felt families and children in the province needed:
It seems contrary to Committee members, therefore, to isolate the needs of children and youth into a single ministry. It is the fear of the Committee that issues affecting children and youth would be "marginalized" into a junior ministry. The goal of government, however, should be to educate and involve all departments and levels of government in designing and implementing appropriate social programs and policy.
The purpose of the child advocate was to speak for the interests of specific children and children generally. The select committee recommended and Roger Grimes’ administration established the position as an officer of the House of Assembly, separate from the government. In that way, the advocate’s office was supposed to speak for children and families to those with power.
This is a crucial point. It’s hard to imagine anyone in our society with less power than children. Families are often not much better off, especially when dealing with government. Just as children are the least powerful of our society, it is equally hard to imagine anyone more powerful than the provincial government armed with all the legal means to accomplish whatever purposes it wants. The advocate was supposed to provide some balance, largely by making much louder the weakened voice of the child.
All that background is what makes the child advocate’s intervention in most recent story of child protection in the province troubling in the extreme.
Carol Chafe is responding, in largest part, to a complaint brought by a minister of the Crown against the news media and the parents of two children taken into custody by officials of the minister’s department. The parents complained to the news media and the news media dutifully reported the story.
The minister, for her own reasons, decided to try and use the child advocate’s office to a purpose for which it was clearly never intended: namely as an agent acting on behalf of the most powerful authority in the province.
Note that Chafe did not make any public comment – as she should have – when the story first broke. Neither she nor any of her officials appear to have made any efforts to intervene in the case, to deal with the media or the family.
Not until now, that is.
After Charlene Johnson lodged her complaint.
In a very poorly written statement, Chafe acknowledges that people have a right to know certain things and that the media ought to report. Then comes the “but” and it is a big one:
However, when children are the central part of the story their right to confidentiality, privacy and safety must trump all other interests.
Asked by CBC’s Ted Blades in an interview on Tuesday to balance the need to discuss a significant issue with the trump card, Chafe couldn’t do it. That isn’t really surprising. This story carried on for a week. if Chafe genuinely understood her role and was convinced that the children’s interests “trumped all other interests” she’d have been on this before Charlene Johnson called her in.
Chafe didn’t need anyone’s approval to get in on the case. She has a wide scope of action under the act that governs her office.
Well, the correct phrase is actually had a wide range of powers.
Under changes made to the child advocate’s act in 2008, an entirely new clause (15.2) inserted in 2008 gives a cabinet minister the right to order the advocate to cease an investigation based on the very vague claim that an investigation is not in the public interest. There is no requirement for proof nor does the advocate have any right to appeal the decision to a third party. One letter from the minister and the investigation stops.
Period.
On the face of it, what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are seeing here is yet another example of how the current administration has steadily reduced, muzzled or eliminated any means by which someone may question its decisions. The process, as Carol Chafe likes to talk about, has been one of erosion.
Piece by piece.
Slowly.
Almost imperceptibly.
But once they emerge into the light, as with Carol Chafe’s intervention a handful of months into her new job, there can be no mistake about the result.
Power, once appropriately constrained, has its hands free.
- srbp -
That all those cabinet ministers and political staffers working hard to take Humber West for Grantered and the Conservatives are not campaigning on the public dime.
Annual leave or leave without pay.
But campaigning on the public payroll?
Not on.
- srbp -
From a Rio Tinto news release issued Tuesday:
“Rio Tinto has given the go-ahead to a further US$277 million investment (Rio Tinto share US$163 million) in the next phase of a project that will ultimately raise the Iron Ore Company of Canada’s (IOC) concentrate production capacity by 40 per cent to 26 million tonnes per year (Mt/a).
This is the second phase of a three stage expansion that was announced in May 2010 with a US$400 million investment (Rio Tinto share US$235 million) to raise production capacity from 18 Mt/a to 22 Mt/a.
Phase two of the project will increase IOC’s spiral and magnetite concentrate production capacity by an average of 1.3 Mt/a to 23.3 Mt/a from 2013.
Recent studies have highlighted an opportunity to improve time to market through
bringing forward some capital items from the third stage, resulting in higher level of
production earlier. The third stage of the planned expansion to 26 Mt/a is currently under study and a final investment decision is expected by 2012.
Rio Tinto chief executive, Iron ore and Australia, Sam Walsh said the project was an
important development in increasing IOC’s production at a time when global demand is escalating.
“Global seaborne iron ore demand is projected to increase substantially over the next decade, and IOC’s concentrate is well placed to complement the increasing use of lower quality ore to meet that demand,” he said.
“With high iron content and very low levels of impurities, IOC’s concentrate provides
significant value to steel producers as ore grades from direct shipping mines continue to decline.”
The project’s construction is set to start immediately to capitalise on the brief Labrador summer construction season and will be fully commissioned by the end of 2012.”
- srbp -
Last week Humber West Conservative candidate Vaughn Granter didn’t have the time to discuss issues.
He would need – by his own estimate – a couple of days at least to get up on the issues and that would take time away from his goal of knocking on all the doors in the district before polling day.
Fast forward a week and after he’s been taking a sh*t-knocking from people for his stance, Vaughn is changing his tune.
Here’s one of his recent twitter updates:
Having a great day door-to-door with Ministers Clyde Jackman and Darin King. Enjoying good conversations of all the issues. 8 days to go!
Conversation on the issues? Given Vaughn’s admission last week he wasn’t up on the issues and that he didn’t have the time to bone up, he must have stood quietly on the door step while Darin and Clyde did all the talking.
Either that or Vaughn’s just good at taking voters for grantered, already,
Ah well. Time will tell. Voting day is seven days away.
- srbp -
The federal and provincial governments released the environmental impact study scoping document on Monday for the proposed transmission line that will carry electricity from the Lower Churchill to St. John’s.
The draft environmental impact study guidelines and scoping document identify the information that Nalcor will be required to address in order to prepare the environmental impact study.
Members of the public now have until March 21 to submit comments on the document. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has up to $200,000 to assist groups and individuals to participate in the project review.
- srbp -
Denise Chippett is the chairperson of the Come Home Year committee. She said the celebrations was enjoyable for all; what also helped were substantial donations from Exploits MHA Clayton Forsey and the town's volunteer fire department.This week the Telegram picked up that line and started poking into it. The story appeared in the Saturday edition this weekend but sadly it isn’t available on line. The Telegram noted that Chief Justice Derek Green’s report into the House of Assembly spending scandal recommended that members of the legislature not make “donations” from their constituency allowances or with other government money. If they did so out of their own pockets, the politician is supposed to make it clear where the money came from.
"I've always presented cheques on behalf of departments. MinistersOf course you have to pity Forsey on two counts. On the the first, he is merely getting nailed publicly for what his fellow government caucus members do on a regular basis. As Forsey says, he “always” hands out government cheques. it isn’t really fair that he gets singled out in this way.
don't always get out to these districts," Forsey said.
Two stories this week to lighten the mood.
First: a poster in the Health Sciences Centre announcing an event for February. Someone crossed out the first “r” as a spelling mistake. Likely the same person changed the spelling just down the hall to read nook-yoo-lur medicine.
Second: Surely to merciful jumpin’s Conservative candidate Vaughn Granter did not dismiss Liberal Mark Watton’s experience in the Prime Minister’s Office or a federal cabinet minister’s office as cavalierly as it sounded.
“Some experience”?
“Could be some advantage”?
Could be a disadvantage?
That’s pretty sad for a guy who isn’t from Corner Brook originally who is trying to play himself as the local boy.
Take a listen to the campaign report linked above, by the way and notice that Granter did little besides run down his opponent and talk himself up personally. Mark Watton, on the other hand, talked sensibly about issues that are actually of concern to the people in the district.
Huge difference.
Anyway, for those who came for the weekly hit parade, here are the week’s top stories as selected by readers.
- srbp -
Good question.
You’ll find one woman’s take on it at cbc.ca/nl.
Beware, though, of one figure that is likely off. Both Debbie Cooper and Pam Pardy-Ghent claim that 66% of new mothers breastfeed their babies.
That might be the number who start breastfeeding when the baby is born. Some call it the initiation rate.
The last time your humble e-scribbler checked the local stats the percentage still at it six months after the baby was born was a tiny fraction of that figure.
Try 11 or 12 percent.
And that’s really where the challenge lies. The overwhelming majority of women who start breastfeeding just don’t manage to keep at it.
We need to get to 66% still breastfeeding at six months in. That’s a figure we can reach in this province within two years with just a modest effort by the provincial government. and community groups.
66 at 6 in 2.
Simple.
Practical.
Attainable.
Breastfeeding it’s what your bazongas are for.
- srbp -
The provincial government hasn’t really been managing the public purse in a sustainable and fiscally responsible way.
Your humble e-scribbler has been saying that since 2006. There have been plenty of charts and graphs to drive the point home.
In 2009, Paul Oram said that government spending is unsustainable, but unfortunately he said it on the way out the door as he left politics.
But you don’t have to just accept that just because you read it here.
Now you know that government spending is unsustainable because no less an authority than Tom Marshall – the province’s finance minister – is saying that in every single one of his pre-budget consultations.
Take a look at the slide deck for his presentation. You’ve seen similar slides here and in some of the conventional media maybe. You’ll find the information is a wee bit familiar and that’s because the figures your humble e-scribbler uses and the ones Tom is using come from the same place: the provincial finance department.
But Tom’s slides are better because they are accurate and up-to-date. Now Tom doesn’t give you all the information you’d but what is there is enough to scare the bee-jeebers out of any doubters out there.
Before we get into the details, let’s just say that True Tory Believers should turn away and go play Free Cell or something. They really should not read on. Fan Clubbers should really not read beyond this point. They are putting their heads in jeopardy. Their whole world only keeps making sense because they have convinced themselves that nothing at BP is real, that it is all wrong and just some sort of partisan plot.
So if they keep reading to the end, your humble e-scribbler cannot be held liable for the resulting carnage as their skulls collapse. After all, if your faithful servant says these things only because he is a Liberal and then Tom Marshall says the same things then either Tom is telling whoppers or I am a Tory or…
You can see how easily they could wind up in the Waterford trying to make those two things fit into the same twisted mental space.
Anyway, here goes.
This slide from near the end of Marshall’s presentation shows the net program expenses – everything except debt servicing and capital costs – compared with the consumer price index and the growth in the economy. This is a really good comparison because it shows the changes in the core government spending without things like the “stimulus” capital spending.
This is the sort of spending that would be very hard to cut if revenue dropped drastically. And you can really see the point if you recall that so much of the economy – 30% or so of the labour force – is paid out of net program expenses. This is your health care spending as well.
Now just because Tom Marshall used it, let’s look at the slide showing the comparison between the growth in gross health care spending – with capital works tossed in – and the consumer price index. This slide together with the one above illustrates the astronomic growth in spending over the past four years.
This slide also shows you a comparison which pretty much destroys any argument that the rate of gro9wth was the only thing Tom and his friends could have done. You’ve heard all the excuses about catch-up and making up for previous neglect or that costs are just going up because things are booming.
Don’t look at 2009-2010 because that’s the recession year when the costs of goods and services didn’t grow very much at all. Look at the two years before that. The provincial government could have boosted spending by double the rate of inflation and they still would have boosted spending by a huge amount. Instead, they went for triple or more. in 2007, the year of the last election, they boosted spending by what looks like six or seven times the rate of inflation.
And all that spending was built on what Tom Marshall acknowledges are windfalls from the price of oil. They are windfalls driven by price and by production of a non-renewable resource. All wonderful to spend and spend more as long as the cash is rolling in. But when the prices don’t keep skyrocketing and the money isn;t flowing in, you have a hard time driving spending up at the rate people want.
That’s the definition of unsustainable spending.
Not surprisingly, you can see all the problems in the final slide Marshall used in which he laid out his “challenges”.
That second bullet, the one about high dependence on resource revenues is the bit about price and production. Great going up but prices do go down.
Skip down a bit and you’ll see the other point: there’s pressure to continue spending increases and people are used to seeing growth of nine percent on average over the past seven years. Inflation averaged around two percent each year or thereabouts over the same period.
All the stuff that comes before this points to that bullet about the “Need to control expenditure growth”. Problem is that expectations are there for continued growth and those expectations are on top of the real need that comes from having an aging population and that is on top of the commitments to boost public spending on megaprojects like “equity” stakes.
If that weren’t bad enough the combination of election year plus the unsettled Conservative leadership combine to make it very difficult for politicians to make the tough choices and actually control spending.
Remember 2007?
If you’ve forgotten already, scroll back up and look.
A very popular leader with a reputation for toughness and they still couldn’t spend in a responsible, prudent manner.
And if all that weren’t enough to make you cringe, take a look at that last point. There you have the provincial government’s great plan to reduce public debt: they will pay it off as it comes due. That means about $200 to $300 million a year.
Divide that into the $12 billion gross debt and you can figure out how many decades will take - theoretically - to get to zero at that rate. Yeah don’t bother. Let’s just sum it up by saying the current administration does not have a debt reduction plan at all. Not really. They don’t. If things get really bad, they can just roll debt over and that’s what governments have done over the past couple of decades. They could pay off some debt as it came due; otherwise they just spent as they needed and ran up the debt bill.
We aren’t done yet, though.
That middle bullet about a “requirement” to borrow to pay for the Lower Churchill.
It is only a requirement because the provincial government already made the decision to add another $4.0 to $6.0 billion to the public debt. They don’t absolutely have to do it and, frankly, the deal as laid out currently is one that doesn’t make any sense. It would be a huge risk for any government or private sector company that had a healthy balance sheet. Even with a federal loan guarantee, it is sheer foolishness for the province with the biggest per capita debt load in the country.
Upside: admitting there’s a problem could mean that Tom Marshall and his colleagues will start sorting out the mess they’ve made.
Downside: Tom’s admitted to some or all of this in the past in the pre-budget consultations only to bring down a budget each time that did exactly the opposite of what was needed to fix the problems. Only Danny’s gone: the rest of the people responsible for seven years of unsustainable public spending and unsound management of the public purse are still in charge.
We can hope for the best but experience tells us all to expect the worst.
- srbp -
Compare this Conservative Party spot…
with this classic political spot:
The Conservative spot is darker and much less hopeful than the one that so obviously inspired it.
And for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they will recognise the Danny Williams’ phrasing in the Harper spot.
Aren’t Canadians determined, too?
- srbp -
Maybe Kathy Dunderdale can resurrect Danny Williams big dream of a tunnel connecting Labrador to the island. Remember the Stunnel?
Surely you remember Danny Williams stopping by the side of the highway during the 2001 by-election or the 2003 election – anyone recall which? – and marvelling that he could see the mainland or some such.
Anyway, the whole goofball idea priced out at a few billion dollars and Williams quickly dropped it as unrealistic.
But then people used to say that increasing the provincial public debt by 50% was unrealistic too, until Danny and his successor committed to doing it.
Go big or go home, Kathy!.
So if Danny was planning to rack up the debt by just 50%, go the rest of the way.
And follow the example set by the Danes.
They are planning to build an 18 kilometre tunnel underwater to connect Denmark and Germany.
The estimated cost is only US$5.9 billion.
Now sure the traffic between Sweden and Norway to Germany and the rest of the continent through Demark makes this much more commercially viable than a link between Blanc Sablon and St. Barbe. But since when did that ever stop a politician from pissing public money down a hole.
Every great Premier in the province’s history – at least as popularly assessed - has had at least one gigantic financial mess to his credit.
This could be Kathy’s.
Just saying.
- srbp -
