Responsibility #nlpoli

In the middle of all the screaming as the government unveiled its budget on Thursday,  the editor of a regional business magazine asked,  apparently in all seriousness,  "Biggest question of #Budget2016, How did NO ONE know that prev gov't spending was so out of line with revenues?"

Writing from her sabbatical in far-off England,  a CBC reporter with more than 20 years experience offered that the budget had "the reek of the wickedest hangover after a long, massive binge to end all binges."

"In 23 years in the biz,"  said the one to the other,  "what I'm seeing from afar looks like no other budget I've ever seen."  

"Same,"  said the other to the one.  "I've been following budgets around Atlantic Canada for 18 years and can't remember anything quite like this."

The simple observation on the second point is that we have seen budgets precisely like this one before, at least in the extent that it raised taxes and fees on all sorts of things.  We went through it routinely in the 1970s and in the 1980s and even into the early 1990s.  Budgets just like this one are well within the experience of both those observers' lifespans in this province and certainly within their professional lifespans.

So in observing the observers,  your humble e-scribbler found their shock a wee bit curious.  The only thing that was even more bizarre was the question about how no one had seen any of this coming.

The Austerity Budget Pantomime #nlpoli

According to the Oxford dictionary, financial austerity means "difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure."

Reduce government spending.

Three key words.

The most important is reduce,  meaning to lower or to  lessen.

Keep that in mind.

The Rasputisa and the 2016 Budget #nlpoli

The speech finance minister Cathy Bennett read in the House of Assembly on Thursday was as horrible as the reaction most of the province have been having to it.

That's not surprising given that the entire budget communications program was the product of precisely the same folks who delivered repeated political and policy disasters for the former Conservative administration.  And if that wasn't bad enough, everyone - the Liberals included  - picked the anniversary of the Titanic disaster to deliver a very hard budget.

To get a sense of the problems with Thursday's budget, take a look at two fine examples of just how politically tone deaf the speech was.

The first one:  "As our Premier has said, knee-jerk reactions have created mistakes that, unfortunately, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying for now."

Bennett's speech writer didn't give an example so folks will likely fill in their own.

The Incrementalists #nlpoli

Today is budget day.

There's been lots of speculation flying around, most of it a confirmation that people have little real information about anything. If you have been paying attention, though, you can probably make a fairly good guess at what Thursday's budget will look like.

What follows is based entirely on what Dwight Ball and his ministers have done and said in public, combined with a general knowledge of the provincial economy, the budget process and that sort of thing.

Read this now and in a few hours you can see how close this is to the actual budget.

The Rasputitsa #nlpoli

Before we even get into this, let's be clear:  the EY review commissioned by the provincial government was never, ever about cancelling Muskrat Falls.

Not even remotely or theoretically.

Dwight Ball said so in December:  "cancelling this project is not what this review is about.”

The provincial government just wanted the external contractor to give it a better sense of what the project would finally cost.  Faced with a record deficit on top of the government's financial problems, the Liberals wanted to know how much they were on the hook for.

That's it.

Bring out yer dead #nlpoli

In the end there was something perfectly fitting in the way New Democrats dumped their failed leader.

Every pundit around and lots of New Democrats believed that Mulcair would easily pass the leadership test.  They figured he'd have no problem getting close to the 70% vote against a leadership convention.

Last fall, all sorts of people  - including a raft of New Democrats - assumed the party would coast to victory in the general election.  Just 30 more seats to go they told us just before the vote.

And in both cases,  the result was quite the opposite of what everyone believed.

The value of inquiry #nlpoli

Information is good.

Information is the basis of knowledge.

Information is also power.

That's why people who have information don't want others to have it.

The power that comes from knowing is why some politicians, government officials and others, historically, have raised all sorts of objections to laws that allow people to obtain government information.  They like the fact that they have power and they aren't anxious to let others have it

Sun burn #nlpoli

On Friday morning, Memorial University political scientist Amanda Bittner told a CBC Radio audience that the Telegram’s government-compiled list of public servants making more than $100,000 a year served no useful purpose.

Lists like this are often called "sunshine" lists after the first one, published in Ontario since 1996.

Bittner dismissed the results of a dozen access to information requests as nothing more than a "patchwork" of information in a  “random Google document.”

On Saturday,  the Telegram showed how stunningly wrong Bittner was.

Bill 29 didn't go far enough: public sector unions #nlpoli

The teachers' union doesn't want the public to know the names of public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The news late on Thursday is that NAPE - the province's largest public sector union  - and the nurses' union are thinking about joining the fight against the public's right to know who works for the public service and what they earn.

The teachers' union is going to court to try and block disclosure of the names of public servants in response to a request from the Telegram's James McLeod for a list of public service positions in which the person holding the job makes more than $100,000 a year.

McLeod is compiling the list because both the former administration and the current one have committed to publishing one but haven't done so yet.  Several other provinces publish similar lists of public employees who make more than $100,000 a year.

The teachers' union says it's okay to have the position title and income but we can't have the name of the person holding the job, even though that information is readily available under access laws in every province and the federal government and it's been legal to obtain in this province for 35 years. Neither the teachers' union nor any other public sector union has raised this as an issue in the 35 years since the first provincial freedom of information law passed the House of Assembly in 1981.

Doesn't make sense, right?

Of course, it doesn't.  At least, it makes no sense if you look at it from the public interest.

It only makes some sense if you understand that these folks complaining about public disclosure aren't concerned about the public interest at all on any level.  They are concerned only about their own interest.   Unions who have members who will turn up on the lists are defending positions every bit as as private and self-interested, in other words, as the people the unions have been quick to attack for running public-private partnerships.  The hypocrisy is staggering but, sadly, not surprising.

None of the folks criticising the public disclosure have offered a solid reason why the information shouldn't be public.  Most of what they've claimed are undifferentiated fears of what unnamed people might theoretically do with the information.  They might... you know... gossip.  or worse,  the complainers have just offered the view that adding the names is unnecessary or serves no "journalistic" purpose.

What's most striking about these complainers is not the fact they offer no substantive argument, nor even that they don't feel the need to offer an mature, coherent, intelligent reason for their position.  It's the intensity of their feelings, of their unfounded fear.

Many of the people making big money are professionals:  teachers, lawyers, judges, university professors, nurses and doctors. We all know they make higher salaries than the average. They went to school for a long while to learn their business and they work pretty hard.

In other instances, like say a lineman working for Nalcor,  their pay reflects the hard nature of the work they do.  Master mariners make good money.  The job they do takes skill and carries a lot of responsibility.  As for the rest, presumably they are well qualified for the jobs they have, too. teachers, for example, are paid based on their educational qualifications, responsibilities, and years of service.  There's a correlation between their merits and their compensation. For all these folks, the pay and other benefits they get were set by government, not them, and should be enough to compensate them for the work they do on behalf of the public.

Yet they act like they are ashamed of something or like they should be ashamed of something.  If these folks and their unions are indeed feeling a wee bit guilty then maybe we ought to do more than just publish a sunshine list. Maybe there is a bigger problem here yet to be discovered.

The last time someone tried to turn back the clock on the public's right to know we got Bill 29.  As it stands right now,  the province's public sector unions want to take us back to the time before the first freedom of information law.   Since they haven't offered a single good reason for their agitation, you really have to wonder what's driving their anxiety.

-srbp-

Joining the access fight #nlpoli

As it turns out, the "commentary" on access from information and privacy commissioner Ed Ring is tied to a lawsuit coming from the province's teachers' union to block an access to information disclosure to the Telegram for a list of teachers and principals making more than $100,000 a year in salary.

The school district hasn't sent the requested information James McLeod as they know the teachers union application is coming.

Your humble e-scribbler filed an access to information request for the school district on Wednesday evening asking for a list of all teachers employed by the district and their individual salaries.  Simple list.  Send it out in a pdf.

Here's why SRBP joined in.

The teachers' union is wrong, as a matter of principle.

The public has a right to know the name, position, and salary of every person on the public payroll.

Period.

A mess in the government access and privacy world #nlpoli

Two recent stories about the province's access to government information and privacy laws.

Both of them are essentially nonsense.

Short version for the new administration:  cock-ups in comms and access to government information helped destroy the Conservatives.  Since you've already got big communications problems, adding screw-ups in ATIPPA to the mix is just no good at all.

Us and them #nlpoli

This is the story of two politicians.

One is a successful business man with major land developments in the works.  He got into politics to defend his people against foreigners out to exploit them. With a quick temper, a tendency to just make stuff up, and hair from the 1970s, the politician loves to attack the news media and liberals for undermining him in his selfless efforts on behalf of his people.

The other politician is Donald Trump

Incompetence at city hall costs taxpayers #nlpoli

St. John's city council is in serious trouble.

They may not realise it yet.  Indeed, many residents of the capital may not realise it, but city council has made a series of decisions that residents will pay for.

They are all related to the budget.  While many of them lay at the feet of the finance committee, chaired by Jonathan Galgay, the whole council must bear responsibility for both the bad decisions but also for the deception that has surrounded them.

Why Tom Mulcair is wrong... yet again #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Tom Mulcair isn't alone.

A lot of people have been making the extremely dangerous argument over the past few days that we ought to accept any claim or accusation based solely on the fact that someone made it.

They have been using the Twitter hashtag #Ibelievesurvivors to argue that we should believe any woman making an accusation of sexual assault regardless of anything else.

A meritless position #nlpoli

The new provincial Liberal administration has made the creation of a merit-based system of cabinet appointments the centre-piece of its first session of the House of Assembly.

The bill to give effect to their policy is not perfect but by the time it clears the House later this spring,  the province will have a long way from the pernicious practice of the former administration   - from 2003 onwards is one administration - of appointing people chiefly on their ability to follow directions from the Premier's Office.

Merit is the Liberal watchword and we should all be cheering a system that will base choices as they should be, that is on qualification, and dismiss irrelevant considerations.  If the Conservatives or New Democrats can improve the Liberal bill, then the Liberals should accept the amendments and move us all forward.  We would all be better off for it.

How strange it is then, that a senior minister in the administration for merit should push the federal government to make an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of anything but merit.

Paying for Muskrat Falls #nlpoli

To understand precisely how insane an idea we have at Muskrat Falls, think of it this way.

In Quebec,  provincial government policy is to maintain a pool of electricity that is very cheap to produce.  This is for use inside Quebec so that the people of Quebec always have really cheap electricity.

In Newfoundland and Labrador,  provincial government policy is to force local consumers to pay double their current low rates in order to pay for Muskrat Falls.  Nova Scotians get a block of power for free and access to an additional quantity of power at Nova Scotia market rates, which are far less than Muskrat Falls will cost local consumers.  If they can sell any other electricity,  they will but again,  the cost will be subsidized by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are paying the whole cost plus profit.

This isn't new.  It has been the case since before Danny Williams announced his retirement scheme called Muskrat Falls.  Your humble e-scribbler pointed out the subsidy insanity before the announcement.  Williams and Nalcor boss Ed Martin confirmed it when they unveiled the Muskrat Falls project.

Trump the unpopular... maybe not #nlpoli

Apparently, Donald Trump is the most unpopular American presidential candidate since 1992.

The Toronto Star's American correspondent produced a lovely article on Friday.  It started with the results of a couple of recent comparisons showing how unpopular Donald Trump is in survey research conducted during the current primaries compared to every candidate going back to 1992.

Then Daniel Dale tells us what will happen when this trainwreck gets to the general election November.

If you've already decided Trump is the antiChrist - that is, if you are a regular Star reader - you will skim this confirmation of what you already knew.

But you might want to look more closely at this piece to see a couple of really glaring - and really obvious mistakes - it makes.

Trash talk #nlpoli

The folks at the City of St. John’s wanted to boost their curb-side recycling program.

Last fall, they launched a campaign called “Blue is the new Black”.  Blue is the colour used for recycling bags and the campaign name is fairly plain play on a very old phrase to describe something that is currently fashionable.

No one seems to have noticed the campaign until last week when the St. John’s Status of Women Council took issue with the cover illustration from the newly issued guide to city services (right).

Ghomeshi and a fair trial #nlpoli #cdnpoli

The moment when Jian Ghomeshi’s lawyer established during the trial that witnesses against him had colluded in their testimony and had lied – even if by omission – there was very little chance that the judge could possibly have found the former broadcaster guilty of anything.

“The harsh reality,”  Ontario Court of Justice Judge William Horkins wrote in his decision, “is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth.”

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  This does not mean, as judges in Canada frequently put it, that there is some scientific or absolute proof of guilt.In reaching his decision.

The Office of Steve Kent

26 public meetings.

More than 1,000 people showed up for them.

More than 28,000 people used the government website that the folks at the Office of Steve Kent call an app to make it sound more impressive to the punters.

Another 700 ideas arrived by email, fax, or carrier pigeons.

And...