Showing posts sorted by relevance for query hickey-up. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query hickey-up. Sort by date Show all posts

29 June 2009

Voice of the cabinet minister make-over

Over at the redesigned voice of the cabinet minister website, there is now audio with just about every short news clip.  In some cases there’s a bit of video.

In the story on a news release from opposition leader Yvonne Jones, the audio clip is from Dave ‘Sentence Fragments” Denine, the intergovernmental affairs minister. 

Denine got scooped by the opposition, but never let it be said that VO didn’t make sure the CM got his own words on a story.

But that just raises another bunch of questions.

Denine’ s the guy who should have been talking about the fact the federal Conservatives aren’t delivering on their 2005 promise.  After all, that’s the government talking point to try and deflect attention from the fact that most of them bought the Connie bullshit umpteen times after 2005.

For an opposition party, reminding Denine and the rest of that fact would be the logical starting point. 

They could drag in John Hickey, the minister for Labrador Affairs who campaigned a couple of times on the bogus battalion alongside his federal Connie cousins.

And if all else failed, they’d could  now tee off on Denine and Hickey for failing utterly to hold the federal Connies feet to the fire, to use that horrid phrase.

Instead, Jones goes after Stephen Harper as if she was a federal politician.

All is not lost in the local opposition world.

Jones now has the chance to go headlong at the local crowd. Denine – obviously knowing nothing at all about the military  - refers to a bunch of buildings constructed decades ago for the air force as “first-class” infrastructure for the army.  He then tells VOCM that he’ll be going back and have a chat with the federales to see where Goose Bay fits in.

Hint:  it doesn’t.

Jones could be pinging political hit after political hit against the skulls of two incompetent cabinet ministers for building up false hopes in the people of Goose Bay when they should have known  - and should now know – much better.

Shame on Dave and John, should be her line.

Shame on Steve is just too easy, too obvious and totally meaningless locally.

People around these parts  - especially Bond Papers readers - already knew not to trust the federal Connies on the bullshit battalions. 

All Denine does in his voice clip is pretend the promise is real.

Just wait until the ABC Leader gets back.

-srbp-

13 July 2008

Enough's enough Percy. Get a lawyer.

If Jerome was still in private practice,  Percy Barrett could have hired him to deal with what is evidently a very serious mess in the justice and finance departments.

As it is, Jerome is now The Man dropping the hammer, so Barrett will have to get someone else to fling the hammer back and see if it lands on any government lawyer toes.

Enough is enough.

Mr. Barrett needs to stop dealing with these claims from the House scandal all by himself.  Find a good lawyer. 

Barrett should have found one a long time ago, especially when the government continued to press its claim for repayment before the police investigation was done and now persists in the Barrett case, long after Crown prosecutors opted not to lay charges against him.

Not police, incidentally.

This was an RNC case. 

A major case like this one would typically have been decided by the Crowns  - the prosecution lawyers - not by the police alone and may well have gone to the very highest end of the Crown prosecution service for sign off.

Heck, didn't the FPI thing  go to cabinet

Aside:  where is that Great Prosecution by the Great Public Counsel (recently departed) of the Great Crime against the Great People by the Great Foreign Enemy of the Moment?

But to go back to the story, if the Crowns didn't want to take it to court, then Barrett should know they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Getting a lawyer will be far less costly both to Barrett's pocket and to his reputation in the long run.  A good lawyer should also put a stop to what appears to be a monstrous abuse of the province's legal system.

Get a lawyer, Percy.  it's not an admission of guilt in any way.   This thing won't be over any faster just by settling up.  In fact,  Barrett's probably just given them more excuse to keep coming since they figure he's a soft touch. 

Heck Percy, you might even have grounds to sue them.

And speaking of missing things and monstrous abuses, where is the infamous John Hickey defamation suit against Roger Grimes?

Any sign of it at all?

Blue paper?

White paper?

Toilet paper?

Deposition?

Anything?

And how about that law suit against Quebec over Churchill Falls?

Sacre bleu.

What's this?

A story in the Grand Falls Advertiser - take note, Ryan, they likely have job openings - in which a reporter for one of the weeklies updates the province on the lawsuit.

Turns out there won't be one, as even anyone who learned all they know about lawyering from watching reruns of Night Court could have told you when natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale blundered it up a few weeks ago.

Jerome didn't get his schooling that way, of course, and he likely knew from the start this idea of finding a legal basis for suing Quebec Hydro over the Churchill Falls contract - as bad a deal as it is - was a time-waster.  It's the stuff for amateurs and blowhards who know nothing about the law or about Churchill Falls.

Well, at least we hope Jerome knew that smarter legal minds than his  - and that's saying something - have battered themselves bloody trying to figure a legal means to resolve the problem.

There isn't one. 

There is a political solution, if there is one at all.

And if you are a politician who doesn't have a political solution, then best to shut your pie hole and move along.  Blaming Ottawa is not merely an excuse for, it's a gigantic public admission of,  your own failure.

The story's not online but labradore has a copy from which he quotes sparingly but sufficiently enough for you to get the point.

-srbp-

04 May 2012

The Fairity Equation #nlpoli

It doesn’t matter if you are a Telegram editorial writer, a local blogger or even municipal affairs minister Kevin “Fairity” O’Brien on CBC’s St. John’s Morning Show (not online).  You can still get the details of O’Brien’s travel expenses  - things like purpose and amounts – just dead wrong.

So let’s just make sure we are all on the same page to start with.

The Public Cost of Kevin O’Brien

On Tuesday and Wednesday, CBC reported on the amount of money O’Brien’s department set aside to cover his travel and other expenses for the coming fiscal year.  Last year, the transportation and communications budget was set at $44,900 but the final spending was $92,900.  The 2012 budget is $44,900. 

In 2010, the budget was set at $44,900 and the final spending came in at $61,000. In 2008 and 2009 O’Brien wasn’t the minister.  The travel budget was $44,900 and the final tally was $44,100 and $35, 000.

You can see why people wondered what Kevin was doing.  O’Brien blamed the 2011 cost over-run on Air Canada, the friggers, and their evil mainland-conspiracy airfares.

Yeah, well, no.

The Cause of the Cost

As your humble e-scribbler pointed out on Thursday, O’Brien’s department spent about half its travel budget to cover the cost of shipping their minister from his house in Gander to the office in St. John’s. 

That’s the reason the travel bill was so high:  government expense rules allow ministers to live somewhere other than near the place their job is located.  Taxpayers foot the bill for the extra cost and that includes, among other things, these regular trips back and forth from his home to his main office to attend cabinet meetings and such.  To distinguish it from travel for departmental business, your humble e-scribbler called it commuting costs.  That’s what it is:  commuting to work.

The Comparison

O’Brien isn’t the only one who does this.  SRBP compared O’Brien’s expenses with those of Joan Burke, Tom Marshall, Patty Pottle and John Hickey for the period from December 2010 to November 2011.  In terms of total dollars, O’Brien’s commuting cost was the second largest amount  ($36,000) after Patty Pottle ($40,400).

As a percentage of total travel, Fairity was in the middle of the pack.  Pottle’s commuting was 63% of her ministerial travel expenses.  At 46%, Fairity was slightly below Burke (51%) and a dozen percentage points behind Marshall (58%)

But the key point is that none of that matters.  They all cost taxpayers more than ministers who lived near their workplace, as ministers have done for decades.

And then there’s the House of Assembly travel costs

In addition to the travel costs these politicians cost taxpayers out of their ministerial travel budgets, each of them also ran up travel and living expenses under the House of Assembly accounts.

Minister

01 Apr – 30 Sep 11

FY 2010

Joan Burke

$6,058 

$18,309 

John Hickey

7,384 

15,788 

Tom Marshall

7,221 

14,017 

Kevin O’Brien

9,742 

16,695 

Patty Pottle

14,012 

25,559 

Totalling the departmental commuting costs and the House travel bills are possible but it would take a bit of work.  The departmental accounts are reported out of sync with the government’s fiscal year.  The House of Assembly ones come at half way through the fiscal year and then with the whole year.

It would be even tougher to figure out how the two sets of travel claims relate to one another. The House lists huge amounts of detail, including specifically when the flights happened.  The departmental expenses have two dates only on each item.  it isn’t clear whether the first date is the date someone submitted the claim or the date they incurred the expense.

The Bottom Line

But even allowing for all that, you can see that Fairity’s annual cost to taxpayers for commuting would be something on the order of about $53,000  (36K +17K).  And to give a direct comparison for Fairity with a minister from central Newfoundland, look at what Susan Sullivan cost taxpayers.  Her departmental travel costs for the December 2010 to November 2011 time period was $26,068.  Her House travel cost for Fiscal Year 2010 was $14,200.  

In all these cases, the expenses don’t cover the costs of traveling to a meeting with a town council about a municipal grant or something directly related to the minister’s job.

Nope.

This is money that gets Kevin  and some of his colleagues from their homes to their jobs.  No other people on the public payroll get such a benefit.  Historically, ministers haven’t been able to get taxpayers to cover their commuting costs either.  This is a more recent invention, tied to the 2007 Green report and the way the Chief Justice structured House of Assembly allowances.

The cost to taxpayers is a good reason to review the whole thing and put it back on a basis that isn’t tied to where a politician lives.  In the system established in the early 1990s, the House travel budgets tied the amount available to the likely cost of travelling to and from the district.  That was never the problem in the House:  the problem was a scheme that let members use travel money for vote buying.  As such,  there was no reason to change it in 2007. 

Going back to a more practical system of setting House of Assembly travel budgets would disconnect ministerial travel from where a member of the House claimed a permanent residence. Since cabinet ministers’ jobs are at the government headquarters, they should live near by or cover the costs of getting to work themselves, like everyone else.

These costs wouldn’t matter if the provincial government had an unlimited supply of cash.  As we all know, the taxpayers don’t have an unlimited supply of cash.  If we have to cut back on expenses, then one of the logical places to start would be these sorts of discretionary – and entirely unnecessary costs. 

- srbp -

16 September 2008

ABC Comedy Central - Masters of our own domain

where the truth is stranger than fiction


The UnLove Boat - In the season premiere of a series now in its 60th season, a provincial cabinet minister (played again this season by Provincial Conservative Clyde Jackman) bitches and moans incessantly about the quality of service provided by Marine Atlantic.

Yes, we know that's the same format, script and concept for every single episode of the longest running unreality show in political history.  Jackman managed to come up with a novel twist to open this season:  blaming a federal Conservative candidate for driving up the cost of gasoline worldwide and causing a North American economic slowdown, both of which were the real major causes for the reduction in road-bound tourism.

Highlights from last season:  In an episode titled The law of diminishing visitor returns, Jackman showed that doubling the provincial tourism advertising budget didn't produced the extra visitors everyone hoped for.
Yes, that's right, non-resident visitors, the people most of us would regard as tourists, actually contributed only 43% of the total economic activity generated by the province's tourism industry. ... We are spending more per visitor to attract them, but the return per visitor is diminishing.
In an episode called Didn't I see those at Canadian Tire?, Jackman's department bought a billboard at Ottawa airport that was billed as including "an actual clothesline hung with quilts".  It was based on the idea that people in eastern Ontario have never seen either quilts or clotheslines, apparently, hence they would be impressed by "actual" ones.


5 Wing:  In the season opener - Shocked and Odd - Provincial Conservative cabinet minister Tom Hedderson writes letters trying to get an elite anti-terror unit based in Goose Bay 18 months after the public learned the soldiers were going to another base in Canada.  Hedderson claims to be shocked by the news. Odd that he missed it.

Hedderson replaced the previous star John Hickey in the no-action comedy.

House:  Now in its fifth season,  less and less takes place in each House episode each year as the program morphs into a show about nothing.  In the budget episode from last season, finance minister Tom Marshall uttered the immortal words:
We are standing tall as powerful contributors to the federation – as masters of our own domain, stronger and more secure than we have ever been before.
-srbp-

12 April 2012

DND to shut down 5 Wing base housing #nlpoli

From David Pugliese at the Ottawa Citizen:

■ Military housing at Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg will be shut down.

The story appeared on April 11.

Biggest take away from that right up front is that all those Conservative promises for the last half dozen years about Goose Bay remain the total bullshit they always were.

Someone should ask Leo Abbass, John Hickey and other federal Conservative backers all about that.  After all, if DND sheds all that housing, that battalion or the UAV squadron or all the other BS that Leo and John campaigned for just isn’t showing up.

Then someone should contact local developers and see what a sudden dump of good affordable housing will do to the local market. 

Potentially very good for consumers.

Likely not so good for speculators.

- srbp -

16 September 2009

Sullivan and Michael both wrong about government commitment to anti-scab legislation

New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael claimed that Danny Williams committed to introduce a law banning replacement workers during strikes.

Human resources, labour and employment minister Susan Sullivan claims that “[t]he government has never made such a commitment.”

Both are off base.

What actually happened is that cabinet ministers John Hickey and Shawn Skinner both indicated in 2007 that the provincial cabinet was reviewing the issue of labour legislation, including the need for anti-scab laws.

Hickey told CBC:

“Minister Skinner has advised me that inside the department, this whole legislation is under review, [and] I have taken the opportunity to review other legislation across the country … so these are issues that we as a government certainly are looking at dealing with.”

Skinner told the House of Assembly that the province’s labour laws were under review:

… I have indicated that the Labour Relations Agency, through its Strategic Partnership Initiative, is undertaking a review of all of the labour legislation in the Province. That will look at whatever the union representatives on that committee and the employer representatives on that committee wish to bring to the table for discussion. Once that review is complete, we will be in a better position at that time to look at the kinds of things will need to be updated in the legislation.

MS. JONES:  …My question today to the minister is: Are you prepared to move up the agenda on anti-scab legislation and have it brought to the House of Assembly so that we do not have situations like we have at Voisey’s Bay in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in my earlier remarks, we do have a strategic partnership between our Labour Relations Agency, the unions and the employers representative groups in this Province. We have a process in place that all parties have agreed to follow, and we will be following that process to do a thorough review and to make sure that any and all issues that are important to the people of this Province, be they employers or be they employees, will be reviewed and will be brought forward for consideration by the government.

We have undertaken that commitment, we will fulfil that commitment, and once we know what the results of that are we will decide then what actions can be taken.

Danny Williams might not have made a commitment about anti-scab legislation but two of his cabinet ministers sure did.

What Sullivan needed to explain is not who made a commitment but why it is taking more than two years to complete a review of the province’s labour laws.

Is this another example of something gone missing in action in the bowels of the Confederation Building?

-srbp- 

03 August 2009

Lemme get this straight…

The guy who liked to recycle expense claims (in one case three times) and who serves in an administration renowned for recycling announcements (in some cases as many as eight times) is criticising another politician for supposedly recycling announcements.

Oh yeah and to make it even funnier, this same guy campaigned not once but twice for the guys he now criticises and he’d-a-been out there a third and fourth time if his boss hadn’t told him he couldn’t.

Can you say “credibility gap”,  boys and girls?

Maybe he’d have been waving around a signed contract for the feds to help pave the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Speaking of HMV, where exactly is that lawsuit against Roger Grimes, John Hickey?  If memory serves, Hickey was suing Grimes for something Danny Williams actually said.

Now there’s a brilliant law suit for you.

By the by,  who is stunneder in that case:  the guy who gave the advice to sue or the guy who took it and wound up paying the bill out of his own pocket?

Tough call.

Oh yes, and this latest release recycling news release is itself recycled.

-srbp-

30 November 2006

Plus ca change: Dunderdale tender blunder

For some reason the provincial government has taken to issuing news releases to challenge questions from the opposition during Question period in the legislature.

On Tuesday, it was transportation minister John Hickey who was caught in an advanced stage of pinocchiosis over federal funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway. He supposedly told someone he had a signed contract. As we have all learned this would not be even close to true since the feds are waiting on the province to get a work plan in place.

Today, it was natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale. The blunder-plagued minister was trying to explain why the Bull Arm Corporation cancelled a tender and then re-tendered.

The Liberal opposition claimed the first tender was cancelled when a local Liberal came in with the lowest bid. They argued the project was redefined so that someone else - in this case the future local Tory candidate's campaign manager could get a piece. The future candidate, by the by, is Joan Cleary; Bond Papers discussed her appointment to head the Bull Arm Corporation some time ago.

But in defending the tender, Dunderdale actually provides us with a pretty convincing example of a complete cock-up. Whether it was politically motivated - as the Opposition suggests - or just a case of mismanagement and incompetence, the whole tender should never have been handled the way it was. Around here, Bond Papers would contend it is evidence that - as we noted last November - Joan Cleary isn't qualified for the job she currently holds.

Here's why.

The original tender at Bull Arm was for the complete replacement of the existing security shack. That is a pretty straightforward project involving labour and materials together as one unit. One can logically conclude that if the first tender was for complete replacement, Bull Arm management had made a determination that the building needed complete replacement. It's an important piece of work, even if the shack is relatively small.

While Bull Arm management may have had a cost estimate in mind, they ran a tender process and a low tender duly arrived. Notice that Dunderdale does not say how much Bull Arm originally expected to see as the bids; she does claim, though, that the prices were such that Bull Arm decided to cancel the entire tender and , presumably, do nothing in the meantime.

And that's where it gets hinky. If the existing security shack was in such a state that it needed to be replaced, there simply isn't any reason to cancel the tender and not do anything about it. This approach suggests the original tender was bogus.

According to Dunderdale, Bull Arm only went to a second tender once some harsh weather caused damage to the shack. Nice try as excuses go, but if the original tender had been let or if the project had been re-tendered right away, Bull Arm Corp would likely have avoided the situation caused by weather. There would be no emergency since proper action was taken from the outset.

Instead Bull Arm Corp now had an emergency on its hands, albeit one that evidently resulted from its own poor management practices.

Rather than go to tender - as normally required under the Public Tender Act - now called the situation an emergency. For some completely unfathomable reason, Bull Arm split the project into two tenders: one for materials and one for labour and then went to three specific bidders for quotes.

Under the Public Tender Act, that is permissible - in a genuine emergency. But the legislation's exemption for emergencies is intended to cover real emergencies, not ones caused by dubious management decisions.

Interestingly enough, the original low bidder didn't get the work and the whole project was completed for over $50,000 less than the original tender's lowest bidder. We don't know if the whole shack was replaced, as originally intended, or if the thing was patched up and repaired. We'll never know since the people involved in the process would never make public all the documents and records to justify the situation.

Instead, we should be suspicious of the facts as described by the minister. On the face of it, the minister describes incompetent management of a relatively small project. On top of that the minister provides excuses for the mismanagement by claiming the proper process was followed. Clearly it wasn't: the cancellation of the original tender suggests something was amiss.

And if that weren't bad enough, we see once again the most familiar of all excuses trotted out by the Williams administration when it is accused of something: the rules allow it.

As Offal News put it last month, in another story related to Bull Arm Corp:


That does not mean it's right, correct, proper or ethical; he merely means it's legal. Legal is a long way from appropriate.
In the case of the security shack, it doesn't matter if Joan Cleary was involved in the decision or not, or whether the inning bidder was her former campaign manager or even that the low bidder on the cancelled tender call was a Liberal.

What Dunderdale has described is a classic example of shoddy management that led to damage to government property, followed by a clever - but all-too obvious - abuse of the Public Tender Act to divert attention away from poor management. They failed to exercise due diligence, to use a phrase the former InTRD minister herself was fond of abusing.

To make it worse, Dunderdale, as minister responsible for Bull Arm, is effectively endorsing the blunders made by Bull Arm Corp as well as condoning the abuse of the spirit of the public tender statute.

We were all told to expect better from our government three years ago, indeed to expect better from this government.

The case of the Bull Arm shack shows just how little changed in local politics in October 2003.

14 February 2007

Meeker on media

Communications consultant Geoff Meeker has joined the online revolution with a new blog, Meeker on media.

As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".

Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.

His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.

Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.

Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.

Check him out.

You won't be disappointed.

19 February 2010

The Post-Danny World

Political junkies  - especially every Tory in the province - will no doubt be glued to their sets tuned to NTV and their exclusive interview with Premier Danny Williams from his home in Florida. That’s where he is recovering from surgery which – as we now know – took twice or three times as long as originally anticipated.

As NTV news director Fred Hutton teased it up, they’ll be asking a good many questions including one about the Premier’s political future.

Odds are good those same political junkies will be pondering a few more questions in the months ahead, regardless of what the Premier tells Fred.

Questions like:

  • Who among the current provincial Conservatives has been organizing already to replace The Leader when he finally decides to head off to Sarasota permanently?
  • Who among them has the biggest war chest?
  • Which provincial Tories won’t be running for re-election whenever the writ drops next for a general election?

These questions and others related to them may well be the most pertinent political questions to ask in Newfoundland and Labrador for the rest of this year.

Well that and the perennial favourite:  “whatever happened to John Hickey’s lawsuit against Roger Grimes, anyway?”

-srbp-

15 December 2009

The Placentia Bay Nostradamus

If the Telegram editors ever get jammed up for copy, they could easily recycle Ray Guy columns from 40 years ago. 

Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between goings on then and now.

Back then, partridgeberries were the economic salvation of this cove or that harbour.  These days, cranberries will replace the income from a pulp and paper mill in Grand Falls.

Back then people were complaining about the great partisan conspiracy against the beloved saviour of His People.

These days, Bill Westcott is lacing into Peter Pickersgill on much the same basis. Poor Pickersgill has the extra misfortune of not only being the progeny of mainlanders but of being not pur laine hisself:

Despite spending a lot of his adult life in Salvage, we must remember PIC is not even an (Island-born) Newfoundlander, one of da boys! His genes, I think are rooted in Winnipeg and Ottawa.

That explains everything, of course.

There is no way the truth could be known by someone who wasn’t born here or who doesn’t live here.

Sure John Hickey said so dealing with another one of the confounded traitors:

Of course Mr. Waugh is entitled to his opinions on any and all Labrador matters, even as he writes from the comfort of his Nova Scotia home.

And Bill Westcott? 

He writes his truth from Florida.

That must be Florida, Bonavista Bay.

-srbp-

08 October 2007

The projections, the polls and the political reporters

The political reporters

A panel of CBC reporters gave some interesting insights on a province-wide Morning Show this morning into the final days of the campaign and what may occur on Tuesday.

In particular, it was interesting to hear provincial affairs reporter David Cochrane's reporting of comments with the Progressive Conservative campaign on possible seat outcomes ranging from 38-39 seats for the ruling party to as many as 44. The Tories have been rightly trying to dampen sweep expectations since they know the whiff of overwhelming success doesn't give their own supporters motivation to turn out at the polls and may increase the motivation of others to vote.

Unfortunately, that also smacks into a problem with the core Danny Williams message for the past year or more, namely that he needs a strong mandate - read as many seats as humanly possible - in order to carry forward. The two things comes together nicely in the major Tory message of the past week and exemplified in the only new Progressive Conservative advertising released during that time. A radio spot, likely airing only in areas where the Tories are concerned to pull out votes, has Danny Williams stating emphatically that "we need a strong mandate."

Tory callers to open line radio shows have echoed Williams' messages of the need for political parties to earn a vote and one caller went so far as to express concern that voters may vote for a strong opposition - as opposed to a strong mandate for her favourite - to the extent that there might be a change in government. The chances of a Bob Rae surprise as in the Ontario 1990 election is remote but it may be revealing to see a staunch Tory supporter expressing that concern.

The projections and the polls

One of the few people talking openly of a potential sweep has been Don Mills of Corporate Research Associates (CRA). Mills' quarterly polling has fueled the opinion that Williams enjoys overwhelming popular support across the province. He's refined his seat projections in recent days, not based on polling research mind you but by gleaning some information from media reports. Mills now projects the Tories will win 43 or 44 seats.

bear in mind that, at best, Mills' numbers are simply a brute estimate of popular vote. They lack the necessary subtly of a properly constructed political poll that would allow someone to draw informed inferences. Indeed given that some of the more useful questions have tended to be the property of specific clients - like the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - Mills' comments on issues such as voter satisfaction have sometimes proven to be misleading since his own research is inadequate. He can't or won't disclose client data, even though he knows what the results are and even where the results give a deeper and more detailed picture than the one painted by the three simple questions Mills discusses publicly.

Just to illustrate the extent to which Mill's number support a variety of potential outcomes in this election, remember that Mills is predicting a sweep or near sweep. His figure would give 91% of the seats in the legislature.

Let's look at the unadjusted CRA poll results and see what they tell us, potentially. By that, we mean we will look at what appears to be the raw percentages of the survey instead of the percentage of decided voters Mills uses.

Using that approach, what we see over the past year is a range of potential popular support for the Tories ranging from 53.2% in November 2006 to 62% in the most recent poll result.

Put that in perspective by looking at popular vote numbers during elections in Newfoundland and Labrador since Confederation. In the 1996 general election, the Liberals took 71% of the seats with 54.9% of the popular vote. In 1982, Brian Peckford won 85% of the seats in the legislature with 61% of the popular vote. Those are two of the largest majorities since the mid-1970s when the voting system changed away from having several candidates elected in a single district. In 2003, Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives garnered 58.5% of the popular vote and won 34 seats, 77% of the legislature.

Eighty-five percent of the seats in the current legislature is 37 seats. Seventy-one percent would yield 31 seats. Even allowing for demographic changes within the province, including outmigration and internal migration, it seems highly unlikely that popular vote numbers in the historic ranges for an incumbent party would yield an increase in seats of seven to 30% more than the historic seats numbers from a given share of popular vote.

Winners and losers

Based on the apparent popular vote numbers from CRA and historic data, it would be reasonable to expect the Progressive Conservatives to be elected with a seat total upwards of 40. That's pretty much in the range expected in the so-called realistic projection some Tories mentioned by Cochrane said was their likely outcome.

By the same reckoning, Don Mills' seat count of 43 to 44 seats would be highly unlikely.

There are a number of factors that might influence the final outcome and, as with the publicly available polling, this post is as much an exercise in speculation as anything else. However, some things that can be said or issues to watch:

  1. The Tories will likely win a second majority. An Ontario surprise would take something coming that no one has foreseen. That said, every seat below 40 undermines the "strong mandate" argument.
  2. Labrador appears poised to go entirely for Liberals or New Democrats.
  3. John Hickey's defeat in Labrador would be a major blow. Even if the Tories pick up Torngat Mountains, the loss of a cabinet minister from central Labrador is a significant setback for the incumbent administration's plans for Labrador development.
  4. Potential big loser: CRA. Every seat below 44 for the Tories undermines CRA's rep. Ditto the bigger the gap between the vote results and CRA's last poll.
  5. Will it have loopholes like the lobbyist legislation? Promised whistle-blower protection seems like a last minute effort to counteract a rep even Mark Critch could nail from Halifax. The lobbyist registration act from the first Williams administration has so many holes in it you can drive a fleet of cable truck's through it. Expect whistle-blower legislation that in effect makes to easier to identify and then fire the troublemakers.
  6. Seats to watch:

- St. John's West and Conception Bay South. Strong candidates running against incumbents. Even if there isn't an upset in one of these seats, a strong showing by the Liberals will change the interpretation of St. John's as Tory country.

- Burin-Placentia West. The NDP seem to be running a strong campaign there, dropping the former national party leader in over the weekend.

- Labrador's four: How the four seats go will indicate a major political rift to be managed over the next four years, and possibly beyond.

- Isles of Notre Dame and Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The Tories are working to unseat the opposition party leaders. let's see if they can do it.

- Straits and White Bay North. Is anything going on with Trevor Taylor or are the hints of some local push-back just unsubstantiated rumour?

- Bay of Islands. Eddie Joyce is to Danny as Lynn Verge was to Clyde. Let's see if Ed can withstand the onslaught of the premier in the district on the last day of the campaign on top of the small-town petty politics that has been worked with the city council and chamber of commerce in Corner Brook.

17 September 2007

Leader's Tour Logic

Leader's Tour has become a staple of modern politics.

Everybody has one and where the leader goes can be an indication of strength or weakness, depending on perception.

Gerry Reid will be heading to Port de Grave and Bellevue, traditionally strong Liberal seats. There should be good visuals for the leader and Reid's trip on the second day of the formal campaign could be a clue the Grits want to shore up those strong seats before sallying elsewhere. There's a defensive element to the opening of the Liberal campaign.

Danny Williams will be unveiling the Progressive Conservative election platform at an event in Corner Brook after doing the customary greeting workers at the Kruger mill gate. Then Williams is off to Labrador.

Ordinarily that would be a sign the seats held by John Hickey and Jim Baker are solid. Maybe they are, but already there is word that the energy plan is perceived as snubbing Labrador. Again, it looks like a defensive play at the start.

-srbp-

27 September 2009

For the record: Danny Williams’ first speech from election 2003

 

The date:  September 29, 2003

The occasion:  Danny Williams kicks off the Conservative election campaign that, as things turned out,  would end with him as Premier.

How time flies and how things change in just six short years.

Back thing, all was roses just waiting on the horizon to be plucked.  All the problems of the past would be gone.

Worried about health care?

Worry no more:

Our plan will provide quality health care to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when they need it, ensuring that there are more doctors and nurses in areas that are presently under-serviced. Patients will have access to a primary health care provider twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. And waiting times for diagnostic and treatment procedures will be reduced to times that physicians deem acceptable.

Six years later, all is well and the days of health care cuts are gone.

Concerned you might have trouble getting more care for a sick wife or husband in your retirement?

Worry no more:

Our seniors, those who have given so much to our province and asked for so little in  return, want to be independent, and to live in their own homes. We will give them that independence by expanding home care services and increasing supportive housing alternatives.

Yes, not just the same old, but expanded home care and increased supportive housing alternatives.

And six years later, those problems with home care are long gone.

Dilapidated school buses:

And to ensure our children’s safety, we’re going to upgrade and improve our school buses.

It only took six years and the public embarrassment of a CBC news story to bringing the existing fleet up to code.  No word yet on “upgrades” or improvements.

Some political parties enter election campaigns with a list of things they actually strive to do.

Others don’t.

The ones that try often succeed and the stuff that is left undone is usually there for a good and readily understood reason.

The ones that don’t,offer excuses.

Some of this speech is fascinating if only for the radical changes in six years, back then Danny Williams was ready to go to work in the thankless job of being Premier to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland and Labrador.  he was ready because, in his words, “it’s now time for me to give something back to the province that has given me and my family so much, to initiate real change and make a meaningful difference.”

In the event, he started bitching about public scrutiny right after he got elected and by the end of three years he was already moaning and complaining because people asked questions and disagreed with him.  By the end of year six, he was referring to politics as a “racket” and mused again how those who were out of it were smarter and better off.

ed and danny In 2003,  he could boast of the team Ed Byrne put together and the new members pulled on board.

That team spirit didn’t last long either.

Beth Marshall resigned from cabinet in 2004 complaining that Williams interfered in her department and ignored her in the process.

Ed Byrne quit in the midst of the worst political corruption scandal in Newfoundland and Labrador history since Sir Richard Squires and the Hollis Walker Inquiry.

Not only were members of the legislature bribing officials and bilking the taxpayer for millions, Byrne himself was funding the Progressive Conservative Party with illegally obtained cash. That included at least one of the Great Northern peninsula by-elections in 2001.  The full story hasn’t been disclosed yet.

Some opted to retire for their own reasons or due to ill health.

Former premier Tom Rideout, right,  went off in a huff over road paving. 

No word on exactly what Rideout has been doing since he left politics but it will likely prove to be entertaining once we all find out what it is.

sullivan At the end of 2006, Loyola “Rain Man” Sullivan, Williams’ financial right hand, left unceremoniously and in an unseemly hurry. he took a job with federal government as a fisheries ambassador.

Fabian Manning felt Danny Williams political boot on his throat or backside, depending on whose version you listen to. He landed nicely in Ottawa as a Conservative senator.

Paul-Shelley-HVR-2Paul Shelley, right,  slipped quietly away to a little job in the private sector.  He slipped away from that outfit, too,  before it went under.

Only a few of the old hands are left now and none of those serve in cabinet.

Roger Fitzgerald is the Premier’s faithful lapdog as the supposedly impartial speaker. 

Sheila Osborne is expected to leave before the next election. 

Terry French soldiers on as a parliamentary secretary, announcing the odd fire truck.

Of the crowd elected between 2001 and 2003, only Wally Young sits mute on the back benches.  Trevor Taylor, the fellow elected the same day,  is out the door too.

hickeylabradorian6Danny Williams now sits  surrounded mostly by the people he picked to run in the first place and entirely by people he picked to run the province. 

Like John  Hickey, right,  for example who launched a defamation law suit against former Premier Roger Grimes for something Danny Williams said.

How long Williams lasts, given his own mercurial nature and his comments about the “racket” he’d sooner be rid of, one never knows.

But six years ago, so much looked so different:

Thank you, and good afternoon everyone.

Almost two years ago I started building upon the team Ed Byrne had already assembled to represent the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As I look at the people who are able to join me today, and think of the others who are working in their districts or have made a commitment to seek the nomination, I am extremely proud of who we are and what we have to offer.

This team, our team, represents a real alternative to the current government.

And a new government is needed, because after fifteen years, it’s time for a change in Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s time for real leadership. It’s time for the new approach.

For months now, the Roger Grimes government has been desperately searching for a single issue upon which they can fight this election when they should have been governing our province.

First it was the fishery, then it was our relationship with Ottawa, and most recently it was automobile insurance.

Well, we won’t play that game.

This election is too important to be about any one single issue. We will make it about all the issues that are important to the people of our province.

It will be about making a meaningful improvement to the every day lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we can live with dignity and self-respect through self reliance.

It will be about having a good job and having access to health care when we need it. It will be about providing our children with an education that allows them to compete for jobs and stay home in this province where they belong.

Above all, this election will be about the real leadership this province needs to capture the opportunities that are before us so that we finally achieve our true potential.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the issues of the real world.

These are the issues that have been ignored by the Roger Grimes administration.

And these are the issues we will fight for.

Our people deserve no less and should expect no less.

And under a Danny Williams led government, they will get no less.

I believe the time has now come to take control of our destiny, to chart our own course to economic prosperity. That is what I stand for, it’s what our team stands for, it’s what the Progressive Conservative Party of  Newfoundland and Labrador stands for.

Today, we are presenting you with a plan to move us in that direction, a plan to get real results. It took us months and months to develop this blue print for the future, and I am very proud of it.

I call our plan the new approach, because it means focusing on the important issues in new and different ways, and making decisions for the right reasons, not political reasons.

It starts with helping those who need help most. Seniors, students and many others will benefit from our plan to immediately reduce provincial income taxes for low income earners.

Our plan will provide quality health care to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when they need it, ensuring that there are more doctors and nurses in areas that are presently under-serviced. Patients will have access to a primary health care provider twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. And waiting times for diagnostic and treatment procedures will be reduced to times that physicians deem acceptable.

Our seniors, those who have given so much to our province and asked for so little in return, want to be independent, and to live in their own homes. We will give them that independence by expanding home care services and increasing supportive housing alternatives.

We will provide our children with a higher quality education by setting a maximum class size, beginning in our primary schools where they will not exceed 25 students per class.

We will also increase computer literacy and reduce disruptive behavior so that our children have a healthy learning environment.

We will also set performance standards to ensure our children’s education meets or exceeds what is being provided in schools in the province and the country.

And to ensure our children’s safety, we’re going to upgrade and improve our school buses.

We will freeze tuition for post-secondary students and make the remission process more efficient and accessible so that our young people have better opportunities to stay in the province that they so dearly love.

And I can assure you, we will grow our economy by creating an environment that allows businesses to set-up shop and expand, creating meaningful employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as we go.

There will be a strong, vibrant and sustainable fishery.

There will be new opportunities in the Information Technology sector.

And we will open our doors to the world with an ever-growing tourism industry.

The one area where I believe I can most help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is through job creation and economic development. That’s my background, and I now want to apply those experiences to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to create new industries to slow down and eventually stop outmigration.

I want to give our rural communities a reason to believe that our way of life can not only survive but prosper. I want to give them hope and confidence that we can maintain and nurture our culture, our heritage and our pride.

Our plan for economic growth will provide a new approach to resource development that puts Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first. We will identify and capture opportunities for secondary processing whenever possible.

No more give-aways.

We will give Newfoundland and Labrador back to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Rather than using our resources to create jobs for Manitobans, Ontarians, and Quebecers, our resources will be used to create jobs for our own people.

We are no longer prepared to sit idly by while our resources benefit the rest of Canada and leave us with a mere pittance of their true value.

And ladies and gentlemen, our plan will provide a new approach to dealing with the federal government. While others have remained silent until it became politically opportune to be heard, we will be aggressive and provide a strong voice that says very clearly changes are needed. We will lay out a rational and reasonable plan that cannot be dismissed. I will fight to ensure that we are heard.

I say enough is enough.

It’s time for real leadership.

It’s time for the new approach.

It’s time for a change.

And that change begins right here, right now.

This is our opportunity to stand up and be counted, to seize control of our own destiny, to make a real difference.

On a personal note, I’ve enjoyed more success in the business world than I ever dreamed possible. And I did it entirely in Newfoundland and Labrador, creating thousands of jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians along the way. I have proven that it can be done, and if it can be done in the private sector, it can be done in government.

It hasn’t been easy. It takes a tireless work ethic, personal sacrifice and an unwavering commitment.

I’m prepared to offer that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because it’s now time for me to give something back to the province that has given me and my family so much, to initiate real change and make a meaningful difference.

But I can’t do that alone. That’s why I have spent more than two years assembling a first class team that has the energy, passion and commitment required to make real changes and meaningful improvements to the every day lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We have a combination of proven legislators and new players that will bring innovative ideas to the table. This team presents a stark contrast and a strong alternative to a tired and weakened government that has been in office for almost 15 years.

We are ready to provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the change that they so desperately want and deserve, and have the energy, passion and commitment required to work on your behalf.

But ladies and gentlemen, I want to be very clear. While we have developed a policy document that provides that new approach, there are no magic solutions or quick fixes to the problems facing this province.

These problems did not occur overnight and they cannot be fixed overnight. But with the team we have assembled, with real leadership and the new approach, these problems can be solved and will be solved. Together we have a vision of Newfoundland and Labrador, in control of our own destiny, united for the benefit of all.

That is my commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador, that is our commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador. By working with you, a Danny Williams led government will make a difference. A change of government will make a real difference to our province, our home, our families and our future.

On October twenty first, I respectfully ask for your support for a mandate to provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with real leadership and the new approach for a better future.

Thank you.

-srbp-

banner1

03 July 2007

SOL, Day 8: More money from Ottawa

Who says the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the federal Connies are on the outs?

Pish posh old boy.

Not when there's an election to be won.

There's transportation infrastructure money to be announced in Corner Brook on July 4. The feds will be represented by Loyola Hearn, fish minister and in this case stand-in for Lawrence Cannon. Apparently, Fabian Manning - who has been known to take Cannon's seat in the Commons from time to time - was unavailable for this guest shot.

The province won't be represented by provincial transportation minister John Hickey or even the alternate minister of transportation.

Nope. The provincial government will be represented by finance minister Tom Marshall, whose district just happens to be getting the cash.

They'll both be accompanied by the mayor of Corner Brook. Now is Charles Pender thinking of leaping to provincial politics this fall, alongside former Reform/Alliance-dallier and former Liberal candidate wannabe Steve Kent and how many other municipal councillors and mayors eager for an MHAs salary?

Time will tell.

But hey, it's the Summer of Love.

Even supposedly mortal enemies can kiss and make up when there are votes to be courted with public cash.

-srbp-

14 January 2008

Just wondering...

As we come up on the first anniversary of the whole meltdown, what exactly is going on with John Hickey's lawsuit against Roger Grimes?

-srbp-

09 March 2012

Enough of the Political Day-Care #nlpoli

In some respects, it is a threat that would strike fear only into the hearts of Danny Williams’ Tories:

If this problem is not resolved today, you can expect me to absolutely vilify your minister on Monday morning on Open Line.

No broken limbs.

No financial ruin.

A call to Open Line.

That was enough for the ruling Tories to save the voice message containing the threat and to reveal it to the world as a question of privilege in the House of Assembly at the end of the first week  the legislature has been open since last spring.

The government house leader spoke of intimidation and threats and fear.  In a scrum with the media after , Joan Burke – to whom the threat was directed in early February – appeared shaken.  Premier Kathy Dunderdale, she of the haughty condescension and the cheap put down had a few words of derision for the Liberals and their bad words. The only thing the Tories didn’t do in all their melodramatic glory was stage a collective back-of-wrist-to-forehead swoon.

All wonderful play-acting on the part of the Tories. Former parole officer Joan Burke showed her unease with all the credibility  of Rob Ford after a visit from Mary Walsh in her Princess Warrior costume one morning.

All that was vintage Danny,too.  The aged drama queen  could hurl any sorts of petty, vicious. mean-spirited and contemptible invective at anyone any time.  Yet, a whisper of derision aimed vaguely in his direction would bring on the screams of self-righteous indignation.  The bully one minute, the victim the next in the fashion of the chickenshit hockey goon who specialises in taking the dive for the ref whenever someone stands up to him.

Playing acting, hysterics,  and, of course, the finest vintage hypocrisy on the planet.

Classic Danny-era politics.

But that really isn't the story here.

The story is that elected provincial politics remains the domain of the childish and immature eight years after the mean widdle kid and his allies took it there.

Danny made the House safe for buffoonery, contempt, accusation, insult and intimidation.  Jerome, Darin, Paul and Steve showed how well they learned their lessons with their performance on Twitter a couple of weeks ago. On Thursday, the whole gang on the government side joined in.

This week, though, the Tories proved the old saying that in politics you don’t have to be good, you just have to be better than the alternatives.

For their part, the New Democrats display in the House this week was less about childishness than inexperience combined with basic incompetence.  This is a caucus that has a long way to go and a lot to learn before they could ever be considered a political threat to anyone except themselves.

As for the Liberals, they confirmed this week that these are likely the last Liberals anyone will see sitting in a legislature in this province, at least with enough of them to occupy the official opposition benches.    A couple of them might survive the next election but the Liberal Party is more an historical artifact than a viable political force.

To make clear how politically inept they are, consider Jim Bennett’s asinine phone call.  Anyone who watched the Liberals in action this week would hardly be surprised by it. In making the call, Bennett showed he has no judgment. In defending the call as the enthusiastic defence of a constituent, Bennett shows he has no genuine understanding of just how ridiculous his behaviour was.

Yvonne Jones’ performance as opposition House leader on Thursday was equally cringe-worthy.  In her embarrassing defence of Jim Bennett, she showed no signs of understanding parliamentary procedure despite having sat in the House for the past 16 years.  During Question Period the rest of the week, she displayed little knowledge of anything else. How bad was Jones?  She made John Hickey look good.

The root of the problem for the Liberals remains the same as it has been for years:  no one is in charge. Generally, neither the leader, no one in the caucus, the senior caucus staff nor the party leadership has any idea of where to go or what to do to get there. They operate as a loose association of individuals lacking either a common purpose or the common sense to work together.

Dwight Ball is clearly the leader in name only.  His own performance over the past few months and in the House so far could be generously described as grossly ineffective. The only good thing for Ball is that he won’t face any challengers should he decide he wants to lead the party permanently.  The party is in such desperate shape that no one in his or her right mind would waste energy trying to bring the party back from the political dead.

For the rest of us, though, this week has been nothing more but a reminder that the provincial legislature and the provincial government have become little more than a very expensive day-care. 

That is not merely an uncomfortable thought.

It’s unacceptable.

- srbp -

20 January 2008

House of Assembly scandal: why "no comment" is not an answer

Bond digs deeper and finds surprising result in AG saga

It's one thing to be blamed for something you did.

It's quite another to be blamed for something you didn't do.

It's another thing again to be accused of something you didn't do and then keep silent about the whole business.

In this instance, we are talking about a supposed gag order applied by the House of Assembly on the Auditor General when he makes reports on the legislature's operations.

The Telegram reported in late December that provisions of the House Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act "sets out special treatment for MHAs and House staff who may have improperly retained public money, and gags the auditor general from talking about such situations."

CBC recently took up the same point. On top of that the opposition party leaders are now raising questions about the issue.

The Canadian Press story on the opposition leaders' comments makes a fundamental error of fact when it states this:

The new law exempts legislature members and some staff from public auditor general reports involving "the improper retention or misappropriation of public money.

A Telegram editorial makes a similar erroneous comment:

It also means that we will probably never see another scandal like the one uncovered by the AG.

Why? Because, among other reasons, if an AG finds such a scandal, he or she is now specifically forbidden to tell us about it.

Pure nonsense. Bond Papers already dealt with the Telly editorial, but it's worth reviewing it again.

Section 45 of the new House of Assembly administration act sets out essentially the same directions to the Auditor General as the ones contained in s.15 of the Auditor General Act:  if he or his officials find a suspected case of improper retention of public funds, then he must report the case to authorities. s.45 specifies more people must be advised of the report than under the old s.15 and it includes - for the first time - clear direction that the accused person must have the right to address the allegations from the outset.

And while it's true that s. 45 does say the Auditor General cannot disclose anything about the report initially, as with s. 15, the AG is required - by law - to include a reference to the report in his next major report to the House of Assembly.  That is a public document. Even in the worst case scenario, the longest period that would pass before the public would learn something of a s.45 report is a year.

12 months.

Not never.

Well, unless there is a conspiracy of such dimensions that no law could be written to preclude it. But for all conceivable circumstances and in light of the scandal itself, it is very hard to see how reporters might miss such a reference next month or the month after or even in three years time.

Just to be sure, here are the two sections of the bills laid side by side, in their entirety so you can read for yourself. The words are simple.  The sentences are not complex.

 

Auditor General Act

House Accountability, Integrity  and Administration Act

Improper retention of public money

15.

(1) Where during the course of an audit, the auditor general becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act, the auditor general shall immediately report the improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other activity to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

(2) In addition to reporting to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under subsection (1), the auditor general shall attach to his or her annual report to the House of Assembly a list containing a general description of the incidents referred to in subsection (1) and the dates on which those incidents were reported to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Improper retention of public money

45.

(1)  Where

(a) during the course of an audit;

(b) as a result of a review of an audit report prepared by another auditor employed by the commission; or

(c) as a result of an internal audit procedure,

the auditor general becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money by a member, the clerk, the clerk assistant or staff of the House of Assembly service or the statutory offices or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act of the province or of Canada, the auditor general shall immediately report the improper retention, misappropriation of public money or other activity to

(d) the speaker;

(e) the chair of the audit committee;

(f) the Premier;

(g) the leader of the political party, if any, with which the person involved may be associated;

(h) the Attorney General; and

(i) the Minister of Finance.

(2) In addition to reporting in accordance with subsection (1), the auditor general shall attach to his or her annual report to the House of Assembly a list containing a general description of the incidents referred to in subsection (1) and the dates on which those incidents were reported.

(3) Before making a report under subsection (1), the auditor general shall give to a person involved and who may be ultimately named or identified in the report

(a) full disclosure of the information of which the auditor general has become aware; and

(b) a reasonable opportunity to the person to provide further information and an explanation,

and shall take that information and explanation into account in deciding whether to proceed to make a report.

(4) The auditor general shall not make the existence or the contents of a report referred to in subsection (1) known to another person except

(a) as part of his or her annual report to the House of Assembly;

(b) in accordance with a judicial proceeding;

(c) as part of proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee; or

(d) as a result of a request from the commission.

(5) The auditor general is a compellable witness in any criminal or civil proceeding and in a proceeding before the Public Accounts Committee relating to a matter dealt with in a report made under this section.

(6) Section 19.1 of the House of Assembly Act does not apply to a report made under this section.

(7) Section 15 of the Auditor General Act does not apply to a member, the clerk, clerk assistant or staff of the House of Assembly service.

The silence from the legislature on this has been nothing short of amazing.  There have been no comments from the House of Assembly on the issue and in the Telegram story, the Premier's spokesperson is merely quoted as saying that the Green bill was passed as received. No one from either the House or government has made any comment. 

The Auditor General has dutifully explained to every report who asked his own rationale for staying silent, but as it should be clear, the fellow has gotten some terribly odd legal advice.  Either that or he has taken it in his head to stay completely silent, given that, after all, it was his own unsubstantiated commentaries early on in the scandal and the AG's abusive investigative process that prompted Chief Justice Derek Green to write s.45 in the first place.

Take a look at sections of Green's report and you will be struck by the strong language with which Green criticizes what happened:

Undue publication of the information in a report at such an early stage - before decisions are taken to lay charges, or prosecute or seek reimbursement - risks interfering with important constitutional and other
values. Given the relatively low threshold justifying the making of a report, even though its issuance may cause considerable damage to an individual’s reputation that may be difficult to repair if it is ultimately shown that there is an innocent explanation, one ought to be careful about bandying details about in the public domain. Furthermore, undue publication of the information with its implicit suggestion of impropriety or criminality may have an effect on a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial if charges are ultimately laid.

Still, it was striking that the Auditor General was continuing to decline any public comment on his last report, filed in September 2007, and citing Green.  Both reporters - one at the Telly and the other CBC - contacted Green and got the same reason.  They both came to the same conclusions even though, the plain English of s.45 did not apply to anything but a report on improper retention of public funds. The September mega-report wasn't one of those.

So why no comment from the AG? 

Well, either he had faulty advice, had been ordered to stay silent or there were more reports. Given that the report was made public, an order to keep his mouth shut would be odd, especially since he cited Green as the reason. He might have bad advice, but the most logical reason, namely that there had been more reports filed, is one that simply hadn't been explored by anyone. It would be pointless to ask Green himself since, by diligently following s.45 he wouldn't be able to confirm or deny the existence of a report on improper retention of funds. His silence on the whole report would be smart - under those circumstances - since he would avoid giving a hint on that a specific report existed.

The other officials identified in s.45 weren't constrained by the Act, even though the general principles Green cited in his report would restrict how much they could disclose.

So Bond started at the top and contacted the House of Assembly with a simple question

Has the Auditor General filed any reports in accordance with s. 45 of the Green Act (or s.15 of the AG Act but now covered by the Green Bill) other than those already made public on Hickey, Goudie and the individuals who have been charged?

The response took a few hours but when it came, it was as curious as could be: no comment.

No comment?

Neither "no" nor "yes", but no comment.

If there were no reports, that's easy enough to establish.  If there were reports, then their existence could only be withheld for a period, anyway.  A simple explanation of the fact that one existed and that it was being addressed would be news but - consistent with Chief Justice Green's own comments - details could be legitimately withheld to ensure the fundamental integrity of the process.  Integrity is what Green is all about, right next to accountability.

In the ordinary course, that no comment response would have been the end of it and, duly blogged, the local media would like take up the case.  They may still. In media circles and in public relations circles a flat "no comment" comes with all sorts of baggage, none of which is good.  Much like an American pleading the "fifth", no comment is often taken as being tantamount to an admission, in this case, that at least one new report existed.

Other inquiries lead your humble e-scribbler to conclude that, in fact, there are no other reports. The Auditor General has some odd legal advice or is just keep quiet and using Green as an excuse.  That's something he will have to, and should, answer for.

But at the House of Assembly, there is clearly a need to get a grip on a basic policy to handle this sort of contingency, this sort of question.  It's only by sheer coincidence that two reporters, working separately, made the same erroneous conclusion and didn't ask the obvious.  Frankly it didn't spring readily to mind at Bond until there were three examples of the AG using the same excuse.

Yes, Green creates a new set of issues and policies for the legislature but this one - a report on alleged improper retention of funds - is what broke the whole story in the first place.  In the series of media stories since Christmas, the legislators are being accused of gagging the Auditor General when clearly they haven't.

And a "no comment" response to a simple question maybe now but definitely in the future will only fuel media and public curiosity. The lack of attention to this story from the Speaker, on behalf of the management committee and the House, has allowed some to question the integrity of the very process set in place to restore public confidence. 

That shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged.  The House management committee meets this week and the issue of the AG gag is on the agenda.  However, the opposition leaders are coming at it largely based on erroneous media reports. This needs to be dealt with quickly and the public record set straight or the entire legislature will continue to operate under a cloud of suspicion.

Too much disclosure can lead to problems, as Chief Justice Green noted.  He gave the House of Assembly the means to address the problem based on an administrative mechanism to balance accountability with fundamental integrity.

Too little disclosure - in this case no comment - has obviously produced problems for the House and, by extension for every resident of the province.

-srbp-

02 September 2008

The safest Conservative riding in Canada. Not.

That's what your humble e-scribbler thought too, until he bothered to check the facts.

Turns out the seat currently held by Norman Doyle has voted other than Blue a fair bit since 1949.

Years

MP

Party

1949-1953

Gordon Higgins

Progressive Conservative

1953-1957

Allan Fraser

Liberal

1957-1963

Jim McGrath

Progressive Conservative

1963-1968

Joseph O'Keefe

Liberal

1968-1986

Jim McGrath

Progressive Conservative

1987-1988

Jack Harris

New Democratic Party

1988-1993

Ross Reid

Progressive Conservative

1993-1997

Bonnie Hickey

Liberal

1997-2008

Norman Doyle

Conservative

 

Jim McGrath racked up the biggest margins in previous elections, capturing over 70% of votes cast in some elections.

If you want to check for yourself, follow the summary at Wikipaedia down to the bottom.  The data at the Wikipaedia entry is taken directly from Elections Canada  and Library of Parliament results.

-srbp-

03 June 2019

Jack Harris: Good Bye and Good Night #nlpoli

From 2006 to early 2010,  Simon Lono wrote Offal News, a commentary on local politics, debating, and whatever caught Simon's eye.  
When Jack Harris quit as leader of the provincial New Democratic Party,  Simon turned his sharp eye to Harris' legacy. Simon respected differences of opinion but he had no time for anyone who fell below the high standards that Simon set for himself.  
Harris jumped to federal politics not long after and represented St. John's East until he was defeated by Nick Whelan in 2015.  Since Harris announced last week that he wanted to be the NDP candidate again, here's a second look at Simon's obituary for Harris' provincial political career.  

Jack Harris:  Good Bye and Good Night

by Simon Lono (April, 2006)

Like many of us of a certain age, I had the period in my life where the ideas of democratic socialism had a certain appeal. And why wouldn't they? They expressed some of the highest ideals of human generosity, belief of control over our destiny and the sense that all people deserve basic fairness. And further, it seemed that all those things were within the grasp of government to deliver.

But then as Aristide Briand said, "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head."

Jack Harris, I'm sorry to say, never found his head. Nor did he ever find his calling as the leader of a provincial political party. When you look as his record as a political leader and contributor to provincial public affairs, the best one can say is that he always demonstrated potential.

The problem was that he generally managed to perform way below his perceived potential. On occasion,  he surprised us all with occasional flashes of true political competence worthy of his inflated reputation. More often he just disappointed us all.

Let me give you just two examples: