CPRS-NL submission to the Cameron Inquiry

[Editor's note: Following is the text of the submission made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter of the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) to the Cameron Inquiry, under the call for submissions in Part II of the Inquiry.

The only editorial change in the submission made here is to move the acknowledgements from its position at the front of the original document to the end.]

Submission to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing

by

Canadian Public Relation Society –Newfoundland and Labrador (CPRS-NL)
May 15, 2008

Unsound financial management, the stunning Oram admission

In Budget 2009, we invested $2.6 billion in health and community services.  This is no doubt a significant amount.  This represents a billion dollar increase in the past five years.  While we would like to do everything and meet every demand, that investment is simply unsustainable.

Paul Oram, Minister of Health and Community Services, September 21, 2009 [video file]

Note the date.

Health minister Paul Oram admitted today that the provincial government’s financial management since 2003 has produced a level of government spending that is - in his words -  “unsustainable.”

That is not just Paul Oram’s word.

His remarks were approved at the highest level.

That word  - unsustainable - is the word that the Premier’s Office chose to describe the financial state of the provincial government.

Until now, the Williams administration has prided itself on exactly the opposite. This is a remarkable admission for the Williams administration, an administration that has prided itself on what it claimed was sound management of the public treasury.

Regular readers of Bond Papers have known it for some time.

The earliest use of the word “unsustainable” in connection with provincial government spending was 2006:

What no one knew was that oil would hit US$70 a barrel and the cash would be pouring in at a rate no one in the province had ever seen before. That allowed Danny Williams to avoid making a whole bunch of good decisions and to crank up spending to unprecedented and, and in light of the economic slowdowns, likely unsustainable, heights.

The word turned up again a few months later in a quick look at the 2007 budget:

The current and forecast spending increases are based on optimistic projections for the price of oil in the medium term. Any downward trend in commodity prices (oil, minerals etc) will quickly make the consistent spending increases since 2003 unsustainable. Fiscal reality in those circumstances - taking less money in than is flowing out - would require program cuts, job losses and/or tax increases to correct.

Take a second and go read that post.  You’ll find the “unsustainable” again:

That level of per capita spending [second only to Alberta] is unsustainable in the long run. As a recent Atlantic Institute for Market Studies assessment concluded:

“If the province fails to reign in its whopping per capita government spending (about $8800/person [in FY 2006]) and super-size me civil service (96 provincial government employees /1000 people) it will quickly erode any gains from increased energy revenues.”

That is exactly the situation Paul Oram described today.

Look through Bond Papers and you will see repeated warnings about the unsustainable growth in government spending since 2004/05. 

This is not an exercise in “I-told-you-so”;  let’s clear that out of the way at the start.

This is about something much more significant.

Point One:  The issues are not new and the implications of the issues aren’t new.

Go back further than 2006.

Go back to the early to mid 1990s and you will see forecasts that showed the demographics in the province for the time period we are currently in and that mapped out the implications for health care costs.  Some of those same ideas turned up here in several posts throughout 2007 and 2008 that discussed the very serious financial state facing the provincial government.

Point Two:  Fail to plan;  plan to fail.

The current situation is a direct result of a series of short-term decisions made by the current administration since 2003.  The short-term spending decisions took place in every aspect of spending;  health care just happens to be the one place in the budget where the demand for more spending is greatest and where the implications of spending are also proportionately great..

How do we know the decisions have been made on an ad hoc basis?

Well, the indicators are littered throughout the correspondence released today by the provincial government.

For starters, just look at the dates on the e-mails to the regions.  The provincial government only settled on its spending allocations in late February and even then, the decisions were preliminary.  

Since 2003, the budget process has slipped further and further back in time such that crucial decisions – like gross spending – are not made until a few weeks before the end of the fiscal year. The reality of these letters suggests that budget decisions were not made until well into the current fiscal year. 

Throughout the 1990s and into the early part of this century,  the big picture spending decisions were made before Christmas.  By the time late February rolled around, the individual line items had been settled such that there was very little to decide.  In those days, the only adjustments that came after February would be cuts based on any changes to federal spending.

But in a provincial government where cash hasn’t been an issue, there is really no reason why the annual budget process should be so far out of whack that major budget decisions are still not settled four weeks before the end of the fiscal year.

Secondly, notice that the direction from the department to the regions is simply to freeze spending at 2008 levels.  That’s a short-term decision if ever there was one, not the sign of a decision taken within the context of a longer-term plan.

Thirdly, take a look at the list of options offered up by the boards.  In Central, there is a wide and unconnected list.  On  the one hand there are major program shifts.  On the other, there is an inconsequential cancellation of a single position for a few thousand dollars.  In Western, the increased costs forecast include substantial amounts that have to be annualised.  That is, the initial amounts increase over time as with any program spending. 

None of this is a sign of planning either at the regional or provincial level.  Rather it suggests a series of ad hoc decisions being made in response to ad hoc direction from central authorities.  As can be seen particularly in the letter from Western region and Labrador-Grenfell, significant new projects were started in 2007 and 2008 which need to be continued.  Yet, in preparing for 2009, the long-term implications of these projects are called into question by a predicted downturn in the economy.

In truth, this inconsistent management situation matches up with what we have seen from the provincial government across the board.  Capital works projects take inordinately long times to get start.  Significant legislative measures get lost for upwards of two years and more before they are implemented.   All the delays cost money. 

Point Three:  The solution cannot be more of the same.

One of the most obvious implications of analysis done for the Strategic Social Plan approved by cabinet in December 1995 was that government needed to fundamentally change how it delivered some services if it was going to balance the demand with the ability to supply.

Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the Tobin administration in 1996 was to scrap the SSP and replace it with a pale imitation. Gone were the needed reforms.  What has occurred since 2003 has been a continuation of the situation post-1996, with predictable results.  Until now, the Williams administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it faced a very serious problem.

But acknowledging that a problem exists is the first step to setting things right.

With all that as the basis, the next few posts will lay out some ideas for producing fundamental changes aimed at providing a financially sound future for the province.

-srbp-

Captain Dildo, Dwight Ball, and the New Approach to Old Stereotypes #nlpoli

Last week, the Premier’s Office sent out a picture of the Premier standing next to the mascot of a town in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nothing odd about it until you realise the mascot is called Captain Dildo and the Premier named Ball is standing to the left of the figure, which is slightly taller than him.

A dildo and a ball. 

Easy pickings for the jokesters out there. 

At least he is not Da Wight Ball, a wag observed.  No, came the reply, he is Da Weft Ball.

Some people might struggle to understand how the Premier and his staff could be beweft themselves,  beweft… err.. bereft… of a stwategy….

No, stragedy.

Umm.

Strategy.

Significant Digits – health care edition

In 1995, the provincial government spent slightly less than a billion dollars on health care. 

That was 26.4% of the provincial budget that year.

In 2010, a mere 15 years later, the provincial government is spending roughly 43% of the budget (not including capital works) on health care. 

That figure drops slightly – to 38% - if you add capital spending but that's only because of the disproportionate amount of spending on capital works not related to health care. 

In 2008, the provincial government spent 43% of the budget on health care.

That’s on par with spending in Quebec, for example, but the rate of change has been much greater in Newfoundland and Labrador than it has been in Quebec. Health care spending in Newfoundland and Labrador has doubled since 2003; in Quebec, health care spending grew 33% between 2003 and 2007.

Wait.

It gets better.

With health care spending at about $2.7 billion, that works out to be the equivalent of 12% of the value of all goods and services produced in the province  - the gross domestic product or GDP - in 2009.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, the Untied States spent 16% of its 2007 gross domestic product on health care.  That’s the most recent year for which the OECD supplies statistics online.

Canada as a whole spent 10% of its GDP on health care.  That was slightly behind Germany and around the same amount as Austria and France. But the majority of countries in the comparison of Europe and North America spent less than 10% of GDP on health care.

Just to be sure, in 1995, Newfoundland and Labrador spent about 10% of its GDP on health spending.  

-srbp-

 

Incidentally, those 1995 figures are from the Strategic Social Plan consultation paper.  It was supposed to have been released in early 1996 but circumstances prevented that from happening. Since copies are scarce – they were rounded up and shredded on orders from on high – your humble e-scribbler will scan his and start posting it very shortly.

The Cutting EDGE

Introduced in 1995, the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises program – known as EDGE – is the most successful economic development program currently offered by the provincial government.

According to an article in the March 20 issue of the Telegram,

The province estimates that EDGE has created 1,500-1,600 jobs over the years. The government has forked out $17 million in rebates to employers under the program. Those rebates are linked to things like provincial income tax, payroll tax and corporate income tax.

Roughly 40 municipal governments also signed on to the EDGE scheme, providing their own tax relief to qualified companies.

Within the past five years alone, 30 companies have applied for support under the program and two thirds were accepted.

Compare that to the hand-out programs introduced under the current administration.  Of the $75 million budgeted over the past three years, the programs have only managed to give away $14 million;  of that amount $8.0 million went to a company that promised to increase its workforce but in the end cut jobs.

The provincial government is reviewing the EDGE program to see how it can be improved. Currently 69 companies hold EDGE status.  A further 54 held the status at one point but no longer qualify.

As the Telegram described the EDGE program:

To be eligible, a company must create and maintain 10 new permanent jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador and make a minimum capital investment of $300,000 or have incremental annual sales of $500,000.

Tax incentives are provided to EDGE-designated companies for a period of 10 or 15 years, followed by a five-year period of partial rebates.

Part of the program’s enduring success is the philosophy behind it. EDGE recognised the changed global economic circumstances and placed its greatest emphasis on encouraging the private sector to develop innovative, globally-competitive industries that could survive without extensive government cash support.

The background to the program is contained in a public consultation paper released in the summer of 1994.  The main sections of that document are reproduced below.  in light of the current government policy and the review of EDGE, it would be useful if more people in the province were aware of an economic development philosophy that continues to deliver strong results almost two decades after it first appeared.

Excerpts from: 

Attracting new business investment: a White Paper on proposed new legislation to promote economic diversification and growth enterprises in the province

(June 1994)

1.0  BACKGROUND

The Strategic Economic Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, which was released in June of 1992, outlined the economic challenges facing the Province and charted new policy directions to guide economic development over the long term.

The Strategic Economic Plan noted in particular that the globalization of economic activity and the liberalization of world trade presents significant new export opportunities for manufactured goods and commercial services. Technological advances made in transportation and communications over the past decade, combined with the shift towards a more knowledge based world economy, have also reduced the relative importance placed on geographic location for many industries and firms, and this has created further opportunity for the development of new products and services. At the same time, however, these trends have brought increased international competition for economic activity, not only in the development of new products and services, but in respect of many of our existing industries as well.

These profound changes in global trade patterns, investment flows and technology constitute the driving force behind the fundamental economic restructuring that is now occurring in many countries. In an increasingly competitive and knowledge based world economy, it is clear that we can no longer rely on traditional approaches to attract new business investment and expand existing business enterprises. We will, out of necessity, have to become more outward looking in our approach to economic development and create an appropriate investment climate that supports international competitiveness.

It must also be recognized that the private sector is and will continue to be the engine of economic growth. This is a key principle embodied in the Strategic Economic Plan and reflects the reality that the private sector is the most effective vehicle through which lasting economic wealth and employment opportunities can be created for the people of this Province. It is the role of government in this context to create the economic climate in which private sector investment can occur and be successful.

2.0       GOAL

The goal of attracting new business investment as a means to create additional employment opportunity for the people of this Province is not a new concept. Indeed, various governmental incentive programs have met with measured degrees of success over time in this regard. However, the rapidly changing global marketplace and the province-wide impact on the economy resulting from the collapse of the groundfish fishery have heightened the need to significantly improve the attractiveness of the Province to the private sector as a place to invest and prosper. New business investment directed at economic diversification and general economic growth is not only an objective but an imperative at this juncture of the Province's history.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador intends to adopt bold and innovative measures to transform the Province into one of the most attractive locations - not only in Canada but in all of North America - for new business investment and to take aggressive new steps to market and promote the Province's strengths in this regard on a national and international basis.

The main elements of this new program will be reflected in legislation to be known as "An Act to Promote Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises in the Province". This legislation will be presented to the House of Assembly for its consideration in the fall of 1994 and will provide an enhanced "business friendly" regime for new and expanding business enterprises in the Province.

3.0       SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

3.1      Eligibility

New business enterprises wishing to establish in the Province and existing businesses wishing to expand their enterprises will be eligible to receive a range of special business development incentives, provided that certain conditions are met. These will be in addition to any other incentives the enterprise may be eligible for under other assistance programs established to encourage business development in the Province.

To qualify for the special incentives, an enterprise must meet the following tests:

• The proposed new business activity must have the potential to bring substantial new or expanded business investment and employment to the Province.  Only those projects involving capital investments of at least $500,000 and having the potential to generate incremental annual sales of $1.0 million, as well as creating and maintaining at least 10 full time permanent jobs in the Province, may apply to Government for access to the special incentives.
• The proposed new business activity must be consistent with the objectives for economic development that are embodied in the Strategic Economic Plan.
• Reasonable assurances must be available to demonstrate that the proposed new business activity, in the absence of the special incentives, would not otherwise be pursued in the Province. This test is intended to ensure that incremental economic activity will be stimulated by the new incentives.
• The proposed new business activity must not be directly competitive with or have an adverse impact on the viability of other businesses already established in the Province.   This will ensure that existing business enterprises will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to those companies and investors who are able to take advantage of the new incentives.
• The proposed new business activity must have the potential to generate substantial value-added economic benefit to the Province.

Both new businesses and existing businesses expanding their operations will be eligible for the special incentives. However, in the case of existing businesses, only those elements of a company's operation which are incremental to its existing scale of operation will be eligible for the incentives.

3.2      Review and Approval Process

Companies seeking the special incentives available through the new legislation will be required to provide documentation in the form of a comprehensive business plan to allow for a thorough assessment of its proposal. The specific requirements in this regard will be outlined fully in the legislation.

Particular attention will be given during the review process to the commercial viability of the proposed business activity over the long term. It is not the intent of the legislation to artificially support new industries or new business activity in the Province, but rather to attract and assist in the development of viable and sustainable economic enterprises and employment opportunities for the long term benefit of the people of this Province.

All applications received under the new legislation will be reviewed by a committee of Cabinet Ministers chaired by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, with final decisions on eligibility to be made by Cabinet. Part of the process in making a determination as to whether or not the special incentives will be granted to a company will involve a public notice procedure whereby Government will invite interested parties to make submissions respecting all proposals received. This is intended to ensure that all proposals are available for public scrutiny in respect of their potential competitive impact on existing business enterprises and jobs. Appropriate steps will be taken to protect the proprietary and commercial interests of the company when this public notice procedure is invoked.

While all proposals made to Government under the new legislation will be thoroughly assessed to protect the general public interest, Government is committed to a timely review process such that potential investors are not unduly delayed in the implementation of their business plans. Once the committee of Cabinet Ministers is satisfied that it has all the information it considers necessary to properly evaluate a proposal, a decision will be rendered by Cabinet on acceptance or otherwise of a company's proposal within 60 days.

Successful companies will be expected to enter into a formal contract with Government in which the Province will guarantee the benefits provided in the new legislation and the company will bind itself to implement the business proposal as accepted by Government. Notification will subsequently be given to the House of Assembly of all such contracts entered into, and ongoing monitoring of their terms and conditions will be carried out by senior officials.

3.3      Incentives Available through the Legislation

3.3.1    Taxation Incentives

The private sector is presently faced with a relatively high burden of taxation which impedes new investment and the creation of new employment opportunities in the Province. While a number of significant changes to the existing business tax structure have been made by Government in a number of areas in recent years, the entire taxation regime requires further attention if it is to be used as a means of promoting the Province as a highly competitive location in which to do business. Accordingly, the following taxation incentives are proposed for those companies qualifying for assistance under the new legislation:

(i) A full tax free holiday for ten years in respect of provincial corporate income tax, the health and post-secondary education "payroll" tax, and retail sales tax.

(ii) Further relief in these specific tax areas for an additional five year period on a reduced scale, commencing in the first year at 80% of total taxes payable and declining by a factor of 20% each year thereafter.

Municipalities will also be given the necessary legislative authority to grant full property and business tax exemptions on the same basis as outlined in (i) and (ii) above with a majority vote of the respective municipal council. At present, municipalities do not have the legislative flexibility to offer tax relief to individual companies to the extent contemplated herein.

3.3.2    Productivity Incentive

All new and expanding business enterprises experience a significant "learning curve" during the formative years of their operation. Part of this process inevitably results in a productivity "loss" that is incurred by the company at all levels in the organization.

To offset part of this productivity "cost", the Province will provide financial assistance to new and expanding business enterprises in an amount of $2,000 for each full time job created in the Province during its initial five year operating period where the company employs a resident of the Province to permanently occupy the job from the time of its creation.

Appropriate provisions will be included in the legislation to protect the pubic interest in the event of failure by a company to fulfil the conditions upon which the productivity incentive has been granted.

3.3.3    Labour Relations Incentives

A new approach to labour-management relations is required to attract new investment and stimulate new business enterprises in the Province. Government remains fully committed to ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place to protect the legitimate interests of employees and unions. However, it is in the broader public interest to achieve this objective in a balanced manner that also assures those who wish to make new business investments and provide economic opportunity in the Province have a reasonable prospect of receiving an acceptable level of return on their investment without undue risk from uncertain labour relations conditions.

Pursuant to a commitment made in the Strategic Economic Plan, Government is presently developing a comprehensive consultation document which will address various concerns respecting the general labour relations regime in the Province. While the intent will be to develop consensus on changes necessary to make the general labour climate more favourable for all businesses, Government believes that extraordinary measures are required beyond this if new business   enterprises   are   to   be   stimulated   in   the   increasingly competitive global economy.

Government's proposal in this regard is to make available different Labour Relations Act provisions to new enterprises wishing to establish in the Province and to do so in a manner that will not affect the application of current labour legislation to existing businesses. As well, any existing business where a bargaining agent has been certified for the employees of that company prior to the time it wishes to expand and take advantage of the special incentives under the new legislation will not be eligible for the labour relations provisions of the legislation. Considerable difficulty from a number of perspectives would be encountered in applying two different labour relations regimes to a single business operation, as one firm could have two separate collective bargaining processes, labour contracts and wage rates applying to employees doing the same kind of work. Accordingly, the labour relations provisions of the new legislation will apply to new business start-ups only.

The main  features of the proposed  new labour relations provisions are as follows:

a.  All collective agreements entered into between a company and the bargaining agent for the employees will remain in force for a period of at least five years, unless the contract entered into between the Province and the company in respect of the business undertaking as a whole expires in a period of less than five years.

b.  In circumstances where a company and a bargaining agent engage in collective bargaining but are unable to reach a collective   agreement,   a   special   panel   consisting   of   a representative   appointed   by   each   of  the   parties   and   a chairperson appointed by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations will establish a collective agreement by addressing those specific matters in dispute at the time the matter is referred to the panel.

c.  Where a company and a bargaining agent are unable to conclude a collective agreement and the matters in dispute are referred to a panel, the company will not be permitted to lock-out the employees and the employees will not be permitted to strike.

d.  A panel, in concluding a collective agreement, will take into account the following factors:

(i) the overall policy objective of the new legislation which is to create conditions favourable to the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses in the Province (this factor will be given paramount consideration by the panel);

(ii) the effect of the agreement on the profitability of the business;

(iii) the terms and conditions of employment of employees in occupations in the same or similar businesses both within and outside the Province, with consideration to be given to geographic, industrial, economic, social and other variations that the panel considers relevant;

(iv) the need to establish terms and conditions of employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the service provided; and

(v)      the needs of the employer for qualified employees.

e.  An agreement concluded by a panel will be binding on all parties.

f.  The panel will be required to conclude an agreement no later than 90 days after disputes are referred to it for resolution.

g.  Every collective agreement entered into between a bargaining agent and a company, including an agreement concluded by a panel, will contain provisions:

(i) requiring the application of progressive work practices in the work place including the use of composite crews;

(ii) relating to wages and to wage increases of employees during the term of the agreement, but those increases will not be permitted to exceed the percentage rise in the consumer price index as reported by Statistics Canada for that area; and

(iii) respecting the final and binding resolution of disputes without work stoppage.
Notwithstanding the provisions outlined above, where a company and a bargaining agent both agree that it would not be in their collective interest to apply the labour relations provisions of the new legislation in its entirety or in part, then those provisions will not apply to the parties concerned. Similarly, in circumstances where a panel has concluded a collective agreement, the parties concerned may, where they mutually agree, vary any term or condition the panel has applied, provided that such agreement does not offend other applicable provisions of the new labour relations regime.

3.3.4    Access to Crown Land

Crown land that a company may require to implement its business plan as approved by Government will be leased to the company for a nominal sum of $1.00.

3.3.5    Appointment of a Facilitator

Upon the request of a company, Government may appoint a person, either from within or outside of Government, to assist the company in obtaining governmental permits, licenses, options for use of Crown assets, and any other authorizations that the company may be required to obtain in connection with its business. This will expedite the processing of all applications for regulatory approval of the business plan and thereby allow the business plan to be implemented in a timely manner. The responsibility for actual decision-making in these areas will, however, remain with the appropriate regulatory agency.

- srbp -

Jack Byrne - Back to the Future!

For those not in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Fisheries Broadcast is a CBC Radio show that has been running for decades. It's the last show in the CBC radio line-up that is aimed solely at a particular sector of the economy, giving news and weather of interest to those in the fishery.

Driving home on Wednesday evening, I caught the introduction by host John Furlong to an interview with provincial cabinet minister Jack Byrne. Furlong said that the recent make-work package for fisheries workers announced by government had stirred some debate. To be sure some of the "debate" was from politicians clamouring to see the package extended to their districts or otherwise sweetened up.

But unless I have been missing a rollicking good time on the Fish Broadcast, I haven't heard so much as a peep from anyone about this policy from the Peckford years.

Jack Byrne did an admirable job of answering Furlong's questions; well, actually he did an admirable job of socking out the SOCKO-crap all that expensive mainland "media training" gave him. Jack had three messages and he stuck to them relentlessly, which is what many of these pre-packaged "training" sessions tell people to do.

It's Jane Stewart-in-a-can all for the low price of about $20, 000 bucks. Locals could do real training better and cheaper; but I digress.

Jack said:

1. The package was a one-time deal.

2. All the marvelous plans for economic development the government was working on would generate jobs to take care of fisheries workers in the future.

3. Whatever happened, he was sure the Premier would always use the best information to make the right decision in the best interests of the province.

So much for cabinet government.

To take the last point first, I am not sure if Byrne's point was that "Papa is in charge" (an excerpt from the Generic -Messages -for -the - Typical - Third -World -Dictatorship training module, no doubt) or that Jack himself wanted no responsibility for the make-work policy in the first place.

As for the middle point, this was a return to the "We gots Plans" theme that ran through the last Throne Speech. It was right after the Official (But Limited) List of Great Artists Known by the Speechwriter.

The only problem with Byrne's contention is that almost two years after taking office and another two and a half years in opposition before that, during which time we were assured they had plans ready to implement the day they took office, the current administration seems not to have a plan of any kind at all for anything.

The proof? We simply have yet to see one. Of any kind.

Even an outline would be nice.

In almost two farggin' years, as Roman Moroni would say.

The only plan they have is to keep sending SOCKOs out that they have plans in the works.

I felt a chill run down my spine as Byrne tossed out that "things will be better" SOCKO just because it sounded so much like a line from Glenn Tobin, Peckfordite social services minister (the guy in charge of Lotto 10-42) and more recently, known to be in charge of the liquor corporation.

In an interview with the fifth estate about Lotto 10-42 as it was then known, Tobin said two things:

1. There is no Lotto 10-42 in which the government deliberately stamps people up to get them on the EI rolls; and,

2. Even if there was such a program, and he wasn't admitting there was, but if for argument's sake we allow there was such a program, it wouldn't matter anyway because the Hibernia was about to start flowing and there'd be jobs for everyone and we'd all be rich, Praise Brian.

Or words to that effect.

All that leads us inevitably to SOCKO The First.

The problem with Jack Byrne's message that this was a one-off aid package is that history teaches us something starkly different.

Government works on the basis of an extreme version of Newton's First Law of Motion (inertia): - an object at rest will remain at rest (despite the best efforts to move it) or alternately, an object in motion will remain in motion (despite any evidence that it needs to stop quickly or Herculean efforts to stop it).

In the absence of a plan, governments everywhere tend to come up with these lash-up policies, sometimes, as in this case, digging back into their genetic political memory to find something that fits. This little make-work policy from government, for example, looks like it was dreamed up by Marty McFly, who took his Delorean for a little hop back to the glory days of 1985 to find out what Brian would have done.

Policy, as one wise former deputy minister once told me was about history, not logic and reason. When confronted with an issue, government bureaucrats invariably ask: 'What did we do before?"

I digress yet again.

More to the real point, though, in the continued and complete absence of a plan for either the fishery, or for economic development either in this case, there is a danger that as these work shortfalls inevitably occur, government will tend to go back to the make-work approach again and again until it becomes a policy.

As premiers wander about pledging that he won't let a single community "go down", they are spouting policy.

When a government gets focused exclusively on the tactical, as this one surely is, it starts doing everything as a "one-off". It only sees the specific issue and looks around for something to make the issue go away. Until the next time.

By the time of the third "one-off", you have a policy.

and a strategy.

by default.

In the meantime, in cases like this, no matter how many SOCKOs get spit out about having plans, being strategic and having a plan, the evidence almost inevitably shows that the SOCKO claims are actually a case of GIGO and that government is headed for being either SNAFU, TARFU or FUBAR.

The facts of the case #nlpoli

From the start of the pandemic, the provincial government  took decisions for political reasons, not medical ones.  It continues to do so.  It is clear that the provincial government has maintained very tight restrictions on the public far longer than necessary and that far more extensive efforts to control the public since 30 April are not based on evidence and medical necessity.

This is fundamental mismanagement that is harming the province and its people. 

The root of the problem is the political divisions in cabinet. The prospect of a new Premier to replace Dwight Ball brings with it the chance to sort out the problems and get the province ready to deal with COVID-19 for as long as necessary.  

The current situation is unconscionable.

Whatever it takes

The government's own advisors give evidence
that contradicts government's decision.

The Chief Medical Officer disclosed the first case of COVID-19 detected in Newfoundland and Labrador on 14 March.  The woman had recently returned from a cruise in the Caribbean.  Public health officials had tested 114 people half of whom had tested negative for the disease.  They and another eight besides were quarantined at home as a precaution.

The government’s first action attributed to COVID-19 came two days later.  At a news conference, Premier Dwight Ball, health minister John Haggie, education minister Brian Warr, and chief medical officer Dr. Janice Fitzgerald sat literally shoulder to shoulder behind a long desk.

We are “in uncharted waters” Ball told reporters.

Effective immediately, Ball and Warr announced, they had closed the province’s schools and daycares as well as College of the North Atlantic.  The move sent 74,000 children home along with thousands of adults across the province from the post-secondary college.

Haggie told reporters that effective immediately, the province’s health system had stopped all elective, diagnostic and surgical procedures. 

Ball said that public servants were also going to work from home, effective immediately.

“We will do whatever it takes, when necessary, to ensure your safety,” Ball said.

Asked about the impact of public cries to close schools as other provinces had done, Ball said "You always listen to people. We want to do what's best."

Ball and his ministers made the decisions to close schools, hospitals, and the provincial government that Monday morning.  There was a single case of COVID-19 in the province.

Mind the Gap #nlpoli

There is no shortage of gaps in politics in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Regular readers will be familiar with the Credibility Gap.  That’s the space between what a politician says and what the politician does.

Marketers forget that when it comes to reputation and hence lasting, reliable political support, actions speak far louder than words. They talk about brands and branding.  If you spend any time digging into brands and branding you will find really vague definitions that quickly lead you to the revelation that brands are for marketing what dependency theory and neo-liberalism are for left-wing academics.

True in civilian marketing. 

Doubly true in political marketing.

The gap between words and actions may not turn up right away but it does have an impact.

So take a look at the end of four months of Andrew Furey’s premiership at the number of times he has talked about “big, bold ideas”.

Now looked at his actions.

Nothing big or bold about them.

And the ideas are very familiar.  Pour government money into this hole or that.  Hold a government-issue dog and pony show to watch the politicians pouring public money into the hole.

Rinse.  Repeat.

Change and Challenge: Chapter Four - Creating a competitive edge (3)

Income Security Reform

During the past ten to fifteen years the Province's labour force has become strongly dependent on the income security system, particularly unemployment insurance. In many respects the current system is an inappropriate system of income security for a province such as Newfoundland and Labrador. While the Government is committed to ensuring basic income security for all households, our dependence on the present unemployment insurance system must change. As part of its strategic economic plan, the Government is therefore committed to working with the Federal Government to reform the income security system so that it encourages enterprise, education and employment, while continuing to provide basic income support.

It is important to recognize that the dependency on unemployment insurance is a national issue and not just a provincial concern. The Federal Government recently decided that unemployment insurance in Canada would be funded solely from contributions by employers and employees.

Employers and employees in this Province, however, contribute significantly less than the benefits received.

The unemployment insurance system was originally intended to provide temporary income to people seeking alternative employment who had lost their regular jobs in the work force. The system was not designed to provide basic income support, or as supplemental income for short-term, seasonal jobs. The present downturn in the economy has pointed to weaknesses in this system which must be addressed and corrected.

Strategy Statement. The Province will work with the Federal Government to ensure that the inevitable changes to the current income security system are designed so that basic income support is provided to every household, and that weaknesses in the present system are corrected to encourage the economic growth that is needed to reduce dependency on income security itself.

Actions. The Province will direct the Economic Recovery Commission (ERC) to undertake the following action and programs:

18. With support from other provincial agencies and in consultation with community groups, to work with officials from Employment and Immigration Canada to design an alternative income security system that both protects the income needs of Newfoundland and Labrador households and provides strong incentives for work, education and self-employment. The ERC will make recommendations to governments for implementing an alternative to regular
(non-fishermen's) unemployment insurance as a pilot project by 1993.

19. In consultation with other provincial and federal government agencies, the fishermen's union and the private sector, to design and recommend an Industry Stabilization and Insurance Program for Fishermen.

20. In consultation with appropriate federal, provincial and community-based agencies, devise a strategy to ensure that any short-term job creation projects that may be necessary during the interim, until a new system of income security is established, will provide meaningful work to participants and contribute to the long-term economic development of the Province.

21. Establish a Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Corps which will channel funds into socially useful activities that will both contribute to environmental enhancement and provide valuable work experience and training for its members.

Labour Relations

There is a clear relationship between a positive labour-relations environment and a productive, viable economy. Our society has come to expect and demand certain employment standards to govern the relationship between employer and employee. It is now the challenge of labour, employers and Government to create a workplace and a workforce that is also productive, competitive and responsive to the current economic and social changes and pressures.

The importance of a positive labour-relations climate and the necessary partnership between Government, employers and labour were emphasized during the public consultation process on the development of this strategic economic plan. It was also observed that adversarial labour relations exist in Newfoundland and Labrador and that their existence impedes economic development. Participants in the consultation process suggested that the province can move forward to resolve its economic problems only if Government, employers and labour work cooperatively to address these problems and seek solutions.

Government supports the view that a stable, positive labour-relations climate is essential if we are to attract new investment in the province as well as to ensure a vigorous and competitive environment for existing businesses. A review of recent figures on work disruptions and person days lost because of work stoppages indicates encouraging signs of improvements; the statistics also show that there is no appreciable difference in work stoppages in the public and private sectors.

Because this Province has the highest proportion of unionized workers of all provinces in Canada, the operation of the collective bargaining process is particularly important here. Its flexibility allows it to represent workers' interests better than strict government regulation of the workplace. It also allows for the development of labour contracts appropriate to different workplaces. Too much direct regulation would result in reduced competitiveness and would destroy the appeal of collective bargaining in a system that should be responsive to a variety of needs.

Employers and workers together share the responsibility of creating a viable labour-relations environment; however, there is also an important role for Government. For example, our legislative framework requires government involvement before a strike or lockout can occur. The role of Government in this case is to provide services that can facilitate and encourage better communication between workers and employers. The recent preventive mediation program of Government underscores these important principles, but it is essential that the employers and workers themselves recognize their role and responsibility in the process. Mediation and conciliation may be effective in averting or reducing conflict but cannot help if parties consciously ignore or avoid these services.

A positive commitment by all parties involved is essential to successful labour relations and cannot be legislated or imposed by Government, though it can be encouraged and facilitated. Unions, workers, employers and Government must meet the challenge of continuing to improve labour-relations practices, especially when the economy, the composition of the workforce and the workplace itself are undergoing rapid and fundamental change. Recognition of the need for change provides a unique opportunity for improving the labour-relations climate.

To ensure that we can compete in an ever-expanding global marketplace employees and employers must work together. The challenge is to create a positive labour-relations environment which satisfies the aspirations of workers, minimizes work and family conflict and produces a well-trained and committed work force. Maintaining a balance between competitiveness and employment security must be a shared responsibility of labour, employers and Government. All three must recognize the conflicting pressures of global market forces and a growing demand for fundamental workers' rights and the collective bargaining process.

During the public consultation process, reference was made to the Province's other role as a major employer and the need to review the present policy of having different collective bargaining regimes for public and private sector employees.

Government can make an important contribution to the challenge unions, workers and employers face by increasing services that help the parties work together and by making all employers and employees aware of the importance of their own commitment to improved labour relations. While there is a clear link between a positive labour-relations environment and a productive business environment, it is equally clear that it takes a commitment from all parties to make it work.

Strategy Statement. The Province mil work to develop a stable, positive labour-relations climate to maintain and attract investment to the Province and to ensure a vigorous and competitive environment for economic development. Special emphasis will be placed on the development and use of innovative dispute resolution mechanisms and other workplace practices to minimize disruptions and enhance productivity for the mutual benefit of employers and workers.

Actions. The Province will:

22. Convene, within six months, a joint labour-management consultative committee, with both public- and private-sector representation. This committee will bring labour and management together at the provincial level to develop broad strategies for responding to restructuring and adjustment issues, to investigate and propose appropriate policy and program reforms (including new and innovative methods of dispute resolution), and to review the recommendations of the Background Report on Labour Relations to the Royal
Commission on Employment and Unemployment which are not yet implemented.

23. Appoint a Cabinet committee to address matters involving public-sector labour relations and Government's role as the major employer in the Province.

24. Establish, during the next year, tri-partite committees of employers, employees and Government for each major sector of the economy to develop a better understanding of, and to discuss and advise on, labour matters. These committees will meet regularly with the appropriate Cabinet Ministers to ensure improved communication among the interest groups.

25. In consultation with management and labour, establish a Labour-Relations Education and Research Centre which will develop new skills and strategies for effective collaboration, communication, mediation, arbitration, health and safety planning, grievance procedures, conciliation and collective bargaining. This Centre will be associated with a post-secondary institution which will adopt as its area of specialization the new mandate for labour-relations education.

26. Ensure there is a partnership between business and labour to provide information on the role, importance and mechanisms for positive labour relations at the secondary and post-secondary educational institutions.

27. Allocate additional financial and human resources to the promotion and delivery of the Preventive Mediation Program.

28. Undertake a thorough review of legislation relating to labour relations; consolidating all collective bargaining legislation will be considered.

29. Establish immediately a labour-management cooperation fund to provide cost-shared financial support to projects jointly sponsored by labour and management, such as those related to improved communication, productivity or labour relations.

-srbp-

Change and Challenge: Chapter 4(4)

5 years and counting: still no sustainable development act

A 2003 Provincial Conservative election promise  - to ensure that economic development and the environment were in sync  - remains unfilled five years after the Provincial Conservatives took power and two years after the law was passed by the province’s legislature.

The province’s Sustainable Development Act, passed by the legislature in early 2007, has not been proclaimed and is therefore not law.

In the meantime, the provincial government’s energy corporation is proceeding with development of the Lower Churchill, including a plan to sling high-voltage power lines through a UNESCO World Heritage site.

That certainly wouldn’t be the popular impression since then-environment minister Clyde Jackman issued a news release in June 2007 that made it sound like the Act was in place:

The sustainable management of the province’s natural resources is now enshrined in the Sustainable Development Act that was passed in the current session of the House of Assembly. Sustainable development will ensure the province’s renewable and non-renewable resources are developed to maximize benefits for the province, while protecting the natural environment so that future generations have the ability to meet their own needs.

The release said more than half a million dollars had been set aside in 2007 to establish the advisory committee that is at the heart of the act.  No legislation, though meant no committee.

The unproclaimed act featured prominently in the Provincial Conservative Party’s 2007 election campaign platform.  The second blue print also made it sound as though the act was in force and work was underway:

Through our new Sustainable Development Act, we will ensure that development proceeds in harmony with our natural environment, securing our greatest natural strengths while promoting eco-friendly enterprise.

…

• enforce the provisions of the Sustainable Development Act regarding the responsible and sustainable development of our natural environment, ensuring that our resource development decisions address the full range of environmental, social and economic values and that workers, environmentalists, industry, communities, aboriginal peoples and others have a say in how our resources are managed. [Emphasis in original]

Without the sustainability act in place, there can be no enforcement of its provisions.

Without the act, there is also no Strategic Environmental Management Plan, even though the provincial government committed to have one in place by 2009.

The SEMP was supposed to be the document that put the commitment to environmentally sustainable economic development into action.

-srbp-

Number 10 heads for number one

Via Neville Hobson, comes a link to Simon Dickson's post on the new look coming soon to the website of the Prime Minister's office in the United Kingdom.

number10.gov.uk will go from look like many other sites out there to looking like this, right.  There are slightly better quality photos available from the Downing Street Flickr space.

Yes, the Prime Minister's Office uses Flickr.  They use Twitter and the whole gamut of social media.

As you can see from Simon's description the site looks like a blog because they are using WordPress as the platform.  There's a rationale Simon offers, but frankly, anyone using the site will find that the blog approach to layout simply works more efficiently than most other designs when it comes to making the information readily accessible.

The current Number 10 site is good but it has a tendency to be an assault on the eyeballs.  The new version goes for images - like the official stills at Flickr - and in Number 10 TV which is the new centrepiece.  Simon notes that the new video component will not be youtube, although, here again Number 10 has been using the groundbreaking video site for a little over a year. 

On the right of the new layout are two columns of information, mostly conveyed in images, which take you off to other places if you are so inclined.

Compare this, for argument's sake, with any provincial government website.  That's the main government site and from there you can get to all sorts of places. The thing is depressingly out of date in both layout and content and there seems to be no move afoot to change things.  Aside:  it would be nice to be proven wrong on these things, you know. 

Other provincial government sites across the country are not significantly better, although as time passes, the gov.nl site is looking increasingly tired.  Try to find information on the community recreation develop program for example. 

After a considerable trek through the maze of clicks,  you wind up at a page with a single paragraph on it:

Designed to offset the cost of providing recreation and sport/active living programs and leisure services with the Community Recreation Committees in communities of less than 6000 people can apply for financial support. Application forms are available through regional offices.

There's no indication of how long the program's been around, who has gotten it in the past or any of the other sorts of information you might expect to find here either to help demonstrate accountability or to give a clue as to what sorts of projects get the cash.

But here's a poser for you:  which regional office are they talking about?  You see having a pdf here would be marvelously simple.  Better still they could have a form available to submit online.  But they want me to go to a regional office.

Okay.

The recreation division of the department of which recreation is a tiny bit doesn't have regional offices. Well, at least that's how it appears.  Maybe they meant the tourism regional offices.  Doesn't make much sense but maybe that's what they meant.

Try to find clear information on the website as to where those offices are.

Try the Sport Newfoundland and Labrador link on the department services and programs directory.  A logical choice but the link is dead.  It should be sportnl.ca, not sportnf.ca but nobody bothered to change the link.  (Another poser for you:  How long ago did the province's name change?) You'll find a form there for capital grants but there's no way of knowing  - from the website - if this is the same as the development grant where you started your search.

See the point?

The issue here is not one  of look.  It's really about providing information to people in a form and in a way which is most convenient for them.  Having election statistical reports available for view in the Legislative Library is nice but it the model of accountability left from an age when a quill pen was the height of modern technology. 

Accountability is not accomplished by having agencies issue plans which state that the officials responsible for sweeping the floors have established as their strategic goal to sweep floors and that they plan to do it by acquiring brooms and then applying them daily according to the standard broom employment manual recently issued for the amalgamated office of the chief sweeping officer. 

Transparency doesn't come from issuing a report in which the minister responsible for the CSO indicates his extreme pleasure at issuing a report on the strategic sweeping operations, which, incidentally, recounts in entirely  uninformative detail the fact that brooms were employed sometimes in one direction and sometimes in another in order to achieve the miracle of clean floors which have been brought to government buildings through the existence of the OCSO.

Openness is an attitude.

The attitude needs a behaviour to make it work.

The behaviour is simply providing information.

To see how dramatic and functional the changes can be, consider the rapid transformation of the  offshore board website.  To most people this site is not at the top of their bookmarks. But,  for the people interested in the offshore, they can now access relevant information in a much easier way than before.  They can do it when it suits their schedule.

The revamp of Number 10's website is a behaviour that tells you the attitude is there to be open and push information into the public domain.  We can argue another time whether what they release is useful or relevant.

It's one more people and more offices should emulate.

-srbp-

If only they’d read their briefing materials…

While health minister Jerome Kennedy busily backs off decisions he took only a few weeks ago on health care, there is something obviously haphazard and chaotic about the way the current administration is approaching virtually everything they do.

Your humble e-scribbler has noted this before in other policy areas. Equalization is the most obvious subject and, as it turned out, that was a post that was extremely popular.

But in the case of health care, word of the on-again and possibly off-again review of some services makes one want to turn back the clock to 2002.

That’s the year a provincial government with no cash to speak of - and certainly far less than the billion dollar surpluses Jerome! and his buddies have turned up – laid down a simple set of practical guides to health care delivery across the province.

Healthier Together (2002) was touted as a strategic health plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s still available on the health department website. Read together Along with regional profiles produced the following year, you get a very good picture of the health issues in each part of the province and the solutions needed.

If you want to get a sense of how the document could help the government of today, take a look at the section on the organization of the health care regional authorities:

Newfoundland and Labrador is a large geographic area with a highly dispersed population where regions often have different circumstances and needs. This is partly the reason why the province has 14 health care boards.

It is not possible to compare the diversity of this province to the relative uniformity of Winnipeg or Edmonton, where populations which exceed that of Newfoundland and Labrador are serviced by a single health authority. However, if the number of health boards in this province create barriers to proper patient care, then re-examination is needed.

One of the problems both the Premier and the current health minister pointed to was a lack of accurate information they had when making decisions.

Well, the 2002 approach affirmed that decision-making authority on delivery of service belonged to the regions, not to people far removed from where the service was delivered. It also noted that the number of boards allowed gave a system that could take into account the local issues that could get lost in a larger system.

But when you turn to the section on where services would be located, there’s a simple model for health care that could work very easily today. After all, this thing was drafted only seven years and and, as it notes, the health care system currently in place goes back 20 and more years:

Primary health care sites will be the common denominator of service for the whole province. These sites will provide a cluster or network of basic services, plus public health and social services consistent with the mandates of the health and community service boards. Each site will serve a defined geographical region designed to ensure the right number of health professionals to service the population. For example, a minimum of five family physicians will be needed in a primary service site so that coverage can be provided 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week. Therefore, a region should contain no less than 6,000 people and the site should be located so that 95 per cent of the population within that region are within 60 minutes driving time to the site. Depending on the geographic shape of a region or the remoteness of some communities, additional facilities may be located outside the main primary health care site to be serviced by a small complement of staff or by providers who make routine visits to the area.

Doesn’t that sound just a wee bit like Lewisporte?

All this makes you wonder if the turn-over at the senior levels in the current administration has served to rob the government of much-needed corporate memory, the kind of memory that would serve a cabinet well in tough economic times.

That turn-over didn’t come as a result of retirements and normal job changes-over. Rather there seems to be some other force at work producing a parade of ministers in some departments and the ping-ponging of others (finance and justice) while at the public service level there is an equally high level of change. All of it must surely make it very hard to implement a coherent and sustained set of policies over time.

And when people making decisions don’t have a clue about what happened relatively recently or when it is official policy to denigrate everything that occurred before October 2003, it makes the job of running government all that much more difficult.

-srbp-

Eventually the other guys will lose…

A couple of weeks ago, your humble e-scribbler picked up a story at the political science reunion.  It was about a bunch of university types who met with a political leader looking for some advice.

Do some polling, find out what people are looking for and develop a platform came the advice.  Then go out and work hard to persuade people to join you and vote for you.

No way, came the response.  We don’t need to do that: eventually the other guys will lose.

Telegram editorial page editor Russell Wangersky offered a thoughtful commentary on local politics last week:

Sitting on the government side has been a free ticket to talking down to whatever party's in opposition and just generally acting like God's gift to politics.

It also means a fundamental weakness in opposition - and never forget that the opposition has a crucial role in good government. The weakness is that no one runs to be a member of a strong opposition - instead, potentially strong candidates sit on their hands and wait for the right time to throw their hats in the ring. That time only comes when it looks like they can take the government - and until then, we tend to get leaders of the opposition who are seat-warmers, at best.

Wangersky hit on a major problem in local politics, but it isn’t one of majorities.  Nor is it the case that people don’t run to to be part of a strong opposition:  not a single politician has ever run in order to sit on the side of the House that doesn’t have power.

Rather, the problem has to do with the local political culture. 

For starters, politics is seen by many as nothing more than a game.  Voters don’t necessarily weigh policies;  they just make a guess early on which side is going to win and then park their vote with the winner.  That’s where this whole idea comes from about losing one’s vote. Being on the winning side is the most important thing for many voters.

Second, consider that parties don’t divide up along any really well-founded ideological lines either. Take a look at the 1996 Tory platform, for example, and you’ll see basically policies that are similar to the Liberal platform at the time.  In 2003, Danny Williams’ platform included an entire chapter that was nothing more than a précis of the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan. 

On some issues in that election – like say the idea of a state-owned oil company – all three parties had exactly the same idea.  Just to give a sense of the absence of any ideological divide consider that the New Democrats look on it as if it was actually some kind of public ownership.  Lorraine Michael praises the hell out of NALCOR because it looks like something her peeps would like.

In practice, NALCOR is something the local New Democrats should be opposing vehemently.  It runs without adequate public oversight and can hide most of its financial workings from legislative scrutiny. NALCOR has received bags of public cash but produces no identifiable public benefit.

Even if all that weren’t true, somewhere along the line Lorraine missed the biggie clue that should tell her Danny is no advocate of public ownership of the kind New Democrats as social democrats would understand:  Williams has said in the legislature right in front of her that he’d flip the whole deal if the price was right.  New Democrats don’t usually advocate converting principles to cash.

To be sure, the current Williams crowd are viciously partisan in a way locals have seldom seen.  The truly hard core Danny-ites approach politics with the sort of closed-minded zeal that would make your average Fox News watcher green if only with envy.  But still,  what we are referring to in Newfoundland today is not an ideological division,  that is unless Chris Crocker-style hysterical celebrity worship is now a political belief system. 

And through it all, there’s the simple fact that since the Great Sectarian Accommodation of the mid-19th century, the Newfoundland establishment culture does accept open political debate and discussion as being legitimate.  To the contrary, local political culture explicitly divides the world into acceptable views and those which are treasonous, to use the popular freshie-gulper language.

You’ll see a fine example of this time-honoured approach in the comments on a post from 2009.  There’s a back and forth between your humble e-scribbler and a chap who wanted to offer some free advice.  part of the exchange included this::

Complaining about the tone of my comments or saying I am negative (there's a popular one) is really a code for identifying someone who is outside the range of accepted belief. It identifies someone who must conform or be ostracised.

It is a way of suppressing ideas and views which run contrary to that of the dominant authorities. Remember a couple of years ago when DW referred to some people in Stephenville as "dissidents"? Bit of an odd choice of words but, if you appreciate the wider context, it made perfect sense. How about the constant refrain that different ideas are "negative"?

…

As a last point, I will note that there is one thing I have seen fairly consistent[ly] over the past four or five years. The only people who criticise my tone (even with the little bit of sugar about it being a "nice" blog) or who suggested I am merely a partisan hack advancing something called "Liberal dogma", whatever the hell that is, come from a very particular ideological or partisan background themselves.

They are, in effect, using coded language in another way: to avoid dealing with conflict. They want to suppress some sort of conflict either between their ideas and ones they don't agree with or can't accept or - more typically with the person. In the latter case the sublimation comes from misperception that criticism of an idea is criticism of the person suggesting the idea. Either way it is unhealthy.

This isn’t just an abstraction or a left-over fear from another age. 

Once in power, political parties have been known to use their considerable economic might to punish those who speak publicly even if it simply doesn’t conform to the exact government line. Whether it is that economic punishment or merely the phone call asking if someone had actually meant to say something quoted in the news media, the message of suppression and the need for conformity gets through loudly and clearly.

No one should be surprised that, in such a culture, aspiring politicians often wait around hoping for the day the other guys lose.  Nor is it surprising given such a repressed political environment that in the 60-odd years since Confederation, there have been only three changes of governing political party in Newfoundland and Labrador:  1972, 1989 and 2003.

A healthy democracy requires more than a strong opposition in the legislature.  It requires a strong party system that accepts as legitimate both differences of view and the right to express those differences without fear of reprisal. That strong party system cannot take root in a place where conformity is demanded, where differences are actively suppressed and where politics is reduced to nothing more than a game.

-srbp-

The importance of what we care about #nlpoli

When we do not talk about the most vulnerable people in our society – sex workers and people in homeless shelters to name just two groups – we tell the world that our community does not care about them.  Last week’s spectacle in the House of Assembly showed the world that the 40 people who Newfoundlanders and Labradorians elected to represent them and run the province do not care about very much at all.

Alison Coffin and Ches Crosbie
talk to reporters on Friday about Gerry Byrne.
(Not exactly as illustrated)

A 23-year-old man lay on the pavement in downtown St. John’s last Tuesday night, the blood running out of him and mingling with the rain on the cold pavement.

He died outside a shelter for homeless people. The community learned very quickly that it was a shelter, that it was a rental property, and that police frequently visited the place to deal with disturbances among the people who came and went from the house with great frequency.

We learned that information because neighbours put it on social media, where the local conventional media – newspaper, television, and radio - picked it up and repeated it.  Before anyone knew who the young man was, or what had gone on, they had decided what the issues were in the story.

That morning, in the House of Assembly,  the opposition parties asked for the Premier’s opinion on the fact that provinces in Canada received transfer payments from the federal government because they  - unlike Newfoundland and Labrador – didn’t make enough money on their own to meet the national minimum government income standard.  There were questions about flooding in a district on the west coast, a couple of questions about specific constituents who needed government money, and about the deaths of a couple of million salmon in a fish farm a couple of months before.

There was only one question thread - about ferry service to northern Labrador - that stood out for its consistency and seriousness - and the only question about homelessness was about people with high paying jobs in western Labrador who had to couch surf.

The morning after the death,  the few questions related to the murder were generic:  “’What plan does the government have’  to deal with crime and homeless in St. John’s?” opposition leader Ches Crosbie led with.  His second question was about a growth in payments to temporary shelters run by landlords, not not-for-profits.  That story had been in the local media before and brought back because of the assumed connection in media reports between the for-profit shelters and the murder.

Attention then turned to a general discussion of health care.  By the time the official opposition was done, the New Democrat leader Alison Coffin’s question about homelessness was also generic: 

“APEC reports that despite growth in the oil industry, our province is struggling. Homelessness, addictions, cost of living, bankruptcies, gangs, unemployment, electricity rates, out-migration are all on the rise.

“I ask the Premier: Will Advance 2030 address these pressing issues, or will we continue to stumble forward?”

That was the lone NDP question before her colleague got back to the dead salmon.

Guaranteed Annual Income

The Globe and Mail version by Kevin Milligan.

From the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s idea for income support reform as a means of promoting fundamental economic and social transformation:

The unemployment insurance system was originally intended to provide temporary income to people seeking alternative employment who had lost their regular jobs in the work force. The system was not designed to provide basic income support, or as supplemental income for short-term, seasonal jobs. The present downturn in the economy has pointed to weaknesses in this system which must be addressed and corrected.

Strategy Statement. The Province will work with the Federal Government to ensure that the inevitable changes to the current income security system are designed so that basic income support is provided to every household, and that weaknesses in the present system are corrected to encourage the economic growth that is needed to reduce dependency on income security itself.

- srbp -

The Narrative War (2015) #nlpoli

The day after a massive Liberal victory in the general election,  CBC’s David Cochrane posted an analysis piece on the new administration.  CBC distributed it nationally.

Cochrane described Dwight Ball as a man “unlikely” to be Premier:

Four campaigns. Two losses. Two wins.  By a combined 75 votes.

Cochrane’s account leaves out relevant context.  When it comes to describing how the Liberals won,  Cochrane focuses not on anything the Liberals did but rather a string of Tory blunders that  - according to Cochrane  - made it easy for the Liberals to win the election essentially by accident.

And now, as Cochrane’s story goes, Ball The Unlikely will have to face enormous financial problems using a plan that Cochrane claims “was greeted with enormous scepticism in the final week of the campaign.”

In the supper hours news, Cochrane then reported on information leaked to him by someone with access to highly confidential government  information.  Their purpose  - quite obviously – was to maximise the the damage to the new administration before it even had a chance to take office.  The information fit quite neatly with Cochrane’s ongoing narrative and so, he naturally, had no hesitation in using it.