It's the 58th anniversay of Newfoundland joining Canada, and just in case I am too lazy or simply uninspired to write anything Saturday morning, here's a link to last year's posting, which I think was the one which got the most comments of anything I wrote in 2006.
Betcha ten bucks that nobody in the provincial government bothers to mark the anniversary.
But some of us will.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Under the Sea
Today, the Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Dean MacDonald proclaimed that a sub-sea cable to transmit hydroelectricity is “do-able” without any federal government assistance.
This is great news.
But it begs the question - If a sub-sea route to untold hydroelectric riches is feasible without government money, then why can't we get the Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to explain that concept to the President and CEO of Persona, who insists, that no such sub-sea cable for untold broadband riches is conceivable without millions of $$$ in provincial government assistance?
It should be a simple conversation. Especially given that they’re the same person!!!
Or, maybe it’s a simple statement on government relations and necessity. I.e. if the source of your funding is someone you’re in a spat with, then you don’t really need it. But if it’s your good buddy, well...
This is great news.
But it begs the question - If a sub-sea route to untold hydroelectric riches is feasible without government money, then why can't we get the Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to explain that concept to the President and CEO of Persona, who insists, that no such sub-sea cable for untold broadband riches is conceivable without millions of $$$ in provincial government assistance?
It should be a simple conversation. Especially given that they’re the same person!!!
Or, maybe it’s a simple statement on government relations and necessity. I.e. if the source of your funding is someone you’re in a spat with, then you don’t really need it. But if it’s your good buddy, well...
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wow
If you read one thing today, read this.
With a local press gallery who generally take his word for everything, an Official Opposition that is generally tired silent and useless, and an Open Line radio chorus that will brand anyone who questions him a traitor worthy of public stoning, Premier Williams has a had a pretty easy ride.
But as Craig Westcott points out, people in St. John's (of all places) are starting to get a little tired of the Premier's rule by fiat, and the repercussions his firm grip on office are having on the local business climate.
This is (hopefully) just the beginning. But for outsiders who don't follow NL politics between temper tanturms, hissy fits, tirades and national ad campaigns, it paints a pretty good picture of Williams' first three and a half years as Premier, and forecasts what the next several years may look like.
With a local press gallery who generally take his word for everything, an Official Opposition that is generally tired silent and useless, and an Open Line radio chorus that will brand anyone who questions him a traitor worthy of public stoning, Premier Williams has a had a pretty easy ride.
But as Craig Westcott points out, people in St. John's (of all places) are starting to get a little tired of the Premier's rule by fiat, and the repercussions his firm grip on office are having on the local business climate.
This is (hopefully) just the beginning. But for outsiders who don't follow NL politics between temper tanturms, hissy fits, tirades and national ad campaigns, it paints a pretty good picture of Williams' first three and a half years as Premier, and forecasts what the next several years may look like.
get fixed
Why is a patchwork of differing fixed election dates across the country such a great thing?
Do Canadians really give a darn?
I'm unconvinced.
Do Canadians really give a darn?
I'm unconvinced.
Williams v. Harper (Round II)
In my mind, there are only two things worse than Harper breaking his promise on Equalization. Worse, of course, was Danny believing the promise, and the worst of all was Harper making the promise in the first place. Anyone with a brain, let alone a Master's degree in Economics must have known it was untenable from the moment he announced it. More on that in a later post once I get my audio archive up and running. (trust me, it'll be fun...)
In the meantime, for a general synopsis of today's "ad campaign", Keith Boag's piece from tonight's National is pretty good.
As funny as it is to watch Liberals quoting Tories and Harper quoting Liberals to great fanfare in the House, the spectacle on CBC of former provincial-NDP-Leader-turned-Harper-apologist Peter Fenwick was perhaps the most entertaining of all. Appearing as a representative of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Fenwick claimed Williams was expecting the ridiculous.
Oddly enough, the first proponents of this madness were... the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies! As a service to Mr. Fenwick who has a hard time remembering who or what he stands for, here is Ken Boessenkool's AIMS paper entitled "Ten Reasons to Remove Nonrenewable Resources from Equalization". Enjoy.
In the meantime, for a general synopsis of today's "ad campaign", Keith Boag's piece from tonight's National is pretty good.
As funny as it is to watch Liberals quoting Tories and Harper quoting Liberals to great fanfare in the House, the spectacle on CBC of former provincial-NDP-Leader-turned-Harper-apologist Peter Fenwick was perhaps the most entertaining of all. Appearing as a representative of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Fenwick claimed Williams was expecting the ridiculous.
Oddly enough, the first proponents of this madness were... the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies! As a service to Mr. Fenwick who has a hard time remembering who or what he stands for, here is Ken Boessenkool's AIMS paper entitled "Ten Reasons to Remove Nonrenewable Resources from Equalization". Enjoy.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Mario. It rhymes with Ontario.
That's the only rational answer I can find to the following question...
What's the difference between:
(a) a federalist liberal from Quebec who storms out of a Liberal party convention, throws a hissy fit in the early 1990s, quits and starts another party; and
(b) a federalist liberal from Quebec who storms out of a Liberal party convention, throws a hissy fit in the early 1990s, quits and starts another party?
In other words, why are the very same Tories, (some) Liberals, and journalists who took great glee in referring to Jean Lapierre as a separatist going to such great lengths today to call Mario Dumont federalist? Especially given that Dumont has been giving interviews in French all day adamantly declaring otherwise?
Nobody believed Lapierre when he said he had changed his stripes, and now nobody believes Dumont when he insists he hasn't. Weird, huh?
What's the difference between:
(a) a federalist liberal from Quebec who storms out of a Liberal party convention, throws a hissy fit in the early 1990s, quits and starts another party; and
(b) a federalist liberal from Quebec who storms out of a Liberal party convention, throws a hissy fit in the early 1990s, quits and starts another party?
In other words, why are the very same Tories, (some) Liberals, and journalists who took great glee in referring to Jean Lapierre as a separatist going to such great lengths today to call Mario Dumont federalist? Especially given that Dumont has been giving interviews in French all day adamantly declaring otherwise?
Nobody believed Lapierre when he said he had changed his stripes, and now nobody believes Dumont when he insists he hasn't. Weird, huh?
Federal election
Harper will call an election as quickly as possible.
Or at least before Charest can call him and tell him how much more he needs to hang on.
Allons-y!
Or at least before Charest can call him and tell him how much more he needs to hang on.
Allons-y!
Monday, March 26, 2007
Federalists have already lost this Quebec election
It's still a few hours until polls close in the la belle province and we're glued to our TVs watching what promises to be an entertaining evening's worth of results rolling in. La Presse identifies 40 ridings that it claims are too close to call, a significant majority of which are currently held by the the governing Liberals. Most of the Quebec press is betting on a minority government of some sort if the ADQ is able to maintain its apparent growth.
Just who will win, and by how much, remains very much up in the air.
My bet is that the Liberals will probably do a little better than recent polls suggest. They head into voting day for the first time in a generation with arguably the best organization -and organization wins close elections. There remain unanswered questions -will rural nationalists have a last-minute warming to Boisclair? Will the Greens and Québec Solidaire voters migrate to him at the ballot box?
What is not in question however, is who has lost.
Sure, Boisclair may yet be done in by his party brass after a disappointing result and a dismal campaign, but the real loser at the end of the night is probably going to be the federalist cause in Quebec, and most certainly the federalist cause in other parts of the country.This is true under almost any scenario.
In the unlikely event of a Charest majority (which is still the most preferable outcome for federalists watching this debacle from afar – ed.) the question has to be asked: if it took acknowledgement of a mythical fiscal imbalance, a late-campaign lopsided infusion of federal cash to Quebec, a suggestion of a forthcoming legislative castration of the federal government’s spending power and a month of semantics around the Parliamentary recognition of Quebec as a nation, then what in heaven’s name will Charest, or his federalist, liberal successor expect for a three-peat?
If Quebec’s ruling Liberals return with a minority government (the pundits’ most likely scenario) then Charest’s mission for the next several months will be to try and gain ground from Dumont’s growing base of autonomiste support. In other words, Charest will have to push his party further toward the ultranationalist and Conservative side of the spectrum in order to build for a future majority. If you thought embassies abroad, and missions to UNESCO (say nothing of that "nation" business) were tough to swallow, just wait for the joyous federalist message the PLQ will have to tailor for the next time around.
If the Parti Quebecois squeaks out a minority (which they could conceivably do despite finishing a distant second or possibly even third in popular vote) then we are left with a situation where a weakened PQ government, unable to convincingly launch its desired referendum campaign, once again uses its government resources – including billions from Canada’s New Government – to try and rebuild "winning conditions" in hopes of raising Quebecers’ ire against Ottawa. With the marge de manouevre increased and its fardeau fiscal in much better standing than the last time they were in power (thanks to Uncle Ottawa) the PQ can go back to doing what it does best, pissing on the federation with the pesky political hindrance of health and social spending pressures conveniently out of the way. In other words, one week after fooling himself into believing he had successfully removed le couteau from la gorge, Harper may wake up tomorrow to find it planted firmly dans le dos.
Let’s remember, this campaign started with Charest’s celebration of all things newly national and autonomist, it ended with warnings not only about minority governments, but about minority voters, too. There was hardly anything “federalist” or “liberal” about it. In between, along with tacit recognition that the fiscal imbalance was a farce, an absolute disavowal of the common sense arguments of partitionists, the celebration-turned-feigned-horror of paternalist intervention from Ottawa, and other twists and turns, we developed a new Liberal, federalist slogan for use in Quebec: “Less of Canada in our life, more of Canada in our wallet.”
And that’s where the even bigger problem lies. This isn’t 1976. Quebec isn’t the only province harbouring various degrees of nationalist sentiment. Premier Williams is celebrating the Quebec political model on the airwaves with every possible opportunity. Sure, he’s nuts. But his popular support numbers would make Levesque or Bouchard green with envy. He may have no possible justification for his latest round of fury - but when did that count for anything in our federation anyway? Our Prime Minister himself knows this first hand, having penned his own “firewall” letters in days of yore. The mere possibility of appeasement makes every battle worth fighting, every dollar worthy of deliberation.
In short, while we’re all rooting for that federalist, liberal Jean Charest to pull something off tonight, I can’t help but honestly say it’s with some degree of trepidation.
How did we get to this point where the only argument that an incumbent federalist, liberal Premier of Quebec offers in favour of Canada is one with a dollar figure attached? How did it come to pass that daily headlines scream of separatist mantra from federalist leaders - ingérence, autonomisme, paternalisme, etc.? When did it become politically unpalatable for a federalist party in Quebec to use the ".ca" on its web domain?
How did we willingly aid and abet the doctrine now so prevalent not only in Quebec, but in Newfoundland, Alberta and now even Ontario, that Canada is nothing more than an administrative relationship of convenience – the participation in which can only be measured, valued, or justified if your annual transfers from it fall on beneficiaries' side of the ledger?
Canada's New Government has embarked on a path very foreign to its founders. And while it is easy to point the finger at those who slayed the mythical imbalance, recognized the nation-within-the-nation, shattered hopes of a national child care system, etc. the blame is not theirs alone. Nor does it lie at the feet of the federalist voters in Quebec, who watch tonight's results with more at stake than any of the rest of us.
The blame belongs, in near equal proportions, to the nine other provincial leaders who sit back, never asking "why" but only "why not me, too"?
UPDATE: at midnight Atlantic time, I finally check my email, my blog, and the web at large and realize that my office pool is going a hell of a lot better than Paul Wells'. Although, in fairness, I had Charest winning his own seat and hitting 50... The only question that remains tonight for Charest is "Westmount or D'Arcy McGee???"
UPDATE II: Ummm, did they all declare Charest defeated in Sherbrooke too early? Yup. They did. Just like the referendum, the urban polls come in late. That helps the federalists in every riding but one.
UPDATE III: "I kin-smell-a minority" that lasts. Warren is partly right when he says, "you can't do a deal with Dumont. His word's no good." But he's partly wrong, too. I guarantee you that 35 ADQ bumpkins won't readily sacrifice a government paycheque for some matter of principle. This government will last a while longer than most pundits suggest. Also, when you consider the very real possibility of leadership changes in the PQ and possibly the PLQ, there'll be no rush to the polls on account of Dumont's gang.
No sir. This Frankenstein government has legs. Three of 'em.
Just who will win, and by how much, remains very much up in the air.
My bet is that the Liberals will probably do a little better than recent polls suggest. They head into voting day for the first time in a generation with arguably the best organization -and organization wins close elections. There remain unanswered questions -will rural nationalists have a last-minute warming to Boisclair? Will the Greens and Québec Solidaire voters migrate to him at the ballot box?
What is not in question however, is who has lost.
Sure, Boisclair may yet be done in by his party brass after a disappointing result and a dismal campaign, but the real loser at the end of the night is probably going to be the federalist cause in Quebec, and most certainly the federalist cause in other parts of the country.This is true under almost any scenario.
In the unlikely event of a Charest majority (which is still the most preferable outcome for federalists watching this debacle from afar – ed.) the question has to be asked: if it took acknowledgement of a mythical fiscal imbalance, a late-campaign lopsided infusion of federal cash to Quebec, a suggestion of a forthcoming legislative castration of the federal government’s spending power and a month of semantics around the Parliamentary recognition of Quebec as a nation, then what in heaven’s name will Charest, or his federalist, liberal successor expect for a three-peat?
If Quebec’s ruling Liberals return with a minority government (the pundits’ most likely scenario) then Charest’s mission for the next several months will be to try and gain ground from Dumont’s growing base of autonomiste support. In other words, Charest will have to push his party further toward the ultranationalist and Conservative side of the spectrum in order to build for a future majority. If you thought embassies abroad, and missions to UNESCO (say nothing of that "nation" business) were tough to swallow, just wait for the joyous federalist message the PLQ will have to tailor for the next time around.
If the Parti Quebecois squeaks out a minority (which they could conceivably do despite finishing a distant second or possibly even third in popular vote) then we are left with a situation where a weakened PQ government, unable to convincingly launch its desired referendum campaign, once again uses its government resources – including billions from Canada’s New Government – to try and rebuild "winning conditions" in hopes of raising Quebecers’ ire against Ottawa. With the marge de manouevre increased and its fardeau fiscal in much better standing than the last time they were in power (thanks to Uncle Ottawa) the PQ can go back to doing what it does best, pissing on the federation with the pesky political hindrance of health and social spending pressures conveniently out of the way. In other words, one week after fooling himself into believing he had successfully removed le couteau from la gorge, Harper may wake up tomorrow to find it planted firmly dans le dos.
Let’s remember, this campaign started with Charest’s celebration of all things newly national and autonomist, it ended with warnings not only about minority governments, but about minority voters, too. There was hardly anything “federalist” or “liberal” about it. In between, along with tacit recognition that the fiscal imbalance was a farce, an absolute disavowal of the common sense arguments of partitionists, the celebration-turned-feigned-horror of paternalist intervention from Ottawa, and other twists and turns, we developed a new Liberal, federalist slogan for use in Quebec: “Less of Canada in our life, more of Canada in our wallet.”
And that’s where the even bigger problem lies. This isn’t 1976. Quebec isn’t the only province harbouring various degrees of nationalist sentiment. Premier Williams is celebrating the Quebec political model on the airwaves with every possible opportunity. Sure, he’s nuts. But his popular support numbers would make Levesque or Bouchard green with envy. He may have no possible justification for his latest round of fury - but when did that count for anything in our federation anyway? Our Prime Minister himself knows this first hand, having penned his own “firewall” letters in days of yore. The mere possibility of appeasement makes every battle worth fighting, every dollar worthy of deliberation.
In short, while we’re all rooting for that federalist, liberal Jean Charest to pull something off tonight, I can’t help but honestly say it’s with some degree of trepidation.
How did we get to this point where the only argument that an incumbent federalist, liberal Premier of Quebec offers in favour of Canada is one with a dollar figure attached? How did it come to pass that daily headlines scream of separatist mantra from federalist leaders - ingérence, autonomisme, paternalisme, etc.? When did it become politically unpalatable for a federalist party in Quebec to use the ".ca" on its web domain?
How did we willingly aid and abet the doctrine now so prevalent not only in Quebec, but in Newfoundland, Alberta and now even Ontario, that Canada is nothing more than an administrative relationship of convenience – the participation in which can only be measured, valued, or justified if your annual transfers from it fall on beneficiaries' side of the ledger?
Canada's New Government has embarked on a path very foreign to its founders. And while it is easy to point the finger at those who slayed the mythical imbalance, recognized the nation-within-the-nation, shattered hopes of a national child care system, etc. the blame is not theirs alone. Nor does it lie at the feet of the federalist voters in Quebec, who watch tonight's results with more at stake than any of the rest of us.
The blame belongs, in near equal proportions, to the nine other provincial leaders who sit back, never asking "why" but only "why not me, too"?
UPDATE: at midnight Atlantic time, I finally check my email, my blog, and the web at large and realize that my office pool is going a hell of a lot better than Paul Wells'. Although, in fairness, I had Charest winning his own seat and hitting 50... The only question that remains tonight for Charest is "Westmount or D'Arcy McGee???"
UPDATE II: Ummm, did they all declare Charest defeated in Sherbrooke too early? Yup. They did. Just like the referendum, the urban polls come in late. That helps the federalists in every riding but one.
UPDATE III: "I kin-smell-a minority" that lasts. Warren is partly right when he says, "you can't do a deal with Dumont. His word's no good." But he's partly wrong, too. I guarantee you that 35 ADQ bumpkins won't readily sacrifice a government paycheque for some matter of principle. This government will last a while longer than most pundits suggest. Also, when you consider the very real possibility of leadership changes in the PQ and possibly the PLQ, there'll be no rush to the polls on account of Dumont's gang.
No sir. This Frankenstein government has legs. Three of 'em.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
An open challenge to Bill Rowe
Saturday's Telegram features yet another doozy from former salaried ambassador, brilliant Rhodes Scholar and full-time Williams cheerleader Bill Rowe.
The concluding stanza reads as follows:
Now here's an open question for Mr. Rowe which he can answer at his own convenience:
If such a study found the answer to be “no” what would the according action be?
Maybe we'll see that in next week's column.
The concluding stanza reads as follows:
“But here’s another thought. Danny Williams should make a hard-nosed, ruthless and cunning move worthy of Harper himself: commission a study to find out if this province, all financial and economic factors considered, could be as well off outside Canada as inside. And act accordingly.”Bravo. Well put.
Now here's an open question for Mr. Rowe which he can answer at his own convenience:
If such a study found the answer to be “no” what would the according action be?
Maybe we'll see that in next week's column.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
An offer you can't refuse
NOTICE:
To: The Members of the Opposition, Nova Scotia Legislative Assembly
I will go to Province House myself and volunteer for an afternoon in the office of any member of the Legislative Assembly who will table a Private Members' Bill asking to change the name of Ron Chisholm's Department to "Fishnets and Aqua Velva".
C'mon folks, April Fools' Day is mere days away.
More here.
To: The Members of the Opposition, Nova Scotia Legislative Assembly
I will go to Province House myself and volunteer for an afternoon in the office of any member of the Legislative Assembly who will table a Private Members' Bill asking to change the name of Ron Chisholm's Department to "Fishnets and Aqua Velva".
C'mon folks, April Fools' Day is mere days away.
More here.
Breaking...
Days after the budget, the government makes its case for "income splitting". Only this time they won't be talking about seniors, pensioners or married couples with young children...
The mental imbalance
Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle, both sitting members of "the party that raises spending $25-billion" choose the following lines to pitch their government's budget:
"we're not losing any money..."- Doyle
"we lost nothing..." - Hearn
h/t: Ed
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The verbal imbalance
"Mr. Speaker, the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over."
"The premier's lying through his teeth," outspoken Saskatoon MP Maurice Vellacott said in an interview. Moreover, Vellacott said the NDP premier is a "socialist" who can't handle economic prosperity and would be more comfortable keeping Saskatchewan "on the federal dole."
- Jim Flaherty, March 19, 2007
"The premier's lying through his teeth," outspoken Saskatoon MP Maurice Vellacott said in an interview. Moreover, Vellacott said the NDP premier is a "socialist" who can't handle economic prosperity and would be more comfortable keeping Saskatchewan "on the federal dole."
- Jim Flaherty's caucus colleague, 48 hours later.
Over indeed.
The fecal imbalance
Oh my god, the feds are putting the boots to Danny Williams once again.
From CBC:
It is time, for once and for all, to solve the fecal imbalance.
UPDATE: The fecal imbalance is solved. As you were.
From CBC:
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing sent letters to residents March 16 saying Canada Post had informed it that letter carriers would no longer be delivering mail to the houses "due to dog feces" around the property. The letter asked each resident to clean the area around their door and added that "more serious" action would be taken if the problem continued.Yessir. Blame Ottawa.
It is time, for once and for all, to solve the fecal imbalance.
UPDATE: The fecal imbalance is solved. As you were.
la Capitale en parle...
When you live in a government town, your voters tend to think a little more along government lines. What would a government look like? How would it act? What would it accomplish?Which is why voters in Quebec City seem to have figured out the following:
If Jean Charest, a former PC Minister, strong federalist, and diplomatic newfound friend of the Prime Minister could get that much money out of Ottawa, imagine what a more nationalist, vocal, antagonist longtime supporter of the current Prime Minister could do.
Poll info is here.
Loyola speaks
Apparently, Loyola Hearn emerged from his bout of post-budget trauma to speak with reporters yesterday. Here's a gem from The Telegram:
Really? I challenge any reporter in St. John's to find what Loyola's reponse to that very same argument was every single time that a certain former finance minister pointed out that very same piece of logic.
Of course, his own words are even more damning:
Can you imagine Hearn's reaction if his predecessor had said the same thing?
"Hearn suggested that an equalization compromise was necessary because the provinces couldn’t reach a consensus."
Really? I challenge any reporter in St. John's to find what Loyola's reponse to that very same argument was every single time that a certain former finance minister pointed out that very same piece of logic.
Of course, his own words are even more damning:
"I wasn’t the one who was negotiating it."
Can you imagine Hearn's reaction if his predecessor had said the same thing?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Homage to Paul Wells
Some days, Paul Wells and I disagree on just about everything.
But today, he is bang on.
The following should be compulsory reading for everyone in NL...
But today, he is bang on.
The following should be compulsory reading for everyone in NL...
Budget
Unfortunately there's no link to CBC's call in show on the website today. Fame is short-lived. Life is cruel.
But here's what struck me.
All of our callers for the hour today were pretty well-versed in what they thought should be the priorties of the budget. They were remarkably up to speed on yesterday's announcements, and ready with well-thought out opinions.
Not one of them had a good thing to say.
Mind you, every headline I saw in Nova Scotia papers today was very negative, and vocal reaction from Premiers MacDonald, Williams, and NB Finance Minister Boudreau pretty much set the tone for this region's reaction. Pat Binns' glowing accolades notwithstanding, everyone here thinks it stinks.
...which made it hard. Because I really wanted to be objective.
Fewer than half of the callers were focused on Equalization. And those that were understand the file a lot better than most major media outlets give them credit for. But more importantly, the overwhelming theme seemed to be one of growing frustration that the federal government wants to play a smaller role in social policy programming. Frankly, they don't trust that their provincial government is up to that job. Or at least not up to doing it alone.
And herein lies the biggest problem with fixing the fiscal balance. For reasons of economies of scale, a dynamic economy, a more diverse labour force, etc. bigger provinces are always better suited to going it alone. That's not defeatism. That's not inferiority. That's simply a matter of math, synergy and probability. That this basic concept, inherent in everything the framers of our Constitution said and wrote almost a century and a half ago has been abandoned in the name of something called "balance", is pathetically un-Canadian, small-minded, devoid of inspiration or purpose, and - at least in these parts - patently unfair.
And so we usher in a new era of "fend-for-yourself" federalism.
But here's what struck me.
All of our callers for the hour today were pretty well-versed in what they thought should be the priorties of the budget. They were remarkably up to speed on yesterday's announcements, and ready with well-thought out opinions.
Not one of them had a good thing to say.
Mind you, every headline I saw in Nova Scotia papers today was very negative, and vocal reaction from Premiers MacDonald, Williams, and NB Finance Minister Boudreau pretty much set the tone for this region's reaction. Pat Binns' glowing accolades notwithstanding, everyone here thinks it stinks.
...which made it hard. Because I really wanted to be objective.
Fewer than half of the callers were focused on Equalization. And those that were understand the file a lot better than most major media outlets give them credit for. But more importantly, the overwhelming theme seemed to be one of growing frustration that the federal government wants to play a smaller role in social policy programming. Frankly, they don't trust that their provincial government is up to that job. Or at least not up to doing it alone.
And herein lies the biggest problem with fixing the fiscal balance. For reasons of economies of scale, a dynamic economy, a more diverse labour force, etc. bigger provinces are always better suited to going it alone. That's not defeatism. That's not inferiority. That's simply a matter of math, synergy and probability. That this basic concept, inherent in everything the framers of our Constitution said and wrote almost a century and a half ago has been abandoned in the name of something called "balance", is pathetically un-Canadian, small-minded, devoid of inspiration or purpose, and - at least in these parts - patently unfair.
And so we usher in a new era of "fend-for-yourself" federalism.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Budget aftermath
No more budget comments for the time being. If you are in NS, PEI, or NB, however, you can catch me tomorrow (Tuesday) on CBC Maritime Noon as part of their post-budget call-in show. Should be fun.
The beauty of radio is not having to type, use spell check, or comb one's hair...
The beauty of radio is not having to type, use spell check, or comb one's hair...
"Completely Shafted"
Williams dislikes the budget.
"...he is deeply disappointed... Completely shafted, scandalously unfair... he's calling it nonsense ...calls it an equalization formula for everyone else but us. He says Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should not vote Tory in the next federal election and should doubt every promise made by the feds." (from VOCM)Loyola Hearn's phone is off the hook. And Norm Doyle is pretty certain that retirement was the right decision.
Volcano erupts on Avalon peninsula
New Equalization $$$ for Quebec: $789 million
For Newfoundland and Labrador: $0*
For Nova Scotia: $0*
Table for all recipient provinces is here.
Danny Williams should be entertaining to watch...
*while NS and NL can opt in to new calculation, NL would realize a siginficant decrease by doing so, and NS a very small gain.
Early budget reaction
Neither Harper nor Flaherty is wearing a flower on their lapel.
this can only mean:
(a) flowers must now be a provincial responsibility
(b) horticulture cuts!
(c) the florists vote is up for grabs
(d) rose bushes are now carbon sinks
this can only mean:
(a) flowers must now be a provincial responsibility
(b) horticulture cuts!
(c) the florists vote is up for grabs
(d) rose bushes are now carbon sinks
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Budget Day - Help Me!!!
Dear readers -
Tomorrow is Budget Day, and this blogger needs your help.
If you come across any good third party budget analysis, particularly, but by no means exclusively, anything that comes from the Maritimes (yup, that's me using the "M"-word) or might be particularly relevant to the Maritimes, please send it along.
Tomorrow is Budget Day, and this blogger needs your help.
If you come across any good third party budget analysis, particularly, but by no means exclusively, anything that comes from the Maritimes (yup, that's me using the "M"-word) or might be particularly relevant to the Maritimes, please send it along.
Interest groups, pundits, local government reaction, professional associations, left-wingers, right-wingers, or even your own soap box material. If you think it's interesting and might make for good radio fodder, please pass it on.
Also, if you're from one of the above mentioned groups and are issuing any material as post-budget analysis, please add me to your distribution list. Just for tomorrow. Thanks.
Experts?
From CTV:
"...many experts predicting that Ontario and Quebec ...will be getting millions more from the federal equalization program."
Ontario?
Equalization?
Experts?
"...many experts predicting that Ontario and Quebec ...will be getting millions more from the federal equalization program."
Ontario?
Equalization?
Experts?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Les yeux «fermés» du Parti Québécois
André Boisclair simply doesn’t get it.
After yesterday’s remark about “slanty eyes” (yeux bridés), he’s now steadfastly refusing to apologize.
The point isn’t whether or not his remarks are hateful, bigoted, or whatever else people might throw at him. That’s secondary. Although his argument that the connotation is less offensive in French than in English is tenuous at best.
The point is that this man who wants to be Premier of the Province of Québec – or better still – « Président d’un Québec souverain» on the world stage, is neither willing nor able:
- to differentiate between people of “Chinese”, “Japanese”, or “Asian” descent;
- to stop differentiating between «les vrais Québécois et les autres»… like those with “slanty eyes”.
This guy isn’t fit to lead anything.
Anything, that is, except a backward band of ethnocentric nationalist relics.
Jacques Parizeau must be proud of his young prodigy.
Boisclair carries on proud tradition...
Wow. It appears the Parti Quebecois Leader has a lot in common with not only his predecessors, but with at least one soccer star and at a certain British Royal. Who'd have guessed?
Not to pass judgment, but at least Philip is an equal opportunity slagger, so to speak. Boislcair would have to work really hard over the next two weeks to be as "diversely offensive" in time for voting day. We wish him all the best.
On a side note, "one-third" may have seemed like "too high" a number for Boisclair when he was in Boston. Judging by the latest polls it probably seems like a pretty good number now...
"If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes."
-Prince Philip to British students in China.
"When I was in Boston...I was surprised to see that on campus about one-third of the students doing their bachelor's degrees had slanting eyes."
- Andre Boisclair to Quebecers everywhere.
Not to pass judgment, but at least Philip is an equal opportunity slagger, so to speak. Boislcair would have to work really hard over the next two weeks to be as "diversely offensive" in time for voting day. We wish him all the best.
On a side note, "one-third" may have seemed like "too high" a number for Boisclair when he was in Boston. Judging by the latest polls it probably seems like a pretty good number now...
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Red Sox Nation - Buy a couch!
Caught an ad for this on TV today:
Betting on the Reds every night while you manage them, however, is still frowned upon.
And betting against the Cubs? Heck I'd insure against that myself...
"Consumers purchasing a mattress, dining table, sofa, or bed at a Jordan’s store location between March 7, 2007 and April 16, 2007 will receive a rebate of the purchase price paid for the Deal Merchandise if (but only if) the Boston Red Sox win the 2007 Major League Baseball World Series."Now that's commitment - betting a months' sales against the Red Sox winning it all. But apparently you can get insurance against this kind of thing.
Betting on the Reds every night while you manage them, however, is still frowned upon.
And betting against the Cubs? Heck I'd insure against that myself...
Union do's...
Hmmm... if you're a labour lawyer, and you usually represent the union side, what happens when the people on the picket line are striking against... the union itself?
* * * *
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador makes a commendable decision to contribute $1 Billion towards unfunded liabilities in the public pension plan. Every previous government of every political stripe will unfortunately never be held to account for allowing this situation to get to this point. The fact that a younger generation of taxpayers will have to continually pony up for these kinds of longstanding errors in judgment is scandalous, but better to deal with it now than later.
* * * *
And here's one of my favourite quotes of the day: VOCM reports that Premier Williams isn't taking sides in the current IOC labour dispute, but if he were to take a side, it would be with the union. How's that for covering your bases?
* * * *
PS - what is a federal minimum wage? Just federal government employees? Federally regulated workplaces? I am genuinely curious...
* * * *
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador makes a commendable decision to contribute $1 Billion towards unfunded liabilities in the public pension plan. Every previous government of every political stripe will unfortunately never be held to account for allowing this situation to get to this point. The fact that a younger generation of taxpayers will have to continually pony up for these kinds of longstanding errors in judgment is scandalous, but better to deal with it now than later.
* * * *
And here's one of my favourite quotes of the day: VOCM reports that Premier Williams isn't taking sides in the current IOC labour dispute, but if he were to take a side, it would be with the union. How's that for covering your bases?
* * * *
PS - what is a federal minimum wage? Just federal government employees? Federally regulated workplaces? I am genuinely curious...
City Hall
This is why some of us are going to be very, very happy to support Sheila Fougere for Mayor of Halifax in the next municipal election.
census consensus
Last week, Telegram readers were treated to a story about real estate trends in Newfoundland and Labrador’s capital city, a brief description of which I posted here. In a nutshell, aging baby boomers and empty nesters are driving demand for smaller and easier to maintain condominium units in St. John’s, resulting in anticipated construction or renovation of buildings in the downtown core to accommodate them, and a softening of the market for traditional family dwellings.
This may be one explanation for the census results released this week showing the City of St. John’s growing while the neighbouring city/suburban swath of Mt. Pearl shrinking slightly. (ed. - please Mt. Pearl residents don’t take offence, it’s not a jab at your sovereignty…)
But another residential real estate phenomenon is also emerging, which is described in incredibly great detail by WJM in his second installment of “Census sensibilities”.
Simply put, areas of the province that had no residents as recently as five years ago, suddenly have them. The unincorporated entities known as “local service districts” are growing in leaps and bounds.
The actual data to support the following theory won’t be available from Statscan until later this summer. But here’s an anecdotal prediction of what those numbers will show.
The very same age/income group that are driving condo purchases in the city have been buying up land or uninhabited properties for the past several years, primarily baby boomers who have reached retirement or are on the verge of retirement.
A whole host of factors has made these lifestyle choices both possible and attractive: the absence of any municipal taxes, the expanded coverage of cell phones, and most of all the bottoming out of prices of such real estate ten years ago when so many of these communities were devastated by the sharp decline in employment from resource industries, particularly fishing.
In some cases, the purchasers of these properties aren’t just of the same age group as the condo buyers, but are actually the very same people. Comfy with their pension incomes and the sale of their family dwelling at top dollar in St. John’s during boom times, they’re now able to have the lifestyle and accommodation they like both in town and around the bay.
And it isn’t unique to St. John’s. Corner Brook, which saw its population shrink slightly in the recent census, is surrounded by minor spurts of growth in the Humber and Codroy Valleys. The developed municipalities in those regions, however, are all reporting population loss.
But what are the consequences of this shift in residential preferences of an aging population and shrinking workforce?
First off, the municipal tax base in our most important economic centres is going to be shaken to its core. Younger families, many of whom had to buy during the mini oil boom market are going to be left holding the bag for deteriorating municipal infrastructure, as the number of users of roads, etc. increases slightly while the number of property tax payers dwindles. The real value of their homes will stagnate and, at least in the short term, probably shrink.
Meanwhile, the burgeoning legions of retirees will have lots of spare time on their hands to demand that government take on all kinds of responsibilities to accommodate their new lifestyle. Groomed skidoo trails, electricity in the woods, more paved roads to cottage country, and a host of other “economic development” gimmicks. Younger families, professionals, and downtown homeowners (the political minority) will be expected to pay the bills. (Say nothing of the expectation to cover their unfunded pension liabilities, growing health care costs, etc., but that’s another story altogether).
The long and the short of it is this. In the aftermath of the census, some people will twist the numbers to trumpet the success or failures of political party A vs. political party B, others will trumpet one side of the age-old "townie vs. baymen" fight to push for their own agenda (i.e. cheaper ferries to shrinking islands vs. added traffic lanes to box stores).
What every politician in the province is ignoring, despite its staring them straight in the face, is that the real "battle" (to borrow the Premier's terminology) for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians isn’t betwen the province and the feds, or between the government and the oil companies. It isn't rural vs. urban, "us" vs. Quebec, Tory vs. Liberal, nationalist vs. federalist, or east vs. west.
It’s the desires of the baby boom generation vs. the needs of their kids.
And under this government, like the ones before it, there’s no question which side is winning.
This may be one explanation for the census results released this week showing the City of St. John’s growing while the neighbouring city/suburban swath of Mt. Pearl shrinking slightly. (ed. - please Mt. Pearl residents don’t take offence, it’s not a jab at your sovereignty…)
But another residential real estate phenomenon is also emerging, which is described in incredibly great detail by WJM in his second installment of “Census sensibilities”.
Simply put, areas of the province that had no residents as recently as five years ago, suddenly have them. The unincorporated entities known as “local service districts” are growing in leaps and bounds.
The actual data to support the following theory won’t be available from Statscan until later this summer. But here’s an anecdotal prediction of what those numbers will show.
The very same age/income group that are driving condo purchases in the city have been buying up land or uninhabited properties for the past several years, primarily baby boomers who have reached retirement or are on the verge of retirement.
A whole host of factors has made these lifestyle choices both possible and attractive: the absence of any municipal taxes, the expanded coverage of cell phones, and most of all the bottoming out of prices of such real estate ten years ago when so many of these communities were devastated by the sharp decline in employment from resource industries, particularly fishing.
In some cases, the purchasers of these properties aren’t just of the same age group as the condo buyers, but are actually the very same people. Comfy with their pension incomes and the sale of their family dwelling at top dollar in St. John’s during boom times, they’re now able to have the lifestyle and accommodation they like both in town and around the bay.
And it isn’t unique to St. John’s. Corner Brook, which saw its population shrink slightly in the recent census, is surrounded by minor spurts of growth in the Humber and Codroy Valleys. The developed municipalities in those regions, however, are all reporting population loss.
But what are the consequences of this shift in residential preferences of an aging population and shrinking workforce?
First off, the municipal tax base in our most important economic centres is going to be shaken to its core. Younger families, many of whom had to buy during the mini oil boom market are going to be left holding the bag for deteriorating municipal infrastructure, as the number of users of roads, etc. increases slightly while the number of property tax payers dwindles. The real value of their homes will stagnate and, at least in the short term, probably shrink.
Meanwhile, the burgeoning legions of retirees will have lots of spare time on their hands to demand that government take on all kinds of responsibilities to accommodate their new lifestyle. Groomed skidoo trails, electricity in the woods, more paved roads to cottage country, and a host of other “economic development” gimmicks. Younger families, professionals, and downtown homeowners (the political minority) will be expected to pay the bills. (Say nothing of the expectation to cover their unfunded pension liabilities, growing health care costs, etc., but that’s another story altogether).
The long and the short of it is this. In the aftermath of the census, some people will twist the numbers to trumpet the success or failures of political party A vs. political party B, others will trumpet one side of the age-old "townie vs. baymen" fight to push for their own agenda (i.e. cheaper ferries to shrinking islands vs. added traffic lanes to box stores).
What every politician in the province is ignoring, despite its staring them straight in the face, is that the real "battle" (to borrow the Premier's terminology) for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians isn’t betwen the province and the feds, or between the government and the oil companies. It isn't rural vs. urban, "us" vs. Quebec, Tory vs. Liberal, nationalist vs. federalist, or east vs. west.
It’s the desires of the baby boom generation vs. the needs of their kids.
And under this government, like the ones before it, there’s no question which side is winning.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Huh?
(NOTE: If you arrived here via another site, please read the previous post, or this one may not make much sense)
* * * * *
Why in heaven's name is Charest going out of his way to make this a two, maybe three day story?
Despite a mediocre performance at best, Dumont's stunt worked. CROP poll numbers indicate, among other things, that 40% of Quebec voters' impression of Dumont's ADQ went up after the debate, while only 23% said the same about Boisclair and the PQ, and 14% for Charest's Liberals.
On style or substance, I still don't see how Dumont won this thing. But the stats, the coverage and the momentum seem to indicate otherwise. Quebec voters (at least for the moment) seem to have thrown pundits for a loop.
Should be an interesting couple of weeks, and if this keeps up Charest's wish list to Santa Harper may get longer by the day.
* * * * *
Why in heaven's name is Charest going out of his way to make this a two, maybe three day story?
Despite a mediocre performance at best, Dumont's stunt worked. CROP poll numbers indicate, among other things, that 40% of Quebec voters' impression of Dumont's ADQ went up after the debate, while only 23% said the same about Boisclair and the PQ, and 14% for Charest's Liberals.
On style or substance, I still don't see how Dumont won this thing. But the stats, the coverage and the momentum seem to indicate otherwise. Quebec voters (at least for the moment) seem to have thrown pundits for a loop.
Should be an interesting couple of weeks, and if this keeps up Charest's wish list to Santa Harper may get longer by the day.
The funny thing about Leaders' debates
Leaders' debates are a funny thing. Whether you're a political junkie and sit through it all, or just catch the highlights on the late night news, human nature is to try and pick a winner based on whatever we hear or see.Last night's Quebec Leaders' debate was no exception. But it was an excellent reminder of the difference between what we think winning the debate looks and feels like, and what winning it really means for the politicians, the spin doctors, etc.
Case in point - Mario Dumont. Last night's cheap stunt with some as-yet-unseen memo about the deteriorating condition of the Concorde Bridge Overpass was immature, poorly executed, and overwhelmingly condemned by reporters and pundits alike. It was awkward, and when you get right down to it, not all that relevant. It certainly didn't make him look comme un premier ministre...
But wait. It's the morning after and he owns every headline in Quebec today. All of 'em. Every last one. It's all anyone is talking about. Mario, Mario, Mario.
As the third place party, and the guy who usually sheds support down the homestretch, it's vital for Dumont and the ADQ to keep their party high in the headlines in order to keep them up in the polls.
He may not have looked like a future Premier of Quebec last night, waving his papers about, avoiding use of any numbers for his own program, and acting otherwise agressive throughout. But he certainly looked and behaved like a Leader of the Opposition.
And maybe that was the point.
(Photo CP/Paul Chiasson)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
By-election Results!
Yet another byelection in Newfoundland and Labrador tonight. Early results are, well, interesting...
UPDATE I:
It's all over, Tories win, Liberals a very distant fourth. Final numbers are here. Electoral Office reports a 54% turnout.
UPDATE II: As per usual, Ed has a lengthier analysis of the results, which makes for a good read. Despite personal popularity well above 70%, Williams' own support isn't translated in the results tonight, nor were they in any of the five recent byelections either.
Some other observations:
Jim Baker is now the only Labrador Tory MHA in the House not to have double-billed his expenses this year, nor to have sued a former Premier in the past month. That makes him cabinet material.
The Liberals finished fourth. Not second, not third, but fourth. And this after triumphantly "poaching" the NDP's desired candidate. The best laid plans...
UPDATE I:
It's all over, Tories win, Liberals a very distant fourth. Final numbers are here. Electoral Office reports a 54% turnout.
UPDATE II: As per usual, Ed has a lengthier analysis of the results, which makes for a good read. Despite personal popularity well above 70%, Williams' own support isn't translated in the results tonight, nor were they in any of the five recent byelections either.
Some other observations:
Jim Baker is now the only Labrador Tory MHA in the House not to have double-billed his expenses this year, nor to have sued a former Premier in the past month. That makes him cabinet material.
The Liberals finished fourth. Not second, not third, but fourth. And this after triumphantly "poaching" the NDP's desired candidate. The best laid plans...
New Brunswick budget
More links on the NB budget and reaction when I get out of class. In the meantime, the Globe covers what is probably the biggest story out of the budget today.After 13 years of reducing taxes in an effort to attract investment, Shawn Graham's Liberal government has taken a decidedly different path.
"We all enjoy lower taxes, but when the level of taxation is insufficient to ensure the continued provision of essential public services that New Brunswickers deserve and expect, it needs to be addressed," Boudreau said. "That is the situation we face. Tax reductions made over the past number of years are not sustainable. We need to bring revenues and spending into line with one another. This is why we are increasing taxes in today's budget."
On the one hand, this is likely to spark a heated negative reaction from the business community and from conservative pundits right across the country.
On the other hand, Shawn Graham and Vic Boudreau have 13 years of evidence and today's census results to rebut the notion that tax cuts helped them build much of anything. This should be an interesting debate.
One less Tory incumbent
St. John's East Conservative MP Norm Doyle is leaving politics. (CBC, VOCM) In the past 20 years, it is the only seat in Newfoundland to have been held by all major federal parties (1987 NDP, 1988 PC, 1993 Liberal, 1997- PC/Conservative), and has seen a number of tight results in recent federal campaigns despite its notoriety since Confederation as a traditional Tory stronghold.
The riding has become an increasingly urban one as a result of recent boundary changes, comprising muchof the city of St. John's and growing bedroom communities and the East End suburbs.
The absence of an incumbent MP in this race will surely spark nomination interest among all three parties. Stay tuned...
...but as for idle speculation (and we all love idle speculation) here are a few possibilities:
For the Tories:
Any one of Danny Williams' MHAs, tired of being bound and gagged and having nothing of substance to do, might be lured by the opportunity to involve themselves in an actual legislative agenda. With or without the Premier's blessing, any one of the PC MHAs that represent some portion of the riding may run. How about Beth Marshall, for example? The former AG and one of very few MHAs without the stench of the under-the-table constituency allowance sticking to her. Others? Maybe St. John's Mayor Andy Wells will take the plunge. One name likely not in the running would be former Federal Minister Ross Reid, who has signed on to steer Williams' campaign ship in the upcoming October election.
For the NDP:
Is Jack Harris really retired from politics? Really? No doubt he's getting the full court press from Layton et al. And with good reason, Jack is the only NDPer to ever hold the seat, albeit very briefly. But unlike his post in the House of Assembly as provincial NDP Leader, as an MP Jack would likely have difficulty keeping his law practice on the side and would have to overcome his disdain for travel. Being a "part-timer" in the House of Assembly didn't hurt him one bit, but it certainly set his party back for a decade.
For the Liberals:
We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe a current Liberal MHA? Maybe a former one who has run before? Maybe a highly successful entrepreneur? Maybe a blogger...
UPDATE: H/T to Greg Locke for reminding us of one obvious possibility, although I think he'll wait 'til the other one is vacated.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Census Figures Released Tomorrow
Tomorrow, Canada's National Statistical Agency releases population counts for the 2006 census.
Today, Labrador's National Statistical Agency weighs in with a little perspective.
Today, Labrador's National Statistical Agency weighs in with a little perspective.
Former Premier prepares for federal run
Former PEI Premier, Keith Milligan will seek the Liberal nomination in Egmont. (CBC, The Guardian)
Wait a minute...
Statement from the Honourable James Flaherty, Minister of Finance
Can anyone, please find me a single "media report that suggests...scrapping the offshore agreements..."? What in heaven's name is Flaherty reacting to? And finally, what is it about Equalization that he's "fixing"?
Media reports suggest that the Government is considering scrapping the offshore agreements reached last year with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is both factually incorrect and misleading.
During a brief media availability today in Toronto, I made no mention of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador by name nor did I use the words oil and gas. This Government is committed to these two projects and to addressing the fiscal imbalance in Canada, as well as fixing the equalization program.
The new Conservative Government wants a long-term solution to the fiscal imbalance and we will spare no effort to deliver on our campaign promises. In the coming weeks and months, I will be engaging my colleagues in the provinces on this important issue.
Can anyone, please find me a single "media report that suggests...scrapping the offshore agreements..."? What in heaven's name is Flaherty reacting to? And finally, what is it about Equalization that he's "fixing"?
From Reuters... (mildly offensive content and a really bad pun at the end)
If you think you had a rough weekend, how about this guy:
(a) Being in Administrative Law this semester, I wonder what the standard of review would be in a case like this.
(b) You know those resume workshops that tell you not to leave "blank spaces" on your CV? Something tells me this one may be a notable exception to that rule.
(c) There's hard core, then there's diplomatic core.
UPDATE - Israel's foreign minister may scrum tomorrow in Ottawa with MacKay. I triple dog dare anyone to bring an orange hockey ball...
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has recalled its ambassador in El Salvador after he was found drunk and naked with sex toys lying nearby in the yard of his official residence, Israeli media reports said on Monday.
A foreign ministry spokeswoman confirmed that the ambassador, Tsuriel Raphael, was recalled but offered no details. "The ministry sees his behavior as unbecoming of a diplomat," the spokeswoman said.
Israeli media reported that local police found Raphael in the yard of the official residence in San Salvador. The reports said he was drunk, naked, and bound and gagged with a rubber ball in his mouth and sex toys lying near him.
(a) Being in Administrative Law this semester, I wonder what the standard of review would be in a case like this.
(b) You know those resume workshops that tell you not to leave "blank spaces" on your CV? Something tells me this one may be a notable exception to that rule.
(c) There's hard core, then there's diplomatic core.
UPDATE - Israel's foreign minister may scrum tomorrow in Ottawa with MacKay. I triple dog dare anyone to bring an orange hockey ball...
Live from Saint John... (the one spelled S-A-I-N-T)
In an effort to quell the groundswell* of complaints about lack of NB blog content, I bring you this fine blogging effort which has suddenly re-emerged after a lengthy and unwarranted hiatus. The author purports to be channeling Dalton Camp, but some of us think he's just inhaling too close to the refinery stacks. You don't have to enjoy dulse or fog to enjoy "Dulse and Fog".
If he gets enough weekly readers, I hear that he's going to offer up an Elsie Wayne sweater gallery as a recurring feature. One can only hope.
*two people
If he gets enough weekly readers, I hear that he's going to offer up an Elsie Wayne sweater gallery as a recurring feature. One can only hope.
*two people
Jim Flaherty's cheap date
"Wednesday, Flaherty and federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn visited Newfoundland and Labrador and brought ... the launch of a project that had been already announced a year earlier in the federal budget."
"Asked by a Telegram reporter why he'd come down for such a lame announcement, Flaherty responded that he'd come because Hearn had invited him."
The Telegram, March 12
Sunday, March 11, 2007
mondo condo
On the heels of Saturday's Chronicle Herald column (see below) about Nova Scotia's rural population shift, comes this editorial in Sunday's Telegram, describing the impact that similar demographic shifts are having on the St. John's real estate market.:
With only two days to go until we see new census data, we can expect (hope) to see similar articles about how changing demographics will force government to face serious policy choices.
The real estate market seems to be reacting. The government?
Well, that's another story.
UPDATE - Oops! I overlooked this related story. From the day before.
"...our aging population is causing a condo boom in town, as oldsters give up their family homes in favour of smaller condos."
"With out-migration and an aging population, fewer and fewer buyers are young people looking for larger homes that will accommodate growing families."
"Already reshaping everything from our hospitals to our schools, that demographic is about to change the nature of the places we call home."
With only two days to go until we see new census data, we can expect (hope) to see similar articles about how changing demographics will force government to face serious policy choices.
The real estate market seems to be reacting. The government?
Well, that's another story.
UPDATE - Oops! I overlooked this related story. From the day before.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
"If you don’t like it, you can always move to Alberta."
I've been too lazy to write anything for three days, but after reading most of the papers on a sunny Saturday, this column gets the nod for today.
Opposition Liberal parties in Atlantic Canada, (and there are quite a few of 'em...) would be well advised to take some of Steve Maher's comments to heart.
The rest of his Saturday column is here. Check it out.
Opposition Liberal parties in Atlantic Canada, (and there are quite a few of 'em...) would be well advised to take some of Steve Maher's comments to heart.
"This is our future. Nova Scotia is becoming more and more like a retirement community."
"The reality is that we are hemorrhaging young people from rural Nova Scotia. We can try to keep these people in Halifax, or we can stand in the driveway and wave goodbye and hope they come home from Calgary for Christmas."
"...older, rural people are in charge in Nova Scotia and they will make decisions that suit them..."
The rest of his Saturday column is here. Check it out.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Quote of the day
More on what Harper's braintrust thinks of Atlantic Canadians:
"Some of the people who attended the meeting say Mr. Finley suggested politicians like Mr. Thompson should stick to cutting ribbons and passing out cheques rather than messing in the business that is usually conducted in the backrooms."
"Some of the people who attended the meeting say Mr. Finley suggested politicians like Mr. Thompson should stick to cutting ribbons and passing out cheques rather than messing in the business that is usually conducted in the backrooms."
Bits
A win for the Liberals in New Brunswick
A loss for the Liberals in New Brunswick, and everywhere for that matter...
... a similar loss in PEI.
A national grid gets reduced to two provinces, namely Ontario ("East") and Manitoba ("West")
A smackdown of the highest order from Labrador
A loss for the Liberals in New Brunswick, and everywhere for that matter...
... a similar loss in PEI.
A national grid gets reduced to two provinces, namely Ontario ("East") and Manitoba ("West")
A smackdown of the highest order from Labrador
Monday, March 05, 2007
More Harp-ocrisy
Suppose - just for a moment - that this proposed watering down of lobbyist registration rules is justified.
Now, imagine - just for a moment - if changes like these were proposed, say a few months ago by the Opposition, ahead of the Accountability Act's passage through Parliament.
Then plug your ears and imagine - just for a moment - what kind of loud screams in response would have been heard emanating from the Government side of the House. Baird, Poilievre, Harper, etc.
Today, for better or for worse, the Tories are tinkering with their own bill. Changing the terms (yet again) of the number one priority of their government.
In other words, today Harper is openly suggesting that his own Minister was wrong and the Senate - egad!!! the Senate!!! - was right to suggest this Bill be given further consideration, room for amendment, and sober second thought.
And that's only if you agree with the changes they're proposing.
If you disagree with the changes... well in that case this government is just a lyin' bunch of back-slappin', lobbyist-lovin, crony-helpin' hypocrites of the highest order.
Take your pick.
Now, imagine - just for a moment - if changes like these were proposed, say a few months ago by the Opposition, ahead of the Accountability Act's passage through Parliament.
Then plug your ears and imagine - just for a moment - what kind of loud screams in response would have been heard emanating from the Government side of the House. Baird, Poilievre, Harper, etc.
Today, for better or for worse, the Tories are tinkering with their own bill. Changing the terms (yet again) of the number one priority of their government.
In other words, today Harper is openly suggesting that his own Minister was wrong and the Senate - egad!!! the Senate!!! - was right to suggest this Bill be given further consideration, room for amendment, and sober second thought.
And that's only if you agree with the changes they're proposing.
If you disagree with the changes... well in that case this government is just a lyin' bunch of back-slappin', lobbyist-lovin, crony-helpin' hypocrites of the highest order.
Take your pick.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Western Standard strikes again
If you live in Atlantic Canada and need a reminder of what Stephen Harper's brain trust thinks about you, your community, and your work ethic, just borrow a copy of the latest issue of the Western Standard.(Image: The Western Standard)
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Lunar Eclipse
Ok, these pics aren't great, as I only have 3x zoom, but here's the view of tonight's lunar eclipse from my front step:
Each of these pics are about 20 minutes apart.
Each of these pics are about 20 minutes apart.
Truly embarassing...
Just when you thought political discourse in Newfoundland had sunk to an all time low, we get this. Comparing a consumer protest about the seal hunt to the Holocaust is completely unacceptable.
Then again, when local politicians and radio hosts feed these folks a steady diet of ignorant nationalist sentiment as "leadership" it's little wonder...
UPDATE: Ah the power of the internet. Looks like he took it down.
Then again, when local politicians and radio hosts feed these folks a steady diet of ignorant nationalist sentiment as "leadership" it's little wonder...
UPDATE: Ah the power of the internet. Looks like he took it down.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Analyze this
Stephen Harper's Conservative Party won 36% of the popular vote on election night, January 23, 2006.
Stephen Harper's Conervative Party sits at 36% of the popular vote in a poll released this week by Decima research.
Decima CEO Bruce Anderson concludes,
Stephen Harper's Conervative Party sits at 36% of the popular vote in a poll released this week by Decima research.
Decima CEO Bruce Anderson concludes,
"The numbers suggest the prime minister and his party are succeeding in convincing women, urban and Ontario voters that the Tories are a moderate rather than hard-right government, Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said Thursday." (Source CBC.ca)
Last I checked, 36=36... at least 19 times out of 20.
So if they've gained support among women, urban, and Ontario voters, and remain at 36%, then among which voting demographics have they lost support?Jack Layton's new math
Quick! Put your thinking caps on.
What was the number one priority of Jack Layton's NDP from 2004 to 2006?
Electoral reform?
Proportional representation?
Do those words ring a bell?
Notice how you haven't heard a word about it since. Wonder why?
Wonder no more.
You see, Jack Layton is now repeating virtually identical lines to those he used to describe as "arrogant" when uttered by others.
Yesterday was a prime exhibit:
NDP Leader Jack Layton shrugged off the Green surge, saying New Democrats can actually get action on environmental issues because they have seats in the Commons. "I think people will think about that when they're voting," said Layton.
That's right. That was Jack Layton, telling Canadians that when choosing a party they should vote for the one that has the best chance of winning more seats.
Poor ol' JH must have ate himself whole when he saw that clip on the National last night...
What was the number one priority of Jack Layton's NDP from 2004 to 2006?
Electoral reform?
Proportional representation?
Do those words ring a bell?
Notice how you haven't heard a word about it since. Wonder why?
Wonder no more.
You see, Jack Layton is now repeating virtually identical lines to those he used to describe as "arrogant" when uttered by others.
Yesterday was a prime exhibit:
NDP Leader Jack Layton shrugged off the Green surge, saying New Democrats can actually get action on environmental issues because they have seats in the Commons. "I think people will think about that when they're voting," said Layton.
That's right. That was Jack Layton, telling Canadians that when choosing a party they should vote for the one that has the best chance of winning more seats.
Poor ol' JH must have ate himself whole when he saw that clip on the National last night...
It's about time
Liberal MHAs decide that they, too, will reimburse the ill-gotten under-the-table consitutency allowance bonus. Maybe the occasional prod counts for something. Who knows?
The Telegram goes on to say that a whole host of accountability-driven reforms will be spelled out in tomorrow's edition. Something to read if you're storm-bound in St. John's tomorrow I guess...
The Telegram goes on to say that a whole host of accountability-driven reforms will be spelled out in tomorrow's edition. Something to read if you're storm-bound in St. John's tomorrow I guess...
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Quick. Invade Germany!
In Newfoundland, if there's a crisis, there are only two possible solutions - either (a) demand Ottawa do something, or (b) send the Premier on a trip. This time, to Germany.
Because politics in Newfoundland and Labrador has descended to nothing more than a chest-beating, I'm-more-populist-than-you affair of nonsensical proportions.
I have no idea who's in charge of strategy for the Liberal caucus office in St. John's, but they need a root in the arse. As bad as the Williams administration may be, the only thing worse than a Conservative caucus reluctant to speak in public is having a Liberal caucus that isn't.
Instead of poking holes in the Premier's numerous quixotic pursuits, the Opposition is encouraging him to take more of them on. It's a battle the Opposition can't win, and at the end of the day these desperate appeals to patriotism gets nobody any further ahead. (Least of all a bunch of MHAs who still can't decide whether to give back their ill-gotten expense allowances, but I digress...)
Contrary to the popular belief of most Liberal MHAs, and their staff who spend all day listening (or talking) to VOCM open line gabfests, some Newfoundland voters actually have brain cells. Quite possibly a majority of them. And one day, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day, it just might be in your interest to put something on the table that appeals to them.
In the past decade, the Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador actually made a number of difficult yet good decisions. Ending faith-based education, which the Tories wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, bringing in balanced budgets and tough program review in the early 1990s. Unpopular, but vitally necessary. And getting Voisey's Bay off the ground despite the patriotic noise of the nationalists on the other side of the House.
When they aren't wasting their time demanding that Danny be more like Danny, the Opposition just sends out a never ending wish list of demands for their districts. Pavement, hospitals, ferries, jellybean factories...
That's why everyone in St. John's is talking about a speech like this. The kind of speech that nobody on the Opposition side of the House has the guts to deliver.
Instead, they're out encouraging the Premier to drop what he's doing and fly to Germany. On a day's notice. To talk about seals. To Germans who mostly couldn't give a shit. So we get another weekend of media coverage about an industry that most people outside the province wouldn't otherwise care about if not for all the negative publicity that we generate for it ourselves. Or else we get another CNN debate between Willaims and Paul McCartney + (spouse). Cheerleading! Hooray!
One more week with no discussion of the economy. No discussion about making a broken legislature work better. No discussion about an aging population. No discussion about debt. No discussion about child care, or modernizing social programs. Just another week where the level of debate is further reduced down to who's-more-patriotic-than-whom.
Because politics in Newfoundland and Labrador has descended to nothing more than a chest-beating, I'm-more-populist-than-you affair of nonsensical proportions.
I have no idea who's in charge of strategy for the Liberal caucus office in St. John's, but they need a root in the arse. As bad as the Williams administration may be, the only thing worse than a Conservative caucus reluctant to speak in public is having a Liberal caucus that isn't.
Instead of poking holes in the Premier's numerous quixotic pursuits, the Opposition is encouraging him to take more of them on. It's a battle the Opposition can't win, and at the end of the day these desperate appeals to patriotism gets nobody any further ahead. (Least of all a bunch of MHAs who still can't decide whether to give back their ill-gotten expense allowances, but I digress...)
Contrary to the popular belief of most Liberal MHAs, and their staff who spend all day listening (or talking) to VOCM open line gabfests, some Newfoundland voters actually have brain cells. Quite possibly a majority of them. And one day, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day, it just might be in your interest to put something on the table that appeals to them.
In the past decade, the Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador actually made a number of difficult yet good decisions. Ending faith-based education, which the Tories wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, bringing in balanced budgets and tough program review in the early 1990s. Unpopular, but vitally necessary. And getting Voisey's Bay off the ground despite the patriotic noise of the nationalists on the other side of the House.
When they aren't wasting their time demanding that Danny be more like Danny, the Opposition just sends out a never ending wish list of demands for their districts. Pavement, hospitals, ferries, jellybean factories...
That's why everyone in St. John's is talking about a speech like this. The kind of speech that nobody on the Opposition side of the House has the guts to deliver.
Instead, they're out encouraging the Premier to drop what he's doing and fly to Germany. On a day's notice. To talk about seals. To Germans who mostly couldn't give a shit. So we get another weekend of media coverage about an industry that most people outside the province wouldn't otherwise care about if not for all the negative publicity that we generate for it ourselves. Or else we get another CNN debate between Willaims and Paul McCartney + (spouse). Cheerleading! Hooray!
One more week with no discussion of the economy. No discussion about making a broken legislature work better. No discussion about an aging population. No discussion about debt. No discussion about child care, or modernizing social programs. Just another week where the level of debate is further reduced down to who's-more-patriotic-than-whom.
General-ly speaking...
Last month, I wrote that the difference between being a "critic" and being a member of a "shadow cabinet" is more than theoretical in a minority Parliament.
Generally speaking, "shadow cabinet" is a meaningless term in a majority Parliament, because only an election will change the government, and all bets are off once the writ is dropped as to who is going to do what after the results are in.
In a minority Parliament, it is a small yet reasonable possibility that "shadows" could become "ministers". Which is why it would be completely stupid and counterproductive for Denis Coderre to take this fight any further.
As questionable as Hillier's perceived political intervention of two weeks ago may have been, calling the country's top soldier a "prop" on national TV isn't going to win Liberals any votes, nor is it going to convince Canadians that this "shadow" cabinet Minister is able to step up to the job he is purportedly "shadowing".
Generally speaking, "shadow cabinet" is a meaningless term in a majority Parliament, because only an election will change the government, and all bets are off once the writ is dropped as to who is going to do what after the results are in.
In a minority Parliament, it is a small yet reasonable possibility that "shadows" could become "ministers". Which is why it would be completely stupid and counterproductive for Denis Coderre to take this fight any further.
As questionable as Hillier's perceived political intervention of two weeks ago may have been, calling the country's top soldier a "prop" on national TV isn't going to win Liberals any votes, nor is it going to convince Canadians that this "shadow" cabinet Minister is able to step up to the job he is purportedly "shadowing".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
