labradore

Pease in a pod (XII)

2009-12-30T00:58:00.000-04:00

December 29, 2009

Stop shuffling deputy ministers: study
Rapid changes take toll on efficiency of PS, expert charges

By Kathryn May, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — The Harper government should stop the "mad merry-go-round" of deputy ministers bouncing from department to department and keep them in the same job for a minimum of five years, says a new study on the public service.

June 9, 2009:

Shuffle-up-a-gus

Over on the public service side, the relative numbers are even more dramatic.

Liberals: 24 appointments over eight years.

Progressive Conservatives: 37 in five and a half years or so.

Now some of these announcements were onesies and twosies, that is one appointment at a time.

In other cases, like the one made today, the changes have involved seven or eight people in different departments.

Pease in a pod (XI)

2009-12-29T12:56:00.001-04:00

Tories dodging detainee debate to slurp eggnog?

Public execution delayed for Speaker’s Christmas Party

Ahistorical

2009-12-29T11:37:00.002-04:00

A strange series of statements in today's Western Star editorial:

While there’s no arguing that throwing off the shackles of collecting federal equalization payments after 60 years in Confederation is historic, there are many in this province who would likely say they haven’t noticed much difference from the bad old days when Uncle Ottawa was our best friend.

The editorialist, like so many others who subscribe to, promote, or wilfully accept the local mythology, seems blisfully unware of two important facts. The equalization program hasn't been around for sixty years, and, after declaring Dannyland to be equalization-free, Danny Williams-Government then proceeded, to, erm, collect and cash an equalization cheque.

And the gall, the nerve, of that mean, nefarious federal government, "shackling" provincial governments by giving them money!

How long will it be, after Newfoundland and Labrador really does stop collecting equalization, before the same people who whined about the "shackles" of receiving equalization, will be whining, with equal fervour, sense of injustice and grievance, and manufactured outrage, about the "shackles" of not receiving equalization?

(Cf. Alberta crypto-separatist rhetoric, 1965 to present.)

This corner gives it six months, tops.

Lucky

2009-12-26T20:01:00.002-04:00

From the Ministry of Truth:

Consider Yourselves Lucky: Crosbie

December 26, 2009

Lieutenant Governor John Crosbie says the people in this province can consider themselves lucky given the state of many other countries in these tough economic times. Crosbie says our offshore resources have helped cushion the impact of the financial challenge and ride it out. He says with our continued growth in the province we should have a positive outlook for the future. Crosbie says we should enter the New Year with that positive attitude and if a deal can be struck on the Lower Churchill than there's more reason to be optimistic and full of good cheer.

Umm... so why is Hizzonner shilling for Our Dear Lower Churchill project?

A Christmas wish

2009-12-24T19:21:00.000-04:00

That people would stop buying vowels on Wheel.

Danny then and now (V)

2009-12-23T17:54:00.003-04:00

Parliamentary privelege. Danny Williams-Government used to be against it:

Let's change it. From my perspective, I think the legislature should have the exact same accountability. That's a democratic practice that goes way, way beyond me. But from my perspective, I'd be prepared to be held accountable...those laws get changed...or anybody else in the House has to be held accountable for what they say. I have no problem with that.

That was before DW-G was not only for it, but started hiding behind its skirt:

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, while there are those who have advocated for Ms Neville’s appearance in this House, including the Advocate herself, it is important to understand that this House is not a court of law. In a court of law, Mr. Speaker, there are procedures and procedural rules which govern things like the admissibility of evidence. There are rules governing the integrity of the process. Witnesses are questioned, cross-examined, evidence of others is called in reply and they are cross-examined. The whole process is overseen by a judge trained in the rules. This House is not a court of law, and these evidentiary safeguards do not exist here. Under the circumstances, it would be thoroughly irresponsible to admit Ms Neville into this Chamber. It is not surprising then, on December 4, 2009, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division dismissed Ms Neville’s application seeking a declaration by the court that she is entitled to an oral hearing with costs awarded to the Speaker.

Chief Justice Orsborn said, and I quote: The law is clear, that the conduct of proceedings and of debate in a legislative chamber is a sphere of activity protected by parliamentary privilege and beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the court.

HR Policy (II)

2009-12-23T14:42:00.003-04:00

Tom Marshall accuses Darlene Neville, December 17, 2009:

MR. T. MARSHALL: A breach of confidentiality or a breach of an oath of office may also constitute misconduct. Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, allow me to provide my hon. colleagues with a summary of the misconduct upon which the resolution to remove Ms Neville as Child and Youth Advocate is based.

[...]

Mr. Speaker, the third area of misconduct arises from Ms Neville’s breach of confidentiality and her Oath of Office. Section 13.(1) of the Child And Youth Advocate Act is clear and unambiguous. It reads, "Confidentiality of information 13.(1) The advocate and every person employed under him or her shall keep confidential all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their duties or functions under this Act."

Yvonne Jones recalls some inconvenient history, December 21, 2009:

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s opening comments in the House he cited very clearly the cases regarding confidentiality.

Mr. Speaker, when the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development went on an Open Line program and read from a Cabinet document no disciplinary action was taken. Even though this is considered a breach of confidentiality, the former minister received nothing only support from his colleagues.

I ask the minister: What is the difference between a minister breaking this confidentiality rule and an officer of the House of Assembly?

[...]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when there were calls made and questions asked with regard to that breach of confidentiality of a Cabinet document, it was his colleagues on the other side of the House who actually supported him, who actually spoke in support of him and his actions, and made light of the situation.

What makes a breach of confidentiality by a Cabinet minister any different than a breach of confidentiality being alleged toward Ms Neville today, or toward any Officer of the House of Assembly? Why is it that they would be terminated from their job but, yet, a Cabinet minister would be patted on the back and light – very light - made of the entire issue? Because that is exactly what happened.

Danny Williams engages in a bit of freelance proactive disclosure, August 6, 2008:

During the session with reporters, Williams also accused MUNFA president-elect Ross Klein, one of the most vocal critics of the government's involvement, of a double standard.

"Professor Klein actually wrote me last year a two-page letter concerned about the fact that he had not been given enough funding for a venture that he went on with the university," said Williams.

"It was for my information, but by the same token, why would he bother to write me, as premier, if he doesn't want us to be interfering with academic autonomy? It doesn't add up."

Speaker’s Orders

2009-12-23T12:59:00.000-04:00

Last Thursday, the Hon. Member for Lake Melville stood on a point of order, and cited the House of Assembly’s S.O. 90:

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order regarding Standing Order 90. Standing Order 90 is, and I will just read it for the record, Mr. Speaker, "A petition to the House shall be presented by a Member in his or her place who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter; and every Member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his or her own hand."

Whatever did or didn’t happen during the presentation of the petition at the heart of the controversy, the Hon. Member then proceeded to adduce nothing that suggested that the petition contained impertinent or improper matter, or that the Member offering the petition had not signed it with his or her own hand.

The Speaker offered nothing by way of any ruling on Standing Order 90, but did, quite interestingly, make up a brand new rule – a Speaker’s Order – right on the spot:

The other thing that we have failed to do here is – and I think from here on in that myself, as Speaker, will impose is that the prayer of all petitions be read, because the prayer of this petition was not read into the record. The petition was presented as a petition and the commentary was made by the Leader of the Opposition. At no time was the prayer of the petition read into the record of what the petition contained.

There is a point of order here, and the Chair will state specifically from here on in when petitions are presented here to the House, number one, they be vetted through the Table, which a ruling has already been made in the past. From today forward, the Speaker will insist that the prayer of the petition be read into the record as well before members start making commentary to use up their three minutes.

Oh, the mischief and merriment that this may lead to in the hands of clever backbenchers. Start looking for petitions with looooong prayers, which must – Speaker’s orders – be read into the record, even before the three-minute clock starts ticking on the commentary by the member presenting the petition.

There are legislators in other chambers who would give up their parking spots for a rule like that.

While the Speaker is thinking about Standing Orders and rules and such, he may wish to refresh himself, and the rest of the House, on S.O. 44:

44. Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and address himself or herself to the Speaker.

Translation: STOP REFERRING TO ONE ANOTHER AS “YOU”.

Making a list

2009-12-22T23:04:00.002-04:00

My, but someone's touchy these days. Yet again, an opposition press release results in a battalion's worth of rapid reaction:

Minister Skinner said that in a little more than six years, the Provincial Government’s deliberate approach to improving the province’s communications capacity has led to significant increases in connectivity. In 2009, close to 450 communities, representing 85 per cent of the population, have access to high speed Internet – up from 114 communities in 2003.

Such remarkable figures: "close to 450" vs. a precise 114; 85% of the population, which means someone has created a spreadsheet.

Hey, Scott Barfoot — care to share the spreadsheet?

HR Policy (I)

2009-12-22T08:01:00.002-04:00

Mr. T. Marshall accuses Darlene Neville, 2009:

MR. T. MARSHALL: In her ninety-two page submission, Ms Neville repeatedly acknowledges the existence of a poisoned work environment at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate; however, she accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the problem. Rather, her submission is replete with examples of the alleged failings of others. Nowhere does Ms Neville acknowledge that her own conduct may have been lacking in any respect at any time.

Mr. Speaker, human resource issues are complex, yet Ms Neville is the one in charge of that office. For her to adopt the position that the poisoned atmosphere - to use her own words - is everyone else’s fault but not hers is completely untenable. According to Ms Neville then, it is the entire regiment that is out of step and not her.

[...]

Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of good leadership is the acceptance of responsibility. Regrettably, Ms Neville’s failed staff relations is most publicly apparent in her press release dated August 7, 2009 in which she is critical of ‘certain staff’ for not initiating the Labrador investigation. Rather than taking responsibility for the conduct of her office, Ms Neville chose to hide behind and publicly criticize those who work for her. Unfortunately, in her written submission, Ms Neville has offered no recognition of the impropriety of publicly criticizing OCYA staff, particularly regarding the Labrador fire referral. This, Mr. Speaker, is not leadership.

Danny Williams exonerates John Hickey, 2007:

"We had in the House of Assembly a system and individuals that on one hand assured members and their assistants that compliance and accuracy checks were being carried out to protect them, but in reality it was not happening," said the Premier. "I have heard several instances of MHAs telling the same story; the individual in charge of the book keeping at the House of Assembly gave absolute assurances that any mistakes or errors would be identified and corrected. Indeed, the note prepared for me which I am releasing today states very clearly that ‘The role of the Administrative group within the House of Assembly in regard to MHA expense claims is to review MHA claims and certify that they are accurate and compliant with the rules as specified by the IEC.’ Unfortunately, the systems and controls to allow this happen were not in place."

John Hickey exonerates John Hickey (Canadian Press, February 10, 2007)

Hickey, who was notified Wednesday that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary concluded their investigation into his spending, acknowledged that his office had made mistakes when compiling his constituency allowance expenses.

He has repaid the money to the legislature, but also maintains that he was a victim of poor spending controls within the house of assembly.

"The police have gone through this, they've gone through the auditor general's report and they have basically concluded after interviews, after investigations, that there was no wrongdoing," he said.

"Yes, there were mistakes made, and we fully recognize that, there was mistakes made in my office. I fully respect that and understand that. There were also mistakes made in the House of Assembly."

Proudly fighting

2009-12-22T00:10:00.000-04:00

Or is it fightly prouding?

Either way.... to listen to the First Blue Kool-Aid Division, Danny has given us pride. He is fighting, fighting, fighting for us, because no one ever thought to fight before. Why, there are even unconfirmed reports that children were never even toilet-trained before Danny came along.

What then, to make of the following bit of prose, which has the inconvenient quality of pre-dating Danny Williams' arrival on the political scene?

Their history has been so tragic that Newfoundland was long ago called "the Cinderella of the Empire"... Yet there is more stubborn pride of country in every cubic inch of the average Newfoundlander than will be found in a cubic foot of any other people.

[...]

Newfoundlanders are great battlers. They must be great battlers: they have been battling against this or for that ever since the first settler landed here. Battling for the opportunity of getting a berth on one of the West-Coast English fishing-vessels coming on a summer's voyage to Newfoundland in the early days of the Island's discovery; battling for an opportunity to desert the vessel before she returned to England with her cargo of codfish in the autumn of the year; then batttling to hew a humble home out of the virgin forest that grew to the salt water's edge in some small cove far along the coast out of site or knowledge of the English fishing-vessels coming to our coast each summer in those early years; battling against Nature and the elements to wrest a living from the sea and the forest while they were building homestead; battling against the dreaded surprise attacks of pirates, English men-o'-war, "Fishing Admirals"; battling against the merciless, ruthlessly determined efforts of the early fish-merchants to amass fortunes out of the toil of the Newfoundland fishermen: against official stupidity and private greed; against betrayal, treachery, double-dealing and downright theft: against all thes and many other evils had the early Newfoundlanders to battle.

Nor has there been a time ever since when there seemed much less need to struggle and fight.

The much-advertised English bull-dog courage and the equally publicised Irish love of a fight have both found their greatest need of expression here in Newfoundland, from the dawn of our history to the very present.

[...]

I do think we Newfoundlanders need to have something said to diminish our rather swashbuckling pride of country and militant patriotism... Always keeping one eye upon the possible accusation of the psychologist that such insisten patriotism must really denote the existence of an inferiority complex deep down within us, I hail this pride of the Newfoundlander in his country as one of the most promising media by which Newfoundland will overcome her troubles and carve a great future for herself.

If Danny is the wellspring of pride, if Danny is the first to fight, then how can a body account for this literary anachronism? How can there possibly have been proud fighting before Him? How?

Life imitating art imitating death imitating life

2009-12-21T20:26:00.003-04:00

You really, really, can't make this up.

January 11, 2008:

Premier Danny Williams barely arrived in the nation’s capital before dismissing Friday’s first ministers’ dinner with Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a political charade.

[...]

“To have to come here to be told it’s a certain time, it’s going to be over supper, officials aren’t allowed in, there’s no preparation going on between the governments and the bureaucracies and we’re gonna be out by the Friday night movie.

“How can you get anything done? I think maybe a weekend at Bernie’s might be more productive,” an apparent reference to a 1989 movie in which the title character is a corpse.

Kevin O'Brien, December 14, 2009 (via the Tellytorialist)

God forbid, if we lose the leadership that we have right now, that is certainly the envy of all of Canada, as I have travelled within the country itself, I have heard time and time again: God, we wish we had a premier like yours. So God forbid that we would lose him as a leader at this particular time. I will say this, that at some point in time, I suppose a lot of people expect that we will lose him, but my idea of it all is that we should mummify him and keep him in the seat and do not let anybody know in Newfoundland and Labrador that he is dead. I think just having him here, we will do much better than if we had somebody else in that chair. So I will say that there as well. I have said that, actually, publicly at times. I say it with some type of jest, because I am not sure if he would want to be mummified and put in that chair, but in the meantime, I would like to have him there myself, because I have all the admiration in the world.

Pfffft, revisited

2009-12-21T00:07:00.001-04:00

The Bond Papers kremlinological observatory makes a fascinating discovery.

Northern exposure

2009-12-19T15:59:00.002-04:00

Hospitality Newfoundland and Newfoundland maintains its long-standing silence on Labrador marine passenger and tourist transportation, but there are finally glimmers that HNN has discovered that it is ostensibly the tourism industry association for the entire province:

“The Trans Labrador Highway will have an incredible impact on the tourism industry of Labrador and travellers planning to visit,” says [Bruce] Sparkes. “It will allow much easier access to many of the places that make Labrador such a unique destination. It goes without saying that residents deserve this piece of infrastructure, however, travellers now also have new options for travelling within the region. Opening the highway now allows time for potential travellers to make plans for the upcoming season and hopefully we will see the fruits of all the hard work that has gone into this project.”

Perhaps come the summer, Sparkes will finally have something to say in public about things like this, this, this, and this, just as it has lots and lots to say about ferries that the federal minister of transportation isn't responsible for.

Heck, perhaps someone should ask him, now.

Then, then, and now

2009-12-19T00:01:00.001-04:00

Then:

MR. WILLIAMS: In subparagraphs (c), and it is particularly in subparagraph (e). I will read subparagraph (c), it talks about "plans that relate to the management of personnel of or the administration of a public body..." and again, even more importantly is subparagraph (e) which talks about "information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body or the government of the province."

That particular exclusion is not in the old act and it has been inserted in the new act. Of course, the concern here is the issue on Voisey’s Bay or on any other major negotiations that the Province is involved in. By virtue of this section, the head of the public body would be permitted to exclude information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body. This is of particular interest, in these times, Mr. Chairman, because of the Voisey’s Bay negotiations which are going on. It has been a big issue for the Opposition, that in fact, there should be more disclosure to the public.

[…]

That is the fundamental issue on Voisey’s Bay. This clause hides negotiations. It was not in the old Freedom of Information Act. We are trying to have a more open act, and now what we have, is a more secretive act. That is what we have accomplished, which is sad. The people have a right to know. They have a right to know what the government is negotiating on their behalf.

If we allow this clause to go through as is, without the amendment that is presented by the Opposition, then government can continue to have secret negotiations. So if the Minister of Mines and Energy wants to have secret negotiations about oil and gas, well, then he can do so. If he wants to have secret negotiations or negotiations in private about the Lower Churchill, our hydroelectric power, then he can do that as well. They can basically negotiate all the resources of this Province away, have the deals done and the people will never know what happened, what the reason were or why they did it. That is why this amendment is so very, very important to this legislation.

Then:

MR. WILLIAMS: […] last December 5, when I announced my intention for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party - I am not sure if any hon. members opposite were there on that day when I announced it. In case you were not, I am going to tell you what I said. The reason it is important is because the Minister of Justice indicated that on December 12, 2000, a review committee was set up to look at the Freedom of Information Act. Well, a week before that I made a statement - and you must have reacted to it because I quoted Abraham Lincoln, he said: "Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of this Province fully informed; there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden agenda. If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course for our future.." of this Province. That is what I said at that time, and a week later the committee was struck to review the Freedom of Information Act. I am glad that you took that initiative.

[…]

That is what my platform is all about; no hidden documents, no hidden agenda. That is why our position is so clear on Voisey’s Bay. No secret negotiations, no secret documents. If the people know the country will be safe, and they have a right to know. They need to know the details on major negotiations of a $50 billion resource. They have a right to know. Why should it be kept secret? That is why I said it.
Let’s go to our policy on Freedom of Information, which is contained in our Blue Book in the 1999 election. "A PC Government will establish a new Freedom of Information Act to reduce the cost of accessing information...". First point, reduce the cost of accessing information. Secondly, "...to reduce the wait for information, and to ensure that Ministers actually provide the information requested where that information belongs in the public domain...". Three pretty sound, reasonable principles.

Now, the comment from the Minister of Justice. In the paper he talked about a change of attitude. If I may, I have to take off my glasses because I am nearsighted. That change will not come overnight, he said, there is a mindset that has to be changed. It is no good to have a progressive piece of legislation if we do not change the mindset and understand that it is the public’s right to access the information. I agree with the Minister of Justice. The mindset of members opposite should be changed, I agree.

[…]

With regard to negotiations, it is the position of this Opposition that there should not be negotiations in secret, especially on major matters, especially on Voisey’s Bay. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that this is the Voisey’s Bay clause. We know why it was there and it is wrong.

And now:

Hebron information confidential: Dunderdale

Newfoundland and Labrador's natural resources minister is refusing to release information about an agreement that deals with a scrapped component of the Hebron project, despite pressure from the Opposition.

In the house of assembly this week, the Opposition Liberals have been asking Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale to release details of the agreement that deal with any cancellations involving the development.

Dunderdale has refused.

"We haven't released the amount of money concerning the part of the project that now needs to be redesigned because it is commercially sensitive info," Dunderdale told the legislature Monday.

Translation

2009-12-18T17:34:00.000-04:00

No, not from the Portuguese this time, but from the Dannese:

Where this takes the university campus in western Newfoundland, Williams said that lies in the hands of the people running it.

“This was an exercise saying, tell us what you need, we will give you what you need, now get out and do it,” he said. “Prove, if you want complete autonomy and you want to get a senate established, then the ball is in your court. You have everything you need to accomplish it.”

In a little under two years, without a doubt, the way for people to "prove" that they want autonomy for Memorial University of Newfoundland Corne Brook will be to vote proudly, strongly, and determinedly.

Temos aqui há 500 anos

2009-12-18T12:58:00.002-04:00

Where might you have heard this before?

For Miguel Cunha, president of the Industrial Fishing Shipowners Association, the possibility of returning to fish in Canadian waters “proves them right,” referring to the Organisation, which had already announced that “that zone was ready to receive a greater fishing effort.”

In addition, he contended that the “cod stock was not in such a bad state” as was reported.

“Things are not always as bad as they want us to believe. The cod stock was in moratorium for around 10 years, when scientists said that it was extinct. This opening is proof that resources are dynamic,” Cunha added.

That busy legislative agenda again

2009-12-18T08:03:00.000-04:00

Since January 1, 2009, St. John's City Council has met a total of 45 times.

During the same time period, the House of Assembly has met a total of 43 times — 44 if you count March 25th twice.

Good thing that John Crosbie isn't calling the shots

2009-12-17T18:09:00.000-04:00

The Ceeb reported on July 28, 2007:

[John] Crosbie, a former federal and provincial cabinet minister, did not mince words on Friday when speaking about the government's motivations [with regards to SWGC].

"There appears to be political motivation in this whole situation, and the desire of the premier and one of his principal ministers to shine in their own districts," Crosbie said.

In follow-on coverage of the kerfuffle, Rob Antle of the Quebec Daily Newspaper reported:

John Crosbie has every right to his opinions, but his days in politics are over and he no longer gets to call the shots, Premier Danny Williams said Tuesday.

[...]

"Mr. Crosbie is a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador," Williams said. "He has an opinion, and he's entitled to it. From our perspective, we're the government, and we've made the decision as to what we're going to do here.

"Mr. Crosbie had his day in government, and he made his decisions in that time - that was a long time ago. Now we are the government and we are going to do what we think is in the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's exactly what we're doing here."

Pater provincias

2009-12-17T17:56:00.000-04:00

Good ol' Memorial University of Dannystan, reliable source of incisive analysis like this:

"It's something in political science we call economic regionalism," he said, explaining Williams is seen as somebody who's not trying to favour any particular group. "It's almost like he's trying to help out the Newfoundland society as a whole," Marland said.

Newsworthiness

2009-12-17T17:15:00.003-04:00

On the day after the metaphorical last spike is driven in the Trans-Labrador Highway, allowing, for the first time in history, ground transportation to and from at least the southern Labrador coast by a mode that doesn't involve water, liquid or frozen; a change in transportation patterns which will, in the medium to long run, be as profound for the province as a whole, if not more so, than the construction (and abandonment) of the Newfoundland railway, the establishment of the Gulf ferry, or the construction of the major airports during World War Two; you might think that such an event would merit more than sixty-two unsigned words deep on page A11.

Just sayin'.

Legislative intent, the sequel

2009-12-17T17:07:00.001-04:00

Nottawa points out some funny stuff:

No legislative amendments are required for the changes announced Wednesday and King said there are no other foreseeable developments at the moment which would require changing the legislation."
[...]

The legislation that required tedious work, due diligence, solid research, years of delay and (of course) deserved full debate turns out to suddenly be completely unnecesary.

It would appear, then, that the province's one and only institution of higher academic education, has itself been re-educated — perhaps during Tuesday night's "hurried" Bored of Regents meeting.

That's because the Memorial University of Newfoundland (St. John's and Corner Brook) annual report [link to .pdf file], tabled in the House of Assembly on September 30th, states, at page 5:

To undertake the changes contemplated for Sir Wilfred Grenfell College there will have to be amendments made to The Memorial University Act. Those amendments had not been finalized during the period of the 2008-09 annual report.

Working Title Productions

2009-12-17T08:15:00.000-04:00

Even with shared services with Memorial University in some areas, a new and substantially larger budget would be essential. The independence and complete functional autonomy scenarios would, therefore, have profound and far-reaching impacts. If these changes were coupled with a concurrent doubling or tripling of the student population of the new Grenfell University (a working title) and concurrent increases in faculty and staff numbers, these impacts would be compounded.

- Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Review, 2006

Hurry! Hurry hard!

2009-12-17T06:56:00.001-04:00

Gary Kean of the Other Quebec Daily Newspaper reports this morning:

The latest plan was endorsed by what chairperson Bob Simmonds described as a “hurried” meeting of the Board of Regents Tuesday night.

“Hurried”?

Now, that's curious.

Less than eighteen months ago, then-edjukashin Minister Joan Burke was pleading for patience:

Sir Wilfred Grenfell College on the west coast of Newfoundland, which has been waiting for independence from its parent university for years, will have to wait awhile longer, Education Minister Joan Burke said Friday.

[...]

"We are just at the point, I guess, with a busy schedule in the house of assembly and certainly the tedious work in developing the legislation, that we didn't have sufficient time … for the full debate that it deserved," Burke told CBC News.

Last fall, she brushed off concern about the delay:

“I want to stress that this doesn’t mean that our position on Grenfell has changed, I was really hoping to bring it forward in this session because I think it is a very positive piece of legislation for the west coast and in particular Corner Brook,” Minister Burke told The Western Star Wednesday.

[...]

Her reassurance to Grenfell was this was a time delay as opposed to a shift in thinking or change in direction.

During Budget Blowout 2009, she insisted:

Burke continues to avoid putting any timelines on when Grenfell’s autonomy will be brought forth in the legislature, but said government’s commitment has unwavered.

“Obviously, to give Grenfell more autonomy has taken longer than we all anticipated originally,” she said. “ ... At this time, I can’t exactly say when it is going to be in the legislature.”

And in May, her successor in office Dr. Darin Luther King maintained:

MR. BUTLER: I ask the minister: Is this delay linked to a re-evaluation of whether or not this government should give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College full university status?
MR. KING: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are continuing to work through a process with officials at Grenfell College and Memorial University and our own officials at the Department of Education. We intend to move forward, and when the legislation is ready we will have it before the House.

From vague timelines, and no particular rush, and insisting on the time to do things right... to a “hurried” meeting of the Board of Regents Tuesday night, a short-notice announcement on Wednesday at noon, and a press release that didn't come out for another three hours after that.

Why on earth, after taking all that precious, precious time, a “hurried” meeting of the Board of Regents Tuesday night?

And why a bungled announcement on Wednesday afternoon?

Question time (II)

2009-12-17T06:34:00.000-04:00

Again following up from Saturday's Tellytorial — an odd place to go spilling beans about failures of accountability that should have been spilt in hard reporting, but anyway:

The province won't release a six-page CRA report generated by the pollster's August questions, saying it is confidential third-party information. In other words, even though the province paid to see the numbers, CRA actually still owns them.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that some of the August questions, or any other of CRA's quarterly omnibus questions, were bought and paid for by the provincial government.

Commissioned, you might say.

They would then be captured by the quaint 2003 election promise by Danny Williams-Government:

A Progressive Conservative Government will: Release to the public every government-commissioned report within 30 days of receiving it, indicate the action government will take on a report's recommendations within 60 days, and ensure prompt public access to all government reports in hard copy and on the Internet.