Experts say a bounty won’t lessen human encounters with aggressive coyotes, and might make matters worse. They base this conclusion, in part, on experience in Nova Scotia, where a $50 bounty in the 1980s failed to reduce coyote numbers. They say it on the Department of Natural Resources website—or they used to, until inconvenient scientific information was expunged just in time for Minister John MacDonell's flight from evidence-based decision making. [caption id="attachment_5079" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="John MacDonell "][/caption] The Winston Smiths assigned to expunge the historical record missed a few spots. They failed to delete wildlife director Barry Sabean's 1989 and 1991 declarations...

23 April, 2010

When you bring $145 million a year into the treasury of a province as deeply in hock as Nova Scotia, you swing a big bat. So when a consultant hired by the banished Tory government delivered a cost-benefit analysis of gambling in Nova Scotia to the newly elected NDP government, it stands to reason that the big bat wielders at the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation*, the agency that administers the provincial government's addiction to gambling revenue, had first dibs on reviewing it. [caption id="attachment_5075" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Marilyn More"][/caption] Whatever the report said about the human toll exacted by provincially sponsored gambling, we...

23 April, 2010

In the wake of Glace Bay MLA Dave Wilson's surprise resignation while under forensic audit of his expense claims, a young Contrarian friend asks if I'm ready to retract my post all but dismissing the expense brouhaha. Answer: I'm getting there. We don't yet know the story behind Wilson's abrupt departure, and I don't wish to imply otherwise. But even before that news broke Friday, the premier's ham-fisted attempts to resolve criticism surrounding his expensing of Barristers' Society dues had me rethinking the issue. Contrarian's alter-ego is currently submerged in a writing assignment, so I will merely flag the topic for later elaboration....

14 March, 2010

Saint Mary's professor Larry Haiven thinks blaming unions for unnecessary snow days is silly: This is part of a syndrome of "if in doubt, blame the unions."  So convenient.  So wrong. A few years ago I was taking a tour of the new Toronto opera house.  We were allowed to go everywhere except on stage, even though the stage was bare, with no current production going on. One of the tour members asked the docent why we couldn't go on stage.  The tour member said he had been on tours of all the great opera houses of Europe and had never been barred...

07 March, 2010

Educational consultant Paul W. Bennett, a former principal of Halifax Grammar School, thinks we should not be too quick to dismiss the connection between unsnowy snow days and the provisions of the teachers' collective agreement. [T]he key factor [in school closures] is the collective agreement which has been in place in Nova Scotia since the mid-1970s. In that sense, the Education Department is just as culpable as the NSTU. The teachers' agreement originally included an understanding that about five days a year would be written off as "throw-away" snow days. The Agreement with the NSTU also stipulates...

07 March, 2010
Several readers have questioned, taken issue with, and even canceled subscriptions (!) over my criticism of overly cautious school closures, particularly my suggestion that union sympathies may play a role in unwarranted snow days.
Since when are school administrators (who make decisions about snow days) part of the teachers' union? [TB]
Snow days are decided upon by the School Board. The teachers and their union have nothing to do with it. Teachers have to show up on snow days to babysit any kids dropped off by parents. The fact that you are so silly as to blame Unions—good heavens how silly!—I have now figured you out: Another Conservative who will blame the victims for all the country's ills. [AMcG]
At least in HRSB, the school officials who make the call are school board Superintendents - not unionized, but management. [AB]
Another possible explanation is the requirement to please big, risk-averse insurance companies. [BW]
OK, so now I've done what I should have done before posting, checked with Peter McLaughlin, my ex-Daily News colleague who now speaks for the Nova Scotia Department of Education. Turns out the situation is at once more complicated than I suggested, and less clearcut than my interlocutors believe. Full explanation after the jump.
06 March, 2010

This is what a snow day looks like in Nova Scotia in 2010: Ridiculous. Ludicrous. How does this happen? Is it yet more proof that Environment Canada/CBC weather hysteria has destroyed our ability to distinguish normal weather from that which is dangerous? Is it further evidence of our society's atrophied ability to assess and manage risk? Of our obsession with danger? Have we become a nation of 'fraidy cats? A friend offers an alternative explanation: They haven't filled their quota of snow days. Gotta get 'em in, in other words, like the employee who makes sure to take all her available sick days,...

03 March, 2010

In addition to her invaluable work on Sable Island, Zoe Lucas has, for the last five years,  hosted annual public meetings where scientists, government officials, industry representatives, and naturalists like herself have briefed the public on developments affecting the island.The sixth of these sessions takes place at 7 p.m., Wednesday, March 3, at the Theatre Auditorium, McNally Building, Saint Mary's University. This year's meeting takes on special significance because of the secret deliberations currently underway between the Harper and Dexter governments over the level of protection to be afforded Sable in years to come. Federal Parks Minister Jim Prentice and provincial...

02 March, 2010
Previous installments here, here, and here. A longish dissent from reader Jay Wilson:
The way you make it sound, we, the public, are the ones who indirectly caused this problem by forcing our poor beleaguered elected representatives underground and into making the kinds of reckless spending judgements they made. I take issue with that. As you said in your blog, "Upon taking office, most MLAs set aside established careers in exchange for a job with far less security than comparable positions in the private or public sector." That once was the case, for a good reason. Once upon a time, MLAs made very little money as elected representatives. To offset their costs of travel, constituency responsibilities, etc, they were given expense money. Fine. Then more people from different walks of life started getting involved in politics who didn't necessarily make as much as the usual assortment of doctors, lawyers and businesspeople who had mostly made up the elected ranks. Not to mention the complaints from the very sorts of individuals you referenced: People from higher-paying occupations who said it wasn't enough to live on and they could make more in the private sector. Over time, a new sensibility developed along the lines of "Let's pay them a better salary so that they can afford to live while serving our best interests." In the interests of fairness, the thought occurred to some that the money spent on expense accounts and the like could be decreased as now these elected officials would actually be making more. That's not what happened. In fact, as salaries continued to increase, so did money for expenses and then it diversified into a whole host of different expense categories. MLAs were getting money for everything and the kitchen sink, and who made these changes? Who increased their salaries and expense money? Who made the rules so deliberately ambiguous and full of holes so wide you could drive a tank through them? They did, behind closed doors and in quick legislative motions, with cursory mentions in the local press for the most part. Please don't try to excuse MLAs for their sorry behaviour. This is about three things: A pronounced sense of entitlement, a disconnect from reality and pure abject greed. Maybe it isn't on the same scale as the scandals in Britain and even Newfoundland, but those three things are present in each situation and they are things we should all be vigilant against.
19 February, 2010

Previous installments here and here. Paul Pross, emeritus professor of public administration at Dalhousie and the author of several books on lobbying, NGOs, and the formation of public policy, thinks we are being too hard on our politicians: I first met a politician fifty years ago. Since then, as a political scientist teaching at Dalhousie and, since retirement, as an active party member, I have met many more. A few turned out to be crooks. There were some self-important, pompous twits. But the majority were decent men and women who worked hard at a challenging and often stressful...

18 February, 2010
Show more
Loading...