Talk:Grant Devine

Wow. This article is nothing less than a conservative revisionist of the legacy of Grant Devine. Romanow WISELY decided to kee the resource structure in place? Blakeney single-handedly drove away the oil industry? Really!

And I'm sorry, where is the section regarding Devine's use of special warrants to keep governing without passing a budget in the house?

Devine is one of the most despised political figures in the province, especially in urban centres, but this article would sure have us believe that he is one of the most beloved.--Subbevil 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Tommy Douglas drove most of the oil industry out of this province, Grant Devine tried to bring it back. But with Al Blakney's $8 billion "Crown" debt it was hard. Then to write off that debt and be hung with it the NDP had a heyday.

Yes yes, we've all heard that before. Yet if you look at any credible source on the subject, they rarely buy into it. The fact is the Devine government ran up huge deficits and then actually hid the real size of its deficits and debt. While the NDP might have enjoyed the benefits of royalty resources, it also had to make massive cutbacks to spending as well as taxhikes in order to bring things back in order.

Again, I still hold that this is a massively one-sided article. Where is Devine's use of special warrants in the early 90s to put off passing a budget? Where are the huge attempts to privatize or the gerrymandering?

Devine is poison for any party with whom he attempts to be associated and there is little wonder why. The Sask Party is terrified of being linked to him publically, and the federal Conservatives actually overruled his nomination in Estevan. His government will go down in history as one of the most notorious to ever take office.

I think this article desperately needs to be rewritten and I will take up the effort when I have more time. Not to worry for any Sask Tories, the arguments that currently dominate the article will be represented.--Subbevil 17:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Try not running deficits when billions of dollars of unfunded pension liabilities, infrastructure investment deficits, and very high interest rates were left to you by previous administrations. I doubt the NDP could have done any better than the government of Grant Devine. Interesting because all of that legacy of interest rates, neglected infrastructure, and unfunded pensions was left by the governments of Allan Blakeney, and Tommy Douglas, not to mention Pierre Trudeau.

The current NDP routinely use special warrants to cover expenditures that cannot be realistically covered through the normal appropriation process of the legislative assembly. Will this article correctly reflect the role and purpose of special warrants, or will it trot them out as being evil instruments of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (aka Cabinet) who have the discretion to use them in certain circumstances. No court has ever held that the use of special warrants is illegal, by the way.

---

Rick Swensen, is that you?

Perhaps it's Grant Schmidt. Ten dollars says it's Devine himself.

Anyway, anything I write will be properly written and sourced, while avoiding the hackery that's demonstrated in the article as it stands. All viewpoints will be consider and nothing will be left out.

--Subbevil 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Well don't waste your time repeating innaccurate garbage, the likes of which appears in publications such as The Commonwealth or other commie rags, or anything written by John Conway. If you have an agenda to push, fine, but historical revisionism is definitely against the intent and spirit of Wikipedia, and agendas really aren't welcome here.

BTW, where can I collect my $10?

64.110.251.69 08:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are there no sources? This article makes some rather outlandish claims. If you told an average person in Saskatchewan that Grant Devine was a good guy, and the deficits that occured during his term were Blakeney's fault, you'd get laughed at.

It is highly improper to make claims like this without at least providing sources.

NPOV

Not as bad as the Brad Wall article, but it certainly needs to be fixed. AnnieHall 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Could at some point information where the NDP hid these deficits be included and sourced in the article? or else I feel as if it should be deleted.Seaweed69

Removed libelous statment

Mr. Devine was never accused, implicated, nor was any evidence whatsoever adduced during the fraud trials of members of the late-80s PC caucus indicating that Devine was culpable in the commission of offenses. To suggest that he was not 'caught' implies, rather incorrectly, that Devine had committed an offense but somehow managed to escape prosecution. We know this to not be the case, as the RCMP investigation, and nearly a dozen trials not once implicated Devine and basically left no stone unturned (a NDP MLA was even convicted of fraud -- the late Murray Koskie).

Also I think you need to be very careful with respect to making allegations with respect to the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. These quite simply are not relevant to the article.

64.110.251.69 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't think that any accusations were being made concerning Brad Wall or the Saskatchewan Party were being made, though the inclusion in the paragraph about the scandal makes it appear misplaced. I've editted it and I hope that it's satisfactory since it does merit inclusion. Second, the scandal that occured under Devine's watch is one of the main reasons why the PC party ceased to be a viable option for many Saskatchewan residents. I agree that the wording was poorly chosen as it pertains to Devine's involvement (I've changed the wording so that it conforms to NPOV) but again, inclusion of the scandal in the article is warranted. AnnieHall 07:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anniehall, libel is the making, in writing, of a false statement or untrue implication against someone who may be libelled (ie: the dead may not be libelled), where immunity or qualified priviledge does not exist.

The previous wording that Devine was not 'caught' carries the implication that Devine committed offenses, but somehow managed to evade prosecution. As no evidence has been adduced that Devine participated in any fraudulent act, Devine's name really should be left out of things. This wiki is entitled "Grant Devine", and not "Sask Progressive Conservative fraud scandal". Let's keep the topic as Grant Devine, and avoid running too far off the rails.

64.110.251.69 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the fraud took place while Mr. Devine was the premier. That he was not implicated should certainly be stressed, however the scandal has coloured people's impression of both him and the years the Tories were in power. As such I can't imagine not including at least a brief reference to the scandal. Not mentioning it would be like not mentioning Iran-Contra in an article on Ronald Reagan. AnnieHall 06:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"the scandal has coloured people's impression of both him..." is entirely and blatently POV. Many Saskatchewan residents speak fondly of the time when Grant Devine and the PC's were in power. They won 2 terms in office, after all. The article also gives evidence that Grant Devine continues to be held in high esteem, as he came in 2nd place, as an independant candidate, in a recent federal election.

Aren't we trying to remove POV from the article? Devine had nothing to do with the scandal. Reference to the scandal properly only belongs on pages concerning the convicted MLA's (ie: John Gerich) or the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party.

64.110.251.69 06:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many Saskatchewan residents speak fondly of the time when Grant Devine and the PC's were in power." This is true. There are also many individuals who loathe him. The fact that both opinions about the man and his party exist have little, if anything, to do with mentioning the kickback scandal. AnnieHall 11:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then write a balanced opinion piece portraying both the reasons why people loved him, and hated him. Devine has nothing to do with the expense claim/kickback scandal, so its entirely innappropriate to even mention it. And Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party? Give me a break, Devine was a figure from the 1980s, Wall didn't even come to prominence till 10 years afterwards.

Maybe look at the article for Roy Romanow sometime. I can think of a few scandals under Romanow:

1. Expropriation of Co-Op assets
2. Cancellation of the GRIP program, a promise made by the government to farmers.
3. the Channel Lake Scandal ($5 million lost and/or defrauded from the government)
4. SPUDCO (what, $30 million there, and overtones of fraud and dishonest conduct by a minister)
5. numerous pieces of back-to-work legislation passed (Devine did this as well, in all fairness)
6. Conviction of Murray Koskie, a member of the Romanow NDP caucus, for fraud.
7. etc., etc.

Yet the Romanow article isn't pollutted with them. 64.110.251.69 18:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in contributing to a Romanow article. I had no interest in contributing to the Brad Wall article either except that I noticed it didn't conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Ultimately I was lead to the article on Mr. Devine. I will reaffirm my belief that the kickback scandal should be discussed in the Devine article because it occured while Mr. devine was in office. it should be stated that Mr. Devine was not implicated himself in the scandal. I would further suggest that mentioning the kickback scandal in the Devine article might be more worthy than including, let's say NDP back-to-work legislation, simply because the scandal (which, again, occured under Devine's watch even if he himself is completely innocent) destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan as a viable alternative for many Saskatchewan voters. Incidently, I would suggest that some of the information about Mr. Romanow's government that you outlined might be worthy of inclusion as well.

As for writing an opinion piece, well, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. The idea is to write an objective article on the individual. I'm afraid that an objective examination of Mr. Devine and his government needs to include the scandal that occured and which resulted in the implosion of the PCs in Saskatchewan. AnnieHall 04:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandal nonsense

Stop adding material pertaining to the Saskatchewan Party (a party that did not even exist until almost a decade after Devine left office), or the expense account fraud that Devine had absolutely nothing to do with.

Come up with a page entitled, "Saskatchewan Tory Fraud Scandal" or similar if you want to document the scandal. Talking about it here is really adding a lot of irrelevant information, and some previous wordings have been on the borderline of being completely libelous.

64.110.251.69 02:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My goodness. It is not libelous to say that the scandal occured while Devine was the premier. He WAS premier when the scandal took place. It isn't irrelevant information and SHOULD be included in this article with the addendum that Mr. Devine was not implicated himself. AnnieHall 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly is relevant to Devine's article to note that members of his government were implicated in scandal. As long as the clarification that he wasn't personally indicted is present, a mention does belong here. At the same time, it's not necessary to go into extensive detail on the scandal here, since it's already covered at Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party. But it's perfectly legitimate to make at least a brief note of the fact here; how it's currently handled is probably ideal. Bearcat 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a single mention of any scandal that has occurred under the watch of Lorne Calvert on the webpage of Lorne Calvert, or even on Romanow's page. Also, to refer to 'public participation' exclusively as privitization is innaccurate and blatently POV-filled as many of the enterprises in question, such as the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Cameco, or SaskOil (now a part of Nexen), remain, even today, public, not private companies, and hence, were never privatized. 64.110.251.69 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If mention of scandals should be in those articles, then you can add that content to them. Just because a different Wikipedia article does things differently does not mean that's how things should be done.

About the public/private terminology:

The selling off of publicaly (meaning 'governmet') owned operations (enterprises, corporations, etc.) to private investors - through private sale or through share offerings -- is, by definition, privitization.

I think, perhaps, that I'm starting to see where the confusion is emerging here. There are potentially contradictory meanings of the term "public". In commercial investment, a "public" company is one that has a "public" share offering where the majority of ownership is not privately held. In government operations, a publicly owned corporation is one that is owned by the government -- on behalf of the public -- and a private corporation is one that is not owned by the government. I have been looking at the sentance in question from the government language perspective, since we're talking about it in the context of government ownership. I get the impression -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that you've been looking at it from what I've called the "commercial investment" perspective. I like your rewording that takes the whole question of meanings of "private" and "public" out of the equation.

To be clear, though, "privatization" in reference to government operations is the conversion of an operation from government ("public") ownership to non-government ("private" -- even if it's IPO or what have you) ownership.

Document 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously Schnits, what do you expect? Civil servants take an oath to be loyal to Her Majesty, and to the policies of the duly elected government (and their employer), in this case, the Government of Saskatchewan. If they violate their oath by becoming political, then it should come as no surprise that they lose their jobs.

If you want to add that comment to the article concerning Devine, you really ought to be adding it to the articles concerning Blakeney, Calvert, Douglas, Romanow and Thatcher, among others. Otherwise I will continue to revert as it is very clear that you are pushing an agenda.

70.73.4.197 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, people will always associate Devine's legacy with the scandals, despite the fact that he was not guilty of wrongdoing himself.

Someone above mentioned the Saskatchewan Party and its relevance to this discussion and article. It IS relevant, to a certain degree because: - a legacy of Devine's administration was the fact that the Saskatchewan PC party ceased to be a viable force in provincial politics and had a stigma attatched to it for a long time as a result. That is a direct result of that legacy.

- no doubt, many ex-Tory members and supporters joined the new party because of the above, the fact that the Saskatchewan Party exists as the main centre-right force in the province is an indirect result of that legacy. Everton4Life 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Saskatchewan Party has absolutely nothing to do with Grant Devine or the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan. They are completely seperate entitites. Maybe *you* personally associate Devine with wrongdoing, but you do not speak for the electorate or anyone in the Province of Saskatchewan other than yourself.

And once again, it is completely innappropriate for civil servants to be protesting the actions of their employer publicly. Public criticism of your employer in any business is usually grounds for dismissal. The only civil servants dismissed by the Government of Saskatchewan during the Devine era, aside from normal layoffs and workforce reductions, were those who violated their sworn responsibility of impartiality and loyalty to the duly elected government, and rightfully so.

By the way, the Devine legacy is looking better and better all the time with the incompetence of Lorne Calvert's government rearing its ugly head, most recently, with a $500 million privatization scheme concerning Crown Corporations.

70.73.4.197 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the scandal detail, as there's a consensus to mention it: three editors for; one (64.110.251.69 a.k.a. 70.73.4.197) against. 86.148.152.152 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

70.73.4.197: The reason why I am removing mention of Koskie's conviction is because he had nothing to do with the scandal discussed in this article, just like the Conservative Muirhead who was charged about the same time he was had nothing to do with it.

Let's compare and contrast:

Koskie was charged, convicted of, and fined for fraud charges stemming from activities in 1991, where he pocketed about $2400 for himself that he overbilled taxpayers for. He was fined $5000.

McLaren and Scraba used false invoices to draw $837,000 from the communications allowances of Tory members. McLaren was also accused of stealing $114,200 from the caucus and diverting $125,000 in caucus funds to the Conservative Party of Saskatchewan between 1987 and 1991.

See the major difference?

And by the way, Koskie never caucused with the Conservatives. --Hiddekel 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Koskie was a Minister under the Conservatives, and then later left for the NDP. The Koskie family have been long-time NDP supporters going back to at least the Allan Blakeney years.

I think this whole controversy really calls for a page entitled Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly Expense Account Fraud Scandal, where the charges and convictions of each member, and support staff like Scraba can be described in detail. There is a book entitled "SaskScandal" at your local library which might be useful as a starting point, and further, I am sure NDP contributors have additional information they might want to share. Any time you have a breach of trust in government, or fraud against the Crown, it is important that such not be minimalized or trivialized, irregardless of political party involved.

70.73.4.197 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Koskie was a cabinet minister under the Blakeney government and one of the few to be re-elected in 1981. Since prior to Blakeney the the Liberals formed the government, and he certainly never caucused with the Conservatives under Devine, I'd like to know when, precisely, Koskie caucused with the Conservatives, let alone was in a Conservative cabinet.

I do agree that there should be an article on the scandal. However, I also agree with the majority of editors here that this scandal was a prominent footnote in Devine's political history that it also deserves mention here. What doesn't deserve mention is Koskie, who had nothing to do with Devine or the scandal he's come to be associated with. --Hiddekel 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

70.73.4.197, stop POV-pushing this page. Contrary to your edit summary, far more than just NDP partisans associate this scandal with the Devine legacy. I would refer you to a vast number of mainstream media articles over the years, including:

• "Former Saskatchewan premier launches comeback bid" by Barb Pacholik and James Wood, The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, B.C., Jan 21, 2004. pg. A.7

• "Devine gov't left behind sorry political legacy" by Martin O'Hanlon of The Canadian Press, Star - Phoenix, Saskatoon, Sask., Feb 27, 1999. pg. A.6

• "Conservatives quash Devine bid" by Sean Gordon, National Post, Don Mills, Ont., Feb 20, 2004. pg. A.10

Those are just three publications that can be used as VERIFIABLE REFERENCES that the scandal is associated with Devine. Do not blank that text again. --Hiddekel 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The text will continue to be blanked because it is not supported by credible sources, and represents merely an opinion not supported by the criminal conviction, nor even indictment of Mr. Devine. Obviously many people do not associate Devine with any scandal whatsoever, as he came in 2nd in a federal election a couple years ago.

I think the issue here is that we have a number of contributors who are sympathetic to the left-wing NDP agenda, who are coming to this page to smear one of Saskatchewan's greatest premiers in most recent times, to smear a government that ultimately set into play structural reforms in the economy that allowed the books to be balanced in the 1990s, a government that was leading Saskatchewan down the right path. I am suspicious of why the contributors here who are trying to tar Devine with a scandal, aren't also going to Lorne Calvert's page and tarring him with the Murdoch Carriere scandal, or Romanow's page with the Channel Lake scandal. Kind of like calling the pot calling the kettle black, eh?

70.73.4.197 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The text IS supported by mainstream news articles, which ARE reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. And the only issue here is that you are refusing to follow Wikipedia protocols for removing text, and Wikipedia standards of reliability. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the only solution will be administrator intervention, and that will be the next step if you continue removing sourced, relevant-per-consensus material. --Hiddekel 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are editorials. Editorials are not reliable sources, and merely represent opinion of the commentator. As such, they are not reliable sources, and cannot be relied upon, any more so, than relying upon The CommonWealth as a source. Administrator intervention may be required, but the only reason it would be required is because you continue to persist in maintaining material in the article that implies that Devine was involved or even acquiesed to criminal conduct. As an aside, I have attempted to contact you on IRC this afternoon, and you seem to be ignoring me Hiddekel, the nick is "GDevine", and I am in #politics.

70.73.4.197 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, failure to assume good faith on the part of editors is another violation of Wikipedia policy. --Hiddekel 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then act in good faith. If you follow Saskatchewan politics (which it is obvious that you do), then you will know that Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert have presided over scandals as well, but those scandals seem to be deleted from their wikis at every opportunity. If you are passionate about the truth concerning Grant Devine, but not passionate about the truth concerning Lorne Calvert and Roy Romanow, then that is definitely a cause for concern.

70.73.4.197 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oil Prices

This historical chart would seem to indicate that not only did oil prices not fall to $9 per barrel under Devine's government, adjusted for inflation they approached the prices we're seeing today (and the year previous they were actually higher than in 2006)... Unless someone can provide a citation, I'm working that statement out of the article. --Hiddekel 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A big part of the issue is that the oil that is produced in Saskatchewan is not WTI (West Texas Intermediate), but is rather a heavier/more sour oil that generally needs to be upgraded at a upgrader prior to being used to produce traditional oil products like petrol, diesel fuel, etc.

The charts and website you are referring to use WTI as the reference benchmark. Obviously in an abundance of the light and sweet WTI grades in the marketplace, the heavier/sour grades of Saskatchewan oil and bitumen have substantially less value.

I trust this will explain at least some of the discrepancy. The "$9/barrel" oil figure isn't referring to the worldwide WTI or Brent or Saudi grades, but is rather referring to the grades that were actually produced in Saskatchewan at the time.

70.73.4.197 09:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. Got a source that demonstrates this discrepancy in prices between grades at that time? --Hiddekel 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)