A thoughtful article Mark. I have a comment and a question. The authors of the other book were KEN Rasmusson and JIM Pitsula (you had the names reversed). My question is, when you interviewed him in Caronport, did Devine know who exactly who you were?
Thanks for the catch, Linda. I've made the correction. In answer to your question, yes, Devine knew who I was. Exactly is a strong word, but he knew enough to visually identify me and in our conversation he made a few remarks that clearly indicated that he knew the general contours my political involvement. He just did not care - he took me at my word that my intent was a serious, straight-up look at the upgraders and not a partisan hatchet job. Ever the optimist - although in this case, it was justified. The bottom line conclusion of my thesis on the upgraders "Grant got them built, Roy figured out how to pay for them."
Premier Devine sent me an e-mail responding to this column. He thought I was "a little tough" on his administration but his comments were thoughtful and gracious.
Grant Devine pointed out that I neglected the accomplishments of his administration, saying "To be fair you could have mentioned all the successful privatizations,rural gas, water projects, pulp mills, a nitrogen fertilizer plant, historic treaty negotiations, interest rate protection for farmers and home owners, NAFTA success and the free enterprise attitude that pervades the province today."
I completely share his view that I should have mentioned the rural gas program when discussing the similarities between is government and that of Tommy Douglas - I've amended the article to take this into account. Some of the other items he raised as successes (such as privatizations) are , I think, worthy topics of debate - although I must concede one completely - "water projects" - specifically the Rafferty Dam. We in the NDP were absolutely convinced there was not enough water to fill the reservoir. I say, unequivically, that on this, Devine was right, we were wrong.
Interesting and I think pretty fair. I'd add a couple of caveats, however. First, even though he entered politics at the high water mark of free market Reaganomics, I am not so quick to acquit him of foolishly believing the policy nostrums he peddled would save rural Sask . Second, there were some serious crooks in his administration, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't at least willfully blind -- if not like the police captain in Casablanca who claimed he was "shocked" to discover there was gambling in Rick's place. Finally, forgive me an even more obscure comparison -- with President US Grant. As a sometime student of the Civil War, I've always been rather fond of this Grant, a great general , but awful (though well meaning) president. He presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in US history, but was so honest that he would have died a pauper if Mark Twain hadn't helped him sell his memoirs.
I should have added to my post: Your article seems to answer a question I've heard put, Mark. Moe is definitely a much worse Premier than Devine was .... And I suspect time will not save Moe :) (Michael Finley)
The Grant comparison is interesting. Devine was widely quoted as saying "don't say whoa in a mudhole" - Grant stated that he never retraced his steps when lost or encountering an obstacle while travelling. He always found a way to keep going forward. As for the Devine/Moe comparison, I observe that Devine tried to do big things. Rightly or wrongly, he had a vision that he went for. Rightly or wrongly, he was inspirational and asperational. Moe, on the other hand, is the ultimate "caretaker" Premier - uniquely so amongst all of Saskatchewan's post WWII Premiers. I think his best comparator amongst previous Saskatchewan premiers was William Patterson (I had to look up his name on Wikipedia to remember it). There's kind of no there there, to steal a phrase. Having a good caretaker can be beneficial sometimes, but nothing really gets built. Having a bad caretaker slowly turns a place shabby and run-down.
Darryl Cooper - the SaskParty candidate that got bounced by his party for social media posts last election - coached one of my sons in baseball, so I got to know him reasonably well. He argues that the definition of a "good" premier is being the right person at the right time. With this, Darryl says the best premiers in Saskatchewan's history were Douglas, Romanow and Wall. He theorizes that if Devine had served during Blakeney's time and vice versa, both would have been really "good". By this, he argues that Blakeney governed through boomie times, but was too cautious to really take advantage of it. Devine would have built big. On the other hand, during the down times of the 1980s, Blakeney would have been a prudent manager who would have never allowed the province to get into the financial mess that it did. I've thought about this a lot, and go back and forth as to whether I agree with it, but it is an interesting thought.
So interesting...sometimes another truth emerges through the long lens of time. I never remember anyone saying Devine was stupid or evil...just misguided. Do you think that he knew his ministers and MLA's were stealing and/or committing fraud?
No, I don't think he did. The thing to remember is that there were 3 or 4 who were doing some serious looting. For the rest, the charges were pretty chickenshit. What happened is that they were all urged to buy computers for their constituency office - a deal with a single supplier had been negotiated. They all went in and bought one and submitted claims under their office allowance. All good and legal. About a dozen did not have enough funds left in their office allowance, so Legislative Accounts bounced the claim for reimbursement. They went into caucus office to demand an explanation from the guy who had set up the scheme (who was engaged in crooked activities). He dismissed it as a bureacratic glitch, got them to sign a new reimbursement form (blank), and paid them out in cash. He then submitted the claims to get the money back under their communications allowances. Computer purchases were not allowed from this allowance, so he misdiscribed what the claim was for. In short, fraud had occured, over top of the MLA's signature. Years later, the police came knocking. As they paraded through the courts on this, they told the same story. As it turns out, the transparently dumb ones got acquitted (no mens rea) while the smarter ones tended to get convicted (judges didn't believe they were that stupid). There were others - Bob Andrews, for example, inappropriately claimed a few thousand dollars to give his constituency assistant some severance when he resigned. Muirhead claimed a saddle under his communications allowance. It was a specialized rig with a banner holder for use in parades. He described it as "parade equipment" - which it was. However, the purchase of saddles was explicitly prohibited in the communications allowance rules. There's probably a weird story about that, but I've never been able to find out what it is. Anyways, there was definitely some bad apples in the Devine team, but nowhere near the number that the charges and convictions would seem to indicate.
A thoughtful article Mark. I have a comment and a question. The authors of the other book were KEN Rasmusson and JIM Pitsula (you had the names reversed). My question is, when you interviewed him in Caronport, did Devine know who exactly who you were?
Thanks for the catch, Linda. I've made the correction. In answer to your question, yes, Devine knew who I was. Exactly is a strong word, but he knew enough to visually identify me and in our conversation he made a few remarks that clearly indicated that he knew the general contours my political involvement. He just did not care - he took me at my word that my intent was a serious, straight-up look at the upgraders and not a partisan hatchet job. Ever the optimist - although in this case, it was justified. The bottom line conclusion of my thesis on the upgraders "Grant got them built, Roy figured out how to pay for them."
Premier Devine sent me an e-mail responding to this column. He thought I was "a little tough" on his administration but his comments were thoughtful and gracious.
Grant Devine pointed out that I neglected the accomplishments of his administration, saying "To be fair you could have mentioned all the successful privatizations,rural gas, water projects, pulp mills, a nitrogen fertilizer plant, historic treaty negotiations, interest rate protection for farmers and home owners, NAFTA success and the free enterprise attitude that pervades the province today."
I completely share his view that I should have mentioned the rural gas program when discussing the similarities between is government and that of Tommy Douglas - I've amended the article to take this into account. Some of the other items he raised as successes (such as privatizations) are , I think, worthy topics of debate - although I must concede one completely - "water projects" - specifically the Rafferty Dam. We in the NDP were absolutely convinced there was not enough water to fill the reservoir. I say, unequivically, that on this, Devine was right, we were wrong.
Interesting and I think pretty fair. I'd add a couple of caveats, however. First, even though he entered politics at the high water mark of free market Reaganomics, I am not so quick to acquit him of foolishly believing the policy nostrums he peddled would save rural Sask . Second, there were some serious crooks in his administration, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't at least willfully blind -- if not like the police captain in Casablanca who claimed he was "shocked" to discover there was gambling in Rick's place. Finally, forgive me an even more obscure comparison -- with President US Grant. As a sometime student of the Civil War, I've always been rather fond of this Grant, a great general , but awful (though well meaning) president. He presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in US history, but was so honest that he would have died a pauper if Mark Twain hadn't helped him sell his memoirs.
I should have added to my post: Your article seems to answer a question I've heard put, Mark. Moe is definitely a much worse Premier than Devine was .... And I suspect time will not save Moe :) (Michael Finley)
The Grant comparison is interesting. Devine was widely quoted as saying "don't say whoa in a mudhole" - Grant stated that he never retraced his steps when lost or encountering an obstacle while travelling. He always found a way to keep going forward. As for the Devine/Moe comparison, I observe that Devine tried to do big things. Rightly or wrongly, he had a vision that he went for. Rightly or wrongly, he was inspirational and asperational. Moe, on the other hand, is the ultimate "caretaker" Premier - uniquely so amongst all of Saskatchewan's post WWII Premiers. I think his best comparator amongst previous Saskatchewan premiers was William Patterson (I had to look up his name on Wikipedia to remember it). There's kind of no there there, to steal a phrase. Having a good caretaker can be beneficial sometimes, but nothing really gets built. Having a bad caretaker slowly turns a place shabby and run-down.
Darryl Cooper - the SaskParty candidate that got bounced by his party for social media posts last election - coached one of my sons in baseball, so I got to know him reasonably well. He argues that the definition of a "good" premier is being the right person at the right time. With this, Darryl says the best premiers in Saskatchewan's history were Douglas, Romanow and Wall. He theorizes that if Devine had served during Blakeney's time and vice versa, both would have been really "good". By this, he argues that Blakeney governed through boomie times, but was too cautious to really take advantage of it. Devine would have built big. On the other hand, during the down times of the 1980s, Blakeney would have been a prudent manager who would have never allowed the province to get into the financial mess that it did. I've thought about this a lot, and go back and forth as to whether I agree with it, but it is an interesting thought.
So interesting...sometimes another truth emerges through the long lens of time. I never remember anyone saying Devine was stupid or evil...just misguided. Do you think that he knew his ministers and MLA's were stealing and/or committing fraud?
No, I don't think he did. The thing to remember is that there were 3 or 4 who were doing some serious looting. For the rest, the charges were pretty chickenshit. What happened is that they were all urged to buy computers for their constituency office - a deal with a single supplier had been negotiated. They all went in and bought one and submitted claims under their office allowance. All good and legal. About a dozen did not have enough funds left in their office allowance, so Legislative Accounts bounced the claim for reimbursement. They went into caucus office to demand an explanation from the guy who had set up the scheme (who was engaged in crooked activities). He dismissed it as a bureacratic glitch, got them to sign a new reimbursement form (blank), and paid them out in cash. He then submitted the claims to get the money back under their communications allowances. Computer purchases were not allowed from this allowance, so he misdiscribed what the claim was for. In short, fraud had occured, over top of the MLA's signature. Years later, the police came knocking. As they paraded through the courts on this, they told the same story. As it turns out, the transparently dumb ones got acquitted (no mens rea) while the smarter ones tended to get convicted (judges didn't believe they were that stupid). There were others - Bob Andrews, for example, inappropriately claimed a few thousand dollars to give his constituency assistant some severance when he resigned. Muirhead claimed a saddle under his communications allowance. It was a specialized rig with a banner holder for use in parades. He described it as "parade equipment" - which it was. However, the purchase of saddles was explicitly prohibited in the communications allowance rules. There's probably a weird story about that, but I've never been able to find out what it is. Anyways, there was definitely some bad apples in the Devine team, but nowhere near the number that the charges and convictions would seem to indicate.