Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Press Gallery dinner's rubber chicken | Main | It doesn't even make sense »

Monday, October 24, 2005

The Undoubtable Doublemint Dingwall

Monte Solberg is backing down on David Dingwall. Because, as the LIberals have been busy pointing out - not just any idiot can make money at a Mint.

Posted by Kate McMillan on October 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345d25b253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Undoubtable Doublemint Dingwall:

Comments

The Hill Times, October 24: "Dingwall is entitled to one week per year: PCO guidelines"
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2005/october/24/dingwall/&c=1

Sounds right to me. It's what federal public servants get.

Excerpts:

'David Dingwall, who resigned a little less than three years early into a five-year posting as president of the Royal Canadian Mint last month because he said he was "somewhat compelled" to over a "firestorm" created by "flagrant falsehoods," is entitled to a severance pay of one week per year of service at the Mint, or an estimated $9,600, according to Privy Council Office guidelines.

The Privy Council Office guidelines for Terms and Conditions of Employment for Full-Time Governor in Council Appointees states that appointees are allowed one week's pay for each completed year of service up to 28 weeks, "payable on termination of employment, regardless of reason for departure."..

But if there is this clear PCO guideline, why did not the government/McCallum point to this from the start rather than blathering on about the common law and four different federal acts and sets of guideline, with the explanation changing day-by-day for the first few days? Even these ministers could not simply be that incompetent.

Something still stinks.

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-24 11:21:38 AM


M. Call Lynns wrote:

"Sounds right to me. It's what federal public servants get."

So the Dinger knows his PCO rules, fair enough, now can we turn the discussion to the idiocy of those rules that provide severance is payable "regardless of reason for departure"? What, there are no exceptions for situations like, oh, I don't know, submitting such exhorbitant and baseless expense claims as to be akin to thievery? Isn't Dinger, as an ex-cabinet guy, a member of the Privy Counsel whose "office" established the rules anyway?

General McClelland wrote:

...someone would have made the Mint a profitable Crown Corp before Dingwall did it"

As a well known and enthusiastic supporter of capitalism and free markets, RawBee, please share with us all the mechanics of the Double D's Mint turnaround. What innovative business model is D-Wall a disciple of and what other sorry government monopolies might benefit from it? When was Davey's "Eureka" moment when it dawned on him that mints could be made as profitable as if they had a license to print money? Or must we wait for his Harvard MBA guest lecture: "The Pack of Gum and its Usefulness to the Business Turnaround Specialist".

Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2005-10-24 1:59:22 PM


Great Walls of Fire: I wrote to soon. Regular federal public servants only get one-half week's salary per year of service and must work ten years before they can collect it on resignation (thanks to "tulip" at SDA for catching me on this).

For example, for the Clerical group:

"ARTICLE 63
SEVERANCE PAY

63.01 Under the following circumstances and subject to clause 63.02, an employee shall receive severance benefits calculated on the basis of the weekly rate of pay to which he or she is entitled for the classification prescribed in his or her certificate of appointment on the date of his or her termination of employment...

(b) Resignation

On resignation, subject to paragraph 63.01(d) and with ten (10) or more years of continuous employment, one-half (1/2) week's pay for each complete year of continuous employment up to a maximum of twenty-six (26) years with a maximum benefit of thirteen (13) weeks' pay."
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/table1-3_e.asp#_Toc97597079

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-24 2:14:43 PM


That's right, Robert - as the ultimate symbol of Liberal incompetency, The Canadian Mint was operating at a loss, despite enjoying both a monopoly and a license to print money.

Posted by: Kate | 2005-10-24 6:14:22 PM


Yup Robbie, half a million for another Liebral Shyster! The gravy never stops for this Gang of Thieves - now they hafta pay to shut each other up!!! What a hoot!

Posted by: Slim | 2005-10-24 7:42:04 PM


Actually Robbie, the Mint has long been a profitable enterprise for the gov't. In fact, it was only unprofitable for a year or two, for reasons both within and beyond its control.

The mint makes money three ways:

1. Seigniorage: it sells currency to the Bank of Canada for more than the cost of production. The Bank then resells the currency to the Chartered Banks for its face value and pockets a tidy sum. A loonie coin costs $0.12 to make but gets sold for a whole dollar. It is pert near impossible for the Master of the Mint to lose money doing this.

2. Bullion sales

3. Numismatic sales (fancy coins).

Bullion and coin collecting are linked by the price of gold (or silver/platinum) and its value as an investment hedge. Anyone who was in the Cdn markets in the latter part of the 90s can tell you what happened to the price of gold. It fell, fell and fell (below US$250/oz). Especially as central banks sold off their gold supplies, further depressing prices. As a result, the Mint wound up taking a real hit as it kept over-producing bullion and Maple Leaf coins which it then sold into a buyers' market. As with cars, this type of behaviour leads to losses.

The former management at the Mint (Danielle Wetherup - Pres) had a problem, PMPM and his boss wanted those Mint profits for their own nefarious, vote buying, sponsorship-funding ends and ordered Danielle to get back into the black. Her solution, value-add the gold side. Hence the mint went into the high-end jewellery business, a venture that was a money loser from the start, but not as bad as some make it out to be. It never amounted to more than a few million in sales per year.

2002. Out with Danielle, in with Dingwall. What did he do? Just what any fool taking over a money-losing operation would do. He shut down the money-losing jewellery operations, consolidated all its costs and declared a loss for that year. Just like PMPM as Finance Minister (or Greg Sorbara, if you prefer) he heaped every possible cost on poor Danielle's shoulders, no doubt including his golf memberships, and tied it to her tail as he kicked her out the door.

Voila, in 2003, after gold had risen back above US$400/oz, the Dinger was rolling in the money, quite literally. Investors wanted nothing but land and precious metals after the tech meltdown and the Mint was more than happy to oblige. In fact, it probably would have posted a profit for 2002, if DD and his weighted abacus hadn't entered the picture.

It's funny Robbie, but usually when real corporations go out looking for a president they tend to look for someone with experience in the industry, or at least in some industry. Looking at the Dinger's CV there seems to be something missing. Oh yes, business experience! Unless you count his unregistered lobbyist business, which really never amounted to anything more than having the number to Jean Chrétien’s cellphone.

Actually, it appears that any idiot can make a profit at the Mint. Dingwall showed how.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:06:11 PM


Actually Robbie, the Mint has long been a profitable enterprise for the gov't. In fact, it was only unprofitable for a year or two, for reasons both within and beyond its control.

The mint makes money three ways:

1. Seigniorage: it sells currency to the Bank of Canada for more than the cost of production. The Bank then resells the currency to the Chartered Banks for its face value and pockets a tidy sum. A loonie coin costs $0.12 to make but gets sold for a whole dollar. It is pert near impossible for the Master of the Mint to lose money doing this.

2. Bullion sales

3. Numismatic sales (fancy coins).

Bullion and coin collecting are linked by the price of gold (or silver/platinum) and its value as an investment hedge. Anyone who was in the Cdn markets in the latter part of the 90s can tell you what happened to the price of gold. It fell, fell and fell (below US$250/oz). Especially as central banks sold off their gold supplies, further depressing prices. As a result, the Mint wound up taking a real hit as it kept over-producing bullion and Maple Leaf coins which it then sold into a buyers' market. As with cars, this type of behaviour leads to losses.

The former management at the Mint (Danielle Wetherup - Pres) had a problem, PMPM and his boss wanted those Mint profits for their own nefarious, vote buying, sponsorship-funding ends and ordered Danielle to get back into the black. Her solution, value-add the gold side. Hence the mint went into the high-end jewellery business, a venture that was a money loser from the start, but not as bad as some make it out to be. It never amounted to more than a few million in sales per year.

2002. Out with Danielle, in with Dingwall. What did he do? Just what any fool taking over a money-losing operation would do. He shut down the money-losing jewellery operations, consolidated all its costs and declared a loss for that year. Just like PMPM as Finance Minister (or Greg Sorbara, if you prefer) he heaped every possible cost on poor Danielle's shoulders, no doubt including his golf memberships, and tied it to her tail as he kicked her out the door.

Voila, in 2003, after gold had risen back above US$400/oz, the Dinger was rolling in the money, quite literally. Investors wanted nothing but land and precious metals after the tech meltdown and the Mint was more than happy to oblige. In fact, it probably would have posted a profit for 2002, if DD and his weighted abacus hadn't entered the picture.

It's funny Robbie, but usually when real corporations go out looking for a president they tend to look for someone with experience in the industry, or at least in some industry. Looking at the Dinger's CV there seems to be something missing. Oh yes, business experience! Unless you count his unregistered lobbyist business, which really never amounted to anything more than having the number to Jean Chrétien’s cellphone.

Actually, it appears that any idiot can make a profit at the Mint. Dingwall showed how.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:07:51 PM


Actually Robbie, the Mint has long been a profitable enterprise for the gov't. In fact, it was only unprofitable for a year or two, for reasons both within and beyond its control.

The mint makes money three ways:

1. Seigniorage: it sells currency to the Bank of Canada for more than the cost of production. The Bank then resells the currency to the Chartered Banks for its face value and pockets a tidy sum. A loonie coin costs $0.12 to make but gets sold for a whole dollar. It is pert near impossible for the Master of the Mint to lose money doing this.

2. Bullion sales

3. Numismatic sales (fancy coins).

Bullion and coin collecting are linked by the price of gold (or silver/platinum) and its value as an investment hedge. Anyone who was in the Cdn markets in the latter part of the 90s can tell you what happened to the price of gold. It fell, fell and fell (below US$250/oz). Especially as central banks sold off their gold supplies, further depressing prices. As a result, the Mint wound up taking a real hit as it kept over-producing bullion and Maple Leaf coins which it then sold into a buyers' market. As with cars, this type of behaviour leads to losses.

The former management at the Mint (Danielle Wetherup - Pres) had a problem, PMPM and his boss wanted those Mint profits for their own nefarious, vote buying, sponsorship-funding ends and ordered Danielle to get back into the black. Her solution, value-add the gold side. Hence the mint went into the high-end jewellery business, a venture that was a money loser from the start, but not as bad as some make it out to be. It never amounted to more than a few million in sales per year.

2002. Out with Danielle, in with Dingwall. What did he do? Just what any fool taking over a money-losing operation would do. He shut down the money-losing jewellery operations, consolidated all its costs and declared a loss for that year. Just like PMPM as Finance Minister (or Greg Sorbara, if you prefer) he heaped every possible cost on poor Danielle's shoulders, no doubt including his golf memberships, and tied it to her tail as he kicked her out the door.

Voila, in 2003, after gold had risen back above US$400/oz, the Dinger was rolling in the money, quite literally. Investors wanted nothing but land and precious metals after the tech meltdown and the Mint was more than happy to oblige. In fact, it probably would have posted a profit for 2002, if DD and his weighted abacus hadn't entered the picture.

It's funny Robbie, but usually when real corporations go out looking for a president they tend to look for someone with experience in the industry, or at least in some industry. Looking at the Dinger's CV there seems to be something missing. Oh yes, business experience! Unless you count his unregistered lobbyist business, which really never amounted to anything more than having the number to Jean Chrétien’s cellphone.

Actually, it appears that any idiot can make a profit at the Mint. Dingwall showed how.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:09:51 PM


Actually Robbie, the Mint has long been a profitable enterprise for the gov't. In fact, it was only unprofitable for a year or two, for reasons both within and beyond its control.

The mint makes money three ways:

1. Seigniorage: it sells currency to the Bank of Canada for more than the cost of production. The Bank then resells the currency to the Chartered Banks for its face value and pockets a tidy sum. A loonie coin costs $0.12 to make but gets sold for a whole dollar. It is pert near impossible for the Master of the Mint to lose money doing this.

2. Bullion sales

3. Numismatic sales (fancy coins).

Bullion and coin collecting are linked by the price of gold (or silver/platinum) and its value as an investment hedge. Anyone who was in the Cdn markets in the latter part of the 90s can tell you what happened to the price of gold. It fell, fell and fell (below US$250/oz). Especially as central banks sold off their gold supplies, further depressing prices. As a result, the Mint wound up taking a real hit as it kept over-producing bullion and Maple Leaf coins which it then sold into a buyers' market. As with cars, this type of behaviour leads to losses.

The former management at the Mint (Danielle Wetherup - Pres) had a problem, PMPM and his boss wanted those Mint profits for their own nefarious, vote buying, sponsorship-funding ends and ordered Danielle to get back into the black. Her solution, value-add the gold side. Hence the mint went into the high-end jewellery business, a venture that was a money loser from the start, but not as bad as some make it out to be. It never amounted to more than a few million in sales per year.

2002. Out with Danielle, in with Dingwall. What did he do? Just what any fool taking over a money-losing operation would do. He shut down the money-losing jewellery operations, consolidated all its costs and declared a loss for that year. Just like PMPM as Finance Minister (or Greg Sorbara, if you prefer) he heaped every possible cost on poor Danielle's shoulders, no doubt including his golf memberships, and tied it to her tail as he kicked her out the door.

Voila, in 2003, after gold had risen back above US$400/oz, the Dinger was rolling in the money, quite literally. Investors wanted nothing but land and precious metals after the tech meltdown and the Mint was more than happy to oblige. In fact, it probably would have posted a profit for 2002, if DD and his weighted abacus hadn't entered the picture.

It's funny Robbie, but usually when real corporations go out looking for a president they tend to look for someone with experience in the industry, or at least in some industry. Looking at the Dinger's CV there seems to be something missing. Oh yes, business experience! Unless you count his unregistered lobbyist business, which really never amounted to anything more than having the number to Jean Chrétien’s cellphone.

Actually, it appears that any idiot can make a profit at the Mint. Dingwall showed how.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:10:27 PM


Actually Robbie, the Mint has long been a profitable enterprise for the gov't. In fact, it was only unprofitable for a year or two, for reasons both within and beyond its control.

The mint makes money three ways:

1. Seigniorage: it sells currency to the Bank of Canada for more than the cost of production. The Bank then resells the currency to the Chartered Banks for its face value and pockets a tidy sum. A loonie coin costs $0.12 to make but gets sold for a whole dollar. It is pert near impossible for the Master of the Mint to lose money doing this.

2. Bullion sales

3. Numismatic sales (fancy coins).

Bullion and coin collecting are linked by the price of gold (or silver/platinum) and its value as an investment hedge. Anyone who was in the Cdn markets in the latter part of the 90s can tell you what happened to the price of gold. It fell, fell and fell (below US$250/oz). Especially as central banks sold off their gold supplies, further depressing prices. As a result, the Mint wound up taking a real hit as it kept over-producing bullion and Maple Leaf coins which it then sold into a buyers' market. As with cars, this type of behaviour leads to losses.

The former management at the Mint (Danielle Wetherup - Pres) had a problem, PMPM and his boss wanted those Mint profits for their own nefarious, vote buying, sponsorship-funding ends and ordered Danielle to get back into the black. Her solution, value-add the gold side. Hence the mint went into the high-end jewellery business, a venture that was a money loser from the start, but not as bad as some make it out to be. It never amounted to more than a few million in sales per year.

2002. Out with Danielle, in with Dingwall. What did he do? Just what any fool taking over a money-losing operation would do. He shut down the money-losing jewellery operations, consolidated all its costs and declared a loss for that year. Just like PMPM as Finance Minister (or Greg Sorbara, if you prefer) he heaped every possible cost on poor Danielle's shoulders, no doubt including his golf memberships, and tied it to her tail as he kicked her out the door.

Voila, in 2003, after gold had risen back above US$400/oz, the Dinger was rolling in the money, quite literally. Investors wanted nothing but land and precious metals after the tech meltdown and the Mint was more than happy to oblige. In fact, it probably would have posted a profit for 2002, if DD and his weighted abacus hadn't entered the picture.

It's funny Robbie, but usually when real corporations go out looking for a president they tend to look for someone with experience in the industry, or at least in some industry. Looking at the Dinger's CV there seems to be something missing. Oh yes, business experience! Unless you count his unregistered lobbyist business, which really never amounted to anything more than having the number to Jean Chrétien’s cellphone.

Actually, it appears that any idiot can make a profit at the Mint. Dingwall showed how.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:12:27 PM


Actually Robbie, the Mint has long been a profitable enterprise for the gov't. In fact, it was only unprofitable for a year or two, for reasons both within and beyond its control.

The mint makes money three ways:

1. Seigniorage: it sells currency to the Bank of Canada for more than the cost of production. The Bank then resells the currency to the Chartered Banks for its face value and pockets a tidy sum. A loonie coin costs $0.12 to make but gets sold for a whole dollar. It is pert near impossible for the Master of the Mint to lose money doing this.

2. Bullion sales

3. Numismatic sales (fancy coins).

Bullion and coin collecting are linked by the price of gold (or silver/platinum) and its value as an investment hedge. Anyone who was in the Cdn markets in the latter part of the 90s can tell you what happened to the price of gold. It fell, fell and fell (below US$250/oz). Especially as central banks sold off their gold supplies, further depressing prices. As a result, the Mint wound up taking a real hit as it kept over-producing bullion and Maple Leaf coins which it then sold into a buyers' market. As with cars, this type of behaviour leads to losses.

The former management at the Mint (Danielle Wetherup - Pres) had a problem, PMPM and his boss wanted those Mint profits for their own nefarious, vote buying, sponsorship-funding ends and ordered Danielle to get back into the black. Her solution, value-add the gold side. Hence the mint went into the high-end jewellery business, a venture that was a money loser from the start, but not as bad as some make it out to be. It never amounted to more than a few million in sales per year.

2002. Out with Danielle, in with Dingwall. What did he do? Just what any fool taking over a money-losing operation would do. He shut down the money-losing jewellery operations, consolidated all its costs and declared a loss for that year. Just like PMPM as Finance Minister (or Greg Sorbara, if you prefer) he heaped every possible cost on poor Danielle's shoulders, no doubt including his golf memberships, and tied it to her tail as he kicked her out the door.

Voila, in 2003, after gold had risen back above US$400/oz, the Dinger was rolling in the money, quite literally. Investors wanted nothing but land and precious metals after the tech meltdown and the Mint was more than happy to oblige. In fact, it probably would have posted a profit for 2002, if DD and his weighted abacus hadn't entered the picture.

It's funny Robbie, but usually when real corporations go out looking for a president they tend to look for someone with experience in the industry, or at least in some industry. Looking at the Dinger's CV there seems to be something missing. Oh yes, business experience! Unless you count his unregistered lobbyist business, which really never amounted to anything more than having the number to Jean Chrétien’s cellphone.

Actually, it appears that any idiot can make a profit at the Mint. Dingwall showed how.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:12:27 PM


OK...I'm not taking resposibility for this. I'm not that full of myself. The WS server was pooched.

Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-24 9:19:10 PM


Hmmm

Seems Monte backed off because he didn’t want to get his ass sued off.

"My cost centre was falsely portrayed as personal expenses. There was no leased car. There was no payment for gum. There was no $5,800 dinner for myself and one staff person. There was no golf membership valued at $15,000 . . . People ran with that without ever bothering to check, without ever bothering to ask for clarification."
-D.D. -

Now an Honourable and ethical M.P. would offer an immediate apology- I haven’t heard anything from Pallister yet, anyone ?

Is the CPC trying to shoot itself in the foot ? Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf ? This is really going to blunt the “Grits = Grafters” strategy ‘cause now anytime someone makes an allegation you’ll hear this ..

“ONCE AGAIN, Mr. Speaker, the CPC hasn’t bothered to check, hasn’t bothered to ask for clarification”

And a week before Gomery .

Posted by: nBob | 2005-10-26 4:50:13 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.