On being all wet after a flood

Give a listen first of all to this exercise [ram audio file] in how many times you can say "y'know" in the answer to the first question during an interview.*

Then take a look at four sentences that put the whole thing in perspective.

Ya know?

-srbp-

* The answer is:

11 in about 42 seconds, with seven of them (64%) occurring within the first 12 seconds. There's a bonus "quite frankly" in there as well as a "right".

For the record, here's the transcript of the opening section:

Well, y’know, I, y’know, any time, y’know, a leader and the leader of the country, y’know, comes in to have a look at things first hand, I, y’know, I’m pleased he’s done that, but, y’know, he’s done it two days after the fact, he never even gave us the courtesy, y’know, and not only me personally, but this is about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the courtesy of a phone call over the last 72 hours while all this was happening, to say don’t worry, we’ll be there, and we’ll work with the provincial and the municipal governments to get this done, so, y’know, he comes in on his own, and does it on his own, because, y’know, I and my ministers certainly would have met him at the site, and pointed out to him what we saw when the rivers were raging, quite frankly, right, everything’s pretty well settled down now, and some of the road damage has already been repaired in order to allow, y’know, the transportation links to be back, but anyway, y’know, he does things in his own way, and so be it.

So haunted by ghosts #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Hear what comfortable words our Premier sayeth:

For generations gone by, the undeveloped hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill were, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, like a treasure just out of reach, tantalizingly close but never close enough to enjoy. The gatekeepers of the natural transmission route through Quebec were denying us fair opportunity to get the power to market, and having been burnt once on the Upper Churchill, we were determined not to let that happen again.

Churchill Falls remains as powerful a totem for some politicians in this province as it ever was.  The crowd currently running this place use it more frequently as their beloved Muskrat Falls project encounters more and more problems.

Their only problem is that they know only the illusion of the thing, not the reality.

Take that bit from Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s marathon oration a couple of days ago as a case in point.

At the time of the 1969 contract to sell power from Churchill Falls to Hydro-Quebec, the Lower Churchill was supposed to be a source of energy for the province itself. You can find the very idea in a piece from the People’s Paper from back in the day, as the hideous saying goes.  Only later on did politicians think about trying to sell the bulk of the power outside and use any  money from those sales to pay for a line to bring electricity onto the island, if need be.

The idea of Quebec as an obstacle is an old one, as well.  The truth is that since the early 1990s they haven’t been a problem.  No one developed the Lower Churchill because they could never make the economics of it work out.  The fools never thought of making the people of the province foot the bill for the whole thing  so they could ship the discount juice outside.

In any event, Kathy Dunderdale herself should know that Quebec isn’t an obstacle any more. In April 2009, her predecessor announced a deal to sell electricity from Churchill Falls to the United States through Quebec.  Surely the Premier remembers these words attributed to her in the official news release three years ago:

“This is a significant development for us to share our excess green renewable energy with the rest of North America through our transmission access through Quebec and our subsequent arrangement directly with Emera Energy,” said the Honourable Kathy Dunderdale, Minister of Natural Resources. “These markets are seeking clean, reliable energy, which we have in abundance. The recall block availability and this arrangement allows us to build our reputation and experience as a reliable supplier of clean energy now and into the future.”

There it is in black and white:  “through our transmission access through Quebec”.

Not around Quebec.

Not under Quebec.

Not over Quebec.

Through Quebec.

Through the "natural transmission route", in the words of the craftsman who put them in Kathy’s mouth.

Nalcor has been losing money on the deal, though.  Electricity prices have dropped through a combination of lower demand in the United States and abundant cheap energy from natural gas.  The reason Nalcor isn’t developing the Lower Churchill for export is that no one wants the power at the prices Nalcor would have to charge for it.  As it is, Nalcor had to promise Nova Scotia a block of power for 35 years for free to get them on board the Muskrat Falls Express.

But through it all, dear friends, based on all that stuff which turns out wasn’t exactly fully, totally and completely in correlation with what we colloquially know as true, “we were determined not to let that happen again.”

And so determined was Kathy Dunderdale “not to let that happen again” that she and her boss tried for five years to lure Hydro-Quebec into taking an equity position – an ownership stake, if you will – on the prized Lower Churchill with the electricity going into Quebec and through Quebec.

We know this because Kathy herself told us all, even if no news media in the province have ever reported it lo these two and a half years later.

Hear what comfortable words Kathy sayeth back then:

Y’know, the Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had NALCO(R) visit y’know Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with Ministers and so on. And we say to them, okay, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece. Y’know, we know that we have to have a win-win situation here. Because we, as I’ve said earlier this week, we know that if you don’t have win-win you have win and poison pill. Because that’s what we’ve got with the Upper Churchill. So we can have a win-win situation. We know that if you come in here as an equity player that you have to have a good return on your investment. And we want you to have a good return on your investment. But it also has to be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we have been with that message back and forth [i.e. to Hydro-Quebec] for five years. No, sir. No, sir. There is no takeup on that proposal.

In fact, so determined was Kathy that she not let that 1969 contract happen again, so firm was she in her resolve on the matter that she and Danny Williams told the folks at Hydro-Quebec to forget all about it:

we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece

For good measure, Kathy wanted to make sure that Hydro-Quebec actually got a “good return” on their investment in the Lower Churchill.  How good?  Maybe as good as Nova Scotia will get – free power – but alas we will never know. 

Hydro-Quebec, as it turned out, just wasn’t interested.

There are some people, as it seems, who are haunted by the infamous Upper Churchill contract.  They see its ghost at every turn, beckoning them onward. 

And so they follow, mesmerised by the rushing of water and the humming of generators,  deeper and ever deeper into its lair until they can no longer tell what is real and what is illusion.  They talk as though one was the other and that both were the same.

It is then  - and only then – that you know the Ghost in the Turbines has claimed another victim.

- srbp -

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and the Lower Churchill

For the record – via labradore – with full audio of natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale's September 4 comments to randy Simms of VOCM Open Line to follow:

Y’know, the Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had NALCO(R) visit y’know Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with Ministers and so on. And we say to them, okay, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece.

Y’know, we know that we have to have a win-win situation here.

Because we, as I’ve said earlier this week, we know that if you don’t have win-win you have win and poison pill. Because that’s what we’ve got with the Upper Churchill. So we can have a win-win situation.

We know that if you come in here as an equity player that you have to have a good return on your investment. And we want you to have a good return on your investment.

But it also has to be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now we have been with that message back and forth [i.e. to Hydro-Quebec] for five years. No, sir. No, sir. There is no takeup on that proposal.

That’s right folks. 

Danny Williams tried unsuccessfully and in secret for five years to sell a chunk of the Lower Churchill to Hydro Quebec with no redress on the Churchill Falls contract. Oddly enough that put Williams efforts at selling the Lower Churchill – without compensation for Churchill falls right back to around the time he said no deal was possible without compensation.

As CTV reported in April 2005:

Williams reiterated Monday that any deal with Quebec will have to include some kind of redress to the province for the unfair split of profits from the Upper Churchill.

But he offered no specifics on what redress could entail.

Update: In December 2002, Williams told a crowd gathered to protest a deal on the Lower Churchill that

“Our position here tonight … is that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there’s redress on the Upper Churchill.”

That was reported in the Telegram on December 4, 2002 in a story titled “Tories rally – election style”.

-srbp-

Dunderdale: Hydro-Quebec equity in Lower Churchill and no ‘69 redress part of ‘win-win’ for HQ #nlpoli

For five years, the provincial Conservatives secretly tried to interest Quebec in part ownership of the Lower Churchill, according to Premier Kathy Dunderdale.

Dunderdale: September 2009

In September 2009, she told Open Line host Randy Simms (audio at right) about the secret efforts made by then-Premier Danny Williams, Dunderdale and Nalcor boss Ed Martin to sell Hydro-Quebec an equity share.

Dunderdale said that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was prepared to leave aside any question of redress on the Lower Churchill.  The Conservatives previously committed that a deal on the Lower Churchill with Quebec would have to include redress for the disastrous 1969 contract between Brinco and Hydro-Quebec.

Contrasts 2: Quitters

When it was someone else in the Premier’s Office:

[Williams] also said the agreement in principle [on the Lower Churchill] fails to address the Upper Churchill deal.

"The Upper Churchill power project must be the most lopsided agreement ever signed in the history of Canada," Williams said.

While prominent Newfoundlanders have urged that any Lower Churchill deal address the Upper Churchill, Williams said Grimes views them as separate entities.

"I don't accept Premier Roger Grimes's position," Williams said.

"It's something you would expect to hear from quitters and we are not quitters."

And once the Old Man got the job:

The Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had Nalcor visit, y’know, Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with ministers and so on, and we say to them, OK, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side. But, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece.

- srbp -

Bubbles and the Politics of Neener-Neener-Neener #nlpoli

Kathy Dunderdale called Bill Rowe on Wednesday [via daveadey] to have one of her periodic core dumps on what is going on in the universe.

When the talk turns to Muskrat Falls, there’s this truly bizarre moment. She told Rowe about having a chat at some provincial premiers’ gathering with Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest about how they might work together to bring Gull Island power to Ontario, through Quebec. 

According to Dunderdale, Charest lamented the cost of the 1969 power contract on the relationship between Quebec and its neighbour Newfoundland and Labrador.  Charest warned their fellow premiers against the sort of bickering that had gone on for decades.  Given that Charest died a horrible political death shortly after, the story has eerie echoes of Yul Brynner after he’d died of lung cancer coming back to life in a film clip to warn people against the evils of smoking.

As freaky as that story is,  that’s not the weird thing.

“We want to be independent and self-sufficient”

Some views on Canada, Confederation, Newfoundland and Labrador and what it is all about, from the words of one man and his administration, sometimes within the very same interview.

1.   This land is my land!  Sort of.  Globe and Mail, February 7, 2009:

“…Separation is not something that is on my agenda under any circumstances.

This is a great country and I want to be part of it, but the country disappoints me when we don't rally to protect each other.” [Emphasis added]

Yet, what recently happened in the federal budget was not confined to the actions of one man or even one political party in a federal system:

“It should have been a legitimate celebration of coming out of the 'have not' status and being a net contributor to Canada. We're looking at that to be a very positive thing — and then Canada just struck us over the head.” [Emphasis added]

2.  Halifax, June 2001:  on the Great Plot that is Confederation…

“The more that I see, the more nauseous and angry that I get. The way that our people and our region have been treated by one arrogant federal Liberal government after another is disgusting. The legacy that the late Prime Minister Trudeau and Jean Chrétien will leave in Atlantic Canada is one of dependence on Mother Ottawa, which has been orchestrated for political motives for the sole purpose of maintaining power. No wonder the West is alienated and Québec has threatened separation. Canadians - and Atlantic Canadians, in particular - realize the importance of dignity and self-respect while Ottawa prefers that we negotiate from a position of weakness on our hands and knees….”

3.  On the goal, from the same speech:

We don't want handouts. We want our pride back. We want to be independent and self-sufficient.

4.  Eternal vigilance against the Foe:

We’re resilient, we’re survivors, ah, y’know, we basically prepared for this day. When, y’know, over the course of the last few years, you’ll notice from our Throne Speeches, we’ve talked about being self-reliant, we’ve talked about being masters of our own destiny. And we have been building up a war chest for when the feds come at us again, quite frankly.

5.  Throne Speech 2008:

As a result of our collective efforts to wrestle down the deficit, to ratchet up growth and to reach an agreement that fulfilled the promise of the Atlantic Accord, we are – for the first time in our history – poised to come off equalization very soon. This is a stunning achievement that will reinforce the bold new attitude of self-confidence that has taken hold among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. [Emphasis in original]

The revenues that pushed the provincial treasury to “have” status came entirely from agreements signed before October 2003.

6.  On the current economic problems facing the province, Globe and Mail, February 2009:

Williams says the per capita loss is roughly six times that of Quebec or Nova Scotia. He also said his financial experts are predicting provincial revenues from dropping oil prices will be down some $1.5-billion.

"That's a double whammy," says Williams, that will "cripple" his province and force it back into deficit spending.

"We've done all the right things fiscally," he says, "and then in one fell swoop 'bang' we're pretty well back where we started."

The warnings against overspending  - that one from 2005 - from early on in the Williams administration went unheeded. The Premier had a decidedly different view of the province’s economic fortunes only a few months ago.  He wouldn’t talk hard numbers even though the ones the provincial government is currently using were pretty obvious to regular readers of these e-scribbles. All that’s happened in the past couple of months is a refining of the numbers, not a surprise shift to big ones.  $1.3 billion in November.  $1.5 billion now.  Works out to the same thing.

7.  The oldest living father of Confederation, reincarnated, Globe and Mail, February 2009:

Independence talk, he says, is once again being heard: "But that's not where I'm coming from. Separation is not something that is on my agenda under any circumstances.

"This is a great country and I want to be part of it, but the country disappoints me when we don't rally to protect each other.

Ditto, circa2007:

Premier Danny Williams says he's trying to quell separatist feelings within Newfoundland and Labrador, despite a throne speech that suggested the province should push for more autonomy from Ottawa.

"The fans of sovereignty are here. If anything, I've been trying to dampen those fires as much as I can," Williams said yesterday.

8. Autonomy!  Throne Speech 2007:

…our people have now also learned that we will achieve self-reliance economically only by taking charge of our future as a people. To that end, My Government will harness the desire among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to cultivate greater cultural, financial and moral autonomy vis-à-vis Ottawa. [Emphasis added]

9.  What autonomy means, in greater detail,  Hansard, 24 April 2007:

Political self-reliance simply means that we cannot rely upon those elected to offices outside of this Province to deliver what is in our own best interest. We must achieve that on our own. Self-reliance will not come by depending on others to achieve it for us. That is a lesson we have learned year after year, generation after generation. So we will harness the desire among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to cultivate greater political, financial and moral autonomy vis-a-vis Ottawa. As a distinct people and as equal partners, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal together, we will write a new future for Newfoundland and Labrador; a future of our own design, where mutual understanding, justice, equality, fairness and co-operation are the order of the day. [Emphasis added]

10.  Foreshadowing.  If recent events are any indication federal politicians and those at the time who were wannabes clearly ignored that point, as Bond Papers warned at the time:

It should surely give pause to all those incumbents federal members of parliament from this province and those likely candidates for it means clearly that Danny Williams does not and will not trust you. These words mean, unequivocally, that elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not to be trusted merely because they represent the people of the province somewhere other than in the House of Assembly controlled utterly by the current provincial administration.

Scott?  Walter?  Paul?  Peter?  Siobhan?  Fabian?  Gerry?  Loyola?

One wonders if they get the point.

11. And you want to be my latex salesman? Budget speech 2008:

We are standing tall as powerful contributors to the federation – as masters of our own domain, stronger and more secure than we have ever been before. [Emphasis added]

-srbp-

Dog-whistle

In politics, dog-whistling is the use of words that are likely to be interpreted by certain segments of the population in ways that others wouldn’t get.

Penetrating insight into the obvious warning: It comes from the idea of the whistle that is pitched high enough such that only one species of mammal can hear it and react.

In his scrum yesterday, the Premier said something which might be a dog whistle, what with all the anti-Confederate comments being tossed around since last week:

We’re resilient, we’re survivors, ah, y’know, we basically prepared for this day. When, y’know, over the course of the last few years, you’ll notice from our Throne Speeches, we’ve talked about being self-reliant, we’ve talked about being Masters of Our Own Destiny. And we have been building up a war chest for when the feds come at us again, quite frankly. [Emphasis added]

War chest for when the feds come at us again.

Curious.

It wouldn’t be the first time that some incongruous phrases have turned up in Newfoundland and Labrador politics over the past five years or so.

-srbp-

The Dangers of Being a Mythbuster – 50 is the new 70 #nlpoli

Look around and anyone can find a huge amount of information about Muskrat Falls and electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For all that, though, there is a great deal of misinformation out there.  That only adds to confusion some people are experiencing.  As disappointing as it is, misinformation remains a fact of life in the Muskrat falls discussion.

As a couple of recent posts have shown, some of the misinformation turned up in a single online commentary recently posted. Something good can come out of everything, as it seems and so this third post corrects the misinformation and replaces it other issues and more substantive information.

Roger Grimes: savage political attack dog #nlpoli

Maybe it was the headline on John Ivison’s opinion piece in the National Post that threw them off.

Spat over $400M N.L. fund could make federal government look bad to European trade partners

Provincial Conservatives, their patronage clients, and their paid staffers were all over Twitter all weekend tweeting touting the support in Ivison’s piece for their fight with the federal Conservatives over a federal cheque for $280 million.

Pay up feds, says Ivison, and end this dispute because it looks bad.

The problem for the Conservatives is that if you read the whole Ivison column, this is not a great endorse of the provincial Conservatives’ desperate political ploy.  It offers sensible advice in that both sides need to get this dispute settled now,  but Ivison gets there based on all sorts of half-baked ideas.  That much of it shows the extent to which observers both at home and outside the province don’t really understand what’s going on here. 

And if you follow the piece through to the end, you see just exactly how bad a position Paul Davis and his crowd really are.

The cost of blunder and folly

For the first time in history, the provincial government has overturned a fundamental decision of the province's offshore regulatory board.

That's because for the first time in history, the provincial government failed to discuss important issues with oil companies before a project went to the board for decision.

Since the 1980s, every single provincial government - Progressive Conservative and Liberal alike - has negotiated with the oil companies on royalties and benefits. If there were questions or concerns they were raised at the outset and resolved.

Except, that is, in the recent case of Hibernia South.

And Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should wonder why.

In truth, there's no logical reason for it.

The provincial government was aware at least a year ago that the Hibernia partners were planning to develop the 300 million barrels in the southern extension of the massive Hibernia field. In her letter to the offshore board rejecting their decision, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale acknowledged that government knew a project was under consideration. She saw the expressions of interest calls for work related to the project. Officials in her department knew what everyone else in the oil industry locally knew.

Yet at no point until December 2006 - fully six months after public consultations closed on the development application - did Dunderdale go looking for information.

The result is that the Hibernia South project is shelved with no indication when it might come back for re-consideration. Provincial officials will meet with Hibernia representatives before the end of January. Maybe the provincial government can resolve its concerns.

Most likely it won't. Premier Danny Williams long ago declared his interest in seeing Hibernia South treated as a new project, separate from Hibernia. He wanted a new royalty and benefits deal, a new production platform and whatever else could be squeezed out of it.

Williams' negotiating track record is abysmal, at least when it comes to closing a deal. He's been all fight and no win, as one wag put it. Part of the problem is that he seems unwilling or unable to define his objectives. It's hard to know when you reach a goal if you don't know what the goal is. In interviews over the past two days both Williams and his natural resources minister haven't been able to give any indication of what their objectives are beyond vague platitudes.

Both Williams and Dunderdale did dangle the carrot of more work and jobs in front of the president of the offshore industry association and in front of the general public. Some fell for it, out of pollyannaish optimism as much as anything else.

But many fell for the simple palaver - experienced reporters included - because of what the y don't know and Premier is loathe to discuss: the potential cost of his gamble on a new production platform, even if the companies were willing to go along with his plans.

The cost would be - inevitably - reduced royalties for the provincial treasury. As with every project offshore, the companies would expect and would likely receive agreement that the province's royalties would be about 5% until the costs of development were recovered. In a project like Terra Nova, low costs and high oil prices allowed that project to pay off early. As a result, the provincial government receives 30% of the price of every barrel pumped.

On Hibernia, that same target is within sight. By 2011 - if current projections hold - the province will get those higher royalties. Those higher royalties will apply to at least half of the recoverable reserves, including Hibernia South, which the Premier rightly noted is now estimated to hold about 1.9 million barrels of proven, probable and possible reserves. Hibernia - with more oil than the other producing fields combined - could pump more cash into the province treasury after 2011 than anyone ever imagined.

Treat Hibernia South as some sort of new project - even by negotiating a new set of royalties and benefits in the context of the original development agreement - and that higher royalty target will likely slide back significantly. Someone will have to pay for the extras demanded solely by a politician's whims and that someone will be taxpayers.

Beyond that, though, the little game of chicken the Premier is playing sends a very bad message to the oil industry globally and to businesses generally. What they see is a place where the costs of doing business are completely undefined. In a world where there is far more oil to discover and develop than there is capital to develop it, competition is high. Uncertainty discourages investment. In Danny Williams' case, the potential costs can't even be guessed at. His demands are not only a constantly shifting target, the outermost edges of the target screen itself can't even be seen. Money doesn't get spent in places like that.

Now, on top of that, for companies looking to develop existing fields, there is the added likelihood that at the very end of the already long regulatory process, the provincial government will suddenly reset the clock to zero and start the whole thing over again.

The Premier's actions have costs that can be readily seen. In the short- and medium- term , the oil industry isn't investing locally, certainly not at the levels we'd expected. House prices are slumping and over the next year and more, the economy in St. John's will contract. Even locally-owned supply and service companies have scaled back their local investments since they have no idea when a new project might actually be approved. Optimism a year ago is replaced with caution and skepticism today.

In the medium to long term, there are other costs. Provincial government forecasts show that without Hebron and more production at Hibernia, oil revenues will drop suddenly before climbing back up. But after that, there's a pretty rapid drop-off, as Wade Locke's estimate [left] shows.

The longer Hebron sits in the ground, the long Hibernia South remains undeveloped, the more money the provincial treasury loses. Sometimes you don't need to make a deal to make a giveaway.

Interestingly enough, that's what Loyola Sullivan talked about just before his Christmas resignation. Sullivan told vocm.com that it is very important for the province to see orderly development of its offshore industry. He said there will be three years of good revenues but after that, the money drops off.

Sullivan's right.

Too bad his wise words were drowned out by his resignation the same day those comments were published. Too bad that Sullivan's colleagues didn't heed his good advice.

Instead, we had an unconscionable, let alone unfathomable failure by a government that can ill afford political mistakes in a province that - in a few short years - will be hard pressed to pay the bills for blunder and folly in 2006 and early 2007.

and The Lover in Spanish is El Amador

What means this word "Quebecois"?

From Paul Wells at Macleans, comes this transcript of a q & a with reporters involving Lawrence Cannon and Marjory LeBreton that demonstrates M. Cannon has some difficulty understanding his own point. Like his problem with understanding what is a "federal spending power." Cannon even manages to mangle the explanation in both official languages, virtually simultaneously.

While normally we'd just link, let's give the whole thing and hope Paul is too busy moving his book that he will forgive your humble e-scribbler. [BTW, buy the book.]

Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois

Good figuring this crap out, ladies and gentlemen of Canada:

Question: Why did you use the word Québécois in English? I think we're all wondering why did you use the word Québécois in English and not Quebecer? And my question, especially for Ms. LeBreton, and I guess that's why people are suspicious. Is that a reference to some sort of ethnic identity of what it is to be (inaudible)?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I'm an English-speaking Canadian and I refer to -- I call -- I say Québécois. I believe -- I believe that in the country and certainly we've seen evidence over the past few days as cabinet ministers have been around the country there's a wide degree of acceptance for the prime minister's leadership on this issue.

Question: (Inaudible) with all due respect people (inaudible).

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I know Anglophone Quebecers who call themselves Québécois so you know —

Question: They call themselves Quebecers. I'm sorry, with due respect, I live in Quebec and English people talk to themselves about Quebecers, not Québécois. Why did you use this French word in an English motion? Explain to us the rationale for that. There's a word in English for that and please explain to us why you're not using it.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, écoutez, c'est bien clair là, bien clair la motion qui a été présentée par le Bloc québécois parlait de Québécois et de Québécoises dont ne référait pas à autre chose que des Québécois et des Québécoises.

Question: Why in English?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois. Alors il faudrait que vous demandiez à monsieur Duceppe parce que nous on sait —

(...)

Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là, Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là, après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.

Question: Je ne suis pas une descendante de monsieur Champlain et tous ceux qui n'ont pas des noms canadiens-français ne sont pas des Québécois selon votre définition.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, pas du tout, madame Buzzetti.

Question: Il y a plein de gens qui sont arrivés (inaudible).

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé. D'une part faire reconnaître par l'Assemblée nationale l'intégrité du territoire et d'autre part dire que les Québécois ou les Quebecers comme vous dites font partie de ce territoire-là c'est faux parce qu'il y a des gens qui fondamentalement ont opté pour le Canada et c'est ce que nous reconnaissons ce soir. Quand on a demandé au Bloc québécois d'accepter cette chose-là c'est ce qu'ils acceptent tacitement, que les Québécois font partie de la nation canadienne dans un effort d'unité nationale et c'est ce qu'on reconnaît.

Question: (Inaudible) Montrealers why they're not Québécois.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that.

Question: Well, you said that it doesn't — you said it doesn't apply to people that aren't French.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that they're not Québécois. What I'm saying here, and the reference that the Bloc Québécois has made is that they've made the Francophone pure laine. That's the intention. The intention is to be able to divide. We are taking the same words and we are saying no. On two separate occasions - and I'm repeating myself - on four provincial elections Quebecers have said no, we are voting for a federalist government, we are voting no to your proposal, we are part and parcel of Canadian unity and that's what we are indicating here. We're not playing semantics with the words. We are saying that that is a formal decision that was taken by Quebecers years ago and here's the first, first group of sovereingtists that are admitting this fact of life. Mr. Duceppe got up in the House the other day and you heard him talking about il faut reconnaître la réalité. On reconnaît la réalité. Les Québécois vous ont dit non à deux occasions. Et maintenant les Québécois vous ont dit — non seulement ils vous ont dit non, parce que la proposition ne se sépare pas, les Québécois vous ont dit formellement depuis qu'on est ici on chemine à l'intérieur du Canada. On est non seulement partie du processus, we are also making the country and that's what they've been saying to us.

Not fit for it, indeed #nlpoli

Once upon a time not so long ago, you would think politics in this province was a mash up of  Nineteen eighty-four and Animal Farm.

These days,  the Orwellian times in which Danny Williams thrived seem a kindergarten compared to the Franz Kafka novel which we now inhabit.

"Before any election the [Auditor General] should make public the financial state of the province,"  some fellow said on Twitter Wednesday morning. 

"This should be done yearly by a non-partisan person. hold the gov accountable, TO US VOTERS,"  said another fellow in reply.

"It's already done,"  said one of the Known Critics.  "It's called the Public Accounts [issued by the Auditor General every year]."

"REALLY???"  replied the US VOTERS guy.  "Liberals say this, PC'S say that.. which is it? who do ya believe?"

Montana Time #nlpoli

Both CBC provincial affairs reporter David Cochrane and Telegram editor Russell Wangersky had opinion pieces this weekend telling the provincial Conservatives that they have a big political problem now that they are in third place in a CRA poll. 

The Conservatives need to change what they are doing.

Wangersky had some specific suggestions on changes.  Cochrane added the tidbit of news that there is a cabal  inside the Tory caucus that is growing increasingly frustrated with the inaction of people running the cabinet and caucus.  They live inside The Bubble apparently.

This is pretty much the same thing SRBP has been on about for the past year or so.  The Tories are in a hole.  They need to stop digging.

Great minds think alike, eventually.

The fools differ.

Your world. Your choice. Your future.

Memorial University granted an honorary degree on Friday to Edsel Bonnell.

As the official news release put it:

“In essence a man with two careers, Mr. Bonnell has excelled at both.

Fifty years ago, Edsel Bonnell was the first person in Newfoundland to become a professional public relations consultant, winning numerous national awards, becoming in 2002 an honorary fellow of the Canadian Public Relations Society and, in 2005, a life member of the same organization.

From 1989-96 he took these skills into government where he served as chief of staff and senior policy advisor to Premier Clyde Wells, chairing both the Economic and the Social Strategic Planning Groups.

In musical circles he is best known for his role as founder and leader of the Gower Youth Band. This began in 1973 with the support of Gower Street United Church but it was intended to be — and has remained — non-denominational.

Educated at Memorial University, Mr. Bonnell has been recognized for his community service work in being named St. John's Citizen of the Year (1984), a Member of the Order of Canada (2001) and was inducted into the Hall of Honour at the St. John's Kiwanis Music Festival (2004).”

Edsel got the rare honour of a standing ovation from the graduates and their guests on Friday.

The reason is his address. 

At turns entertaining, frank and provocative, it was fundamentally a message of hope and a wellspring of optimism.

The speech was essentially what Edsel is.

In Edsel’s honour and to give you all a fine start to your week, here is Edsel’s convocation address, in its entirety.  It is exactly as he wrote it except in a couple of places where the paragraphing is changed to ease online reading.

 

Address to Convocation

May 27, 2011

Dr. Edsel J. Bonnell

The thing you often notice about people who receive honours and accolades, whether in Hollywood or Holyrood, is their apparent discomfort. The comments you hear are “I don’t really deserve this”, and “there are so many others who deserve this more than I do.” Every now and then, of course, you get a more pragmatic approach, like when Jack Benny said in an acceptance speech: “I don’t deserve this award. But I have arthritis and I don’t deserve that, either!”

When somebody wins an Olympic medal or writes a best-selling book or is elected to a high office, he or she has attained a definable goal for all to see, and deserves whatever praise is due. But when you’re engaged in community service and you are honoured for it, you cannot help but think about the people who have influenced you or who work with you, and all the unsung heroes you have met who have given lifetimes of service without recognition of any kind. So, discomfort seen year after year on occasions such as this is not false modesty, but more likely a reality check of one’s own limitations, and an uneasy feeling about being honoured for doing something that makes one feel so good while doing it!

In my own case, I am very aware of people and organizations who share this honour with me today, and I sincerely thank the Senate on their behalf as well as my own. They are legion, from my parents and wonderful “big sister” who set shining examples in their own remarkable achievements, through teachers (especially a music teacher who instilled in students the passion that is music), co-workers and treasured friends, to our sons and their life-partners, and grandchildren, all of whom inspire and instruct me daily.

The announcement from Memorial referred to my work in two “careers”. The one which enabled us to buy groceries every week was public relations, and I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to my colleagues for more than half a century in the Canadian Public Relations Society who worked with dedication to create and maintain a dynamic profession with a strict code of ethics, a robust five-year accreditation process, and respected post-secondary education programs In Canada.

My other “career” has been involved with music, specifically the Gower Band Program, embodied in the enriching musical and collegial experience of the intergenerational Gower Community Band. I share this honour today with the people of Gower Street United Church who caught the vision 38 years (and more than 900 performances!) ago of establishing a non-denominational community band program which would provide music education and instruments, scholarship support, and opportunities for community service to anyone with a commitment to the love of music and the joy of service --- a truly remarkable gift to community by a church and its supporters and benefactors; and of course the more than 400 musicians who have participated in this program over the years and who continue to touch countless lives with music and community service at home and abroad.

And then, most importantly, there’s my wife Anthea, who has been my life-force for 55 years through both of my “careers”, and without whose hard work and tireless dedication so much of the foregoing would never have happened.

So I don‘t stand here alone. If all the people who have influenced me, given me opportunities, and worked with me could be here, there would be no room for anyone else in this hall. And I am not unique in this respect, because all graduates here today had many people walking across this stage with them in spirit, and I know they acknowledge the support, and often the sacrifice, of parents, family members, and friends in achieving their goals. Truly, “no one is an island, no one stands alone”; we are indeed all “part of the main”.

As an unabashedly proud parent myself, I can assure the Graduates that your parents share your joy and your pride on this special day. But they, like me, come from different generations. Many parents may be from the so-called “Generation X”; others may qualify for what is now known as “Zoomers”. The question is: What kind of world have we of previous generations given to these graduates here today? And the answer is intimidating. It has prompted me to suggest that we are not following “Generation X” with “Generation Y”, but rather with “GENERATION EXPONENTIAL”!

Last month a man died in the southern United States at the remarkable age of 114. He was thought to be the oldest man in the world at the time, having lived in three centuries. Just think for a moment what his life-span witnessed:

We went from “horseless carriages” to space vehicles that send us pictures and information about new planets in the universe beyond our own solar system; from bolt-action rifles and bayonets to nuclear weapons which can destroy life on earth as we know it; from the three little clicks for the Morse code letter “S” that Marconi heard on Signal Hill to Skype; and from silent movies to “tweets” from around the world on the wondrous machines that we now carry around in our pockets.... all in the span of one man’s life.

It was unprecedented. No other human life-time in the history of the world has ever experienced so much change, so much challenge, and so much stress as the past century or so. But the more startling reality is that the speed of all this change has been, and is, exponential. It has grown faster and faster each decade, and indeed each year, until now it is almost incomprehensible. It’s easy to forget that until 30 years ago, there were no personal computers; and five years ago many of us still thought that Blackberries were edible. The old discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin has gone out the window (no pun intended!) because now they can put the contents of the U.S. Library of Congress on the head of a pin. All the wisdom of the world is available to any child who can access a computer. The whole process of education may soon become unrecognizable to those in my generation.

Science fiction has become reality. It is no longer considered futuristic to talk about the age of Artificial Intelligence and the Singularity, when machine intelligence merges with or exceeds human intelligence. Earlier this year, IBM’s “Watson” defeated two brilliant Jeopardy champions. That was truly history in the making!

The questions that arise, of course, are critical. Can we use our technology so as not to be abused by it? Can we master it so as not to be mastered by it? Can we lead so as not to be led?

This is the legacy we have given to you in your “Generation Exponential”.

Scary?

Sure.

Challenging?

Of course.

Exciting?

You bet!

For centuries, generations have talked about passing the torch from one to another with the usual proverb that the new breeds hold in their hands the keys to the future and the fate of the world. Now, however, it has a more urgent ring to it. Graduates, your generation can literally kill or cure the world; you have the tools to do either one, and the choice is yours. And in the case of most graduates here today, you are called not only to use the tools wisely, but to teach coming generations to do the same. It is an awesome but heroic undertaking.

We are already well into the Communications Revolution. It is changing the world order as we speak. Events in Egypt this year have shown dramatically what could be accomplished by people communicating electronically as an alternative to armed rebellion. Throughout history, tyranny has thrived on secrecy and ignorance and fear. But these curses are being eradicated by the little I-phones and other machines we hold in the palms of our hands, where the people of the world can talk as friends instead of fearing each other as enemies. They find that there is more to unite us than to divide us, if we can only respect each other`s way of life.

For those of us in the communications field, it is a dream come true. But dreams can also be nightmares, and progress has brought with it invasion of privacy, hackers, scams, spam, terrorism, slanderous blogs, and a variety of e-crimes unknown in previous history.

As we work and live in constant communication through social media, we diminish our physical human contact. We text a lot, but actually talk very little. We see on Skype, but don’t feel the touch of a hand. Business and professional life is filled with virtual meetings, webinars, and the like, and traditional gathering places such as churches and service clubs and youth organizations may be required to create virtual entities with interactive e-worship services and web-meetings and surrogate activities in order to carry out their missions. Volunteerism is in numerical decline, with fewer people doing more than their share. This new generation will be challenged to preserve the critical element of Community, not as an option, but as an imperative, if we are to maintain our humanity.

In this commitment to community, every individual has a responsibility. No one can move a mountain, but anyone can move a stone. And when enough people move enough stones together, the mountain will be moved. When we live in community, we experience the joy of fellowship and the peace of common purpose. When we engage in service, we share love with others and see the light of understanding. And when we combine the two -- Community Service – we become participants in the hope of the world.

In 2008, Lanier Phillips stood where I am standing now and captivated the Convocation with his eloquent tribute to the people of this Province. Dr. Phillips was the only African American among the 46 survivors of the tragic sinking of the USS Truxton off St. Lawrence during World War II. He had no idea where they had run ashore, and he had suffered so much abuse, hatred, and racism in his young life that he lay down to die on the beach thinking that he would probably be lynched because of the color of his skin. Instead, a kindly voice spoke and strong arms got him to his feet and then up over the cliffs of Chambers Cove. He found love from the good people of St. Lawrence. And even though the abuse and hatred continued in his naval service throughout the war and back home in the United States, he kept the St. Lawrence experience in his heart as a beacon of love and humanity and tolerance, and vowed that he would spend his life telling people all over the world that there is a place where respect and justice and love can heal the wounds of the soul.

Graduates, you are in that place, and you are of that place, whether you were born here or chose to come here. You are in Canada, a bastion of freedom, democracy, and human rights; where we are so modest that we feel a little embarrassed by saying that it`s the best place in the world to live… but it is! Where citizenship and social justice are treasured. Where we don`t make war, but we keep peace in the world, often at a dear price of brave young lives who win respect for Canada’s red maple leaf in every part of the world.

And within this great nation, you are in this province of Newfoundland and Labrador with its noble heritage, its generosity of spirit, its sense of community, its incredible wealth of talent and human resources vastly disproportionate to the size of its population, and its fierce dedication to fair play and justice. You are in this awesome place of courage and courtesy, survival and success, wit and wisdom through half a millennium of continuous settlement.

But you are also in and of this great university, a university which cares about community and shares with community, to which I can attest from the musical community’s symbiotic relationship with our remarkable School of Music for more than three decades. Today you have become alumni of Memorial, the latest generation of a proud tradition of academic excellence which has sent its graduates to teach others, to provide leadership, and to serve humanity around the world as well as here at home.

That`s why I know that you all have what it takes to tackle the challenges that will flow exponentially around you in the coming months and years. You have already achieved much, and you will achieve much more. You are from the best of stock, nationally, provincially, and academically, and it is both a profound honor and a humbling experience for me to be included in your ceremony today.

So by all means, celebrate today with family and friends. You deserve it.

And then, follow Memorial’s time-honored motto: “Launch forth into the deep”.

Use the knowledge and tools which are at your disposal, turn your challenges into opportunities, and save the world.

Because the world is truly yours, with all the blunders and blessings that you inherit.

Your world. Your choice. Your future.

Enjoy the voyage!

- srbp -

Unformation #nlpoli

Changes in the news media,  changes in the audience, and changes in what information organizations provide to the pubic have created the Unformation Age.  Information  -  facts, figures, data - is less important than unsubstantiated opinion assembled to serve a temporary purpose and often lacking coherence over time. This is the abandonment of  a common means of assembling information coherently that affects all aspects of society.  

"Deep Dive" is the name that Saltwire gives to its new series that is supposed to give readers more information on specific topics that are of concern across the Atlantic Canada.  

The series gives Saltwire a way to produce unique content using all its resources in Atlantic Canada, thereby lowering the burden on any one newsroom.  Saltwire hopes the Deep Dives will generate new income for the chain. In future, Deep Dives will be accessible only to subscribers.  The rest of us will be blocked by a paywall.  

It's a business model that has worked successfully at major newspapers, which have either halted declining revenue from subscriptions using paywalls or seen revenue growth to offset the losses from the old cash-cow advertising.

It might work.  The real question is whether Saltwire will produce the content that will make readers dig into their pockets.

So that makes you wonder how deep is the deep dive?

Media Training 101: Truth and Credibility #nlpoli

Last Friday, CBC’s David Cochrane asked Ryan Cleary about information Cochrane had – apparently from NDP sources  - that Cleary had tried to run in a district where the New Democrats already had a candidate.

They asked him specifically about Virginia Park-Pleasantville, where the NDP had already announced lawyer Bob Buckingham would be the star candidate for the party.

Cleary replied:  “Absolutely not.”

That wasn’t true, as CBC’s Terry Roberts confirmed on Wednesday.

Continuing continuity #nlpoli

In the face of thousands of well-informed people telling Dwight Ball that the provincial government must change direction to survive, in the face of mountains of evidence that the province has been on the wrong course since 2005 or so, and lately, in the face of dire warnings from the folks who advise others about the value of the government's bonds,  Dwight Ball will continue to do what everyone knows doesn't work.

The provincial government is abandoning its economic plans, as the Telegram's James McLeod would have it last Friday.

Well, not really.

Jack's Math - revised and revised again

Ok, I may have misheard this clip today, so I will check it out and post a correction if need be. [Yep, I did. So I bought The Telegram today and got a better set of quotes.]

Jack Harris, the province's New Democratic Party leader issued a news release today calling on the government to bring some good news in the upcoming budget. He noted, among other things, that the offshore deal just announced will mean the provinces books will be balanced on a cash basis this year and that over the next eight years provincial government oil revenues will be a total of about $4.6 billion. [He said $4.9 billion, and I gather he was referring to the offsets if we go the full eight years in the first offset phase.]

Excuse me, Jack? I must have misheard you. [Yeah I did, but actually what he actually said doesn't change the rest of this post.]

Even before a deal was signed the provincial government estimated its direct oil revenues would be a total of $4.94 billion. That's the total from October. When Wade Locke added up his numbers based on US$32 per bbl (barrel), he came up with an eight-year figure of $5.2 billion.

Now that was without any new cash from Ottawa.

So, Jack, if we add the $2.0 billion in the new cash, the provincial government is going to have about $7.0 billion over the next eight years. That works out to be around $875 million per year on average. [If we accept Jack's idea that we get the full offset (Dream on, there buddy), then the total oil revenues plus offsets is actually........$1.25 billion per year, on average, over eight years. Of course, regular readers of this blog know the figure is likely closer to $875 million.]

And that is without considering Hebron/Ben Nevis and without the added revenue from Voisey's Bay and without the added revenue from restructured federal provincial financial for health and social programs.

Jack was right to point out that the government's finances are not in crisis, thereby acting like a proper Opposition Leader. (Why exactly was Roger Grimes out defending Fraser "Mario Andretti" March today anyway?) But Jack, b'y, at least get the math right on how much money the provincial government will have to spend.

If you put it in proper context, any idiot can see the Premier can be fiscally responsible and implement some much needed preventative health care projects like the school lunch program.

If it looks like the place is cash poor, and you are working from an equally wrong assumption, then you only fall into the trap carefully laid by that fountain of fiscal fooferah, the Minister of Decimals Loyola Sullivan: he can just dismiss you as another irresponsible leftie ready to spend us into the ground. Then he'll put everyone back to sleep with a recitation of the current budget projections, line by thousands of lines to the nearest fraction of a percentage.

(Revised 09 Feb 05)

Addendum (10 Feb 05)

Jack Harris made a guest appearance on Out of the Fog on Wednesday evening and it was repeated on Thursday. Watch for it again over the weekend. It's worthwhile to see Jack's solid performance despite the shortcomings discussed below. With a bit of work, the NDP could actually start to climb in the polls if Jack can keep it up.

A couple of things stand out. First of all Jack very clearly and concisely laid out his points in a way anyone could understand. He divided the debt into different chunks and explained his point in a way that you couldn't help but see where he was going - in a sensible level headed direction.

Second, the only one who wouldn't buy the logic was Krista Rudofsky who seems increasingly smitten with our Premier. Her tone betrayed a sketpicism seemingly the result of having swallowed Finance department news releases whole.

It's getting to the point where the CRTC should review the local cable access license for Rogers to see if they have crossed over a line on bias. If they try and pass themselves off as a current affairs or news show, then maybe there are some laws about truth in advertising that apply.

Does anyone remember Krista's fawning interview with the Premier back in January when she asked, breathlessly, "What can we do to help you, Premier?" or words to that effect. That was just one of several examples where she has failed utterly either to grasp the subject in front of her or ask the Premier or Loyola Sullivan or any Tory cabinet minister anything other than a question designed to let them slide through their prepared talking points with ease.

Danny has been on the show so often you'd swear he still owned the station. Out of the Fog is starting to sound a bit like the old Conversations with the Premier farce done eons ago with Joe Smallwood. The Premier would pull into the parking lot having been driven in by chauffeur from Roaches Line. While the car idled, a reporter would run out, stick a microphone through the open window and let the tape run as Joe pontificated about whatever was on his mind.

I once asked a reporter who had done the old Smallwood schtick and a later version done by Tobin on what he thought was the difference between the two. "With Tobin, I got to ask questions," came the reply, full of all the dry-wit experience of a seasoned and professional news veteran. There's a lesson there Krista could use because there is a difference between asking a question and feeding one.

Thankfully, Poor old Jack brushed off the light-weight questioning and got back to his point time and again. A seemingly frustrated Krista dropped it.

Any kind of bias in a public program interviewing political figures is unacceptable.

Period.