It's polling season.
There is disquiet in some elements of the electorate.
News media are fried at the threats of law suits over libel chill.
Government's response is to flood a Friday morning with every manner of happy-face news releases.
A dozen before noon.
Still nothing though on the attack on our pride from Wisconsin.
16 February 2007
Remember the Alamo?
A tongue-in-cheek piece in the Badger Herald calls for the United States to liberate Canada as part of the war on terror.
But is it humour or is there a serious threat being made?
Useless?
Hmmm.
Anyone familiar with history knows the real story of the Alamo.
Ask any Mexican nationalist.
It looks like humour.
This guy Bill Rowe wrote a column a few weeks ago that sounds suspiciously like one component of this little plan: annex Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec.
Perhaps he's a fifth columnist on this one.
The Telegram.
Badger Herald.
Both newspapers.
Coincidence?
Maybe there's something sinister behind the clown mask.
If nothing else there is an effort here to bring down not merely a single individual but an entire nation.
We await the Premier's next scrum.
Our pride is at stake.
But is it humour or is there a serious threat being made?
With support, our Canadian heartland brethren can break the shackles of liberalism for once and for all. This would be accomplished by providing significant financial, organizational, and material backing to strengthen the position of Canadian conservatives. When they have gained sufficient power and popular support, they should be impelled to secede from the liberal elite dominating the country from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.Newfies?
Preferably, this would be the first step toward statehood, though an independent Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan loyal to the United States would also be acceptable. If the Canadian government attempted to quash the push for independence, we would be forced to move American troops into Canada and dissolve their government to maintain law and order, incorporating Canada into the United States as a protectorate. In this event it would be best to grant Quebec autonomy, and allow it sovereignty over New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other useless parts of the former Canadian nation. While some may find the creation of a Vichy Quebec undesirable in contrast to total annexation, let us pose a simple question. Does the United States need millions of croissant-loving French and Newfies pouring over the border and taking jobs from hard-working Americans? We most certainly think not. [Emphasis added]
Useless?
Hmmm.
Anyone familiar with history knows the real story of the Alamo.
Ask any Mexican nationalist.
It looks like humour.
This guy Bill Rowe wrote a column a few weeks ago that sounds suspiciously like one component of this little plan: annex Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec.
Perhaps he's a fifth columnist on this one.
The Telegram.
Badger Herald.
Both newspapers.
Coincidence?
Maybe there's something sinister behind the clown mask.
If nothing else there is an effort here to bring down not merely a single individual but an entire nation.
We await the Premier's next scrum.
Our pride is at stake.
Let's reform campaign finance laws too, Tom
Tom Rideout is the lead man for Danny Williams efforts to take the Humber Valley by any means necessary.
It's called desperation, but hey, if they have nothing better to do than try and overturn a vote by the electorate, that's their problem.
But when Tom Rideout starts talking about the by-election with tones like "we can now confirm..." he starts to sound a bit like the police inspector in Casablanca who declares "Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked!"
Rideout is intimately familiar with the province's election laws. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that ballot boxes were moved about seniors homes in his own district.
But Rideout's efforts here seem aimed at the type of innuendo that often substitutes for the lack of evidence . By implication, Rideout is smearing the neutral elections officials who did nothing but follow the law and common practice in the way set down by the legislature.
Nothing new here. Public servants in the House of Assembly - all of them the same as elections officials - are used to being blamed for the failings of politicians.
It seems a common practice for this administration to take no responsibility even for things it does. In this case it seems that the loss of an election, despite the Premier's supreme efforts, must now be blamed on those who did nothing other than follows the rules, as established, that applied equally to all candidates and all parties.
In the meantime, Rideout seems unconcerned to reform election finance laws. There are plenty of issues there from out of province donations to soft money that need to be addressed too.
Unfortunately, those things - all of which would enhance accountability and fairness in the electoral process - wouldn't help in soothing the political frustration Danny Williams' is feeling right at the moment.
Heaven knows we can't have Danny frustrated.
It's called desperation, but hey, if they have nothing better to do than try and overturn a vote by the electorate, that's their problem.
But when Tom Rideout starts talking about the by-election with tones like "we can now confirm..." he starts to sound a bit like the police inspector in Casablanca who declares "Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked!"
Rideout is intimately familiar with the province's election laws. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that ballot boxes were moved about seniors homes in his own district.
But Rideout's efforts here seem aimed at the type of innuendo that often substitutes for the lack of evidence . By implication, Rideout is smearing the neutral elections officials who did nothing but follow the law and common practice in the way set down by the legislature.
Nothing new here. Public servants in the House of Assembly - all of them the same as elections officials - are used to being blamed for the failings of politicians.
It seems a common practice for this administration to take no responsibility even for things it does. In this case it seems that the loss of an election, despite the Premier's supreme efforts, must now be blamed on those who did nothing other than follows the rules, as established, that applied equally to all candidates and all parties.
In the meantime, Rideout seems unconcerned to reform election finance laws. There are plenty of issues there from out of province donations to soft money that need to be addressed too.
Unfortunately, those things - all of which would enhance accountability and fairness in the electoral process - wouldn't help in soothing the political frustration Danny Williams' is feeling right at the moment.
Heaven knows we can't have Danny frustrated.
Countries respond to Al Queda threats to US oil supplies
Al Queda issued a general threat Wednesday to American oil supplies, including possible attacls on Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.
Bond Papers discussed oil rig security in the province's offshore last November, based on a report in the Ottawa Citizen that the federal government had drafted legislation on the issue.
The federal government is taking the threat seriously, according to public security minister Stockwell Day. Alberta has increased security, while the Saskatchewan government appears confident in the security of its oil production.
Bond Papers discussed oil rig security in the province's offshore last November, based on a report in the Ottawa Citizen that the federal government had drafted legislation on the issue.
The federal government is taking the threat seriously, according to public security minister Stockwell Day. Alberta has increased security, while the Saskatchewan government appears confident in the security of its oil production.
Rutter wins $3.5 million Brazilian oil contract
St. John's manufacturing company Rutter Inc.(TSX: RUT) announced on Wednesday that its 74%-owned subsidiary Unicontrol International Ltda. (Unicontrol) has successfully
renewed its contract to provide support services to 32 Petrobras platforms operating in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.
renewed its contract to provide support services to 32 Petrobras platforms operating in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.
15 February 2007
It's that time of the month
There are by-elections.
Corporate Research Associates must be in the field with their quarterly omnibus survey.
How do we know?
The number of government news releases about capital spending in rural areas shot up this week. Like Thursday where the first four releases are about rural infrastructure.
Corporate Research Associates must be in the field with their quarterly omnibus survey.
How do we know?
The number of government news releases about capital spending in rural areas shot up this week. Like Thursday where the first four releases are about rural infrastructure.
14 February 2007
Hickey to pay own tab, Oram flubs badly
Despite his vehement defence of having the public treasury cover transportation minister John Hickey's legal bills in the battle with former premier Roger Grimes, Premier Danny Williams today told VOCM Open Line that Hickey would be footing the bill himself.
Many in the province - heck most people - were taken aback by the sudden change of direction.
Late in the day, Hickey turned up to tell CBC Radio that "I've thought it through and I decided that I wanted to change course here.... I'm going to pick up whatever legal cost that's going to be associated with this particular issue."
Later in the day still, Paul Oram, the Premier's tried vainly to explain to Back Talk host Bill Rowe what the heck the whole dispute was about. Rowe, a former politician and lawyer, tried in vain to get Oram to state specifically what remarks Grimes should apologise for.
Oram went down several roads, always making the same unsubstantiated claim likely contained in the talking points from the Premier's publicity department. At every juncture, Rowe shut him down with simple, obvious questions related specifically to the case.
To embarrass the hapless politician even more, Rowe insulted him at several points, essentially begging Oram to take offense and threaten to sue Rowe. Each time, Oram declined, thereby confirming that his initial point was impossible to defend. Of course that means that the Premier's point on the whole affray is nonsense as well.
Memo to the Premier: Paul Oram deserves a cabinet seat solely for his ability to defend the indefensible, repeatedly, despite the savaging of his own credibility in the process.
Many in the province - heck most people - were taken aback by the sudden change of direction.
Late in the day, Hickey turned up to tell CBC Radio that "I've thought it through and I decided that I wanted to change course here.... I'm going to pick up whatever legal cost that's going to be associated with this particular issue."
Later in the day still, Paul Oram, the Premier's tried vainly to explain to Back Talk host Bill Rowe what the heck the whole dispute was about. Rowe, a former politician and lawyer, tried in vain to get Oram to state specifically what remarks Grimes should apologise for.
Oram went down several roads, always making the same unsubstantiated claim likely contained in the talking points from the Premier's publicity department. At every juncture, Rowe shut him down with simple, obvious questions related specifically to the case.
To embarrass the hapless politician even more, Rowe insulted him at several points, essentially begging Oram to take offense and threaten to sue Rowe. Each time, Oram declined, thereby confirming that his initial point was impossible to defend. Of course that means that the Premier's point on the whole affray is nonsense as well.
Memo to the Premier: Paul Oram deserves a cabinet seat solely for his ability to defend the indefensible, repeatedly, despite the savaging of his own credibility in the process.
Williams slags Bond: the audio record
1. An audio clip of Premier Danny Williams scrum on Tuesday, from CBC Radio Noon. [The relevant part is at around 12:25 on your counter.]
2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]
2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]
The value of criticism
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill, 1874-1965
Meeker on media
Communications consultant Geoff Meeker has joined the online revolution with a new blog, Meeker on media.
As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".
Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.
His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.
Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.
Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.
Check him out.
You won't be disappointed.
As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".
Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.
His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.
Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.
Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.
Check him out.
You won't be disappointed.
13 February 2007
Canada West Foundation backs Harper on Equalization
Canada West Foundation issued a paper on Monday praising the inclusion of 50% of natural resources revenues in Equalization calculations as an "interesting compromise" on the issue.
"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.
Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the abstract:
"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.
Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the abstract:
The federal government has said that it wants to address the fiscal imbalance in the upcoming budget. Broadly speaking, this means dealing with fiscal arrangements between, and clarifying roles of, the federal and provincial governments, and fixing the equalization program. This paper does three things to stimulate debate on possible options for reform. First it discusses three broad policy pillars that together constitute a consistent approach to fiscal federalism. These pillars are: 1) "equalization as glue," which argues for the importance of equalization for our federation; 2) "after equalization, equal transfers per capita," which argues that programs outside equalization should treat all Canadians equally; and 3) "re-balancing the federation," which argues for clarifying federal and provincial roles and responsibilities.The Canada West Foundation paper contains a number of recommendations, many of which the authors acknowledge would be difficult if not impossible to implement.
The paper then discusses political and economic constraints facing the government as it seeks to address the fiscal imbalance. These include the current inefficiencies of the equalization program, cost challenges faced by the federal government, the political importance of Quebec and Ontario, and the influence of promises made previously by the Conservative government. Finally, the paper provides some reform options grouped into three categories: 1) the really difficult; 2) the really, really difficult; and 3) the nearly impossible.
The paper lists options for both fixing equalization and addressing other federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. When it comes to addressing the fiscal imbalance, there are many possible paths. The real challenge for the current government is to choose a path that results in a coherent system of fiscal federalism while addressing very real political and fiscal constraints. The paper does not put such a package together—it leaves this task to the current government. It does, however, present ideas that widen the menu of options currently being discussed.
A fundamental right in any democracy
From the Bill of Rights 1689:
Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.
In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;The elected representatives of the people enjoy a right of free speech in British parliamentary democracy for a reason. It prevents them from being intimidated by outside or inside forces.
Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.
In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.
Stupid is...?
Transportation minister John Hickey is suing former premier Roger Grimes for defamation over comments Grimes made about Hickey's double-billing of expenses to the legislature.
Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.
Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.
Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.
If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.
On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.
The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.
Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.
And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.
Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.
Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.
Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.
On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.
The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.
Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.
That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.
The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.
Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.
Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.
In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.
But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.
When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.
To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.
The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.
The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.
By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.
In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.
No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.
Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.
Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.
Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.
If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.
On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.
The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.
Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.
And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.
Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.
Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.
Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.
On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.
The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.
Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.
That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.
The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.
Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.
Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.
In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.
But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.
When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.
To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.
The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.
The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.
By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.
In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.
No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.
12 February 2007
Dwight wins, Danny loses
Every Tory except John Hickey and Jack Byrne came off the benches to try and win the Humber Valley by-election, but in the end, Deer Lake pharmacist Dwight Ball squeeked out an 18 vote victory.
The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.
The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.
Maine, NB cooperate on electricity, NL likely behind development curve
Maine Governor John Baldacci and New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham signed a memorandum of understanding on Friday to explore increased co-operation between the state and the province on electricity distribution.
Gov. Baldacci noted that both Maine and New Brunswick produce surplus electricity much of it coming from environmentally friendly sources like wind energy. Maine has also been looking at alternatives to an agreement covering New England states that the Maine Public Utilities Commission believes will cost Maine residents US$616 million over the next five years. As a result, Maine has begun to look at alternative energy sources to ensure Maine residents are not subsidizing excessive energy consumption in other states.
The memorandum commits the two jurisdictions to explore over the next two years options on establishing a common market for electricity, improvements to transmission facilities and interconnections and generally to examine areas of co-operation on electricity generation and distribution. While both jurisdictions produce more power than is consumed in the jurisdictions, both have peak demand times when power must be imported.
The Maine-New Brunswick agreement casts doubts about the meaning and value of a recent announcement by the Newfoundland and Labrador government on the Lower Churchill.
The day before the Maine-New Brunswick agreement, Premier Danny Williams announced that his province's hydroelectricity Crown corporation had filed an application with New Brunswick's electricity regulator for long-term transmission service.
The Newfoundland and Labrador announcement is essentially exploratory in nature, since the Lower Churchill project has not been approved for construction. As Premier Williams acknowledged to news media, his government is not currently in discussion with any potential purchasers of Lower Churchill power since the costs of the project have not been finalized.
By contrast, Maine and New Brunswick are exploring options over the next to years that would lead to freer energy flow between the two jurisdictions. Even according to official timelines, Lower Churchill will not be sanctioned before 2009 and no power is forecast to flow until 2015 at the earliest. Maine's requirements are immediate and New Brunswick and Quebec have the capacity to meet those needs well before 2015.
Cost of Lower Churchill power might also place it out of competition for New England needs. Some estimates put the cost of installing subsea cabling and other transmission systems to New Brunswick in excess of $2.0 billion. That's in addition to the cost of building the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating complexes.
There is some reason to believe the so-called Anglo-Saxon route for Lower Churchill power would be unprofitable. Premier Williams told reports last week that he was considering selling power into New England under a deferred revenue arrangement. That's likely code for selling at a loss.
Text of MOU:
Gov. Baldacci noted that both Maine and New Brunswick produce surplus electricity much of it coming from environmentally friendly sources like wind energy. Maine has also been looking at alternatives to an agreement covering New England states that the Maine Public Utilities Commission believes will cost Maine residents US$616 million over the next five years. As a result, Maine has begun to look at alternative energy sources to ensure Maine residents are not subsidizing excessive energy consumption in other states.
The memorandum commits the two jurisdictions to explore over the next two years options on establishing a common market for electricity, improvements to transmission facilities and interconnections and generally to examine areas of co-operation on electricity generation and distribution. While both jurisdictions produce more power than is consumed in the jurisdictions, both have peak demand times when power must be imported.
The Maine-New Brunswick agreement casts doubts about the meaning and value of a recent announcement by the Newfoundland and Labrador government on the Lower Churchill.
The day before the Maine-New Brunswick agreement, Premier Danny Williams announced that his province's hydroelectricity Crown corporation had filed an application with New Brunswick's electricity regulator for long-term transmission service.
The Newfoundland and Labrador announcement is essentially exploratory in nature, since the Lower Churchill project has not been approved for construction. As Premier Williams acknowledged to news media, his government is not currently in discussion with any potential purchasers of Lower Churchill power since the costs of the project have not been finalized.
By contrast, Maine and New Brunswick are exploring options over the next to years that would lead to freer energy flow between the two jurisdictions. Even according to official timelines, Lower Churchill will not be sanctioned before 2009 and no power is forecast to flow until 2015 at the earliest. Maine's requirements are immediate and New Brunswick and Quebec have the capacity to meet those needs well before 2015.
Cost of Lower Churchill power might also place it out of competition for New England needs. Some estimates put the cost of installing subsea cabling and other transmission systems to New Brunswick in excess of $2.0 billion. That's in addition to the cost of building the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating complexes.
There is some reason to believe the so-called Anglo-Saxon route for Lower Churchill power would be unprofitable. Premier Williams told reports last week that he was considering selling power into New England under a deferred revenue arrangement. That's likely code for selling at a loss.
Text of MOU:
Memorandum of Understanding Between The Province of New Brunswick And The State of Maine To Enhance The Mutual Benefits Of the Maine/New Brunswick Electrical Interconnections
WHEREAS, The State of Maine (“Maine”) shares electrical interconnections with the Province of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”);
Maine also shares electrical interconnections with other New England states;
New Brunswick also shares electrical interconnections with the Maritime Provinces and Quebec;
New Brunswick and Maine each have located within their respective borders adequate and at most times abundant generation capacity;
New Brunswick and Maine export significant quantities of generation to southern New England for the benefit of all consumers;
New Brunswick and Maine each have abundant natural resources from which renewable energy, such as wind and tidal energy, can be harvested to generate electrical energy;
Maine and New Brunswick have each adopted policies to promote the development of renewable resources;
The northeastern United States needs new supplies of electrical energy, including renewables;
Maine and New Brunswick wish to expand opportunities for the mutual development and export of new electric generation capacity resources;
Maine and New Brunswick wish to increase the opportunities to transmit energy between the State and Province and to their neighbors in Canada and the United States;
Maine and New Brunswick wish to improve the efficiency of their respective electric systems and the interconnections between them to benefit consumers and the environment; and New Brunswick and Maine acknowledge the significance of climate change and recognize the importance of emphasizing the development and deployment of low emission electricity generation in the future.
NOW THEREFORE,
I, Shawn Graham, Premier of the Province of New Brunswick, and I, John Elias Baldacci, Governor of the State of Maine, do hereby enter into this “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Province of New Brunswick and The State of Maine To Enhance The Mutual Benefits Of the Maine/New Brunswick Electrical Interconnections” and do hereby agree as hereinafter set forth.
Maine and New Brunswick agree to explore expansions of generation capacity, including renewables, and transmission opportunities by agreeing to jointly undertake the following tasks:
1. Study the feasibility of expanding generation capacity and transmission infrastructure to increase electrical flows across borders;
2. Identify processes and systems to provide transparency and efficiency in Maine and New Brunswick markets;
3. Study the feasibility of developing common market rules that could be applied in Maine and New Brunswick;
4. Explore the potential benefits and technical and legal impediments to the common provisioning of control area services (including balancing, dispatch and reserve sharing);
5. Explore the tariff and governance structures required for a regional transmission organization for Maine and New Brunswick; and
6. Examine the opportunities for compatible greenhouse gas emissions reduction regimes in the electricity sector.
Maine and New Brunswick agree to dedicate sufficient resources from their respective state and provincial agencies for the completion of the tasks described herein. Maine and New Brunswick agree to appoint one person from each government to serve as each state’s or province’s, as applicable, point of contact (the “Joint Representatives”).
The tasks are to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 work will overview the tasks, will assess priorities and possibilities, and will identify common principles (the “Principles”) to guide additional work and any future implementation. The Joint Representatives shall deliver to their respective governments a report on the Phase 1 activities no later than June 1, 2007.
Upon completion of Phase 1, and agreement on the Principles, Maine and New Brunswick agree to proceed to Phase 2. It will be guided by the Principles and will complete detailed assessments of all tasks. The Joint Representatives shall present a final Phase 2 report to their respective governments no later than January 1, 2008.
Upon completion of the tasks identified above, Maine and New Brunswick agree to consider entering into a further agreement to implement mutually beneficial actions. Upon mutual consent, this further agreement may include other states or provinces.
Signed and delivered this 9th day of February, 2007.
Premier Graham Official Signature Block
Governor Baldacci Official Signature Block
[Source: Maine Governor's Office]
11 February 2007
Abitibi shedding power plants
Canadian Press reports that Abitibi Consolidated is transferring some of its electricity production to a new company owned 75% by the paper giant and 25% by a Quebec financial institution. The deal will yeild gross proceeds to ACI of slightly less than $300 million, according to an Abitibi news release.
Industry analyst Paul Quinn notes, however, that the move could jeopardize Abitibi's low-cost power generation, which might, in turn, affect paper pricing and profitability.
He doubts that more than 50% of existing assets would be transferred to the new company, despite company claims that it is looking at moving more and more power assets to the new company.
Industry analyst Paul Quinn notes, however, that the move could jeopardize Abitibi's low-cost power generation, which might, in turn, affect paper pricing and profitability.
He doubts that more than 50% of existing assets would be transferred to the new company, despite company claims that it is looking at moving more and more power assets to the new company.
Fish crisis hitting Europeans, too
From Associated Press, this article on trends in Europe to save fish stocks.
One interesting comment from the article notes that during the 1980s, Canadian fishing interests ignored warning signs that fish stocks on the Grand Banks were in trouble, just as many European fishing countries are doing even today in other places.
One of their number continues today to blame everyone but himself and his colleagues for the cod collapse and refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of Canadian fishing interests in driving overfishing within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
They never learn, it seems.
One interesting comment from the article notes that during the 1980s, Canadian fishing interests ignored warning signs that fish stocks on the Grand Banks were in trouble, just as many European fishing countries are doing even today in other places.
One of their number continues today to blame everyone but himself and his colleagues for the cod collapse and refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of Canadian fishing interests in driving overfishing within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
They never learn, it seems.
No job creation = outmigration
The provincial government's economics and statistics agency is reporting that 4,849 people left Newfoundland and Labrador in the third quarter of 2006.
Overall, the province's population declined by 4,584 between October 1 2005 and October 1, 2006 going from slightly over 513,000 to slightly under 509,000.
In January 2007, Bond Papers published a chart [Above. Source: Bond Papers] comparing outmigration by quarter.
The third quarter of 2006 was the highest quarterly period of outmigration for the province since 1993.
Outmigration; typically caused in Newfoundland and Labrador by a lack of jobs, not by, as Danny Williams claimed recently, by young people having big debts coming out of their education. Young people in Alberta with huge education debts don't head for Nova Scotia. Nope. They stay at home where the big jobs are.
Take a look at this chart on migration by level of education, taken from a slide presentation your humble e-scribbler sat through about a decade ago. You don't need to blow the thing up - although you can by clicking on it - to see that pink line. It represents people with university degrees. In each of the four periods, starting with the five years between 1976 and 1981, the pink people have left the province in droves substantially beyond other educational cohorts.
Their leaving was not stimulated by the crushing load of debt they carried. In relative terms, debt in the early period of that slide was lighter than student debt today. In the later periods it might have been on par - relative to salaries.
In just three years, the Newfoundland and Labrador economy has gone from leading the nation to heading for the bottom of the pile. Economic growth in Newfoundland and Labrador will be pedestrian come 2008.
Just like it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
The huge difference between now and then is that then there simply weren't the opportunities. We dreamed about opportunities as we loaded up the car to head to Ontario or British Columbia or Alberta where there were jobs. We made some good deals along the way, when there were deals to be had. We walked away from a few too, like with Quebec in the early 1990s.
In 2006, we had opportunities; solid opportunities with good financial deals tagged along. The stuff we used to dream about. And then someone started shutting everything down, Hebron and Hibernia South.
Deliberately.
Opportunities get missed, like with Labrador West and Consolidated Thompson.
So, outmigration heads back up to levels not seen since the collapse of the cod fishery.
Should we be surprised?
Overall, the province's population declined by 4,584 between October 1 2005 and October 1, 2006 going from slightly over 513,000 to slightly under 509,000.
In January 2007, Bond Papers published a chart [Above. Source: Bond Papers] comparing outmigration by quarter.The third quarter of 2006 was the highest quarterly period of outmigration for the province since 1993.
Outmigration; typically caused in Newfoundland and Labrador by a lack of jobs, not by, as Danny Williams claimed recently, by young people having big debts coming out of their education. Young people in Alberta with huge education debts don't head for Nova Scotia. Nope. They stay at home where the big jobs are.
Take a look at this chart on migration by level of education, taken from a slide presentation your humble e-scribbler sat through about a decade ago. You don't need to blow the thing up - although you can by clicking on it - to see that pink line. It represents people with university degrees. In each of the four periods, starting with the five years between 1976 and 1981, the pink people have left the province in droves substantially beyond other educational cohorts.Their leaving was not stimulated by the crushing load of debt they carried. In relative terms, debt in the early period of that slide was lighter than student debt today. In the later periods it might have been on par - relative to salaries.
In just three years, the Newfoundland and Labrador economy has gone from leading the nation to heading for the bottom of the pile. Economic growth in Newfoundland and Labrador will be pedestrian come 2008.
Just like it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
The huge difference between now and then is that then there simply weren't the opportunities. We dreamed about opportunities as we loaded up the car to head to Ontario or British Columbia or Alberta where there were jobs. We made some good deals along the way, when there were deals to be had. We walked away from a few too, like with Quebec in the early 1990s.
In 2006, we had opportunities; solid opportunities with good financial deals tagged along. The stuff we used to dream about. And then someone started shutting everything down, Hebron and Hibernia South.
Deliberately.
Opportunities get missed, like with Labrador West and Consolidated Thompson.
So, outmigration heads back up to levels not seen since the collapse of the cod fishery.
Should we be surprised?
Be media savvy
On Sunday mornings, CBC Radio One has been running an excellent series on political spin and the news media.
You can find the programs web page here, along with archived interviews and audio files for the hour-long episodes. The Ep 4 one is here.
Episode 4 is on political spin, leaks and the planting of stories as a means of influencing news coverage. Interestingly, one of the chief spin practitioners interviewed is a former journalist who later went to work for Mike Harris. There is also a great interview with a guy who was a respected journalist and a respected communications guy and who is now the respected senator Jim Munson.
Of course, local news media aren't spun by politicians. Heavens no. It's not like you'd ever hear local reporters say phrases are that are almost identical to words that will later come from a politician's mouth.
Like that Goudie and Hickey were different from the "others" because the amounts were small and the whole thing was just sloppy administration at the House of Assembly.
Or that the New Democrats will be or already are the real opposition party in the province.
Local reporters being spun by politicians?
How could you even think such a thing?
Next thing you know, you'll be saying that the Confed Building sends callers to talk shows with talking points to support government's spin agenda.
Seriously though, in the interests of becoming much more media savvy, in order to learn how the sausages are indeed made far too frequently, give Spin Cycles a listen.
_________________________
Update: And when you're done with that, take a gander at Simon Lono's take on spin.
You can find the programs web page here, along with archived interviews and audio files for the hour-long episodes. The Ep 4 one is here.
Episode 4 is on political spin, leaks and the planting of stories as a means of influencing news coverage. Interestingly, one of the chief spin practitioners interviewed is a former journalist who later went to work for Mike Harris. There is also a great interview with a guy who was a respected journalist and a respected communications guy and who is now the respected senator Jim Munson.
Of course, local news media aren't spun by politicians. Heavens no. It's not like you'd ever hear local reporters say phrases are that are almost identical to words that will later come from a politician's mouth.
Like that Goudie and Hickey were different from the "others" because the amounts were small and the whole thing was just sloppy administration at the House of Assembly.
Or that the New Democrats will be or already are the real opposition party in the province.
Local reporters being spun by politicians?
How could you even think such a thing?
Next thing you know, you'll be saying that the Confed Building sends callers to talk shows with talking points to support government's spin agenda.
Seriously though, in the interests of becoming much more media savvy, in order to learn how the sausages are indeed made far too frequently, give Spin Cycles a listen.
_________________________
Update: And when you're done with that, take a gander at Simon Lono's take on spin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)