How to tell when your position is wrong

When you are a political leader and your comments show you to be so far out of touch with the best interest of your province such that Stephen Harper looks sensible in comparison, then you know something is wrong.

Seriously wrong.

Like there’s a giant fireball in the sky above the place you’re heading and you can’t understand why all these cars are going the other way wrong.

Like you and a bunch of your drunken teenage friends go camping at Crystal Lake and you start making out with your girlfriend alone in a tent in the middle of the night and wonder where that machete came from sticking through the tent top wrong.

Topic:  the annual seal hunt, also known as March Madness (in this case in May) or as it has become, the platform by which every “C” list celebrity or celebrity wannabe seeks the public spotlight once again.

Issue:  The European Union voted to ban imports of seal products.

The Stephen Harper Comment: "If we were to make our trade relations with the European Union about only the sealing issue, we will never have any trading relations with the European Union because as we know this is a disagreement of long-standing," [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper said at a news conference.

The Danny Williams Comment:   "You know he's prepared to sacrifice Newfoundland and Labrador's interest in the interests of other issues for Canadians. And I think that's just dead wrong and it shows what this guy is all about," [Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams said].

Okay.

According to the provincial government’s own fact sheet,  “the sealing industry is worth $55 million” to the provincial economy. That was a figure for 2006.

In that same year, Newfoundland and Labrador did more than 10 times as much business with Germany and the United Kingdom combined as the total value of the seal fishery.

In 2006, exporters from Newfoundland and Labrador sold a heckuva lot more than seal pelts to European Union countries.  At that value, they shipped a heckuva lot more to European countries than the seal products they may have shipped through them.

In 2008, Germany alone accounted for $1.02 billion of Newfoundland and Labrador’s exports. According to CBC, total Canadian seal exports to the EU last year amounted to a measly $5.5 million.  That’s all Canada, not just Newfoundland and Labrador.

Get the idea?

Now just think – for one teensy second – about the implication of Danny Williams’ comment.  Apparently, the only issue of any consequence here for Danny Williams is the seal hunt and 10 times as much trade between our province and Europe and the chance to sort out some of the grievances doesn’t matter one jot or tittle.

Lest you think this remark is out of context consider that the provincial government earlier this year turned down the chance to work with an international trade mission aimed at increasing trade with European countries.

Why?

Because of the seal hunt, among a couple of other issues which would have been better addressed at the table rather than far away from it .Actually, if you follow the links you’ll see another classic Williams administration constantly-shifting-position, but let’s just go with the “No seal hunt, no play” position.

If there’s logic in the provincial government’s argument – as enunciated by Danny Williams  - it sure isn’t obvious. Apparently, the economic benefit to the provincial economy of increased trade with the Europeans isn’t something the provincial ministry could be bothered with. 

At this point, it’s hard to see how the provincial government is protecting provincial interests by launching into another tirade with anyone over seals when seals are only a tiny fraction of the overall provincial economic picture involved.

But seriously:

How can you tell your political position is crap?

When Stephen Harper sounds reasonable in comparison.

-srbp-

Updated – added sentences giving value  of seal exports to EU last year, according to CBC story.

The Current and the EU

If you have never seen it, I strongly suggest you check out The Current, a monthly tabloid format newspaper printed in St. John's.

It's kinda edgy, sometimes funny and perhaps is the only newspaper in the province gutsy enough (by local standards) to print Josey Vogels' column, My messy bedroom.

This month's issue has a couple of interesting features. There's a bit on Icelandic independence. Odd no one ever asks if Icelandic fisheries is a business or a social program to keep people in "traditional" ways of life. There's also a bit on Margaret Wente, but to be honest, she is getting way more ink than she deserves. To make matters worse, The Current piece is lame and way beneath their usual satirical standards.

What I thought was hysterically funny was yet another mock government call for proposals. This time it is for a process whereby this place can leave Canada and join the European Union. The last fake call at least made some sense. This one is about as realistic as Newfoundland and Labrador applying to hook up with Djibouti. It's also kind of disappointing given that one of The Current's writers is Greg Locke, staunch nationalist. Does this means he now advocates trading in Confederation for cuddling up with Malta and Latvia?

When you're finished with The Current, you might just want to visit the European Union website. We'd have some difficulty qualifying as "European" in any meaningful sense of the term so the whole scheme would be moot anyways. But more to the point, since everyone - especially the nationalists - likes to rant about foreign overfishing and blames Canada for what the Spanish are doing (Go figure that one), proponents of the EU option might just want to have a look at the EU fisheries page. Maybe it won't be foreign overfishing if the overfishing is done by our EU partners. We can then say we ended foreign over-fishing by making them not foreign.

That would sound like Gwynne Dyer's claim a few years ago that war as we know it was gone after the collapse of the old Soviet Union, even though there were still civil conflicts going on within states like Yugoslavia. Talk about semantics. Interstate warfare was over, therefore everything was peachy. Unless you were a Tutsi or a Chechin. But be happy knowing you were not slaughtered in a war. Nope, it was a civil disorder.

But back to the point, just to get a genuine taste of the EU fisheries policy, here's the main quote on the introduction page:

"The EU fishing industry is a major source of employment and food. It is therefore important to prevent over-fishing by some to the detriment of all. The European Union has a common fisheries policy (CFP) in order to manage the industry for the benefit of both fishing communities and consumers."

Hold on to your turbot-on-a- stick.

While you are surfing through the EU sites, just take a look at the other member states, not the new ones, but the ones with real clout. Like Spain.

And Portugal.

And France.

Now imagine President Danny Williams in Brussels trying to convince them to stop devastating a fishery that is - oooh easily half a freaking world away from them and a place they used to plunder when it was their colony.

You think we have troubles being heard in "colonial" Ottawa. Bring on the Mannequin Pisse!

Now, let me just check and see if the United Federation of Planets has an opening for new members.

The global fishery crisis hits the New York Times

Monday's editorial : "Until all the fish are gone".

The institution with the most potential leverage is the World Trade Organization. Most of the world’s fishing fleets receive heavy government subsidies for boat building, equipment and fuel, America’s fleet less so than others. Without these subsidies, which amount to about $35 billion annually, fleets would shrink in size and many destructive practices like bottom trawling would become uneconomic.

The W.T.O. has never had a reputation for environmental zeal. But knowing that healthy fisheries are important to world trade and development, the group has begun negotiating new trade rules aimed at reducing subsidies. It produced a promising draft in late November, but there is no fixed schedule for a final agreement.

The world needs such an agreement, and soon. Many fish species may soon be so depleted that they will no longer be able to reproduce themselves. As 125 of the world’s most respected scientists warned in a letter to the W.T.O. last year, the world is at a crossroads. One road leads to tremendously diminished marine life. The other leads to oceans again teeming with abundance. The W.T.O. can help choose the right one.

Then there are two articles:

"Europe takes Africa's fish..."

"Europe's appetite for seafood fuels illegal trade"

Fish is now the most traded animal commodity on the planet, with about 100 million tons of wild and farmed fish sold each year. Europe has suddenly become the world’s largest market for fish, worth more than 14 billion euros, or about $20.6 billion a year. Europe’s appetite has grown as its native fish stocks have shrunk so that Europe now needs to import 60 percent of fish sold in the region, according to the European Union.

In Europe, the imbalance between supply and demand has led to a thriving illegal trade. Some 50 percent of the fish sold in the European Union originates in developing nations, and much of it is laundered like contraband, caught and shipped illegally beyond the limits of government quotas or treaties. The smuggling operation is well financed and sophisticated, carried out by large-scale mechanized fishing fleets able to sweep up more fish than ever, chasing threatened stocks from ocean to ocean.

The European Commission estimates that more than 1.1 billion euros in illegal seafood, or $1.6 billion worth, enters Europe each year. The World Wide Fund for Nature contends that up to half the fish sold in Europe are illegally caught or imported. While some of the so-called “pirate fishing” is carried out by non-Western vessels far afield, European ships are also guilty, some of them operating close to home. An estimated 40 percent of cod caught in the Baltic Sea are illegal, said Mireille Thom, a spokeswoman for Joe Borg, the European Union’s commissioner of fisheries and maritime affairs.

-srbp-

Taylor late on shrimp

Provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor issued a news release on Monday calling on the federal government to step up efforts to find a solution to the high tariff on imported shrimp imposed by the European Union.

He claimed the tariff may cause an early closure to this year's shrimp fishery, thereby putting almost 4, 000 local shrimp workers out of business.

Here are a few things Trevor missed:

1. Try getting in the game, Trevor. Over a year ago, well before the federal election, Siobhan Coady helped bring federal international trade minister Jim Peterson here to meet local business leaders. Coady, who operates a fish harvesting business, arranged a meeting for local shrimp exporters with Peterson. He's been working on the problem ever since.

Had the province been as concerned about the problem then, we might have made greater progress.

Other people have been working on this, Trev, old man. Welcome to the game - a day late and dollar short.

2. Some companies have already adapted. At least one local exporting company has incorporated a subsidiary inside the European Union that imports Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp and avoids the tariff.

Maybe that is something others could explore. Blaming the feds is an easy dodge.

3. Rein in the loonies first, Trev.One of the biggest things Taylor could do for the fishery on this issue is rein in the crowd in his own party locally and federally and all the crowd on the call-in shows who rub their hands with glee at the prospect of forcing the European Union out of fishing on the Grand Banks at gunpoint if necessary. Some of those countries have prosecuted since before white people settled in Newfoundland and Labrador and wouldn't take any more kindly to that kind of talk than we would if the tables were turned.

Rein in the looney fringe, Trev, my son and maybe just maybe, the Europeans would be more willing to listen to what we have to say.

No matter how hard you try, Trevor, this monkey just can't be tossed off your back.

Deal with that issue first and maybe your release won't sound like a hollow piece of political tripe.

4. Do shrimp buyers have the crabs? Taylor complains about weak American markets for shrimp. Maybe the crab fiasco - miserable quality that all but closed the American market to local crab - has spilled over.

This is all really too bad because Taylor is actually one of the better provincial cabinet ministers who Danny Williams actually lets handle the department he heads.

Inertia #nlpoli

In a letter last May to his federal counterpart, economic development minister Keith Hutchings described minimum processing requirements as the “only policy instrument within provincial jurisdiction that ensures fisheries resources adjacent to the province result in processing jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

For those who do not know what they are,  minimum processing requirements are a condition that the provincial government sets on the licenses it gives to companies that process fish in the province.  The name says it all:  the companies have to process a certain amount of the fish in order to create jobs in fish plants around Newfoundland and Labrador.

There’s been a fairly steady row about processing rules over the past decade as the companies struggle to stay financially viable.  There are way too many plants for the amount of fish available and there are way too many people in the province drawing pathetically small wages slicing up the fish that comes ashore.  Companies can’t process fish profitably here and yet the provincial government insists they keep at bit.

The provincial politicians and bureaucrats know perfectly well that they need to change their ways. The politicians knew about it when they set about to destroy the only truly globally competitive fish company in the province.  They’ve known about it as the fought over exactly the same issue with the company the government’s policy favoured over exactly the same issue.

And yet the politicians persist with their bankrupt idea.

The Fragile Economy: …and two steps back

In 2007, the contracts manager at Metalcraft Marine, a Kingston Ontario boat builder noticed the growing number of reports from the united States that predicted a looming downturn in the American market.

The threat was potentially devastating for a company that did 95% of its business manufacturing small patrol boats for American government agencies.

The company shifted its marketing focus to South America, the Middle East and Asia.  The work paid off:  revenues in 2010 will be 50% higher than 2007 based on new customers outside North America.

Inertia

Meanwhile, since 2007, the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador has been working alongside the other eastern Canadian provinces to increase trade with the United States. There is now a whole trade focus on the south-eastern Untied States complete with junkets and conferences. 

Just this weekend – April 2010 -  the Premier co-hosted the latest conference for the south-eastern project.  This is the same trade venture. incidentally, that drew Paul Oram to Georgia when he was the business minister. His grasp of recent events in the province is breathtaking.  Well, breathtaking that is, if you have no idea what he is talking about.  If you do have half a clue, you’d wonder what planet he was from to have cocked everything up so badly.

Now to be fair, the whole idea for this venture seems to have been cooked up back before 2007 when it looked to some like the growth in the United States economy would know no end. By the time the bureaucrats and politicians managed to get themselves organized, the first signs of looming trouble were showing up.  And by October 2008 when Oram was in Georgia, the entire arse had fallen out of the American economy.

By then, of course, or even by 2007, the bureaucratic juggernaut couldn’t be stopped even if someone wanted to.  And now three years after the first one, a whole bunch of people get together regularly at taxpayer expense to talk about how nice it would be if the private sector companies in the respective jurisdictions did a little business with one another. 

These trade affairs never seem to do much more than talk, of course and set up permanent offices employing public servants to help co-ordinate future meetings.  That’s what happened with the Tobin-era Irish junket-fest, revived by the Williams crew or the Team Atlantic missions to anywhere that has warmth and sun in the wintertime.  But the purpose of this discussion let’s run with the assumption used by governments, namely that these trade missions and junkets actually work.

Increasing Dependence on a Single Market

Politicians who come into office without any idea of what to do usually wind up following the flow.  This American trade idea is likely no exception. 

You see, the United States has been the province’s major foreign trading partner for decades.  In 1999, two thirds of all exports from Newfoundland and Labrador  went to the States. By 2006, that proportion had climbed to 75%.  Even in 2008 – the last year for which the provincial government provides statistics – 71% of exports from Newfoundland and Labrador went into the American market.

To put it another way, take a look at the export value compared to the province’s gross domestic product (GDP):  the  total value of goods and services produced in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2008, about half the GDP went to the Untied States. The GDP in 2009 was 22 billion.  The drop was pretty much all due to the collapse of the American market.

Now that level of dependence is not as bad as Metalcraft's problem in 2007, but it certainly should have made someone within the provincial government sit up and take notice.  After all, the provincial government’s own statistics analysts produced the figures cited above.  The level of dependence on the American economy is not a state secret.

Rather than trying to increase trade with the United States, Newfoundland and Labrador would be strategically better advised to diversify its markets. But since 2003, the provincial government has been doing exactly the opposite. 

What’s more, the provincial government  - in an apparently capricious move -  specifically rejected getting involved with a major international trade initiative aimed at diversifying the markets for local goods and services. 

Sure Paul Oram took a jet to India in 2008, but the very next year, the provincial government rejected a major national effort designed to open the European union to free trade with Canada. A few million dollars worth of seal bits trumped what had managed to become, by 2008, close to a couple of billion dollars of trade into the European Union. The prospect of more trade with the Europeans opens opportunities for new business throughout the province not to mention offering the chance to resolve some long-standing trade issues in the fishery.

However, none of that seems to have had any impact on the group of politicians and bureaucrats determining the province’s economic policy.  So it is that the European opportunity was neglected, to put it mildly, while the American continues.

Markets?  We dun need no stinking markets?

Now this is not the first or only time such a situation has occurred since 2003.

The provincial government took a hand in smashing to bits the only internationally competitive fishing enterprise based in the province.  Fishery Products International continues as a brand.  The brand, along with the international marketing arm went to a Nova Scotia-based company.  Another section, a seafood marketing arm based in the United Kingdom also wound up on the block, snapped up just as quickly by someone else with far greater vision than the provincial government and the band that sliced the company to pieces.

Now it does not matter if the provincial government actively worked to destroy FPI or if it merely went along for the ride because it lacked a coherent fisheries policy of its own.  The end result is the same:  The parts of the company that could have helped to diversify markets for local seafood are gone to others.  The unprofitable and problematic bits – the processing bits – remain in the province and continue to be highly problematic  although they are now held by a smaller company with far less global clout.

The others are doing quite well for themselves.  John Risley, vilified by the Premier during the FPI debacle, personally runs a successful company that last year turned a profit of $25.8 million despite the downturn in the American market and the high Canadian dollar.  A key part of the success is the FPI stuff Risley bought with the same Premier’s agreement.

Oh to be in that room

There is no small joke in discovering that the Biloxi conference co-hosted by Danny Williams is sponsored,in part, by AbitibiBowater. Williams’ expropriation gambit of AbitibiBowater’s and other’s assets in 2008 has turned out to be a legal disaster for the provincial government and may well prove to be as big a financial mess too.

Irrespective of that, though, there is something fitting in having Williams hosting an event designed to encourage trade while it is sponsored by a company which is the poster-child for the Williams administration’s erratic, contradictory policies. 

It is one thing to sell products in another market.  Another key component of trade missions is attracting new investors.  What could more readily turn off investors than the spectacle of a provincial government seizing control of assets, revoking permits and unilaterally quashing legal action? 

Williams did not just lay waste to AbitibiBowater’s presence in the province with his December 2008 surprise.  The expropriation bill also seized assets belonging to two other companies:  the Italian multi-national ENEL and St. John’s-based Fortis.  There is still no sign of any settlement with any of the parties affected, including those like ENEL and Fortis which appear to have been collateral damage in whatever war lay at heart of the expropriation.

One step forward and two steps back

Two decades ago, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognised both the problems faced in the province and the opportunities posed by changes in the global economy. The Strategic Economic Plan aimed to make fundamental changes in the economy, diversify industries and markets.  The plan was a step forward.

Two decades later, the province is two steps back.  The SEP and all the knowledge that lay behind it are tossed aside. 

As the old adage goes:  fail to plan.  Plan to fail. 

The results are there for all to see:  increasingly, the provincial labour force is dominated by people whose jobs depend on tax dollars, rather than on jobs that generate tax dollars.

 

The provincial government now accounts for almost 25% of the employed labour force in the province.  This is not just the result of the near collapse of the forest sector and the steady decline of the fishery:  public sector employment like public sector spending generally continues to grow apace. Curiously enough, the Williams administration started out with a policy of reducing the public service.

Since 2003, the only development projects that have taken place were all either begun before the current administration took power or build modestly on existing work.  Nothing new has turned up despite the creation of an entire department supposedly devoted to generating new economic development.

More of the provincial economy in 2010 depends on exports to the United States than a decade ago. About 71% of all foreign exports now head to the United States.

Oil generated one third of the provincial gross domestic product in 2009;  that’s about seven billion dollars in a $22 billion economy. Total provincial government spending for 2010 is about seven billion.  As industries like forestry and the fishery have withered or faltered, the provincial government has stepped in to take its place.

The provincial economy is increasingly driven by public sector spending which, itself cannot be sustained at current levels.

There are ways to correct the course the provincial government has currently set.

That is where this series will turn next.

-srbp-

Trade talks with Europeans = “doing a back-room deal with a group of serial rapists”

What your humble e-scribbler said:

this guy could be an accident waiting to happen.

Wait no longer.

After musing about breaking his major campaign promise to the people of his riding, noob Bloc NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary decided to inject himself into another discussion on a subject he knows nothing about, namely international trade talks between Canada and the European Union.

The comments turn up on his blog, something he may well be forced by jack Layton to shut down very soon [hotlinks in the original]: 

Why should Newfoundland and Labrador be concerned about the Harper government’s secret free-trade negotiations with the European Union?

Because they could screw us to the wall.

The same Europeans nations that fished out/raped the Grand Banks are negotiating a deal with the Government of Canada.

And no one reports to Parliament on the status of negotiations.

In other words, Canada is doing a back-room deal with a group of serial rapists.

How scary is that?

How scary indeed.

Well, it is pretty scary when a member of parliament cannot even report accurately and factually on things that are already well established.  This is a guy, after all, who is expected to render thoughtful judgment on all sorts of issues ranging from the taxes you pay to the criminal law in Canada.

So if he doesn’t know basic stuff, then it is a pretty good bet his lack of information has a good chance of coming back to bite you and me on the ass.

The talks aren’t secret. The national media have been reporting it for years.  So too did the local media in Newfoundland and Labrador all during the time the former investigative reporter was plying his trade. They even carried a story on it this past March, noting that the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador had joined the talks.

Evidently, they weren’t so secret after all.

Then there’s the issue of blaming Europeans for destroying fish stocks on the Grand Banks.  That’s a line pushed by Cleary’s buddy Gus Etchegary.  The only problem:  it is a load of codswallop.  The Europeans, Japanese and – you guessed it – Canadian companies including one Cleary’s buddy used to help manage all had a hand in driving cod to the brink of extinction.

As for reporting to parliament, the federal cabinet shows up in parliament every day the House of Commons sits.  When Cleary is in his desk in the House, they are all the people to the left, right and immediately behind that fellow the Speaker keeps calling “the Right Honourable the Prime Minister.” 

Each day, people around Cleary get to ask questions of those ministers.  If they wanted, they could even ask about these talks because – as ministers of the Crown – they are directing the talks.  If Cleary wanted, he could ask about them so they could report on the talks.  They might not give him intimate details – negotiations are usually confidential – but they will confirm the talks are going on.  In other words, they aren’t secret.

And if Cleary and his buddies have a problem, then they can raise their concerns in the House and in the media and maybe provoke some discussion about it.

So in six sentences, Cleary gets off to a rotten start and that’s before we consider the issues that are at stake for Newfoundland and Labrador if the talks fail.

Instead he has opted to shoot his mouth off based solely on an opinion derived entirely from – you guessed it – obvious ignorance.

In the greater scheme of things, the House of Commons has seen its fair share of these self-important blowhards over the decades.  Usually, they tend to frequent provincial politics in these parts but every now and then one of the little darlings gets into a position where they can display their profound ignorance on a national scale.

Cleary will likely delight the punters.  The tinfoil hat brigade will cheer him on as he rants about things he – and they – evidently know nothing about.  So much for looking after the best interests of his constituents and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Bloc NDP may have a few days of embarrassment. But since Cleary has already confirmed your humble e-scribbler’s first prediction, we can go a step farther. 

It is only a matter of time before the new Chief Spokesperson of the League of Professional Victims launches into a tirade on another of his favourite targets:  the nefarious, perfidious and generally odious crowd from Quebec and their efforts to take control of Labrador and destroy Newfoundland.

Perhaps Cleary will tell his fellow Bloc NDP MPs what he told macleans.ca:

“I don’t think I have a big mouth. I just have something to say and I’m going to say it.”

Oh to be a fly on the caucus room wall after he flings that crap at every fan in sight.

- srbp -

Dysfunction and disconnect

How many times does a government get to do and say completely contradictory or unfounded things before people wonder about the competence of the people involved?

1.  "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is unable to support this at this time on the basis of very genuine concerns that our province’s issues [shrimp tariff, seal hunt, custodial management] may not be safeguarded or dealt with in an appropriate way by the Federal Government."  Government of Newfoundland and Labrador news release, February 20, 2009.

2.   “It is clear that the efforts of our government, in collaboration with those of the Government of Canada and industry, are indeed paying off,” continued Minister Rideout.”  Major progress made on European Union shrimp tariff, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador news release, July 11, 2007.

3.   "That's how things have worked for us over the years, and we've got shafted as a result of it," he said, claiming that Newfoundland fish stocks have been traded off by the feds. Danny Williams, comments to reporters, quoted in “Williams ponders own deal with EU”, The Telegram, March 7, 2009. [Not on line] This is a commonly held belief of some people in the province but there is no evidence to that such trades ever occurred.

4. "We strongly endorse your commitment for bilateral agreements and look forward to working with the federal government to achieve a bilateral agreement with the EU." Innovation minister Trevor Taylor,  August 11, 2008, letter to then federal international trade minister Michael Fortier, quoted in “Province backed trade talks: 2008 letter”, The Telegram, March 10, 2009.

5.  “If that means that there's an agreement between Canada and 12 jurisdictions, and there has to be a separate agreement negotiated with Newfoundland and Labrador, then I'm fine with that." Williams, quoted in The Telegram, March 7, 2009.

Williams reportedly conveyed his concerns to Quebec premier jean Charest in the latter’s capacity as chairman of the council of provincial premiers.  Charest has been one of the driers of the EU trade deal since he first proposed it after the annual economic conference in Davos, 2007.

6.  "The EU doesn't negotiate trade agreements with provinces or federations," MUN's Steven Wolinetz said. “Prof puzzled by premier’s call for own EU trade deal”, The Telegram, March 9, 2009.

7.   "I do understand from behind the scenes that this is actually causing some very, very serious concerns from people in the EU," Williams said. quoted in The Telegram, March 7, 2009.

8.  “It would have been ideal if all provinces had joined” in Friday’s pro-trade declaration, [EU official] Jan Sliva said in a statement. “But in our view those provinces and territories that did join represent the majority of Canada’s trade and investment potential.” quoted in “N.L. won’t stop Canada-Europe trade talks: EU”, CanWest, March 10, 2009.

Given all that, it would seem logical to conclude that the provincial government actually isn’t interested in resolving its three big issues.  After all, they cannot be resolved if the provincial government refuses to address them or has no means to address them given its refusal to work on an obvious mechanism to resolve them.

And hey, it’s not like Newfoundland and Labrador doesn’t have a significant interest in expanded trade with the European Union.  After the United States, the EU is Newfoundland and Labrador’s largest foreign trade partner.

-srbp-

Province increased CETA demands after crucial agreement #nlpoli

Almost a year after reaching an understanding with the federal government on a joint federal-provincial fisheries fund related to the European trade talks, the provincial government tried to alter the deal radically.

Documents released by the provincial government in 2013 and 2014 show that the federal and provincial governments agreed in June 2013 to  fund a cost-shared (70% federal and 30% provincial) “transition program” of up to $400 million that would address “industry development and renewal as well as worker displacement.” 

But in May 2014,  provincial fisheries minister Keith Hutchings changed the provincial demands.

Trade deals and petards

The premier’s excuses for not participating in talks on a European trade deal just get more bizarre as time goes by.

First there was the whole idea that Stephen Harper can’t be trusted to look after Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests so the best solution – according to Danny Williams’ logic – is to let Stephen Harper look after Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests.

Then there was the whole idea of a side deal which, of course is impossible constitutionally, not to mention practically.  As a European Union spokesperson put it:

"The Government of Canada is the only government with the authority to conclude international treaties under the Canadian constitution, so our interlocutor and negotiating partner will be the government of Canada,"…

The spokesperson indicated she’d apparently met with Our man in a Blue Line Cab to talk about seals.

But apparently, nothing else.

Then there was the whole go-it-alone thing, which consisted of nothing more grand than sending Tom Hedderson off to talk to a few ambassadors in a hastily arranged series of meetings on seals.

Now there’s this little gem, from Question period in the House of Assembly on Monday:

So there are other bigger issues. There is also the whole issue of the Atlantic Accord and what is going to happen when European countries do business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What issue is he talking about? 

Or more accurately, which Atlantic Accord?

The 2005 one – the only one he usually talks about – doesn’t have anything to do with Europeans or trade.

The 1985 one – the real one – establishes a local preference policy for Newfoundland and Labrador companies doing business offshore.  The only way to get rid of that would be for the federal and provincial governments to agree to eliminate it.  That’s because the deal can’t be amended unilaterally.

Well, it isn’t supposed to be amended unilaterally.

Under section 60 of the 1985 Accord, neither party could amend the enabling legislation unilaterally. Until 2007, no one thought they might.  Then Stephen Harper amended the offset provisions in a rather sneaky way.

But the really odd thing is that the provincial government did not raise a single objection  - beyond some generalised gum-flapping about Equalization - to the amendment of the 1985 deal. 

Not a one.

No letters of protest.

Nada.

To the contrary, when they opted for O’Brien 50 this past winter – and pocketed  Equalization cash in the process – they accepted the federal Conservative’s 2007 amendment as part of the deal.  In fact, as the premier has indicated recently, the provincial government decided at least as long ago as early 2008 to flip to O’Brien/50 in early 2009 in hopes of pocketing Equalization cash. Heck, they might have even signalled that privately at the time to the federal government.

So maybe the real reason the Premier is in a snit is because he’s worried that through all of this he’ll just be hoist by his own clever Equalization petard.  Rather than see the local preference rules of the 1985 deal preserved to the benefit of local companies, we’ll see them disappear.

That would go a long way to explaining the sudden about face the provincial government did on this deal back in February.  Maybe the feds made it clear that the local preference provisions of the 1985 deal were up for consideration and one of the things the feds could throw back in the Premier’s face was his own acceptance of the unilateral changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord.  You can almost imagine the conversation:  “Danny, it doesn’t matter if you show up or not.  We can change the thing by ourselves if we have to – you just told us we could when you accepted the changes from 2007.”

Still, though, it doesn’t explain why he would sit on the sidelines rather than become personally involved.  After all, as he told the legislature: :[w]e are going to do what we have to do here to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I could not care less what the rest of them do, I have to be quite honest with you.”

Well, to be quite honest with you, if the provincial government was really hell-bent on protecting Newfoundland and Labrador interests, the place to do that is at the table, inside the Canadian negotiating team.

Seal-bashing just doesn’t seem like a reason enough to turn down the invitation to sit on the team.  And like we’ve said before, if custodial management and shrimp tariffs are so important – and they are – the place to deal with those is at the negotiating table.

And look, if you really want to get a sense of how much is at stake for the province just look at what the Premier said himself in the legislature:

There are also a lot of very big, multinational, European companies that want to do business in Newfoundland and Labrador, because of our minerals, because of our oil and gas, because of our fishery, and we have to take the abuse from these hypocrites basically saying that we act in an inhumane and a barbarian manner, when they chase bulls through the streets in Spain, and matadors pierce bulls in a Roman type atmosphere, and we are out trying to earn a living.

So  - if we try and follow the Premier’s own logic – a vote by the European parliament that affects maybe a few million dollars that comes to the province from seal-bashing is way more important than billions in new economic development throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that would come from participating in the trade deal negotiations.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Not.

-srbp-

Recurring Behaviour #nlpoli

Exactly one year ago,  the provincial government was in a controversy over its part in the European free trade deal.  The Conservatives were  heralding the great deal, including a $400 million fisheries development fund.

The opposition Liberals asked for details.  The provincial Conservatives and then-Premier Kathy Dunderdale wouldn’t release any information.  On December 5, 2013,  Premier Kathy Dunderdale relented and released 80 pages of letters and e-mails between federal and provincial officials about the talks. 

A year later,  the provincial Conservatives are still in a political quagmire over the deal. This time the problem is that there isn’t any deal. Premier Paul Davis said on Monday that the whole thing was just a matter of crossing a few tees and dotting some eyes.  On Tuesday, ,  Davis and a gaggle of his cabinet ministers said the negotiations on the fund were going no where.  He needed to take it to the Prime Minister and so Davis and Stephen Harper would meet on Wednesday.

That was fine except that the Prime Minister’s Office said there’d been no meeting scheduled. Harper was scheduled to be in Montreal for Jean Belliveau’s funeral.

The Conservatives and federal-provincial relations #nlpoli

Two news stories last week reminded us once again of the nature of federal-provincial relations for Newfoundland and Labrador over the past decade.

A story in the Chronicle Herald reported on recent comments by Danny Williams about a sharp personal exchange he supposed had with Stephen Harper before the later became prime minister.

The second story was the release late in the week by Premier Kathy Dunderdale of some documents about the provincial government’s position on the Canada- European Union trade agreement. The 80-odd pages of e-mails and letters include an effort by the provincial government to tie search and rescue, an offshore safety agency,  and the federal government’s Hibernia shares in a deal between the federal and provincial governments. 

All they need for Christmas is new talking points #nlpoli

Keith Hutchings - the provincial cabinet minister leading talks with the federal government on European trade  - issued a statement on December 9, 2014.that began with a simple statement.

“In June, 2013,” Hutchings began,

“our governments agreed that, in exchange for the [provincial government] agreeing to lift minimum processing requirements (MPRs) for the European Union (EU), the Federal Government and the provinc[ial government] would establish a fund that would provide for total expenditure of $400 million based on a 70/30 federal/provincial cost share.”

The money was for “industry development and renewal [in the fishing industry] as well as worker displacement”  according to Hutchings.

But when Hutchings spoke with the Telegram’s James McLeod six months later, things weren’t quite so cut and dried.

Breaking up FPI

Curse Hansard for being unconscionably slow posting the transcripts of debates in the House of Assembly.

The stuff from last Thursday night and the debate on the Hydro bill is still not online. That yielded nuggets for blogging mostly because not a single member who spoke on the bill had a freakin' clue what it was about. Well, at least their comments didn't suggest any comprehension of the English language.

It is way too early therefore to expect anything from Tuesday and Danny Williams little slip of the tongue in which he revealed a bit of his "plan" for Fishery Products International (FPI). He said something to the effect that if a group of local stakeholders came forward with a plan to buy up the company, then he'd put government money behind them.

Couple that with the changes to the FPI Act currently in front of the House and you have the Williams' plan for FPI: break it up and sell off the bits. Sound familiar?

Remember the Rule of Opposites. In this corollary, take what he accuses someone else of plotting and apply to the Prem himself.

In the absence of any deeper plan for the fishery as a whole - let alone a deeper understanding of what the issues are - the provincial government is falling victim to the quick-fix bail out approach. That's why when fish minister Tom Rideout (right) spoke on the FPI Act amendments Tuesday, he referred to the current situation being like 20 years ago. FPI was created out of a massive bail-out scheme.

The bail-out scheme we may see applied in this instance would have the fish plants in the province sold off, most likely to the Barry Group.

Meanwhile, Ocean Cuisine and possibly the European division would be retained and run by a consortium of the smaller operators out there whose product it already flogs. The European division might also be a way of getting local shrimp under the European Union tariff barrier.

Remember Danny's comment about selling off FPI at fire-sale prices? Well, consider that the current bill in the legislature gives the cabinet control over the break-up: that's the goal of the legislation. The Premier was likely only concerned about someone else buying up the assets at a fire sale - one with flames fanned by his own government more often than not - not necessarily about the idea of a sale and a break up per se.

Of course, in the larger picture Rideout is dead wrong. He and Williams may well manage to cobble together a quick-fix here involving a bail-out and government money but they are really looking at a situation which is fundamentally different than the one 20 years ago. What Williams and Rideout will be doing - if the FPI break-up evolves out of the Great Wednesday Meeting with the Premier - is avoiding the tar-baby by taking the province headlong into the political and financial briar patch.

And just like 20 years ago, neither of them plans on being around when we find out how prickly the briar is.

Better fewer but better

A few weeks ago, provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor placed a stark choice in front of the province, particularly those involved in the crab business. His choice was more honest that the proposals from Earl McCurdy within the past two days for reasons that will become obvious below.

Since the status quo will not work, he argued, either the industry moves towards a management system like the proposed raw materials sharing system or it accepts a completely free market.

In assessing the government's position it is important to look at the overall management of the fishery. The federal government regulates the number of harvesters in the business. Fisheries and Oceans sets quotas for catching crab and it issues licenses to people to catch the quota.

The provincial government is responsible for managing the processing sector and that's where the most labour is involved. As the provincial government's current backgrounder points out, between 1996 and 2002, the provincial government allowed the processing sector to expand rapidly to meet growing supply but it did so to absorb more and more workers in rural communities who were unable to find other work.

Naturally, there is now a problem in the local processing sector, namely overcapacity. This is just a current buzz-word for too many plants, and with it, too many plant workers for the volume of crab being landed.

It should be noted that the fishing industry globally has too much capacity for processing compared to the volume of fish landings. Increased efficiency in plants has meant that fewer plants can handle landings. As others have noted, changes in the processing sector, changes in currency values and other factors have allowed fish companies in the North Atlantic to ship product to China, finish it and return it to markets here and abroad for less than it would cost to process the same fish at home.

As noted, the current over-supply of fish processing is, in part, the result of decisions taken after 1996 by the provincial government. These decisions were designed, as the government backgrounder notes, to increase the work available in fishplants.

Effectively, this was a return to the disastrous policies of the 1980s in which more and more people were encouraged to enter the fishing industry in one way or another to the point where every fish plant worker barely worked long enough to qualify for basic employment insurance payments. The plant workers, for one group, displaced by the cod moratorium were transferred into processing another species which itself was placed under severe pressure.

Many of the problems currently being faced in the crab industry are due to poor management practices like the ones proposed by the provincial government in the late 1990s. Stress on the stocks has produced an increased incidence of soft shell, a decline in overall landings due to declining stocks and, not surprisingly, a reluctance of people to leave the jobs despite the obvious need to reduce the number of plants and the number of plant workers in the province.

Economically, the current system is unsustainable and, in fact, would have long ago collapsed were it not for the federal government's income supplement programs like Employment Insurance.

The crab problem is a familiar one in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

The provincial government's solution is equally familiar. In order to preserve the existing plant capacity - and with it the existing employment levels - the government is proposing to distribute crab landings evenly among all plants. This system will keep plants open as long as possible. It will secure as many land-based jobs as possible, but it means a reduction in income for fishermen who, until now, have been able to earn record prices for the crab catches as a result of the artificially increased level of competition among crab processors. They have been able to gain not only the very best prices in the marketplace; they have also earned premiums and other incentives from crab processors who need raw material to keep their plants operating. The notion of the despotic fish merchant is hardly applicable.

The government plan is familiar since it avoids any drastic action. It spreads a declining resource as thinly as possible in exactly the way cod stocks were managed before 1992.

Those who think the Williams administration is harsh or that it is simply favouring business interests had better take a closer look. Their simplistic view obviously sits behind the Indy's front page story this week that implies some sort of plot between the processors and government simply because the Premier's chief of staff used to employ one of the fish processor's staffers.

The reality is that the current provincial government is following a time-honoured political approach to managing the fishery as a social enterprise rather than an economic one. Danny Williams is no different from Brian Tobin, Brian Peckford or Frank Moores in this respect. In truth, Williams' administration is in line with virtually every provincial government since 1949.

The goal of the raw materials management plan is solely to keep plants open as long as possible so that they can keep as many people working as possible, even if they all make a relative pittance. It is considered more important to preserve a job or a plant or a community or the backbone of our society and economy, to paraphrase the icthiophiles, than it is to have a healthy fishing industry in which each person can gain a living wage from direct labour alone.

There is no small irony that Williams is being vilified in this case for being exactly what he is not or that he is being blamed for a situation when in fact actual power rests with another set of hands.

The crab industry as it exists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador depends almost entirely on the fishermen who for the last month have staged various criminal acts to support their supposedly disadvantaged position.

The reality is that in any system proposed by the provincial government, the province cannot enforce it. The fishermen alone decide to whom they will sell their raw material. If prices are better in Nova Scotia, then local plants will sit idle as modern, locally owned crab-boats sail from the fishing grounds offshore Newfoundland to the docksides of Cape Breton. Those whose boats can't make the voyage can easily truck the crab, or hire a boat that can make the voyage if they themselves do not wish to sell for the prices available locally.

From time to time, someone will look to Iceland as a model for this province to follow. Iceland does offer a worthwhile model, but not in the way it is often presented. Iceland long ago dismissed the idea of the fishery as an exercise in social engineering. Instead, the fishery is a business, prosecuted as a business.

Were that approach taken in this province, we would have a very hard time for a few years. The provincial government would merely issue licenses to qualifying companies. Whether those companies survived or closed would depend entirely on market forces. There would be no government bail-outs.

If we want to look at approaches from overseas, we might do well to look at the failed eastern European solution which we seem bent on repeating. In Poland, for example, the government withdrew from the economy. Despite initial upheavals the transition to a market economy and with it economic development was largely completed within a year of the collapse of communism in the early 1990s. Neighbouring countries, which took a different approach are still struggling some 15 years later.

In this province, provincial cabinet ministers resisted the opportunity offered by the cod moratorium to restructure the fishery, end the tendency toward state interference and put the industry on a sound economic footing for the benefit of everyone.

Instead, today, we are left struggling with the vestiges of old-style government management approaches that continue in other guises. They have failed utterly in the past time and time again. They will fail again.

Meanwhile, the fish union trots out the old villains for blame, even though the economic circumstances in the fishery have changed dramatically in recent years, and at the same time engages in criminal behaviour and intimidation to advance their position.

The union also embodies a conflict of interest. Their members who process crab on land will surely benefit from the government's proposal. Their harvester-members - who are predominantly male and who clearly dominate the union - would suffer little or nothing at all from it.

The union has been incredibly successful in wresting concessions from government and herein can be found the lie in any notions that the current administration is somehow intrasigent or that the government is about to break the fish union.

Without giving anything except threats and intimidation, the fish union succeeded in having government cut its program from two years to a mere one. Just this past week, and again with nothing but threats and intimidation, the Premier mused about a compensation package for fish plant workers.

Even if the crab plants stay closed, Earl McCurdy has become one of the most powerful political figures imaginable in the province. He can have one set of his members paid entirely by the government for not working. His other members can catch and sell their products for market prices.

And in the meantime, the other business of the government has slowed to a crawl. News headlines are dominated by the fish union members and their illegal actions. Government can scarcely talk of anything else save crab, either inside or outside the Confederation Building.

Yet in the end, the province remains with a fishing industry desparately in need of serious attention and public talk of the industry mired in myths and half-truths.

Most unfortunately of all, the most powerful man in the fishing industry has no incentive to change anything at all.

It is a shame.

Another Dan-didate?

Walter Noel, left, is a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister and a former federal Liberal candidate.

On Open Line with Randy Simms this morning, Noel said he had written the Premier suggesting the province commission a report to look at the economics of Confederation and show how Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't been receiving its "fair share" or getting "fair treatment".

Noel claimed that the 2002 Airing of Grievances didn't produce such a report.

Well, not exactly.

There is a report titled "Newfoundland and Labrador: Towards an Assessment of the Benefits of the Canadian Economic Union."

Here's the executive summary:

This report was commissioned by the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening our Place in Canada to provide information regarding the economic, fiscal and other benefits to Canada and to Newfoundland and Labrador of the province’s presence in the federation.

In 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada to secure a brighter economic future for itself – and its new country. In the ensuing half century, Newfoundland and Labrador has certainly become wealthier but has struggled to keep pace economically with the rest of the country and with its trading partners. Perhaps unfairly, the province has too often been characterized as a place with no jobs and dependent upon the transfer payments it became entitled to upon Confederation.

A region’s growth involves at least four kinds of external relationships: (i) trade, or the import and export of goods and services; (ii) migration of people, both in their capacity as consumers and in their capacity as workers; (iii) interregional “migration” of other production factors, notably investment capital; and (iv) the national government’s revenue collection and expenditure in the region. This report examines the current state and evolution of each of these external relationships and in doing so provides information to help assess the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador from the Canadian economic union.

Fiscal Benefits

This report finds that the federal government’s net spending in the province has not been a major factor in the overall national fiscal position. Newfoundland and Labrador’s size meant that more populous provinces receive substantially larger sums of federal money and have a larger impact on the federal government’s overall fiscal position.

Federal spending in Newfoundland and Labrador has declined over the last few years. In fact federal spending in Newfoundland and Labrador as a share of spending throughout the country has fallen 0.5% over the last decade – the largest decline of any province – while over the same period Ontario and British Columbia have seen their share of Federal spending rise.

Trade Benefits

The rest of Canada has and continues to benefit from the economic union by exporting goods and services to Newfoundland and Labrador. Companies in Ontario and Quebec have benefi ted the most from trade with Newfoundland and Labrador. While consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador have benefited from lower prices for imported goods and services since Confederation, it is only now that Newfoundland and Labrador businesses are starting to see a significant increase in their benefit from the domestic market.

Investment in the development of the province’s major oil projects will continue to support high levels of imports for a few years. The production from these projects will, however, start to generate substantial export revenue and help push the trade balance towards a surplus position.

Labour Benefits

People from Newfoundland and Labrador can be found across the country making significant contributions to their local economy. This study estimated that for every 10 current residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are 4 people born in the province that are now living elsewhere in Canada. By moving to fill jobs required in the rest of Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador labour force has acted to reduce labour market disruptions caused by labour shortages in other provinces. The current study estimates that a flow of workers to other provinces the amount of which is equal in size to the number of people born in Newfoundland and Labrador but now resident in other provinces would reduce competitiveness and economic
performance leading to a $1.1 billion reduction in the federal government surplus. The latter amount is equal to about 40% of the current federal deficit in the province.

The loss of these people has, however, been at best a mixed blessing to Newfoundland and Labrador. The loss of productive workers and their associated demand depresses economic activity – but it does reduce competition for jobs for those that remain.

Natural Resource Benefits

For the last forty years investment capital has been concentrated in the development of the province’s natural resources. While these projects have brought jobs and income there are lingering questions about whether the province receives an appropriate return on its natural resource wealth.

The impact of the Churchill Falls hydro-electric power contract with Hydro Quebec is significant. The loss in real provincial GDP (1997 dollars) was estimated to be between $1,500 and $3,000 a person each year throughout the 1990s and – even at the lower end of the range – would be enough to pull Newfoundland and Labrador ahead of both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in terms of per capita GDP. The benefits to Quebec’s economy have been equally large – supporting the development of a powerful manufacturing sector and providing windfall gains on their electricity exports. The situation has, up to now, stalled the development of hydro-electric resources that would reduce Canada’s dependence on fossil fuels and help us meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appears to collect, at best, a modest return on its natural resource assets.

• The high costs of development and exploration mean that the province collects about one eighth the revenue per barrel of oil that Alberta does. This low revenue rate, combined with a comparatively short lifespan for the projects, means that Newfoundland and Labrador will not benefit from this resource to the same extent that the other oil producing provinces have.

• Provincial revenues from other mining activity are similar to those in other provinces. The more critical issue for this sector is to process the minerals locally. The recent agreement on development at Voisey’s Bay should help the province benefi t in a more significant way from this resource.

• Provincial revenues from the forestry sector are the second lowest in the country. The benefit from this resource appears to accrue to the owners of the province’s pulp and paper mills.

Appropriate natural resources policies are extremely hard to define. Ideally, the province should capture a larger share of the economic rent from its natural resources to help ensure a more prosperous future. The analysis in this report, although limited in scope, would appear to support a review of the province’s natural resources policies.

Other Benefits

Confederation brought a host of other benefits to Canada. The new province helped “complete” the country from coast to coast to coast. While politically Confederation prevented Newfoundland and Labrador from slipping into the United States orbit it has not inhibited the province’s strategic importance to continental defence. By adding 406,000 square kilometres of land to the country, Canada gained a wealth of natural resources and dramatically extended its coastline. As a result, the adoption of the 200 nautical mile limit allowed Canada to add 1,826,000 square kilometers of offshore waters to its territory with access to all the riches of the Atlantic Ocean. This physical enlargement also provided a new shipping outlet on the Atlantic sea lanes with St. John’s harbour and Gander airport is an important waypoint for
international flights.

Finally, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not only contributed economically to the success of the rest of the country but have also enriched the culture of the nation through the work of its writers, artists, performers and politicians. The province also enriches our history as the site of the first European settlers in North America.

This report has explored some of the dimensions of the Canadian economic union and
Newfoundland and Labrador’s relationship with it. In 1949, a small economy became part of a larger economy. This action entailed the creation of a customs union for the movement of goods, services and capital; the removal of barriers to labour movement; and the reduction of non tariff barriers. The process of adjustment to these changes has defined economic development in the province since Confederation. With the tumultuous decade of the 1990s behind it, Newfoundland and Labrador can now look forward to a period of sustained growth. The process of adjustment and integration is still ongoing and the policy choices made in St. John’s, Ottawa and the other provincial capitals will help determine how the benefits of the economic union affect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Maybe Wally didn't read the report since it doesn't conclusively demonstrate that his preconceptions are valid.

Maybe he is planning on running as a Dan-didate either provincially or federally next time out.

-30-

FPI sold

The official announcement came on Monday, even though the deal has been in the works for a couple of weeks.

The Honourable Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Honourable Tom Rideout, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, today announced that the Provincial Government has reached two separate Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Ocean Choice International (OCI) Incorporated and High Liner Foods Incorporated for the sale of various FPI assets. The MOUs also outline the terms and conditions that will accompany the successful completion of those transactions and provide the necessary protections for the province’s interests. The sale remains conditional upon the signing of final binding legal agreements between both companies and FPI, which is expected in the coming weeks. The Provincial Government will also approve the sale of The Seafood Company, a primarily independent business unit located in the United Kingdom, which will be sold to interests in Europe.

One of the consequences of this deal is that the lucrative marketing arm of Fishery Products International will be sold to a Nova Scotia-based company. Another marketing asset based in the United Kingdom - which would have been a useful way to market local shellfish in the European Union will be sold to European interests.

"Since 2001, it is clear that FPI has pursued a business strategy that has been incompatible with the public policy objectives of the Provincial Government [sic] and communities that depend on the company," said Minister Rideout. "The agreements we are announcing today hold the promise of finally rectifying that situation, and our approval of this sale is reflective of this government’s confidence in the industry to move forward in a productive way that will serve the best interests of all stakeholders."

Time will tell if the second part of that statement is true. Certainly, the first bit - about the business strategy - is bordering on the completely nonsensical. Rideout has never indicated what the provincial government's public policy objectives are.

-srbp-

The little things that stand out #nlpoli

Throne Speech 2015 was the kind of document you’d expect from a group of politicians who are out of new ideas.

People are making a big deal out of the review of the provincial curriculum for K-12 schools.  That’s what the folks in the education department do for a living.  It’s nothing new.

The promise that the review will produce a 21st century curriculum is such a cliche that it is laughable, given that we are in the second decade of the new century.

Not very impressive, is it?

Charest suggests Euro-trade for Canada

From Premier Jean Charest comes this excellent suggestion on a free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

As if on cue, Charest received this endorsement and this one from Quebec business on the idea.

For Newfoundland and Labrador, the prospect of free trade with Europe has some positive aspects.

Upside: Newfoundland and Labrador is the closest point in North America to Europe. That holds huge potential for economic growth given the shortened flying and shipping times. For mainlanders reading this, a jet leaving St. John's can be at Gatwick in something like three and a half hours.

Downside: Any new industrial development might have involve a major deal with government.
Saving grace: The deal likely couldn't come into force until after 2010, meaning a certain bird-lover will likely have flown the coup by then.

Upside: European trade barriers on products like shrimp would drop, again benefiting Newfoundland and Labrador exporters.

Upside: The seal hunt would likely be shut down, thereby ending March Madness and second rate celebrities debating Paul and his ex-wife on Larry King Live about whether they are in Charlottetown Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown Newfoundland or Charlottetown Labrador.

Charest pronounces his trip to the world economic summit in Davos to be a success, here, en francais.


______________________
Meanwhile, one of the four Atlantic premiers was accosted by an expat from his own province. Three guesses which one is was. The Premier, not the ex-pat.

In this story, by the way, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is quoted as saying that people from this province are like homing pigeons. Well, he treats them as if they weren't the homing variety but either way, the comment is more than a little insulting.

He uses this like almost as much as he says "quite frankly", or coughs whenever he is being scrummed and is a tad uncomfortable.

Danny needs new joke writers before someone flips him the bird.

There’s more to this than a few seals

Given the origins of and the scope of the trade talks starting between Canada and the European Union, Danny Williams’ refusal to participate is even more bizarre than it first appeared.

Whatever is going on with the government party and its supporters – including voice of the cabinet minister crowd who seem obsessed with clubbing seals these days - it ain’t really about seals.

The provincial government seems intent on ignoring both the reality of the province’s dependence on trade with the United States and the growing concerns about American trade protectionism. Of the $13-plus billion in exports to the top 10 trading partners for the province, the United States consumed $10 billion or 77%.  The U.S. accounts for 70% of all Newfoundland and Labrador international exports.

This, from the Economist, says much:

You can see why Canada would want to lessen its dependence on America, which bought 75.5% of its exported goods last year and provided 63.4% of its imported ones. Yanked into recession by America, Canada worries that trade will suffer from protectionism (in the form of new Buy American provisions and country-of-origin labelling requirements on farm products) and Washington’s moves to toughen up border security.

The deal could open new markets for Canadian exports of agricultural, fish and forestry products in addition to fish, aerospace, automotive and other exports. 

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is refusing to participate in the talks as part of the Canadian delegation.  The Premier claims it is because he doesn’t trust the Prime Minister to look after the province’s concerns about European opposition to the seal hunt, the push for custodial management of fisheries outside the 200 mile Canadian exclusive economic zone and impact of a EU shrimp tariff on Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp exports.

Since all those things are on the table plus a great deal more directly affecting the future of the provincial economy, it’s bizarre that the provincial government would leave all those issues entirely in the hands of someone they supposedly don’t trust.

Bizarre indeed.

 

 

-srbp-