Here is some additional information on the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, for those who want to dig a little deeper into this.
The Hibernia Management and Development Corporation website gives some general information on overall ownership of the Hibernia field.
Background information is harder to come by online, although there is plenty in old newspaper files from the early 1990s.
In developing the Hibernia field neither the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador nor the Government of Canada initially took a direct interest. The federal National Energy Program (NEP) and provincial legislation from the early 1980s anticipated that government would legislate a share of any offshore development. The Peckford administration passed legislation in 1980 to create a provincial petroleum corporation that was supposed to provide the provincial government with a means of accessing considerable revenues from offshore development.
The federal Mulroney administration repealed the NEP although it retained Petro-Canada, the federal Crown corporation for a number of years.
While the Real Atlantic Accord does refer to Crown shares, this clause refers to potential shares of the type envisaged under the NEP. In the event, the dismantling of the NEP rendered this clause irrelevant and the federal interest in Hibernia does not fall under the provisions of the Real Atlantic Accord.
In 1992 the federal government acquired an 8.5% interest in Hibernia following the withdrawal of Gulf Canada Resources, one of the original partners. Since no other private sector partners could be found to take up the shares, the project would have collapsed without the federal investment.
CHHC is a small federal Crown corporation which administers the federal shares. It is located in Calgary
As an aside, if you read the NOIA website, apparently only the intervention of NOIA members (one a former advisor to Brian Peckford) and federal Tory ministers like John Crosbie saved the day in 1992. Apparently, the provincial minister of energy at the time, Rex Gibbons, later a chairman of NOIA (!!!!), had nothing at all to do with it. Perhaps NOIA's partisan leanings go back much further than events of the past few months. The link is to an overview prepared for the association's 25th anniversary, less than three years after Gibbons' term as chairman.
17 February 2005
Hibernia: No Sale!
Check The Telegram today and the feature story in the business section by Moira Baird.
Baird, known for solid, dependable reporting demolishes the story in The National Post yesterday that Ottawa planned to sell its 8.5% share in the Hibernia project. Next time the Post wants to do a story on the east coast offshore, they might want to make a call to Moira to find out what is going on.
“There’s no plans to sell the shares of Hibernia. Where that story came from in the (National) Post I have no idea, the minister of finance (Ralph Goodale) has no idea whatsoever about it,” [Efford] said Wednesday evening. That's a quote from Baird's story.
Provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne is quoted as saying he believes the shares should be transferred to the provincial government without going to sale. Again, I would refer Minister Byrne to the position taken by his national leader, Stephen Harper on this point just for the sake of information. The Martin government has made no comment on potential sale or transfer of the shares, other than the comments by federal natural resources minister John Efford in today's Telegram.
Just to give some accurate background on the Hibernia shares, here's a story Moira Baird wrote last year on the Canada Hibernia Holding Company. Bear in mind these figures are for 2003 and before; we will have to wait until later in the year to find out what the current revenue profile looks like with higher oil prices.
The Hibernia shares held by Ottawa have become a source of controversy and a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation, some of it deliberate, much of it inadvertent. No matter what you hear, put faith in Moira Baird's story before you accept anything to the contrary.
Jan. 20, 2004
OFFSHORE
Headline: Hibernia means millions to feds
By Moira Baird
The Telegram
The Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. - the company that minds Ottawa's 8.5 per cent stake in the Hibernia joint venture - has been earning profits for the federal government since 2002.
You won't easily find the company's annual financial statements in federal documents, though.
By Dec. 31, 2002, the Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. (CHHC) repaid Ottawa's investment in Hibernia - a total of almost $431 million spent between 1993 and late
1997, when first oil flowed from the field.
Ever since, Ottawa's share of the Hibernia revenue has been in the black, earning profits for the federal government.
Just how much profit isn't clear because CHHC's financial statements for 2003 aren't yet available. Since then, the price of oil has risen and Hibernia's annual production limit has been raised almost 23 per cent to 80.4 million barrels of oil.
$237 million in sales
In 2002, CHHC generated $237 million in crude oil sales revenue, according to the company's annual financial statements obtained by The Telegram.
The corporation repaid the remaining $127-million federal investment in the Hibernia joint venture - and also earned a profit of $99.8 million in 2002.
Since Hibernia began producing oil in 1997 until Aug. 31, 2003, the project has generated $180 million in royalties for the Newfoundland government.
On the expense side of the ledger, the Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. paid out $89.6 million in 2002. Those expenses included:
* $56.8 million in depletion and depreciation of the resource;
* $21.9 million in operating costs;
* $5.9 million set aside for future costs of abandoning the gravity-base structure, an environmental liability for six Hibernia partners;
* and more than $1 million in administrative costs.
CHHC is a four-person operation based in Calgary.
The company pays the bills, makes operating decisions with Hibernia partners, sells its share of the oil to the highest bidder, arranges for transportation of that oil to market, and collects the revenue from the sale of the oil.
Although CHHC operates as a private company, it is not required to report quarterly financial statements because it is not publicly traded.
Dividends are paid to the Canada Development and Investment Corp., CHHC's parent company. In turn, it remits the money to the federal government.
New use for old corporation
The Canada Development and Investment Corp. is a little-known Crown corporation that has just one other subsidiary, Canada Eldor Inc. This second subsidiary is responsible for the federal government's liability for nuclear waste and the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up old uranium mine sites.
Other Canada Development Investment Corp. subsidiaries, such as de Havilland Corp., Cameco Corp. and Fishery Products International, have been privatized.
The federal government has five partners in the Hibernia joint venture - ExxonMobil, Chevron Canada Resources, Petro-Canada, Murphy Oil and Norsk Hydro.
mbaird@thetelegram.com
Baird, known for solid, dependable reporting demolishes the story in The National Post yesterday that Ottawa planned to sell its 8.5% share in the Hibernia project. Next time the Post wants to do a story on the east coast offshore, they might want to make a call to Moira to find out what is going on.
“There’s no plans to sell the shares of Hibernia. Where that story came from in the (National) Post I have no idea, the minister of finance (Ralph Goodale) has no idea whatsoever about it,” [Efford] said Wednesday evening. That's a quote from Baird's story.
Provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne is quoted as saying he believes the shares should be transferred to the provincial government without going to sale. Again, I would refer Minister Byrne to the position taken by his national leader, Stephen Harper on this point just for the sake of information. The Martin government has made no comment on potential sale or transfer of the shares, other than the comments by federal natural resources minister John Efford in today's Telegram.
Just to give some accurate background on the Hibernia shares, here's a story Moira Baird wrote last year on the Canada Hibernia Holding Company. Bear in mind these figures are for 2003 and before; we will have to wait until later in the year to find out what the current revenue profile looks like with higher oil prices.
The Hibernia shares held by Ottawa have become a source of controversy and a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation, some of it deliberate, much of it inadvertent. No matter what you hear, put faith in Moira Baird's story before you accept anything to the contrary.
Jan. 20, 2004
OFFSHORE
Headline: Hibernia means millions to feds
By Moira Baird
The Telegram
The Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. - the company that minds Ottawa's 8.5 per cent stake in the Hibernia joint venture - has been earning profits for the federal government since 2002.
You won't easily find the company's annual financial statements in federal documents, though.
By Dec. 31, 2002, the Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. (CHHC) repaid Ottawa's investment in Hibernia - a total of almost $431 million spent between 1993 and late
1997, when first oil flowed from the field.
Ever since, Ottawa's share of the Hibernia revenue has been in the black, earning profits for the federal government.
Just how much profit isn't clear because CHHC's financial statements for 2003 aren't yet available. Since then, the price of oil has risen and Hibernia's annual production limit has been raised almost 23 per cent to 80.4 million barrels of oil.
$237 million in sales
In 2002, CHHC generated $237 million in crude oil sales revenue, according to the company's annual financial statements obtained by The Telegram.
The corporation repaid the remaining $127-million federal investment in the Hibernia joint venture - and also earned a profit of $99.8 million in 2002.
Since Hibernia began producing oil in 1997 until Aug. 31, 2003, the project has generated $180 million in royalties for the Newfoundland government.
On the expense side of the ledger, the Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. paid out $89.6 million in 2002. Those expenses included:
* $56.8 million in depletion and depreciation of the resource;
* $21.9 million in operating costs;
* $5.9 million set aside for future costs of abandoning the gravity-base structure, an environmental liability for six Hibernia partners;
* and more than $1 million in administrative costs.
CHHC is a four-person operation based in Calgary.
The company pays the bills, makes operating decisions with Hibernia partners, sells its share of the oil to the highest bidder, arranges for transportation of that oil to market, and collects the revenue from the sale of the oil.
Although CHHC operates as a private company, it is not required to report quarterly financial statements because it is not publicly traded.
Dividends are paid to the Canada Development and Investment Corp., CHHC's parent company. In turn, it remits the money to the federal government.
New use for old corporation
The Canada Development and Investment Corp. is a little-known Crown corporation that has just one other subsidiary, Canada Eldor Inc. This second subsidiary is responsible for the federal government's liability for nuclear waste and the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up old uranium mine sites.
Other Canada Development Investment Corp. subsidiaries, such as de Havilland Corp., Cameco Corp. and Fishery Products International, have been privatized.
The federal government has five partners in the Hibernia joint venture - ExxonMobil, Chevron Canada Resources, Petro-Canada, Murphy Oil and Norsk Hydro.
mbaird@thetelegram.com
Hydro minister shocked
In the newsrooms of North America, reporters usually fall on the floor laughing when they hear some official say they were "shocked". It's an overused phrase. It is usually closely followed by "appalled" as in "I was shocked and appalled". It's never "dismayed and appalled" or "shocked and bothered". Nope. It's always "shocked and appalled".
In the world of overused and lazy phrases, it stands next to"...and then something went horribly wrong..." in the tool bag of the demons of Reporters' Hell. People who use the phrases too often will get to hear it in the afterlife for a really long time.
VOCM posted this story to their website yesterday, in which the local Natural Resources minister expressed his "shock" at hearing the federal government planned to sll its interest in Hibernia on the open market. He also wanted the shares "returned" to Newfoundland and Labrador, but more on that knee-slapper (<-- another horrible cliche) later.
Anyway, don't bother looking for this story at the VOCM site. It has since disappeared.
"VOCM Province Still Wants Hibernia Shares - Feb 16, 2005
Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne says he was shocked to learn that Ottawa may be getting ready to sell its 8.5 per cent stake in Hibernia. The National Post is reporting that details of the sale could be announced in next Wednesday's federal budget. Byrne says government has not swayed in its position that the Hibernia shares should be returned to Newfoundland and Labrador. Byrne says he has made a call to federal cabinet minister John Efford looking for answers. Opposition Leader Roger Grimes says those shares would be very valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador. "
More detail on this issue will follow later in the day.
I just have two questions:
1. Has Ed Byrne read the letter from Stephen Harper in which Harper pledges to sell the Hibernia shares for the benefit of all Canadians, if Harper is ever elected Prime Minister? I don't seem tor ecall anyone in the Progressive Conservative party provincially noticing that the national leader wasn't onside with one of the local party's big offshore issues.
In fact, come to think of it, Harper didn't support any version of Danny Williams' offset proposals last year. Harper just criticised the Prime Minister for not living up to the Prime Minister's commitment. (Clue: Harper learned his politics from Penn and Teller - big thing: misdirection)
2. Just who is this guy Ed Byrne and why is he speaking about oil and gas? The Accord file, which is in Byrne's department, was stripped from him and handed to Loyola Sullivan. Byrne couldn't even get a seat at negotiating table, nor could he get a prominent spot in the signing ceremony, as his predecessor Bill Marshall had 20 years earlier. Ed spends more time announcing a strategy to develop a strategy to develop wind generation of electricity than he does talking about one of the biggest files in government.
Byrne has been almost invisible in the past year on major issues like this, except as the government's counter-attack force or as commentator on trivial issues raised by the Opposition.
Hmmm. Maybe that's the answer. Since Roger Grimes has put out a release on the Hibernia shares story and Byrne is commenting on it, maybe it is an issue the provincial government isn't really concerned about. But it is enough to have the minister responsible for hydroelectric power being "shocked" by something.
In the world of overused and lazy phrases, it stands next to"...and then something went horribly wrong..." in the tool bag of the demons of Reporters' Hell. People who use the phrases too often will get to hear it in the afterlife for a really long time.
VOCM posted this story to their website yesterday, in which the local Natural Resources minister expressed his "shock" at hearing the federal government planned to sll its interest in Hibernia on the open market. He also wanted the shares "returned" to Newfoundland and Labrador, but more on that knee-slapper (<-- another horrible cliche) later.
Anyway, don't bother looking for this story at the VOCM site. It has since disappeared.
"VOCM Province Still Wants Hibernia Shares - Feb 16, 2005
Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne says he was shocked to learn that Ottawa may be getting ready to sell its 8.5 per cent stake in Hibernia. The National Post is reporting that details of the sale could be announced in next Wednesday's federal budget. Byrne says government has not swayed in its position that the Hibernia shares should be returned to Newfoundland and Labrador. Byrne says he has made a call to federal cabinet minister John Efford looking for answers. Opposition Leader Roger Grimes says those shares would be very valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador. "
More detail on this issue will follow later in the day.
I just have two questions:
1. Has Ed Byrne read the letter from Stephen Harper in which Harper pledges to sell the Hibernia shares for the benefit of all Canadians, if Harper is ever elected Prime Minister? I don't seem tor ecall anyone in the Progressive Conservative party provincially noticing that the national leader wasn't onside with one of the local party's big offshore issues.
In fact, come to think of it, Harper didn't support any version of Danny Williams' offset proposals last year. Harper just criticised the Prime Minister for not living up to the Prime Minister's commitment. (Clue: Harper learned his politics from Penn and Teller - big thing: misdirection)
2. Just who is this guy Ed Byrne and why is he speaking about oil and gas? The Accord file, which is in Byrne's department, was stripped from him and handed to Loyola Sullivan. Byrne couldn't even get a seat at negotiating table, nor could he get a prominent spot in the signing ceremony, as his predecessor Bill Marshall had 20 years earlier. Ed spends more time announcing a strategy to develop a strategy to develop wind generation of electricity than he does talking about one of the biggest files in government.
Byrne has been almost invisible in the past year on major issues like this, except as the government's counter-attack force or as commentator on trivial issues raised by the Opposition.
Hmmm. Maybe that's the answer. Since Roger Grimes has put out a release on the Hibernia shares story and Byrne is commenting on it, maybe it is an issue the provincial government isn't really concerned about. But it is enough to have the minister responsible for hydroelectric power being "shocked" by something.
16 February 2005
Sphincter tightening moment
Party house leaders in the Commons are likely looking askance at the action by the federal Conservatives last night in blocking a bill that would divide Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two distinct departments. Bits of their anatomy are tighter today than they were this time yesterday.
Only last week, the Conservative industry critic, Belinda Stronach, had indicated that of course her party would vote for the bill.
From the outside looking in, there isn't any obvious reason for the switcheroo, especially since minority parliaments thrive on some co-operation and predictability.
Swinging back in time to 1979/80, though, we have to recall that sometimes Opposition parties in minority parliaments like to be unpredictable when it comes to budget bills. Elections follow and the incumbent government doesn't always win, let alone win big.
As I busily check my notes, I see a comment by Loyola Hearn telling local media in St. John's that of course the Conservatives will be voting in favour of the new offsets bill.
While normally I am not a pessimist, I won't be trying to cash Loyola Hearn's assurance cheque at any bank. A letter from Ralph Goodale to Loyola Sullivan also doesn't allay my concerns since it reveals bags of loose wording still left in the deal signed on Monday, which, by the way, Premier Williams' has dismissed as having no legal weight.
I will feel a whole lot better when the Governor General nods at the end of the session and signs the enabling legislation.
Until then, I shall remain vigilant to the likelihood that where it can, excrement will occur.
Only last week, the Conservative industry critic, Belinda Stronach, had indicated that of course her party would vote for the bill.
From the outside looking in, there isn't any obvious reason for the switcheroo, especially since minority parliaments thrive on some co-operation and predictability.
Swinging back in time to 1979/80, though, we have to recall that sometimes Opposition parties in minority parliaments like to be unpredictable when it comes to budget bills. Elections follow and the incumbent government doesn't always win, let alone win big.
As I busily check my notes, I see a comment by Loyola Hearn telling local media in St. John's that of course the Conservatives will be voting in favour of the new offsets bill.
While normally I am not a pessimist, I won't be trying to cash Loyola Hearn's assurance cheque at any bank. A letter from Ralph Goodale to Loyola Sullivan also doesn't allay my concerns since it reveals bags of loose wording still left in the deal signed on Monday, which, by the way, Premier Williams' has dismissed as having no legal weight.
I will feel a whole lot better when the Governor General nods at the end of the session and signs the enabling legislation.
Until then, I shall remain vigilant to the likelihood that where it can, excrement will occur.
15 February 2005
You read it here first! - Amended
Regular readers of this blog will notice the stunning similarity between the agreement signed in St. John's today and the revised version of the December deal posted here a few weeks ago under the title "First we assume a can opener". The language is somewhat simpler but the deal is largely the same.
[Note 15 Feb 05 - There are two additional points I have added. As noted below, one of my sharp-eyed readers caught a mistake of mine in the initial review - in paragraph four and five the province can go on and off the 100% offsets. The Premier's claim is intact, although this arrangement is still less than he wanted and its actual performance depends on the cirucmstances as they occur.
As a second point, Premier Williams apparently dismissed the document signed on Monday as having no legal weight. I am not sure why he would make this comment since it is supposed to represent the agreement he reached. If it has no weight, i.e. no meaning, then why did he bother having anyone sign it and why is he posting it to the government website. ]
Let's take a closer look:
A. The provincial government already collects 100% of offshore revenues.
"2. This document reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that:
- Newfoundland and Labrador already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land;
- the Government of Canada intends to provide additional offset payments to the province in respect of offshore-related Equalization reductions, effectively allowing it to retain the benefit of 100 per cent of its offshore resource revenues. "
The first bullet point is an admission for those who doubted it that the provincial government already receives its full share of revenues as provided under the real Atlantic Accord. For all those who argued something else - including Danny Williams - this is a huge admission
B. Once the province is off Equalization it loses the new offsets.
[Note 15 Feb 05: See the appended comments for more on this. One of my sharper-eyed readers picked up a point I missed. Apparently this agreement does make it possible to go on and off the 100% offsets. As I note in the response comment, though, the actual performance of this section in delivering bags of cash to this province depends on the actual performance. I still feel like Emily Litella - 'Oh, never mind."]
In some initial media interviews, Premier Williams suggested that under this agreement, Newfoundland and Labrador could qualify and not qualify for Equalization. If it re-qualified during the agreement, the offsets would be restored to 100%.
Scan the deal and find a single sentence that says that. You won't find it.
Paragraphs four and five provide that once the province ceases to qualify for Equalization in the first eight year period, the original declining Atlantic Accord offsets apply and that for the eighth year, only Part 1 offsets are applicable.
There no provision to restore this new agreement's offsets if the province fails to qualify for Equalization in any year up to and including 2012.
C. The money must be used for debt reduction.
Consistent with Premier Williams' original proposal (not the post-June 7 version), the provincial government commits to using the new revenue to reduce its debt. From paragraph six: "This payment [ of $2.0 billion] will allow the province to reduce its outstanding debt."
D. The only hope for additional revenue under this agreement lies in the second eight year phase.
Paragraph six governs the lump sum payment and provides that no new money is due and payable until such time as the total value of offsets exceeds $2.0 billion. The Accord offsets were already negotiated and do not count as new money under this arrangement. Draw-down against the lump sum does not include the original offsets since it is specifically linked to new payments made under paragraphs three and four.
E. Qualifying for the second eight-year phase is harder.
As noted in earlier posts, in order to qualify for the second eight-year phase, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must qualify for Equalization in either year between 2010 and 2012. In addition, its per capita debt servicing costs must not be lower than that of four other provinces.
This two-step provision will be harder to meet than the December proposal's one step qualification criterion.
In addition, the current detailed discussions noted in the post "Counting Chickens" take on a greater significance. Meeting the second condition will depend entirely on the calculation of per capita debt servicing costs. Hence, the wrangling on the definition of that term.
This is a preliminary review of the agreement as released during the signing ceremony.
Having seen this document, it is harder to understand Dalton McGuinty's concerns. It likely also explains the overwhelming emphasis on pride today as opposed to the value of the deal itself.
[Note 15 Feb 05 - There are two additional points I have added. As noted below, one of my sharp-eyed readers caught a mistake of mine in the initial review - in paragraph four and five the province can go on and off the 100% offsets. The Premier's claim is intact, although this arrangement is still less than he wanted and its actual performance depends on the cirucmstances as they occur.
As a second point, Premier Williams apparently dismissed the document signed on Monday as having no legal weight. I am not sure why he would make this comment since it is supposed to represent the agreement he reached. If it has no weight, i.e. no meaning, then why did he bother having anyone sign it and why is he posting it to the government website. ]
Let's take a closer look:
A. The provincial government already collects 100% of offshore revenues.
"2. This document reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that:
- Newfoundland and Labrador already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land;
- the Government of Canada intends to provide additional offset payments to the province in respect of offshore-related Equalization reductions, effectively allowing it to retain the benefit of 100 per cent of its offshore resource revenues. "
The first bullet point is an admission for those who doubted it that the provincial government already receives its full share of revenues as provided under the real Atlantic Accord. For all those who argued something else - including Danny Williams - this is a huge admission
B. Once the province is off Equalization it loses the new offsets.
[Note 15 Feb 05: See the appended comments for more on this. One of my sharper-eyed readers picked up a point I missed. Apparently this agreement does make it possible to go on and off the 100% offsets. As I note in the response comment, though, the actual performance of this section in delivering bags of cash to this province depends on the actual performance. I still feel like Emily Litella - 'Oh, never mind."]
In some initial media interviews, Premier Williams suggested that under this agreement, Newfoundland and Labrador could qualify and not qualify for Equalization. If it re-qualified during the agreement, the offsets would be restored to 100%.
Scan the deal and find a single sentence that says that. You won't find it.
Paragraphs four and five provide that once the province ceases to qualify for Equalization in the first eight year period, the original declining Atlantic Accord offsets apply and that for the eighth year, only Part 1 offsets are applicable.
There no provision to restore this new agreement's offsets if the province fails to qualify for Equalization in any year up to and including 2012.
C. The money must be used for debt reduction.
Consistent with Premier Williams' original proposal (not the post-June 7 version), the provincial government commits to using the new revenue to reduce its debt. From paragraph six: "This payment [ of $2.0 billion] will allow the province to reduce its outstanding debt."
D. The only hope for additional revenue under this agreement lies in the second eight year phase.
Paragraph six governs the lump sum payment and provides that no new money is due and payable until such time as the total value of offsets exceeds $2.0 billion. The Accord offsets were already negotiated and do not count as new money under this arrangement. Draw-down against the lump sum does not include the original offsets since it is specifically linked to new payments made under paragraphs three and four.
E. Qualifying for the second eight-year phase is harder.
As noted in earlier posts, in order to qualify for the second eight-year phase, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must qualify for Equalization in either year between 2010 and 2012. In addition, its per capita debt servicing costs must not be lower than that of four other provinces.
This two-step provision will be harder to meet than the December proposal's one step qualification criterion.
In addition, the current detailed discussions noted in the post "Counting Chickens" take on a greater significance. Meeting the second condition will depend entirely on the calculation of per capita debt servicing costs. Hence, the wrangling on the definition of that term.
This is a preliminary review of the agreement as released during the signing ceremony.
Having seen this document, it is harder to understand Dalton McGuinty's concerns. It likely also explains the overwhelming emphasis on pride today as opposed to the value of the deal itself.
Whither Canada?
Stop that! Stop that! It's silly.
Surely we live in the end times, prophesied by Monty Python.
The original pilot episode of the Flying Circus (actually aired as the third episode) was titled "Whither Canada?" This was also the title of the final exercise for students at the National Defence College (NDC) at Fort Frontenac in Kingston, On. NDC was a year-long professional study program run by the Department of National Defence for up-and-coming military, naval and air officers, senior federal and provincial bureaucrats and civilian business leaders.
The idea was to bring together future leaders and let them examine Canada and the issues facing the country internally and externally. Students had to write papers outside their areas of expertise and the final exercise was a collection of essays on topics of the students choice built around the theme "Whither Canada?".
Maybe I am the only one who found the humour in that. It was a productive educational program at NDC. I happened to know a few of the students and directing staff (instructors). About 10 years ago, the NDC program fell victim to budget cuts and a commandant who proved more of a magnet for needless controversy than anything else. Something along the same lines has been recreated lately in Kingston and with hope and hard work it can produce the value the old NDC program delivered.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that my company logo is a gryphon (pronounced like griffon), the symbol of NDC. I chose it for good reason since the gryphon is a heraldic symbol of knowledge, strength and vigilance.
That long introduction comes as a result of seeing a CBC story today about Prime Edward Island Premier Pat Binns. Eager to join the Galloping Gimme brigade, Premier Binns is asking Ottawa to exempt the island province's agricultural and tourism revenue from Equalization. CBC quotes Binns as saying that "those industries are special resources that Prince Edward Island has, on par with the offshore oil and gas revenues that landed deals worth more than $3 billion over eight years for his Newfoundland and Nova Scotian counterparts. " It's an attributed comment in the original, not a direct quote.
Now here's the part that just screams for Graham Chapman's Colonel character to stride onto the stage and order a halt to this evident nonsense among the premiers.
Let's point out some obvious differences between PEI potatoes and Anne of Green Gables on one side and offshore oil and gas on the other.
1. Two are renewable resources. Two are not. Non-renewable resources run out, Pat, therefore a province would like to make the most of the revenue while it can.
2. The Government of Canada actually owns two of them; it does not own the other two. [Hint: the federal government doesn't own anything with red hair.] Why should PEI bother with the federal government redistributing its own revenues. (see Ontario Navel Gazing for a clearer explanation) Ottawa doesn't try to tell Pat Binns where he can direct the French fry dollars.
3. The new offshore deals with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador actually modify agreements dating back 20 years. The offsets were established under that deal and no one from anywhere else in the country objected back them. Besides, the new deals don't guarantee money in perpetuity and they reflect what most reasonable people would acknowledge are unique circumstances.
That's just three things that come readily to mind. There could be more.
But surely everyone can understand why I am waiting - perhaps in vain - for the next premiers conference to end with a rousing chorus of The Lumberjack Song. [<--Warning: MP3 link]
Surely we live in the end times, prophesied by Monty Python.
The original pilot episode of the Flying Circus (actually aired as the third episode) was titled "Whither Canada?" This was also the title of the final exercise for students at the National Defence College (NDC) at Fort Frontenac in Kingston, On. NDC was a year-long professional study program run by the Department of National Defence for up-and-coming military, naval and air officers, senior federal and provincial bureaucrats and civilian business leaders.
The idea was to bring together future leaders and let them examine Canada and the issues facing the country internally and externally. Students had to write papers outside their areas of expertise and the final exercise was a collection of essays on topics of the students choice built around the theme "Whither Canada?".
Maybe I am the only one who found the humour in that. It was a productive educational program at NDC. I happened to know a few of the students and directing staff (instructors). About 10 years ago, the NDC program fell victim to budget cuts and a commandant who proved more of a magnet for needless controversy than anything else. Something along the same lines has been recreated lately in Kingston and with hope and hard work it can produce the value the old NDC program delivered.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that my company logo is a gryphon (pronounced like griffon), the symbol of NDC. I chose it for good reason since the gryphon is a heraldic symbol of knowledge, strength and vigilance.
That long introduction comes as a result of seeing a CBC story today about Prime Edward Island Premier Pat Binns. Eager to join the Galloping Gimme brigade, Premier Binns is asking Ottawa to exempt the island province's agricultural and tourism revenue from Equalization. CBC quotes Binns as saying that "those industries are special resources that Prince Edward Island has, on par with the offshore oil and gas revenues that landed deals worth more than $3 billion over eight years for his Newfoundland and Nova Scotian counterparts. " It's an attributed comment in the original, not a direct quote.
Now here's the part that just screams for Graham Chapman's Colonel character to stride onto the stage and order a halt to this evident nonsense among the premiers.
Let's point out some obvious differences between PEI potatoes and Anne of Green Gables on one side and offshore oil and gas on the other.
1. Two are renewable resources. Two are not. Non-renewable resources run out, Pat, therefore a province would like to make the most of the revenue while it can.
2. The Government of Canada actually owns two of them; it does not own the other two. [Hint: the federal government doesn't own anything with red hair.] Why should PEI bother with the federal government redistributing its own revenues. (see Ontario Navel Gazing for a clearer explanation) Ottawa doesn't try to tell Pat Binns where he can direct the French fry dollars.
3. The new offshore deals with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador actually modify agreements dating back 20 years. The offsets were established under that deal and no one from anywhere else in the country objected back them. Besides, the new deals don't guarantee money in perpetuity and they reflect what most reasonable people would acknowledge are unique circumstances.
That's just three things that come readily to mind. There could be more.
But surely everyone can understand why I am waiting - perhaps in vain - for the next premiers conference to end with a rousing chorus of The Lumberjack Song. [<--Warning: MP3 link]
Ontario Navel Gazing - the galloping gimmes, part deux
There is no small irony that Danny William's greatest contribution to Canada thus far has been to make every provincial premier into yet another beggar for increased federal hand-outs.
The latest in the line is Premier Dalton McGuinty, ably supported by editorial opinion in his province, including the ever-Liberal Toronto Star. Their editorial today is really nothing more than a thinly disguised appeal for more federal transfer payments to Ontario. Dalton is trying to pull a Danny - claim grievous wounds from Ottawa and demand reparations. In Danny's case, he pointed to a bunch of slights, real and perceived. In Dalton's case he is claiming that his province bankrolls everyone via Ottawa. The Star backs him up - of course.
Both Premier McGuinty and The Toronto Star are playing in Ontario on uniquely Ontarian parochial outlooks but there is no mistake that the views are no more factual than the local prejudices that fueled Danny Williams' recent campaign.
But here's a simple perspective that is as unlikely to get any play among the official opinion leaders, read news media editorial rooms - as the fact that Danny Williams most emphatically did not get anything close to a "sweetheart" deal. On that point, flip over to Paul Wells' blog.
Equalization transfers come out of Ottawa's general revenues. That means it includes the revenue generated in Newfoundland and Labrador by the Government of Canada. Unless Dalton has been slipping reflective dye into the local money supply there is no way to prove which dollar in transfers goes anywhere.
If one takes a look at Equalization and similar transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador, the amounts involved are curiously similar to the total amount of federal government revenue generated in Newfoundland and Labrador in any given year. In 1991 and 1994, for example, the government to government transfers are almost exactly what Ottawa collected in tax type revenues in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the data if anyone wants to e-mail me for the table.
What that means is that the Newfoundland and Labrador economy generated the revenues needed to run the provincial government. We didn't get a hand-out from Queen's Park or Perth to build our schools; if we did, then Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would have a legitimate right to demand a vote in Ontario elections. After all, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a democratic right to hold accountable those who provide public services in the province.
Chew on that one for a second, Dalton.
In the case of this deal, Dalton, the revenues are certainly no more than those collected by the Government of Canada from its shares in the Hibernia project. In effect, the federal government has provided about eight years of Hibernia revenues to Newfoundland and Labrador. That's like Ottawa having shares in mines in Northern Ontario and agreeing to ship Queen's Park the cash. Who could find fault with that?
Where the deficit has come in this scheme since 1949 is in the contribution Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should make to the operation of the federal government. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have contributed to the country in other ways and in other places but the people still living in the province itself should be paying a fair share to run Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Coast Guard to name a few.
In a couple of years time that will happen and no one should be happier than Dalton McGuinty and the Canadians who live in his province.
In the meantime, Dalton McGuinty and Danny Williams should be looking beyond their own borders; they need to get their heads out of their navels or whatever provincial orifice has captured their attention so completely. There are good reasons to reform federal-provincial fiscal relations, but they have nothing to do with Dalton McGuinty's misreading of the recent offshore oil and gas revenue deals. Now that Ottawa has a cash surplus and the national economy is reasonably stable, we should deal with the problem now, collectively as Canadians.
The biggest challenge in doing that is for provincial premiers to break out of their traditional narrow perspective and see that there is more to the country than what they can see from their offices. Other premiers have risen to that challenge in the past and there is no reason why current premiers cannot do the same thing.
The latest in the line is Premier Dalton McGuinty, ably supported by editorial opinion in his province, including the ever-Liberal Toronto Star. Their editorial today is really nothing more than a thinly disguised appeal for more federal transfer payments to Ontario. Dalton is trying to pull a Danny - claim grievous wounds from Ottawa and demand reparations. In Danny's case, he pointed to a bunch of slights, real and perceived. In Dalton's case he is claiming that his province bankrolls everyone via Ottawa. The Star backs him up - of course.
Both Premier McGuinty and The Toronto Star are playing in Ontario on uniquely Ontarian parochial outlooks but there is no mistake that the views are no more factual than the local prejudices that fueled Danny Williams' recent campaign.
But here's a simple perspective that is as unlikely to get any play among the official opinion leaders, read news media editorial rooms - as the fact that Danny Williams most emphatically did not get anything close to a "sweetheart" deal. On that point, flip over to Paul Wells' blog.
Equalization transfers come out of Ottawa's general revenues. That means it includes the revenue generated in Newfoundland and Labrador by the Government of Canada. Unless Dalton has been slipping reflective dye into the local money supply there is no way to prove which dollar in transfers goes anywhere.
If one takes a look at Equalization and similar transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador, the amounts involved are curiously similar to the total amount of federal government revenue generated in Newfoundland and Labrador in any given year. In 1991 and 1994, for example, the government to government transfers are almost exactly what Ottawa collected in tax type revenues in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the data if anyone wants to e-mail me for the table.
What that means is that the Newfoundland and Labrador economy generated the revenues needed to run the provincial government. We didn't get a hand-out from Queen's Park or Perth to build our schools; if we did, then Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would have a legitimate right to demand a vote in Ontario elections. After all, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a democratic right to hold accountable those who provide public services in the province.
Chew on that one for a second, Dalton.
In the case of this deal, Dalton, the revenues are certainly no more than those collected by the Government of Canada from its shares in the Hibernia project. In effect, the federal government has provided about eight years of Hibernia revenues to Newfoundland and Labrador. That's like Ottawa having shares in mines in Northern Ontario and agreeing to ship Queen's Park the cash. Who could find fault with that?
Where the deficit has come in this scheme since 1949 is in the contribution Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should make to the operation of the federal government. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have contributed to the country in other ways and in other places but the people still living in the province itself should be paying a fair share to run Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Coast Guard to name a few.
In a couple of years time that will happen and no one should be happier than Dalton McGuinty and the Canadians who live in his province.
In the meantime, Dalton McGuinty and Danny Williams should be looking beyond their own borders; they need to get their heads out of their navels or whatever provincial orifice has captured their attention so completely. There are good reasons to reform federal-provincial fiscal relations, but they have nothing to do with Dalton McGuinty's misreading of the recent offshore oil and gas revenue deals. Now that Ottawa has a cash surplus and the national economy is reasonably stable, we should deal with the problem now, collectively as Canadians.
The biggest challenge in doing that is for provincial premiers to break out of their traditional narrow perspective and see that there is more to the country than what they can see from their offices. Other premiers have risen to that challenge in the past and there is no reason why current premiers cannot do the same thing.
The world doesn't end at Port aux Basques
In light of the continent shattering uproar - a bit of sarcasm - over the offshore deals, it is interesting to see the difference between the Nova Scotia government website and the site maintained by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Flip to Newfoundland and Labrador's site, and you see four links, two of which are to the marketing pieces (print ad and TV spot) that have been produced to sell pride to people of the province. There is a measure of irony there. The other two bits are the standard news release issued by both the federal and provincial government and the Agreement in Principle.
Lots of expensive graphics.
Now try Nova Scotia.
Wow!
Basic information in plain English for Nova Scotians and people from other provinces. There is some background information, a description of what was sought and what was obtained. There is an explanation of why the deal is good for Nova Scotia and for all Canadians.
Then there is the commitment to fiscal responsibility, code for not pissing the money out the door.
Open two browsers and flip back and forth between the two sites. Which one actually communicates meaningful, substantial information? Which one polishes something round for you? Which one plays solely to the local audience and which one communicates to all who are interested in the issue?
(Thinking in that vein, go have another gander at the tales of two cities posts. Note the parallels.)
Which one project cost more to produce?
It's an interesting exercise to look at things in comparison. There is a big communications lesson in there for the people on the receiving end of the communications.
Flip to Newfoundland and Labrador's site, and you see four links, two of which are to the marketing pieces (print ad and TV spot) that have been produced to sell pride to people of the province. There is a measure of irony there. The other two bits are the standard news release issued by both the federal and provincial government and the Agreement in Principle.
Lots of expensive graphics.
Now try Nova Scotia.
Wow!
Basic information in plain English for Nova Scotians and people from other provinces. There is some background information, a description of what was sought and what was obtained. There is an explanation of why the deal is good for Nova Scotia and for all Canadians.
Then there is the commitment to fiscal responsibility, code for not pissing the money out the door.
Open two browsers and flip back and forth between the two sites. Which one actually communicates meaningful, substantial information? Which one polishes something round for you? Which one plays solely to the local audience and which one communicates to all who are interested in the issue?
(Thinking in that vein, go have another gander at the tales of two cities posts. Note the parallels.)
Which one project cost more to produce?
It's an interesting exercise to look at things in comparison. There is a big communications lesson in there for the people on the receiving end of the communications.
14 February 2005
A further tale of two cities
Communications people (public relations and advertising) like to look at the "optics" of things like today's ceremonies in Halifax and St. John's.
Ideally, there is more to it than how things look, but how things look and what gets said can affect impressions and attitudes and those things, especially attitudes, influence behaviour. It's the behaviour - manifested as support and co-operation on core issues - that matters.
In "A tale of two cities", we took a look at the differing positions taken by NOIA, the local oil and gas industry association, and its Nova Scotia counterpart OTANS in the recent talks with Ottawa.
The optics were good for OTANS and decidedly bad for NOIA. Take a look at their respective websites and the news releases. At OTANS, they announced that they would be hosting the Nova Scotia signing ceremony. OTANS chairman Tim Brownlow is quoted as saying:
"OTANS is pleased to be able to host this historic event," says Tim Brownlow, Chair of the not-for-profit association. "We look forward to continuing to work with both levels of government to promote the development of the local offshore industry." [Emphasis added]
"Nova Scotians now understand they can truly benefit from the potential wealth the offshore brings to our province, ... We are seeing the start of a new era of economic opportunity in this region. Both Prime Minister Martin and Premier Hamm deserve all of our thanks and credit for their efforts on this agreement."
Now flip over to NOIA. The release notes that a great many NOIA members had attended the ceremony, as they had attended the ceremony in 1985.
President and CEO Leslie Galway said "Today's signing ceremony has indeed signified a new beginning and a new path for Newfoundland and Labrador as indicated by Premier Williams. We will now be able to invest today for our future, and it is only fitting that Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry has been recognized as an important and vibrant part of that future."
What Ms. Galway is referring to there when she mentions "the industry" is simply the provincial government revenue coming from oil and gas production, not anything her members have done. After all, the whole focus on "principle beneficiary" has little if anything to do with the efforts of her members. The oil and gas revenues come primarily from members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) - those are the people who drill the holes and pump the oil and gas.
No mention either of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada in Ms. Galway's' words of praise; there was an earlier mention of "vital individual roles in making today's signing a reality". The Prime Minister better not let that go to his head.
After the brief release, there are a few photographs of the ceremony, finishing with a picture of Ms. Galway shaking hands with the Premier.
To really drive home the difference in the two ceremonies, note the Prime Minister's remarks. In Nova Scotia, he praised OTANS and drew attention to the substantive benefits of offshore oil and gas development. The PM talked about local jobs, local business, exports and innovation as being the substantive benefits of the industry. He talked about promoting Atlantic Canada's oil and gas resources to the G7 finance ministers in 1995.
Both NOIA and OTANS have the same mandate: to promote development of the region's oil and gas industry and enhance their members' participation.
One of most significant aspects of offshore oil and gas that got lost in the past year's rhetoric has been the role played by local industries in bringing jobs and investment to the province. People seem to have forgotten the remarkable development of locally-based companies that have proven time and again they can deliver services of the best quality and at competitive prices, to the oil and gas industry around the globe.
Based on the optics of today's ceremony, which one delivered on its mandate for its members?
Ideally, there is more to it than how things look, but how things look and what gets said can affect impressions and attitudes and those things, especially attitudes, influence behaviour. It's the behaviour - manifested as support and co-operation on core issues - that matters.
In "A tale of two cities", we took a look at the differing positions taken by NOIA, the local oil and gas industry association, and its Nova Scotia counterpart OTANS in the recent talks with Ottawa.
The optics were good for OTANS and decidedly bad for NOIA. Take a look at their respective websites and the news releases. At OTANS, they announced that they would be hosting the Nova Scotia signing ceremony. OTANS chairman Tim Brownlow is quoted as saying:
"OTANS is pleased to be able to host this historic event," says Tim Brownlow, Chair of the not-for-profit association. "We look forward to continuing to work with both levels of government to promote the development of the local offshore industry." [Emphasis added]
"Nova Scotians now understand they can truly benefit from the potential wealth the offshore brings to our province, ... We are seeing the start of a new era of economic opportunity in this region. Both Prime Minister Martin and Premier Hamm deserve all of our thanks and credit for their efforts on this agreement."
Now flip over to NOIA. The release notes that a great many NOIA members had attended the ceremony, as they had attended the ceremony in 1985.
President and CEO Leslie Galway said "Today's signing ceremony has indeed signified a new beginning and a new path for Newfoundland and Labrador as indicated by Premier Williams. We will now be able to invest today for our future, and it is only fitting that Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry has been recognized as an important and vibrant part of that future."
What Ms. Galway is referring to there when she mentions "the industry" is simply the provincial government revenue coming from oil and gas production, not anything her members have done. After all, the whole focus on "principle beneficiary" has little if anything to do with the efforts of her members. The oil and gas revenues come primarily from members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) - those are the people who drill the holes and pump the oil and gas.
No mention either of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada in Ms. Galway's' words of praise; there was an earlier mention of "vital individual roles in making today's signing a reality". The Prime Minister better not let that go to his head.
After the brief release, there are a few photographs of the ceremony, finishing with a picture of Ms. Galway shaking hands with the Premier.
To really drive home the difference in the two ceremonies, note the Prime Minister's remarks. In Nova Scotia, he praised OTANS and drew attention to the substantive benefits of offshore oil and gas development. The PM talked about local jobs, local business, exports and innovation as being the substantive benefits of the industry. He talked about promoting Atlantic Canada's oil and gas resources to the G7 finance ministers in 1995.
Both NOIA and OTANS have the same mandate: to promote development of the region's oil and gas industry and enhance their members' participation.
One of most significant aspects of offshore oil and gas that got lost in the past year's rhetoric has been the role played by local industries in bringing jobs and investment to the province. People seem to have forgotten the remarkable development of locally-based companies that have proven time and again they can deliver services of the best quality and at competitive prices, to the oil and gas industry around the globe.
Based on the optics of today's ceremony, which one delivered on its mandate for its members?
Lies, spin, and bull*** - now a book
When you are searching for a book to read, try this one by Princeton philosophy professor emeritus Harry G. Frankfurt. His 1986 essay "On bullshit." is now available as a small 67-page book.
"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much [bull]. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize [bull] and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, nor attracted much sustained inquiry," said Frankfurt, in a New York Times interview.
Buy one and put it on your gift list for someone you know.
It should be required reading in political science and public relations course across the country.
"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much [bull]. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize [bull] and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, nor attracted much sustained inquiry," said Frankfurt, in a New York Times interview.
Buy one and put it on your gift list for someone you know.
It should be required reading in political science and public relations course across the country.
Counting Chickens
Coming Monday is the signing of the offshore revenue deal.
Everyone is cheering.
Some are scowling.
But according to the Saturday Telegram, discussions are still underway to reach agreement on some key definitions. The story isn't posted but I am giving a link anyway. Maybe you could send an e-mail and let miller Ayre know what you think of The Telegram's skimpy website. Ever hear of letting people subscribe, Miller?
One of the details is finding a common definition of debt. Appears that some provinces measure it differently, including some things and not including others. This is similar to a story floating around Ottawa and St. John's a week or so ago that there was a side deal being negotiated that limited where the province could spend its new cash. I doubt that is true, but The Telegram story does indicate there are still some potential difficulties in finalizing this agreement.
It stands in contrast to the original Atlantic Accord. Provincial Premier Brian Peckford accepted Brian Mulroney's offer in June 1984 without so much as questioning the placement of a comma. After the federal election later in 1984, the federal and provincial governments started what ended up being six months of detailed negotiations.
They debated the details of the deal to ensure that the goals set for them by cabinets - not the Premier or prime Minister alone - were met. One former provincial negotiator insists that the provincial team was worried the final version didn't meet key criteria established by cabinet and so a deal would fall through.
Is there a chance this could all fall through? Not really.
Is there a chance some details might not be as revealed publicly so far? That's a bit more likely, especially in the the workings of the provisions of how a province goes on and off Equalization and hence the offsets.
The original Atlantic Accord took nearly two years to navigate the House of Commons - that's with a majority government firmly committed to the deal. While no sign has emerged of a serious threat to getting a bill through the Commons to enact this deal - when it comes - there is always a possibility in a minority parliament of odd things occurring. Might some of the details be changed or amendments made, especially ones that open options for other provinces?
As the hoary old cliche goes, "the devil is all in the details".
And like another cliche, there is no point in counting chickens before they are hatched. It isn't like counting crows.
That's what makes the advertising schpeel the province has produced all the more smarmy, all the more chalushisdick.
Let's see what the thing actually looks like before we have a party. Better to know how many chickens are actually in the hen house before we start dropping any on the barbie.
Everyone is cheering.
Some are scowling.
But according to the Saturday Telegram, discussions are still underway to reach agreement on some key definitions. The story isn't posted but I am giving a link anyway. Maybe you could send an e-mail and let miller Ayre know what you think of The Telegram's skimpy website. Ever hear of letting people subscribe, Miller?
One of the details is finding a common definition of debt. Appears that some provinces measure it differently, including some things and not including others. This is similar to a story floating around Ottawa and St. John's a week or so ago that there was a side deal being negotiated that limited where the province could spend its new cash. I doubt that is true, but The Telegram story does indicate there are still some potential difficulties in finalizing this agreement.
It stands in contrast to the original Atlantic Accord. Provincial Premier Brian Peckford accepted Brian Mulroney's offer in June 1984 without so much as questioning the placement of a comma. After the federal election later in 1984, the federal and provincial governments started what ended up being six months of detailed negotiations.
They debated the details of the deal to ensure that the goals set for them by cabinets - not the Premier or prime Minister alone - were met. One former provincial negotiator insists that the provincial team was worried the final version didn't meet key criteria established by cabinet and so a deal would fall through.
Is there a chance this could all fall through? Not really.
Is there a chance some details might not be as revealed publicly so far? That's a bit more likely, especially in the the workings of the provisions of how a province goes on and off Equalization and hence the offsets.
The original Atlantic Accord took nearly two years to navigate the House of Commons - that's with a majority government firmly committed to the deal. While no sign has emerged of a serious threat to getting a bill through the Commons to enact this deal - when it comes - there is always a possibility in a minority parliament of odd things occurring. Might some of the details be changed or amendments made, especially ones that open options for other provinces?
As the hoary old cliche goes, "the devil is all in the details".
And like another cliche, there is no point in counting chickens before they are hatched. It isn't like counting crows.
That's what makes the advertising schpeel the province has produced all the more smarmy, all the more chalushisdick.
Let's see what the thing actually looks like before we have a party. Better to know how many chickens are actually in the hen house before we start dropping any on the barbie.
13 February 2005
Pride Day
Apparently Monday is to be Pride Day in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Look for lots of messages from the Premier on how the Accord fight restored our pride and how the deal will make us a "have" province. This is the message he has been carrying since that fateful Friday in Ottawa. Lots of things to be proud of.
Lots of hype.
Lots of spin.
Usually a good sign of nothing of substance, or a concerted effort to distract attention from something else.
Expect to see both print ads and television spots, some of which will run nationally. The production cost and media buy will likely stretch into the six figure range - that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is anyone in the province not in favour of the deal? Will a few ads change Dalton's mind?
Now this is completely separate from the "branding" campaign advertised over the weekend. The province is seeking bids from companies interested in promoting Newfoundland and Labrador as a great place and a great place to do business. Target, the internationally successful local marketing company already has done the research component. Let's see who actually gets to do the leg work.
As for the Pride Day event at the Fairmont, I have had a raft of e-mails and phone calls inviting me to attend. The contacts were not from the provincial government, of course. They have been busily contacting all their supporters as well as issuing formal invitations to people - apparently without having reserved or designated seating for many. So we may well wind up with a giant game of musical chairs on Monday morning. There are likely no more than 350 seats available; more than that showed up at the airport in a storm on short notice to welcome Danny the Conquerer home from Ottawa.
And running underneath it all will be yet more of that venomous partisan attack on John Efford, initiated by Danny and Loyola and taken up with such enthusiasm by their minions. The chorus of "boo"s at the political rally disguised as a news conference a week or so ago was just a small taste of what some political low-lifes are likely to do on Monday. Regardless of John's performance or what you may think of him personally, the whole spectacle of the Terminate John campaign and the flag nonsense are definitely something not to be proud of.
Look for lots of messages from the Premier on how the Accord fight restored our pride and how the deal will make us a "have" province. This is the message he has been carrying since that fateful Friday in Ottawa. Lots of things to be proud of.
Lots of hype.
Lots of spin.
Usually a good sign of nothing of substance, or a concerted effort to distract attention from something else.
Expect to see both print ads and television spots, some of which will run nationally. The production cost and media buy will likely stretch into the six figure range - that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is anyone in the province not in favour of the deal? Will a few ads change Dalton's mind?
Now this is completely separate from the "branding" campaign advertised over the weekend. The province is seeking bids from companies interested in promoting Newfoundland and Labrador as a great place and a great place to do business. Target, the internationally successful local marketing company already has done the research component. Let's see who actually gets to do the leg work.
As for the Pride Day event at the Fairmont, I have had a raft of e-mails and phone calls inviting me to attend. The contacts were not from the provincial government, of course. They have been busily contacting all their supporters as well as issuing formal invitations to people - apparently without having reserved or designated seating for many. So we may well wind up with a giant game of musical chairs on Monday morning. There are likely no more than 350 seats available; more than that showed up at the airport in a storm on short notice to welcome Danny the Conquerer home from Ottawa.
And running underneath it all will be yet more of that venomous partisan attack on John Efford, initiated by Danny and Loyola and taken up with such enthusiasm by their minions. The chorus of "boo"s at the political rally disguised as a news conference a week or so ago was just a small taste of what some political low-lifes are likely to do on Monday. Regardless of John's performance or what you may think of him personally, the whole spectacle of the Terminate John campaign and the flag nonsense are definitely something not to be proud of.
The galloping gimmes, Part 1
No surprise, really, that a number of other provinces are now seeking some type of Equalization side deal. The Globe and Mail and The Telegram are carrying similar stories about Dalton McGuinty complaints regarding the recent agreements between the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Over at the National Post, pact-checking fell apart in their Saturday edition. The front page story on the supposed revolt turned Danny Williams from a Tory into a Liberal. Maybe that explains why the Post has been criticizing him so harshly. They got his party affiliation wrong so they just instinctively went on the attack.
He's the actual quote, which, oddly is STILL posted on Sunday morning: "Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who like Mr. McGuinty is a Liberal, rejected Ontario's concerns, noting that "from our own perspective, we've never objected to special funding for other provinces."
Williams is the Premier, not Tom Rideout who, until 1985, sat as a Liberal MHA before the lure of a cabinet seat caused him to run to Brian Peckford's side. There's a whole column (already written eons ago) about Newfoundland politicians and their penchant for party-switching. Not to worry about Danny Williams, Posties. He's so Tory he makes former Peckford cabinet minister Bill Marshall look like a Marxist.
Paul Wells is claiming credit for having pointed out this potential backlash some weeks ago. He rightly notes that no one objected until now, simply because every successful precedent strengthens the case for a special deal for Ottawa cash. To be fair Paul, McGuinty actually did complain about this whole side deal back in mid-October. In fact, it was his letter to the PM, PM, that led to the October federal offer to Newfoundland and Labrador containing a so-called cap on the offsets. McGuinty's position is a little different than the one taken by, say Saskatchewan or even British Columbia, but more on that to follow in a later post.
As for McGuinty's supposed endorsement of the Williams proposals earlier on, Paul does link to a CBC St. John's story. I say supposed because the whole thing was grossly over-rated by Premier Williams himself when he claimed to have the enthusiastic support of almost all the other first ministers, save the Pm himself and Bernard Lord.
The hand-written note from McGuinty was hardly high-level first ministers' official correspondence - McGuinty's office couldn't even find a copy of it in their files when media started looking for it. In this whole exercise, of course, the public has never seen any proof of the endorsements Premier Williams claimed to have. McGuinty's was the first to surface and looked a bit more like a case of "the weather is here; wish you were beautiful" throw-away platitude than a hearty endorsement for the Danny Juggernaut.
I still wonder if the note from Ralph was on a beer-stained napkin from the local steak'n'ribs place. If you wipe off the rib sauce you might be able to decipher the scrawl. Most of the rest probably looked alot like McGuinty's, if they existed at all. It doesn't really matter now though, since Danny has his deal - or does he? [See "Counting Chickens", coming later on Sunday]
On a more substantial point, though McGuinty is just flat-out wrong. He is quoted by Canadian Press as saying "[T]here was a principle that said no have-not province could have a fiscal capacity that surpassed that of the people of Ontario," said McGuinty. "In this particular case, that is exactly what is going to happen and that's unacceptable."
Under the January deal, dear Ontario Premier, the Equalization offsets stop flowing when a province ceases to qualify for Equalization. Right now that point is 10% lower than the per capita fiscal capacity of your province and it has been in that range for most of the past 50 years. So there is no fear of Newfoundland and Labrador surpassing you using Equalization and the offsets. This province will go off Equalization and likely exceed Ontario fiscal capacity the old-fashioned way - by out-performing Trillium Central on a per capita basis.
At least get your facts straight, Dalton; better still, stop listening to John Crosbie. He habitually gets it wrong even when talking about a deal he helped craft. Under the old Accord offset arrangement, a province could get offsets after it had ceased to qualify for Equalization. You and your predecessors never uttered a peep about that.
Why all the fuss now?
Over at the National Post, pact-checking fell apart in their Saturday edition. The front page story on the supposed revolt turned Danny Williams from a Tory into a Liberal. Maybe that explains why the Post has been criticizing him so harshly. They got his party affiliation wrong so they just instinctively went on the attack.
He's the actual quote, which, oddly is STILL posted on Sunday morning: "Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who like Mr. McGuinty is a Liberal, rejected Ontario's concerns, noting that "from our own perspective, we've never objected to special funding for other provinces."
Williams is the Premier, not Tom Rideout who, until 1985, sat as a Liberal MHA before the lure of a cabinet seat caused him to run to Brian Peckford's side. There's a whole column (already written eons ago) about Newfoundland politicians and their penchant for party-switching. Not to worry about Danny Williams, Posties. He's so Tory he makes former Peckford cabinet minister Bill Marshall look like a Marxist.
Paul Wells is claiming credit for having pointed out this potential backlash some weeks ago. He rightly notes that no one objected until now, simply because every successful precedent strengthens the case for a special deal for Ottawa cash. To be fair Paul, McGuinty actually did complain about this whole side deal back in mid-October. In fact, it was his letter to the PM, PM, that led to the October federal offer to Newfoundland and Labrador containing a so-called cap on the offsets. McGuinty's position is a little different than the one taken by, say Saskatchewan or even British Columbia, but more on that to follow in a later post.
As for McGuinty's supposed endorsement of the Williams proposals earlier on, Paul does link to a CBC St. John's story. I say supposed because the whole thing was grossly over-rated by Premier Williams himself when he claimed to have the enthusiastic support of almost all the other first ministers, save the Pm himself and Bernard Lord.
The hand-written note from McGuinty was hardly high-level first ministers' official correspondence - McGuinty's office couldn't even find a copy of it in their files when media started looking for it. In this whole exercise, of course, the public has never seen any proof of the endorsements Premier Williams claimed to have. McGuinty's was the first to surface and looked a bit more like a case of "the weather is here; wish you were beautiful" throw-away platitude than a hearty endorsement for the Danny Juggernaut.
I still wonder if the note from Ralph was on a beer-stained napkin from the local steak'n'ribs place. If you wipe off the rib sauce you might be able to decipher the scrawl. Most of the rest probably looked alot like McGuinty's, if they existed at all. It doesn't really matter now though, since Danny has his deal - or does he? [See "Counting Chickens", coming later on Sunday]
On a more substantial point, though McGuinty is just flat-out wrong. He is quoted by Canadian Press as saying "[T]here was a principle that said no have-not province could have a fiscal capacity that surpassed that of the people of Ontario," said McGuinty. "In this particular case, that is exactly what is going to happen and that's unacceptable."
Under the January deal, dear Ontario Premier, the Equalization offsets stop flowing when a province ceases to qualify for Equalization. Right now that point is 10% lower than the per capita fiscal capacity of your province and it has been in that range for most of the past 50 years. So there is no fear of Newfoundland and Labrador surpassing you using Equalization and the offsets. This province will go off Equalization and likely exceed Ontario fiscal capacity the old-fashioned way - by out-performing Trillium Central on a per capita basis.
At least get your facts straight, Dalton; better still, stop listening to John Crosbie. He habitually gets it wrong even when talking about a deal he helped craft. Under the old Accord offset arrangement, a province could get offsets after it had ceased to qualify for Equalization. You and your predecessors never uttered a peep about that.
Why all the fuss now?
11 February 2005
I am John Crosbie's spleen
For those who have been paying attention to the former federal emissary to Newfoundland and Labrador, John Crosbie's interventions on the Atlantic Accord dispute have been curious.
For example, here is his column from Atlantic Business Magazine. Take this paragraph as typical:
"The difference between the June 5th agreement and the proposal outlined by Minister Goodale is in the range of $4 billion. Total provincial un-clawed back revenues during the projected 21-year-life of the Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose Fields, based on an estimated future price of oil of $35 per barrel, would be $6.5 billion. If the present regime continues, NL will receive $2.1 billion over the 21 years when all presently known oil resources would be completely used up. If the federal suggestion of the "Ontario cap" is carried out, Newfoundland would receive another $400 million over the 21 year period. The overall division of the revenues from the offshore would then be 38 per cent for NL and 62 per cent for Canada. Clearly such an act of federal treachery and promise breaking would remove from NL its one opportunity ever to become a "have" province, as would be the case for Nova Scotia."
To be fair, at the outset, this comment from Mr. Crosbie is based solely on the October offer and Mr. Crosbie likely had to meet a printing deadline well before the December offer was made. That's one of the hazards of trying to comment on today's issue in a medium that doesn't allow some flexibility to meet for changes tomorrow or the day after.
That said, Mr. Crosbie did know certain things when he wrote the paragraph excerpted above that make his comments dubious. For example, he knows full-well that the deal he helped to craft in 1985 gave absolutely no commitment that federal and provincial revenues would be divided into any set of proportions. What he calls "federal treachery" is not something that happened since 1993 when the Liberal Party took power in Ottawa. The "treachery" to which Mr. Crosbie refers is his contained in his own deal operating as intended.
As a further example, Mr. Crosbie has known from the start that his new interpretation of "principle beneficiary" is decidedly not what was intended by the signatories to the Accord.
Yet further, Mr. Crosbie knows full-well that he makes an utterly false contention when he states that over the course of 21 years the provincial government will receive only $2.1 billion of the %6.5 billion of projected provincial revenues. As Mr. Crosbie himself described this contention in 1990, it is "absolutely, utter nonsense".
Leap ahead in time to Crosbie's assault on the Globe and Mail, this time mounted from the pages of the Sun chain. For purposes here, I'll excerpt some of Mr. Crosbie's historical and other facts and comment on them one by one:
-Extract begins-
Other historical facts that our Ontario-centric Toronto intellectual elite don't remember, if they ever knew them, are:
- Canada first took an interest in claiming our offshore resources on the east coast in 1961; [This assumes that as a matter of law, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador owned them in the first place. What occurred was a dispute, like all disputes, in which resources were claimed by two parties, both of whom had a claim. Neither the Newfoundland Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the proposition that the offshore resources ever belonged to Newfoundland and Labrador.]
- The Trudeau government made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, which decided in March 1984, that the undersea and undersoil resources off east-coast Newfoundland were owned by Canada and not Newfoundland, just as Canada had earlier owned the resources under Alberta, et. al. [For his own partisan reasons, Mr. Crosbie neglects to mention the reference by the Government of Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Court of Appeal. Mr. Crosbie is also fully aware, or ought to be aware, that the legal status of the resources beneath the ground in Alberta and Saskatchewan was and is fundamentally different from the situation offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Both courts found in favour of the federal government having legal jurisdiction, which is different from ownership.]
- It took from 1961 (mostly under Liberal governments) until the Mulroney government resolved these disputes via the Atlantic Accord signed on Feb. 11, 1985; [Mr. Crosbie neglects to mention the numerous efforts to resolve the ownership dispute and develop the fields by mutual agreement between the federal and provincial governments. Among other issues, it was the provincial government's insistence on pursuing the ownership argument that held up a deal during the Peckford administration. Such was not the case in Nova Scotia.]
- The Accord recognizes "the right of Newfoundland to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores." [Indeed it does, Mr. Crosbie, but the term is undefined in the Accord. That said, the definition Mr. Crosbie offers of the term is radically different from the benefits provided to Newfoundland and Labrador by a landmark agreement. His new interpretation does not match the public statements made by Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Peckford when this historic agreement was signed.]
-Extract ends-
Note that nowhere in his Sun spewing does Mr. Crosbie go back and point out his revenue clawback argument from ABM and elsewhere continues to exist under the January deal he praises.
Mr. Crosbie concludes his tirade against what he calls "central Canadian control-freaks" by encouraging them to "cease to promote incorrect, unintelligent, insensitive, ill-informed and biased views that ignore the history of the problems."
Would that Mr. Crosbie took his own advice, we might be spared his ahistorical, partisan ad hominem rantings. His own presentations are no less incorrect or ill-informed and the result of his interventions have been no less insulting to the intelligence of his readers across Canada than the opinions of others he presumes to criticize.
For example, here is his column from Atlantic Business Magazine. Take this paragraph as typical:
"The difference between the June 5th agreement and the proposal outlined by Minister Goodale is in the range of $4 billion. Total provincial un-clawed back revenues during the projected 21-year-life of the Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose Fields, based on an estimated future price of oil of $35 per barrel, would be $6.5 billion. If the present regime continues, NL will receive $2.1 billion over the 21 years when all presently known oil resources would be completely used up. If the federal suggestion of the "Ontario cap" is carried out, Newfoundland would receive another $400 million over the 21 year period. The overall division of the revenues from the offshore would then be 38 per cent for NL and 62 per cent for Canada. Clearly such an act of federal treachery and promise breaking would remove from NL its one opportunity ever to become a "have" province, as would be the case for Nova Scotia."
To be fair, at the outset, this comment from Mr. Crosbie is based solely on the October offer and Mr. Crosbie likely had to meet a printing deadline well before the December offer was made. That's one of the hazards of trying to comment on today's issue in a medium that doesn't allow some flexibility to meet for changes tomorrow or the day after.
That said, Mr. Crosbie did know certain things when he wrote the paragraph excerpted above that make his comments dubious. For example, he knows full-well that the deal he helped to craft in 1985 gave absolutely no commitment that federal and provincial revenues would be divided into any set of proportions. What he calls "federal treachery" is not something that happened since 1993 when the Liberal Party took power in Ottawa. The "treachery" to which Mr. Crosbie refers is his contained in his own deal operating as intended.
As a further example, Mr. Crosbie has known from the start that his new interpretation of "principle beneficiary" is decidedly not what was intended by the signatories to the Accord.
Yet further, Mr. Crosbie knows full-well that he makes an utterly false contention when he states that over the course of 21 years the provincial government will receive only $2.1 billion of the %6.5 billion of projected provincial revenues. As Mr. Crosbie himself described this contention in 1990, it is "absolutely, utter nonsense".
Leap ahead in time to Crosbie's assault on the Globe and Mail, this time mounted from the pages of the Sun chain. For purposes here, I'll excerpt some of Mr. Crosbie's historical and other facts and comment on them one by one:
-Extract begins-
Other historical facts that our Ontario-centric Toronto intellectual elite don't remember, if they ever knew them, are:
- Canada first took an interest in claiming our offshore resources on the east coast in 1961; [This assumes that as a matter of law, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador owned them in the first place. What occurred was a dispute, like all disputes, in which resources were claimed by two parties, both of whom had a claim. Neither the Newfoundland Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the proposition that the offshore resources ever belonged to Newfoundland and Labrador.]
- The Trudeau government made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, which decided in March 1984, that the undersea and undersoil resources off east-coast Newfoundland were owned by Canada and not Newfoundland, just as Canada had earlier owned the resources under Alberta, et. al. [For his own partisan reasons, Mr. Crosbie neglects to mention the reference by the Government of Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Court of Appeal. Mr. Crosbie is also fully aware, or ought to be aware, that the legal status of the resources beneath the ground in Alberta and Saskatchewan was and is fundamentally different from the situation offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Both courts found in favour of the federal government having legal jurisdiction, which is different from ownership.]
- It took from 1961 (mostly under Liberal governments) until the Mulroney government resolved these disputes via the Atlantic Accord signed on Feb. 11, 1985; [Mr. Crosbie neglects to mention the numerous efforts to resolve the ownership dispute and develop the fields by mutual agreement between the federal and provincial governments. Among other issues, it was the provincial government's insistence on pursuing the ownership argument that held up a deal during the Peckford administration. Such was not the case in Nova Scotia.]
- The Accord recognizes "the right of Newfoundland to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores." [Indeed it does, Mr. Crosbie, but the term is undefined in the Accord. That said, the definition Mr. Crosbie offers of the term is radically different from the benefits provided to Newfoundland and Labrador by a landmark agreement. His new interpretation does not match the public statements made by Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Peckford when this historic agreement was signed.]
-Extract ends-
Note that nowhere in his Sun spewing does Mr. Crosbie go back and point out his revenue clawback argument from ABM and elsewhere continues to exist under the January deal he praises.
Mr. Crosbie concludes his tirade against what he calls "central Canadian control-freaks" by encouraging them to "cease to promote incorrect, unintelligent, insensitive, ill-informed and biased views that ignore the history of the problems."
Would that Mr. Crosbie took his own advice, we might be spared his ahistorical, partisan ad hominem rantings. His own presentations are no less incorrect or ill-informed and the result of his interventions have been no less insulting to the intelligence of his readers across Canada than the opinions of others he presumes to criticize.
A tale of two cities
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.
For those who aren't familiar with the oil support business, there are two associations in Atlantic Canada representing businesses that supply goods and services to the offshore oil and gas industry.
In Nova Scotia, there is the Onshore/Offshore Technologies Association of Nova Scotia or OTANS. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have NOIA - the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association.
Now NOIA is the older of the two organizations, and while they publicly might deny it, there has always been a bit of a rivalry between the two. NOIA likes it place as the senior organization and the NOIA leadership gets edgy whenever it looks like OTANS is doing better than NOIA.
So it is no surprise that as details come to light of the two signing ceremonies on Monday - St. John's and Halifax - NOIA should be a little uneasy. According to some unpublished reports, it appears that OTANS is playing a prominent role in the Nova Scotia ceremony, as well should the organization that represents one of the significant ways in which that province is the "principal beneficiary" of the Nova Scotia Accord.
Over here, NOIA can come and show up with rest of us in the great unwashed mass at the ceremony in St. John's.
Now there could be many reasons for this difference. For one thing, the event in St. John's is being controlled by the provincial government. The One Who Was The Fight doesn't really need to share much of the spotlight as he claims his prize. In Nova Scotia, the whole offshore Accord fight has taken longer - Danny would have gotten nowhere with Jean Chretien any more than John Hamm did - and has been conducted with much less vitriol than the campaign from here. But more importantly, the minority Nova Scotia government will likely want to spread around some of the glow of victory to as many groups as it can.
But in the long run, aside from this ceremony, OTANS might well wind up much better off than NOIA.
In Nova Scotia, OTANS took a professional approach to government relations recognizing that long after this racket dies down, OTANS still has to maintain healthy positive relationships with both the federal and provincial governments. It has to do that in order to represent its members best interests. Check OTANS news release section on their website and you'll see plenty of releases on OTANS representing its members interest on this file or that. That's exactly what OTANS members pay membership dues to see happen.
What you won't see is what you will find on the NOIA site in October: two news releases in which NOIA blatantly sides with provincial government. In fact, the releases could have been written not by NOIA staff as one might assume but by someone working in the Premier's Office. They are full of the same blatant misrepresentations that characterized the provincial government's campaign. That was after the October Incident, the first of the great stormings, and as it turns out, a deal that wasn't apparently as bad as it seemed given the January deal.
Then there was The Ad: a full page ad complete with the NOIA logo in which the Newfoundland offshore association threw its entire support behind the provincial government and against the feds.
I wouldn't be surprised if Government of Canada officials in all the agencies on which NOIA depends moved telephone messages from the NOIA leadership farther down the pile and took just a bit longer to answer its letters.
The way bureaucrats look at things, the political fight was for the political types; the rest of the world can make arguments in private but never ever step into the bear pit of politics in public. It just isn't done among the people, public sector and private, who do the leg work on all sorts of files. They work quietly. But once you start taking sides you get treated differently because you have become different. For bureaucrats, it's ok to deal with private sector types ("us" dealing with "not us"), but it gets hinky when someone becomes political. It isn't okay for "not us" to become "them".
In the political offices, the response might be much chillier - and justifiably so. If nothing else, NOIA's endorsement of the province's campaign to rewrite the Accord's beneficiary provisions proved that NOIA places a higher priority on provincial government revenues than on the interests of its members in getting guaranteed offshore work. In that light, why should the Government of Canada be overly concerned about whether local industries are getting their rightful share of the Accord benefits? After all, their industry association doesn't think guaranteed local industrial benefits is part of making Newfoundland and Labrador the "principal beneficiary" of offshore oil development.
To cap it all, NOIA was one of the first interest groups to rush forward with its hand out looking for, well, a hand-out from the new federal transfer. How exactly does provincial government cash benefit NOIA members in their core interests? So far no one has stepped forward from NOIA to explain their logic.
If that wasn't enough, here's the release from NOIA issued once a deal had been reached in January. The language is very interesting if you look at the "principal beneficiary" comment and the mounds of praise heaped on the provincial government [read "Danny Williams"] for "steadfast leadership" in becoming "principal beneficiary". Even typing the words, I have a hard time fighting the hoover-like suction. Look at the slight praise for the Government of Canada. Talk about back-handed compliments!
Once NOIA stepped into the political bearpit, it stopped being a non-partisan representative of its members interests and took sides in a heavy-weight political dispute.
It would be a surprise if the mouse tangled with the elephants and didn't pick up a scratch or two.
For those who aren't familiar with the oil support business, there are two associations in Atlantic Canada representing businesses that supply goods and services to the offshore oil and gas industry.
In Nova Scotia, there is the Onshore/Offshore Technologies Association of Nova Scotia or OTANS. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have NOIA - the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association.
Now NOIA is the older of the two organizations, and while they publicly might deny it, there has always been a bit of a rivalry between the two. NOIA likes it place as the senior organization and the NOIA leadership gets edgy whenever it looks like OTANS is doing better than NOIA.
So it is no surprise that as details come to light of the two signing ceremonies on Monday - St. John's and Halifax - NOIA should be a little uneasy. According to some unpublished reports, it appears that OTANS is playing a prominent role in the Nova Scotia ceremony, as well should the organization that represents one of the significant ways in which that province is the "principal beneficiary" of the Nova Scotia Accord.
Over here, NOIA can come and show up with rest of us in the great unwashed mass at the ceremony in St. John's.
Now there could be many reasons for this difference. For one thing, the event in St. John's is being controlled by the provincial government. The One Who Was The Fight doesn't really need to share much of the spotlight as he claims his prize. In Nova Scotia, the whole offshore Accord fight has taken longer - Danny would have gotten nowhere with Jean Chretien any more than John Hamm did - and has been conducted with much less vitriol than the campaign from here. But more importantly, the minority Nova Scotia government will likely want to spread around some of the glow of victory to as many groups as it can.
But in the long run, aside from this ceremony, OTANS might well wind up much better off than NOIA.
In Nova Scotia, OTANS took a professional approach to government relations recognizing that long after this racket dies down, OTANS still has to maintain healthy positive relationships with both the federal and provincial governments. It has to do that in order to represent its members best interests. Check OTANS news release section on their website and you'll see plenty of releases on OTANS representing its members interest on this file or that. That's exactly what OTANS members pay membership dues to see happen.
What you won't see is what you will find on the NOIA site in October: two news releases in which NOIA blatantly sides with provincial government. In fact, the releases could have been written not by NOIA staff as one might assume but by someone working in the Premier's Office. They are full of the same blatant misrepresentations that characterized the provincial government's campaign. That was after the October Incident, the first of the great stormings, and as it turns out, a deal that wasn't apparently as bad as it seemed given the January deal.
Then there was The Ad: a full page ad complete with the NOIA logo in which the Newfoundland offshore association threw its entire support behind the provincial government and against the feds.
I wouldn't be surprised if Government of Canada officials in all the agencies on which NOIA depends moved telephone messages from the NOIA leadership farther down the pile and took just a bit longer to answer its letters.
The way bureaucrats look at things, the political fight was for the political types; the rest of the world can make arguments in private but never ever step into the bear pit of politics in public. It just isn't done among the people, public sector and private, who do the leg work on all sorts of files. They work quietly. But once you start taking sides you get treated differently because you have become different. For bureaucrats, it's ok to deal with private sector types ("us" dealing with "not us"), but it gets hinky when someone becomes political. It isn't okay for "not us" to become "them".
In the political offices, the response might be much chillier - and justifiably so. If nothing else, NOIA's endorsement of the province's campaign to rewrite the Accord's beneficiary provisions proved that NOIA places a higher priority on provincial government revenues than on the interests of its members in getting guaranteed offshore work. In that light, why should the Government of Canada be overly concerned about whether local industries are getting their rightful share of the Accord benefits? After all, their industry association doesn't think guaranteed local industrial benefits is part of making Newfoundland and Labrador the "principal beneficiary" of offshore oil development.
To cap it all, NOIA was one of the first interest groups to rush forward with its hand out looking for, well, a hand-out from the new federal transfer. How exactly does provincial government cash benefit NOIA members in their core interests? So far no one has stepped forward from NOIA to explain their logic.
If that wasn't enough, here's the release from NOIA issued once a deal had been reached in January. The language is very interesting if you look at the "principal beneficiary" comment and the mounds of praise heaped on the provincial government [read "Danny Williams"] for "steadfast leadership" in becoming "principal beneficiary". Even typing the words, I have a hard time fighting the hoover-like suction. Look at the slight praise for the Government of Canada. Talk about back-handed compliments!
Once NOIA stepped into the political bearpit, it stopped being a non-partisan representative of its members interests and took sides in a heavy-weight political dispute.
It would be a surprise if the mouse tangled with the elephants and didn't pick up a scratch or two.
Meanwhile in the White House...
Here's a curious story from the Globe today on the recent discovery of an accredited White House reporter who turns out to be some guy working under an assumed name for a Republican activist from Texas. How the guy got accreditation as a bona fide journalist is beyond me. Toby and CJ would never let that happen.
There's a word in the story I have just discovered is my new favourite word in English: pseudo-journalist.
According to the Globe story "[o]ver the past month, there have been disclosures of three separate instances in which government agencies have given lucrative contracts to conservative, pro-Bush commentators to provide consulting services and write positive articles on the administration's pet policies, including education changes."
The sound you hear is me shaking my head in dismay at the depths to which some people in politics will sink.
There's a word in the story I have just discovered is my new favourite word in English: pseudo-journalist.
According to the Globe story "[o]ver the past month, there have been disclosures of three separate instances in which government agencies have given lucrative contracts to conservative, pro-Bush commentators to provide consulting services and write positive articles on the administration's pet policies, including education changes."
The sound you hear is me shaking my head in dismay at the depths to which some people in politics will sink.
Bill Rowe on Cable 9?
Now lemme see how this goes:
1. New programs in the works including a call-in show on Rogers.
2. Bill Rowe resigns in Ottawa.
3. Bill Rowe tells CBC that he intends to revive his media career.
4. Bill Rowe used to host a call-in show.
5. Bill Rowe likes Danny.
6. Danny likes Bill.
7. Rogers Cable loves Danny.
Hmmmmmm.
Speculation can be fun.
1. New programs in the works including a call-in show on Rogers.
2. Bill Rowe resigns in Ottawa.
3. Bill Rowe tells CBC that he intends to revive his media career.
4. Bill Rowe used to host a call-in show.
5. Bill Rowe likes Danny.
6. Danny likes Bill.
7. Rogers Cable loves Danny.
Hmmmmmm.
Speculation can be fun.
10 February 2005
The Cable Guy
The Premier's speech to the Empire club is apparently being carried numerous times by the local Rogers cable system, according to a news release from the provincial government.
Make sure you don't miss it.
And for those who don't want to patronize Rogers Cable, for some reason the Premier's Office neglected to notice that the Empire Club website has the speech (or will have it) posted on their website.
Two questions though:
1. Why is this release coming from Government and not from Rogers Cable? The government information service is there to provide information to the public and media on government activity not private sector business schedules. Can NTV get Survivor broadcast times up there now?
2. Has the Premier placed his Rogers' shares in a blind trust or is that file still open?
Make sure you don't miss it.
And for those who don't want to patronize Rogers Cable, for some reason the Premier's Office neglected to notice that the Empire Club website has the speech (or will have it) posted on their website.
Two questions though:
1. Why is this release coming from Government and not from Rogers Cable? The government information service is there to provide information to the public and media on government activity not private sector business schedules. Can NTV get Survivor broadcast times up there now?
2. Has the Premier placed his Rogers' shares in a blind trust or is that file still open?
Does Bas need a job?
Word today that Bill Rowe, former Liberal Party leader, novelist, Rhodes scholar, cabinet minister, brown envelope slider supervisor and radio talk show host has apparently packed in his gig as Newfoundland and Labrador High Commissioner to the Evil Empire of Canada.
A free beer to anyone who can find any tangible, verifiable, credible evidence that Rowe accomplished anything at all during his brief tenure. His own overweaning self-adulation nor any superlative compliments from the guy who appointed him don't count. Nor will I accept that Bill picked up the Premier at the airport a few times, let Loyola sleep on his couch, or made coffee at federal-provincial meetings as proof of a job well done. Attending receptions is not proof, either; that's a perk or a pain depending on your perspective. Nope, I want to see a file finished or even significantly advanced.
I recall back in the dark ages when I served in government that someone in the bureaucracy tossed up this idea of having a permanent office in Ottawa. As a naive young fellow I thought it seemed like a good idea on the face of it. After a bit of consideration though, I realized that we taxpayers already have a raft of people who get paid to work with Government of Canada on our behalf, day in and day out.
One more body siphoning a salary and living expenses out of my pocket wouldn't help any.
I am still not convinced it has or will.
But there's a beer in it for anyone who can prove me wrong.
A free beer to anyone who can find any tangible, verifiable, credible evidence that Rowe accomplished anything at all during his brief tenure. His own overweaning self-adulation nor any superlative compliments from the guy who appointed him don't count. Nor will I accept that Bill picked up the Premier at the airport a few times, let Loyola sleep on his couch, or made coffee at federal-provincial meetings as proof of a job well done. Attending receptions is not proof, either; that's a perk or a pain depending on your perspective. Nope, I want to see a file finished or even significantly advanced.
I recall back in the dark ages when I served in government that someone in the bureaucracy tossed up this idea of having a permanent office in Ottawa. As a naive young fellow I thought it seemed like a good idea on the face of it. After a bit of consideration though, I realized that we taxpayers already have a raft of people who get paid to work with Government of Canada on our behalf, day in and day out.
One more body siphoning a salary and living expenses out of my pocket wouldn't help any.
I am still not convinced it has or will.
But there's a beer in it for anyone who can prove me wrong.
09 February 2005
Wangersky on The Opposition - -(Not quite) 'nuff said
Read Russell Wangersky's column in the Tuesday edition of The Telegram.
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
Addendum (10 Feb 05)
Interesting to see the Fair Deal site has opened a thread on this issue and linked to this site (tip of the hat, back.)
The comments that follow are worth reading. Aside from one blatantly myopic one, it would be useful for the Official Opposition to have a look at posted opinions. True they aren't any kind of scientific sampling but these people have obviously taken some time to write carefully considered observations. Think of it as a free focus group session, guys. Fair Deal thread on Grimes
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
Addendum (10 Feb 05)
Interesting to see the Fair Deal site has opened a thread on this issue and linked to this site (tip of the hat, back.)
The comments that follow are worth reading. Aside from one blatantly myopic one, it would be useful for the Official Opposition to have a look at posted opinions. True they aren't any kind of scientific sampling but these people have obviously taken some time to write carefully considered observations. Think of it as a free focus group session, guys. Fair Deal thread on Grimes
In search of strategic strategy for strategizing
A few years ago, B schools across North America started teaching "strategic" planning and every group under the sun needed a "vision" and a "mission" and a "strategic plan". Consultants made millions working on the documents, most of which I'd venture got tossed on a shelf right after the weekend retreat or "planning session".
Now we have a government that seems to be spending all its time working on plans and strategies.
Ed Byrne is the latest one to announce a call for proposals to develop a strategy, this time on wind generation of electric power. Nice idea.
Too bad Hydro has been supporting demonstration projects since 2001 trying to see if it is feasible to generate significant amounts of wind power in the province in a way that is environmentally safe.
"In recent years, there have been some advancements in technology that could lead to opportunities to reduce the cost of producing energy by wind power. As such, we believe that it is in the best interest of the province, the ratepayer and for current and potential wind power proponents, that we step back to review the current situation to determine how best to proceed."
Psst Ed. Here's a free suggestion. A radical concept.
Let the private sector keep developing test projects. If they are feasible, then let the private sector fund and develop them and feed the power into the Hydro grid. Let the environment department keep monitoring the projects and making sure they are environmentally sound.
I the meantime find something else to announce besides yet another study and proposal for a strategy.
It's a bit like the joke about The Method actor, seeking his "motivation" to walk across the soundstage toward the camera. "Don't worry", yells the director, " I'll tell you when you get here."
What's the strategy, Ed? I'll tell you when you get here.
Now we have a government that seems to be spending all its time working on plans and strategies.
Ed Byrne is the latest one to announce a call for proposals to develop a strategy, this time on wind generation of electric power. Nice idea.
Too bad Hydro has been supporting demonstration projects since 2001 trying to see if it is feasible to generate significant amounts of wind power in the province in a way that is environmentally safe.
"In recent years, there have been some advancements in technology that could lead to opportunities to reduce the cost of producing energy by wind power. As such, we believe that it is in the best interest of the province, the ratepayer and for current and potential wind power proponents, that we step back to review the current situation to determine how best to proceed."
Psst Ed. Here's a free suggestion. A radical concept.
Let the private sector keep developing test projects. If they are feasible, then let the private sector fund and develop them and feed the power into the Hydro grid. Let the environment department keep monitoring the projects and making sure they are environmentally sound.
I the meantime find something else to announce besides yet another study and proposal for a strategy.
It's a bit like the joke about The Method actor, seeking his "motivation" to walk across the soundstage toward the camera. "Don't worry", yells the director, " I'll tell you when you get here."
What's the strategy, Ed? I'll tell you when you get here.
Paul Wells take on Danny
Don't count on too many people circulating this link.
It's Paul Well's "BackPage" column from Macleans this week. It doesn't praise Danny. It can't be misconstrued - taken wrongly - into praise for the Wunderkind.
"Danny Williams could have had this deal in October or December. He preferred to pull cheap stunts in return for cheap votes. This is the man in whom Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have put their trust. One wonders why they are celebrating."
Wonder if Paul is coming on Monday for the signing ceremony?
It's Paul Well's "BackPage" column from Macleans this week. It doesn't praise Danny. It can't be misconstrued - taken wrongly - into praise for the Wunderkind.
"Danny Williams could have had this deal in October or December. He preferred to pull cheap stunts in return for cheap votes. This is the man in whom Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have put their trust. One wonders why they are celebrating."
Wonder if Paul is coming on Monday for the signing ceremony?
Jack's Math - revised and revised again
Ok, I may have misheard this clip today, so I will check it out and post a correction if need be. [Yep, I did. So I bought The Telegram today and got a better set of quotes.]
Jack Harris, the province's New Democratic Party leader issued a news release today calling on the government to bring some good news in the upcoming budget. He noted, among other things, that the offshore deal just announced will mean the provinces books will be balanced on a cash basis this year and that over the next eight years provincial government oil revenues will be a total of about $4.6 billion. [He said $4.9 billion, and I gather he was referring to the offsets if we go the full eight years in the first offset phase.]
Excuse me, Jack? I must have misheard you. [Yeah I did, but actually what he actually said doesn't change the rest of this post.]
Even before a deal was signed the provincial government estimated its direct oil revenues would be a total of $4.94 billion. That's the total from October. When Wade Locke added up his numbers based on US$32 per bbl (barrel), he came up with an eight-year figure of $5.2 billion.
Now that was without any new cash from Ottawa.
So, Jack, if we add the $2.0 billion in the new cash, the provincial government is going to have about $7.0 billion over the next eight years. That works out to be around $875 million per year on average. [If we accept Jack's idea that we get the full offset (Dream on, there buddy), then the total oil revenues plus offsets is actually........$1.25 billion per year, on average, over eight years. Of course, regular readers of this blog know the figure is likely closer to $875 million.]
And that is without considering Hebron/Ben Nevis and without the added revenue from Voisey's Bay and without the added revenue from restructured federal provincial financial for health and social programs.
Jack was right to point out that the government's finances are not in crisis, thereby acting like a proper Opposition Leader. (Why exactly was Roger Grimes out defending Fraser "Mario Andretti" March today anyway?) But Jack, b'y, at least get the math right on how much money the provincial government will have to spend.
If you put it in proper context, any idiot can see the Premier can be fiscally responsible and implement some much needed preventative health care projects like the school lunch program.
If it looks like the place is cash poor, and you are working from an equally wrong assumption, then you only fall into the trap carefully laid by that fountain of fiscal fooferah, the Minister of Decimals Loyola Sullivan: he can just dismiss you as another irresponsible leftie ready to spend us into the ground. Then he'll put everyone back to sleep with a recitation of the current budget projections, line by thousands of lines to the nearest fraction of a percentage.
(Revised 09 Feb 05)
Addendum (10 Feb 05)
Jack Harris made a guest appearance on Out of the Fog on Wednesday evening and it was repeated on Thursday. Watch for it again over the weekend. It's worthwhile to see Jack's solid performance despite the shortcomings discussed below. With a bit of work, the NDP could actually start to climb in the polls if Jack can keep it up.
A couple of things stand out. First of all Jack very clearly and concisely laid out his points in a way anyone could understand. He divided the debt into different chunks and explained his point in a way that you couldn't help but see where he was going - in a sensible level headed direction.
Second, the only one who wouldn't buy the logic was Krista Rudofsky who seems increasingly smitten with our Premier. Her tone betrayed a sketpicism seemingly the result of having swallowed Finance department news releases whole.
It's getting to the point where the CRTC should review the local cable access license for Rogers to see if they have crossed over a line on bias. If they try and pass themselves off as a current affairs or news show, then maybe there are some laws about truth in advertising that apply.
Does anyone remember Krista's fawning interview with the Premier back in January when she asked, breathlessly, "What can we do to help you, Premier?" or words to that effect. That was just one of several examples where she has failed utterly either to grasp the subject in front of her or ask the Premier or Loyola Sullivan or any Tory cabinet minister anything other than a question designed to let them slide through their prepared talking points with ease.
Danny has been on the show so often you'd swear he still owned the station. Out of the Fog is starting to sound a bit like the old Conversations with the Premier farce done eons ago with Joe Smallwood. The Premier would pull into the parking lot having been driven in by chauffeur from Roaches Line. While the car idled, a reporter would run out, stick a microphone through the open window and let the tape run as Joe pontificated about whatever was on his mind.
I once asked a reporter who had done the old Smallwood schtick and a later version done by Tobin on what he thought was the difference between the two. "With Tobin, I got to ask questions," came the reply, full of all the dry-wit experience of a seasoned and professional news veteran. There's a lesson there Krista could use because there is a difference between asking a question and feeding one.
Thankfully, Poor old Jack brushed off the light-weight questioning and got back to his point time and again. A seemingly frustrated Krista dropped it.
Any kind of bias in a public program interviewing political figures is unacceptable.
Period.
Jack Harris, the province's New Democratic Party leader issued a news release today calling on the government to bring some good news in the upcoming budget. He noted, among other things, that the offshore deal just announced will mean the provinces books will be balanced on a cash basis this year and that over the next eight years provincial government oil revenues will be a total of about $4.6 billion. [He said $4.9 billion, and I gather he was referring to the offsets if we go the full eight years in the first offset phase.]
Excuse me, Jack? I must have misheard you. [Yeah I did, but actually what he actually said doesn't change the rest of this post.]
Even before a deal was signed the provincial government estimated its direct oil revenues would be a total of $4.94 billion. That's the total from October. When Wade Locke added up his numbers based on US$32 per bbl (barrel), he came up with an eight-year figure of $5.2 billion.
Now that was without any new cash from Ottawa.
So, Jack, if we add the $2.0 billion in the new cash, the provincial government is going to have about $7.0 billion over the next eight years. That works out to be around $875 million per year on average. [If we accept Jack's idea that we get the full offset (Dream on, there buddy), then the total oil revenues plus offsets is actually........$1.25 billion per year, on average, over eight years. Of course, regular readers of this blog know the figure is likely closer to $875 million.]
And that is without considering Hebron/Ben Nevis and without the added revenue from Voisey's Bay and without the added revenue from restructured federal provincial financial for health and social programs.
Jack was right to point out that the government's finances are not in crisis, thereby acting like a proper Opposition Leader. (Why exactly was Roger Grimes out defending Fraser "Mario Andretti" March today anyway?) But Jack, b'y, at least get the math right on how much money the provincial government will have to spend.
If you put it in proper context, any idiot can see the Premier can be fiscally responsible and implement some much needed preventative health care projects like the school lunch program.
If it looks like the place is cash poor, and you are working from an equally wrong assumption, then you only fall into the trap carefully laid by that fountain of fiscal fooferah, the Minister of Decimals Loyola Sullivan: he can just dismiss you as another irresponsible leftie ready to spend us into the ground. Then he'll put everyone back to sleep with a recitation of the current budget projections, line by thousands of lines to the nearest fraction of a percentage.
(Revised 09 Feb 05)
Addendum (10 Feb 05)
Jack Harris made a guest appearance on Out of the Fog on Wednesday evening and it was repeated on Thursday. Watch for it again over the weekend. It's worthwhile to see Jack's solid performance despite the shortcomings discussed below. With a bit of work, the NDP could actually start to climb in the polls if Jack can keep it up.
A couple of things stand out. First of all Jack very clearly and concisely laid out his points in a way anyone could understand. He divided the debt into different chunks and explained his point in a way that you couldn't help but see where he was going - in a sensible level headed direction.
Second, the only one who wouldn't buy the logic was Krista Rudofsky who seems increasingly smitten with our Premier. Her tone betrayed a sketpicism seemingly the result of having swallowed Finance department news releases whole.
It's getting to the point where the CRTC should review the local cable access license for Rogers to see if they have crossed over a line on bias. If they try and pass themselves off as a current affairs or news show, then maybe there are some laws about truth in advertising that apply.
Does anyone remember Krista's fawning interview with the Premier back in January when she asked, breathlessly, "What can we do to help you, Premier?" or words to that effect. That was just one of several examples where she has failed utterly either to grasp the subject in front of her or ask the Premier or Loyola Sullivan or any Tory cabinet minister anything other than a question designed to let them slide through their prepared talking points with ease.
Danny has been on the show so often you'd swear he still owned the station. Out of the Fog is starting to sound a bit like the old Conversations with the Premier farce done eons ago with Joe Smallwood. The Premier would pull into the parking lot having been driven in by chauffeur from Roaches Line. While the car idled, a reporter would run out, stick a microphone through the open window and let the tape run as Joe pontificated about whatever was on his mind.
I once asked a reporter who had done the old Smallwood schtick and a later version done by Tobin on what he thought was the difference between the two. "With Tobin, I got to ask questions," came the reply, full of all the dry-wit experience of a seasoned and professional news veteran. There's a lesson there Krista could use because there is a difference between asking a question and feeding one.
Thankfully, Poor old Jack brushed off the light-weight questioning and got back to his point time and again. A seemingly frustrated Krista dropped it.
Any kind of bias in a public program interviewing political figures is unacceptable.
Period.
08 February 2005
Fraser should be on TV
Law and Order has been on the air since 1989.
CSI and all its spin-offs has been around for something like five years.
Fraser March needs to watch more TV. If he had, he would have known you can get the lugs from your phone to find out who you called and where you called from.
Make it easy Fraser: apologize and clean up your act or resign.
I am starting to think that Fraser and John are getting political advice from the same person.
CSI and all its spin-offs has been around for something like five years.
Fraser March needs to watch more TV. If he had, he would have known you can get the lugs from your phone to find out who you called and where you called from.
Make it easy Fraser: apologize and clean up your act or resign.
I am starting to think that Fraser and John are getting political advice from the same person.
Power corridor through Quebec?
Wait until Wednesday and you can get The Independent for free from its website.
When you do get it, or if you plunked down the buck already, check the front page story by Jeff Ducharme about the idea of forcing Quebec to let Newfoundland and Labrador build a power corridor through Quebec to let this province get its Labrador hydroelectric power to market.
Talk about living in the past, Jeff.
The idea of building power pylons through Quebec is old hat. As long as the existing grid has the physical capacity to carry the load, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could wheel power across the existing lines. The link is to a United States Department of Energy website on the American electrical power system. It makes for fascinating reading; amazing thing the Internet.
This site makes for curious reading when you hear people - like Premier Williams - talking about building a single Canadian grid that runs from St. John's to Vancouver. Let's not kid ourselves: he talks about a Canadian grid as a way of getting federal money to put his Stunnel or something like it across the Strait of Belle Isle. It isn't about developing a great national project for Canada.
It is pretty clear from the DOE website that the existing North American power grid is divided into clearly defined zones that cross the border into Canada. Quebec is a separate system that includes Labrador. Newfoundland is, of course, an island and hence isn't part of the system. (Seems like an obvious point, but apparently not for some people.) The Maritimes is wired into the Eastern Interconnected Network through Maine in a system that stretches down to Florida. The so-called Anglo-Saxon route would wire us directly to that one, incidentally, albeit at a huge and likely non-viable cost. Non-viable, that is, without massive government subsidy.
The main thrust of Jeff's piece though is putting John Efford offside with local nationalists. The headline "No way" refers to John's refusal to force a power corridor through Quebec. Jeff makes a nice contribution to the "Whack John" sport that has grown up here lately, but it doesn't do much more than that...
except give us the following lessons:
1. The Indy is stuck hopelessly in the past. They might want to find a new researcher. I suspect though that they find it more useful to recycle nationalist mythology and maybe even invent some new mythology rather than deal in the here and now. If it sells papers, then they are succeeding. Why else would there be this power corridor nonsense on page one and inside a column by Ivan Morgan praising Danny Williams? Let me look again, there might be yet another column that mentions Margaret Wente and points out she was wrong. Nope. Not wrong, but there's Ryan Cleary's editorial taking Wente out of context so he can claim she too praises Danny.
Wow. Talk about getting predictable! Why isn't there a piece from Bill Rowe heaping mounds of praise of his employer? Sheesh, I should have just turned the page. Poof! There's Bill, large as life. Well, the paper is locally owned - another point made over and over - as if that affects the quality of the reporting.
2. John Efford is not up-to-speed on all his briefing books. The logical answer to a question about power corridors is not whether you would or you wouldn't force one but, "Why, Jeff, are you asking me an outdated question?" What John has done in this interview is give his political enemies yet more ammunition to use against him. Atta boy John.
When you do get it, or if you plunked down the buck already, check the front page story by Jeff Ducharme about the idea of forcing Quebec to let Newfoundland and Labrador build a power corridor through Quebec to let this province get its Labrador hydroelectric power to market.
Talk about living in the past, Jeff.
The idea of building power pylons through Quebec is old hat. As long as the existing grid has the physical capacity to carry the load, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could wheel power across the existing lines. The link is to a United States Department of Energy website on the American electrical power system. It makes for fascinating reading; amazing thing the Internet.
This site makes for curious reading when you hear people - like Premier Williams - talking about building a single Canadian grid that runs from St. John's to Vancouver. Let's not kid ourselves: he talks about a Canadian grid as a way of getting federal money to put his Stunnel or something like it across the Strait of Belle Isle. It isn't about developing a great national project for Canada.
It is pretty clear from the DOE website that the existing North American power grid is divided into clearly defined zones that cross the border into Canada. Quebec is a separate system that includes Labrador. Newfoundland is, of course, an island and hence isn't part of the system. (Seems like an obvious point, but apparently not for some people.) The Maritimes is wired into the Eastern Interconnected Network through Maine in a system that stretches down to Florida. The so-called Anglo-Saxon route would wire us directly to that one, incidentally, albeit at a huge and likely non-viable cost. Non-viable, that is, without massive government subsidy.
The main thrust of Jeff's piece though is putting John Efford offside with local nationalists. The headline "No way" refers to John's refusal to force a power corridor through Quebec. Jeff makes a nice contribution to the "Whack John" sport that has grown up here lately, but it doesn't do much more than that...
except give us the following lessons:
1. The Indy is stuck hopelessly in the past. They might want to find a new researcher. I suspect though that they find it more useful to recycle nationalist mythology and maybe even invent some new mythology rather than deal in the here and now. If it sells papers, then they are succeeding. Why else would there be this power corridor nonsense on page one and inside a column by Ivan Morgan praising Danny Williams? Let me look again, there might be yet another column that mentions Margaret Wente and points out she was wrong. Nope. Not wrong, but there's Ryan Cleary's editorial taking Wente out of context so he can claim she too praises Danny.
Wow. Talk about getting predictable! Why isn't there a piece from Bill Rowe heaping mounds of praise of his employer? Sheesh, I should have just turned the page. Poof! There's Bill, large as life. Well, the paper is locally owned - another point made over and over - as if that affects the quality of the reporting.
2. John Efford is not up-to-speed on all his briefing books. The logical answer to a question about power corridors is not whether you would or you wouldn't force one but, "Why, Jeff, are you asking me an outdated question?" What John has done in this interview is give his political enemies yet more ammunition to use against him. Atta boy John.
07 February 2005
Cormorant wins job of flying US President
A consortium led in the United States by Lockheed Martin has won the contract to replace Sikorsky SeaKing helicopters in the American Presidential flight. The contract, valued at US$1.7 billion, will see the consortium supply a total of 23 aircraft to be flown by the United States Marine Corps contingent that ferries the President on short flights.
Canadians will be interested in this since the EH-101 is flown by the Canadian Forces under the name Cormorant and used for search and rescue service. The same aircraft lost a recent Canadian competition to supply 28 ship-borne helicopters to replace the SeaKing. The winner of that job was the Sikorsky S-92, a derivative of the familiar SH-60 SeaHawk/UH-60 BlackHawk helicopters built by Sikorsky.
This whole business will become more interesting to watch as the United States Department of Defense looks to replace its own SeaKings in the coming years.
Looking a little closer to home, the website for the LockheedMartin proposal, Team US101, lists two recent rescues by Cormorants from 103 Squadron in Gander as proof of the aircraft's capabilities.
They even mention that the Cormorant staged from the Hibernia rig on one mission.
The contract award was announced on January 28, 2005.
Canadians will be interested in this since the EH-101 is flown by the Canadian Forces under the name Cormorant and used for search and rescue service. The same aircraft lost a recent Canadian competition to supply 28 ship-borne helicopters to replace the SeaKing. The winner of that job was the Sikorsky S-92, a derivative of the familiar SH-60 SeaHawk/UH-60 BlackHawk helicopters built by Sikorsky.
This whole business will become more interesting to watch as the United States Department of Defense looks to replace its own SeaKings in the coming years.
Looking a little closer to home, the website for the LockheedMartin proposal, Team US101, lists two recent rescues by Cormorants from 103 Squadron in Gander as proof of the aircraft's capabilities.
They even mention that the Cormorant staged from the Hibernia rig on one mission.
The contract award was announced on January 28, 2005.
Caution: Plain Spoken Newfoundlander at work
The Sun chain, among others, is reporting today that Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier has scrapped the defence policy set to be announced by the Martin administration. Officials are said to be busily re-writing the document described as "boring" in its original form.
Bill Graham, the Minister of National Defence is reported to have pushed both for Hillier's appointment and for the complete re-write.
Surprise, surprise!
General Hillier is widely known and respected for his leadership ability, sharp mind and commitment to laying the facts on the table, good, bad or indifferent. National Defence Headquarters, sometimes known as Disneyland on the Rideau among Ottawa insiders, is likely adapting quickly to Hillier's new style.
Hillier first gained wider public prominence during the Ice Storm in 1998 when his 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group oversaw the military support to civil authorities in Eastern Ontario. Some may recall that 129 soldiers from the local garrison in St. John's spent a couple of weeks just outside Ottawa working for General Hillier. They were in the air before many local reserve units mobilized and they did such a fine job that the company-sized organization wound up taking some 70 military engineers from Ontario under command. The Newfoundland reserve soldiers came from 1 Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service Battalion and 56 Field Engineer Squadron, with vehicle transportation being supplied by soldiers from 31 Service Battalion in Saint John New Brunswick.
True to form, Hillier came out personally to thank the soldiers as they waited at Ottawa airport for airlift home. He insisted on having his picture taken with them as a souvenir. That's the same approach he has taken in all his jobs.
Basically, it hasn't taken very long for the guy one Ottawa-based defence analyst called a "plain spoken Newfoundlander" to make his presence felt. That line apparently got knickers in a knot at one television program here in St. John's, where the crowd that put the show together took offense at the remark. Seems they were desperately looking for yet another slight to rant against in the wake of Margaret Wente.
Chaulk one up for Rick.
Chaulk one up for Bill Graham.
Now we just have to watch for the plan when it finally emerges.
Bill Graham, the Minister of National Defence is reported to have pushed both for Hillier's appointment and for the complete re-write.
Surprise, surprise!
General Hillier is widely known and respected for his leadership ability, sharp mind and commitment to laying the facts on the table, good, bad or indifferent. National Defence Headquarters, sometimes known as Disneyland on the Rideau among Ottawa insiders, is likely adapting quickly to Hillier's new style.
Hillier first gained wider public prominence during the Ice Storm in 1998 when his 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group oversaw the military support to civil authorities in Eastern Ontario. Some may recall that 129 soldiers from the local garrison in St. John's spent a couple of weeks just outside Ottawa working for General Hillier. They were in the air before many local reserve units mobilized and they did such a fine job that the company-sized organization wound up taking some 70 military engineers from Ontario under command. The Newfoundland reserve soldiers came from 1 Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service Battalion and 56 Field Engineer Squadron, with vehicle transportation being supplied by soldiers from 31 Service Battalion in Saint John New Brunswick.
True to form, Hillier came out personally to thank the soldiers as they waited at Ottawa airport for airlift home. He insisted on having his picture taken with them as a souvenir. That's the same approach he has taken in all his jobs.
Basically, it hasn't taken very long for the guy one Ottawa-based defence analyst called a "plain spoken Newfoundlander" to make his presence felt. That line apparently got knickers in a knot at one television program here in St. John's, where the crowd that put the show together took offense at the remark. Seems they were desperately looking for yet another slight to rant against in the wake of Margaret Wente.
Chaulk one up for Rick.
Chaulk one up for Bill Graham.
Now we just have to watch for the plan when it finally emerges.
Monday morning smile - here's the real can opener joke
Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here are some versions of the classic Can Opener joke.
Version 1.
Three people are stranded on a small island. One is a physicist. One is a circus strongman. One is an economist. After a few days of surviving on fruit, they discover a cache of canned food, and they have to decide how to open it.
The physicist says to the strongman "Why don't you climb that tree, and smash the cans down on the rocks, and burst them open?"
The strongman says, "No, that would spatter the stuff all over. I can open the cans with my teeth!"
The economist says "First, we must assume that we have a can opener."
Version 2.
Two economists are trapped on an island with only a can of beans. They've tried everything they can think of to open the can of beans: sticks, rocks, their teeth, etc.
So the two economists are sitting around dejected when one of them yells, "I GOT IT!" [Remember they are economists, not grammarians]
The other economist gets excited and sits up with anticipation, the other tells him, "Let's just
assume we have a can opener!"
Version 3.
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Let's assume that we have a can-opener..."
and just for the variety, here is one of my all time favourite economist jokes:
It seems to capture the essence of many things.
A mathematician, an accountant, and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?"
The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"
Version 1.
Three people are stranded on a small island. One is a physicist. One is a circus strongman. One is an economist. After a few days of surviving on fruit, they discover a cache of canned food, and they have to decide how to open it.
The physicist says to the strongman "Why don't you climb that tree, and smash the cans down on the rocks, and burst them open?"
The strongman says, "No, that would spatter the stuff all over. I can open the cans with my teeth!"
The economist says "First, we must assume that we have a can opener."
Version 2.
Two economists are trapped on an island with only a can of beans. They've tried everything they can think of to open the can of beans: sticks, rocks, their teeth, etc.
So the two economists are sitting around dejected when one of them yells, "I GOT IT!" [Remember they are economists, not grammarians]
The other economist gets excited and sits up with anticipation, the other tells him, "Let's just
assume we have a can opener!"
Version 3.
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Let's assume that we have a can-opener..."
and just for the variety, here is one of my all time favourite economist jokes:
It seems to capture the essence of many things.
A mathematician, an accountant, and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?"
The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"
Second, we assume a can...
Now that I have had some time to go through Wade Locke's slides on the Atlantic Accord, I have a better idea of what he said last week in the"independent" assessment of the Accord deal. The slides and some other documents can be found at the Harris Centre website, along with a bunch of other interesting reading. This follows on my other post on this, First we assume a can-opener.
I've also checked a couple of details on my earlier postings. Apparently, Locke he does include higher revenues for Terra Nova in his projections, but it still seems he does not include Hebron or other revenue sources in his projections of whether or not the province will qualify for Equalization at any point under the January agreement. I am curious about the Terra Nova thing, though, since Locke's version of the revenue chart actually is more extreme than the provincial government one. It has an oddity, too. As revenues get higher and, in one Locke slide, as oil prices get higher, provincial oil revenues drop. There must be something I am missing.
If you check the Terra Nova site, for example you will see there is a plan to plateau production for a period. Logically one would accept that this should be a fairly steady revenue stream, assuming, as Locke does, that oil stays at constant price. Why the big peak, then?
Why the big peak, too, if we are actually bringing on fields in sequencerather than simultaneously?
Admittedly, I am working without the benefit of his actual comments on the night so I may misunderstand some of his points. That said, with his slides and with the media reports, I think I can offer some further observations on his presentation.
Generally, his comments are accurate but that is so solely within the information, context and assumptions that he uses. Shift any of those and his comments are anything from less accurate to completely off base.
Let's just take some key issues:
1. A logical comparison would be between what was sought and what was obtained. Wade Locke deliberately avoided this comparison and the reason is by no means obvious. There is no logical or legitimate reason to do so. He can easily model what was sought. It was a simple proposition: double revenues for the life of oil production. Poof! Instant slide. Then compare that to the January deal. Poof! Instant set of lines on instant chart. Compare both. Measure gaps, if any. Make observations. Make it more complex. Compare the pre-June 5 proposition: double oil revenues for eight years. Poof! Another instant line for comparison. Repeat measurement and observation steps above.
Locke didn't do that, though. Nope. Instead, he looked at each of the federal propositions. This presents some difficulties. The biggest one is that Locke isn't actually making a solid judgment on the apparent success or failure of the Premier's campaign. It would seem like both the most logical comparison and the most productive one for people looking for an independent assessment on which to base their personal judgment. It is curious that he wound up with a presentation that joins the chorus of cheers, hence my suggestion in an earlier post that Locke situated the estimate.
The next biggest difficulty is that Locke is working without the benefit of all the deals, details and counter details. One can only make the kind of observations Locke did make - like that each proposal was better than the one before - if he actually had details of every single nuance and detail in the discussion. For example, we know the Premier had some kind of long-term deal in June which he repudiated by his letter of January 10. Locke doesn't discuss this idea at all, preferring to completely ignore this deal. Locke also ignores the changing provincial position too. These considerations all call his final assessment into serious doubt.
What we wind up with is a case where our economist not only assumes a can-opener, he also assumes a can of beans. He then proceeds to open then figuratively and reveal their magical contents. No matter how you look at, Wade Locke's entire approach doesn't add up to a genuinely thorough assessment of the provincial position. We still have imaginary beans and a can opener
2. Locke concludes (if I gather correctly) that each federal offer from October to January got better, to the point where the province accepted the last one.
Well, as the post from Thursday shows, on paper there is actually very little difference between December and January. There was noticeable improvement from October to December after much negotiation, but the variations between December and January are anything but big. I'll highlight some specifics.
- In the core issue, the federal position remains the same: collect revenue plus offsets until past the Equalization threshold. After that, the existing Accord provisions apply. This is emphatically not what the provincial government sought in any of its three proposals and this is a point Locke apparently does not make at all. This leaves a huge gap in Locke's presentation.
- The lump sum payment concept is simply an adaptation of an October concept to the new deal. It doesn't materially enhance the January offer since, as I have argued elsewhere, the October deal could have netted out the same cash - if they tried for it. December was an improvement on October, but there was very little of substance changed between the December offer and January. The second-phase could be seen as unattainable, depending on your assumptions about economic performance that far out (2010-2012). Therefore, October might not have been that bad after all.
- The cash value of the deal in the short-term and long-term fluctuates with the price of oil. Therefore many of the deal's benefits are simply theoretical. It all depends on which scenario plays out; it's based on which can-opener you assume.
Of course, Locke has conveniently ignored the most obvious point: Danny Williams said yes to less despite his claim that he woudn't.
3. In order for this deal to pay off as Locke projects, oil prices have to remain at or below $32 a barrel for the life of the agreement, especially in the years when oil revenue supposedly peaks (06-08 depending on pricing). Locke's assumption appears to be based on an average price per barrel of oil. fair enough; most projections work this way. However, over the span of eight years, the average price could be US$32, with a low period at the beginning and peaks in between such that it averages out at $32. Unfortunately, if those peaks also push the province beyond the Equalization threshold, this deal won't pay off in the way Locke suggests. Assume a different can opener and you might not be able to open the can of magic beans.
4. Locke appears to assume no other economic activity exists. It is obvious from the slides that Locke assumes no Hebron/Be Nevis development and it would appear he also assumes no other projects such as Voisey's Bay will impact on provincial own-source revenues. As such, other economic activity could make this a really short-term deal as I have said elsewhere. In that case, Locke's praise of this deal would be...Well...Premature.
5. Clawbacks, clawbacks, clawbacks. Locke persists in the clawback mythology which only serves to confuse the issue and mask what actually occurs. For example, in slide labeled "What was the January Offer Worth?", Locke's presentation makes it appear that the maximum revenue is the red line, the oil revenue line. In the scenario being described, though, the revenue is actually cumulative and would be considerably higher than the $1.1 billion shown at peak. The oddest part of Locke's presentation is his claim that even though the supposed "clawback" climbs steadily from 14% currently toward 100%, at some magical point, when the province no longer qualifies for Equalization, the "clawback" magically disappears. What should be a 100% clawback, as Danny Williams logically used to argue, Locke says the clawback disappears. What a crock!
6. Problems/Uncertainties magically disappear. There is precious little difference between the December and January offers. Yet, Locke makes different conclusions on each. For example, in the slide "Issues with Respect to the December Agreement in principle", Locke lists as his first point that the province might not qualify for Equalization after 2006 depending on oil prices and "other things going on in the province". While this acknowledges one of the major shortcomings of Locke's assessment the same could be said of January as well. Where did you concern go, Wade? It's not like this is a minor issue.
7. Funky Math and Funkadelic Logic. In the slide on what was achieved in the January deal, there is some funky math. The "upfront payment" does not have a value of up to $400 million per year as Locke suggests. It is only $250 million for sure; any other value, such as interest, will vary widely depending on how the money is used. That looks like funky math to me.
As for funkadelic logic, Locke praises the change in the criteria for qualifying for the second eight-year phase of the offset deal. He apparently didn't notice that an "either/or" provision - meaning the province met one of two criteria, suddenly became an "and" criteria - meaning the province will have to meet two criteria simultaneously. Add in a more realistic assessment of the economy over thee next eight years and you can start to see some difficulties with hitting both criteria that we wouldn't have had with hitting one.
As for his comment about a clause for Phase 2 preventing the province from "falling off a cliff", Locke knows that the existing Equalization program has sufficient insurance against this ever occurring. It was a cute phrase Danny liked to used - maybe he got it from Wade - but it is a dubious concept at best. Of course, it won't be a benefit at all if, as Locke noted in his critique of the December deal, the province doesn't qualify for Equalization anyway.
Nasty things, those funkadelic assumptions.
I wish I'd ame the session at Memorial last week, if for no other reason than I could have heard the comments from political scientists Steve Tomblin and Chris Dunn. As it is, from Wade Locke's slides and his media interviews, I'd say his "independent" assessment fell as far short of the requirement as that offered by most news media in the province.
Too bad, really. It is difficult to have a participatory democracy when people are fed assumptions in place of analysis.
06 February 2005
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.
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.
Country evenly divided on same sex marriage
Anyone who has heard federal member of parliament Gerry Byrne try to explain the position he is taking on the same-sex marriage bill can understand the difficulty he is having once they see the poll results below.
Even when a majority of the province is moving in one direction (backing Danny Williams just recently), Byrne still manages to take so many sides on the issue that he makes master waffler John Kerry look like he has steely determination and single-minded vision.
In this instance, Bryne has managed to concoct some absolutely cokamammie rational that links same-sex marriage, minority rights, ending denominational education with voting against a simple change to legislation that would actually make every reasonable person happy on a divisive issue. Oy vey!
A poll conducted last week by SES Research shows that while Byrne's logic may not be kosher, certainly he can take comfort in the divided views among his fellow Canadians.
Respondents were evenly divided when asked to indicate whether marriage as being between a man and a woman or allowing people of the same sex to marry best described their opinion. Forty six percent [46%] said marriage between a man and a woman best reflected their views. Forty five percent [45%] said allowing members of the same sex to marry best described their view. Of the remainder, nine percent were unsure or selected neither of the two choices.
Here are the actual questions and response percentages. This was a random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians conducted by SES Research between Jan. 28 and Feb. 2, 2005. The results have a margin of error ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20.
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Question - Some people think that same-sex couples should be allowed to belegally married and be recognized like couples made up of a man and a woman. Other people think that only marriages between a man and womanshould be legally recognized. Which of these two opinions, if either, bestreflects your views?
46% Marriage only a man and a woman
45% Allow same-sex couples to marry
5% Neither
4% Unsure
Question - If your local Member of Parliament had views different from your own on the issue of same-sex marriages, would you vote against your federalMP for that reason?
53% Would not vote against MP
42% Would vote against MP
5% Undecided
Question - Thinking of the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage should yourMember of Parliament vote based on……[ROTATE]
54% The views in his/her riding
22% His/her personal views
16% His/her official party position
8% Undecided
Note for those confused by some of the introduction: The sudden lapse to Yiddish is just a symptom of a piece I wrote a while ago and just recently re-read, called The Yiddish of Newfoundland Politics. Maybe I'll post it here soon, although it is a little dated. It could be time to update the concept that takes into account the mishegas about the Accord and the sheer drek being pumped out by some media both here and across Canada on the who issue.
Somewhere along the line I managed to start slipping Yiddish into my speech. The language seems to be tremendously expressive and captures so many aspects of life in a single word or single evocative phrase.
The link I supplied is to a New York deli that has as part of its website a dictionary of Yiddish words and phrases.Sadly, I don't have a Yiddish dictionary that matches my copy of The dictionary of Newfoundland English, so I make do with what I can get. Hmmm. That reminds me to find the online version of that so non-Newfoundlanders will be able to decipher some of the local expressions that may from time to time creep into these postings.
A la prochaine, mes amis.
Even when a majority of the province is moving in one direction (backing Danny Williams just recently), Byrne still manages to take so many sides on the issue that he makes master waffler John Kerry look like he has steely determination and single-minded vision.
In this instance, Bryne has managed to concoct some absolutely cokamammie rational that links same-sex marriage, minority rights, ending denominational education with voting against a simple change to legislation that would actually make every reasonable person happy on a divisive issue. Oy vey!
A poll conducted last week by SES Research shows that while Byrne's logic may not be kosher, certainly he can take comfort in the divided views among his fellow Canadians.
Respondents were evenly divided when asked to indicate whether marriage as being between a man and a woman or allowing people of the same sex to marry best described their opinion. Forty six percent [46%] said marriage between a man and a woman best reflected their views. Forty five percent [45%] said allowing members of the same sex to marry best described their view. Of the remainder, nine percent were unsure or selected neither of the two choices.
Here are the actual questions and response percentages. This was a random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians conducted by SES Research between Jan. 28 and Feb. 2, 2005. The results have a margin of error ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20.
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Question - Some people think that same-sex couples should be allowed to belegally married and be recognized like couples made up of a man and a woman. Other people think that only marriages between a man and womanshould be legally recognized. Which of these two opinions, if either, bestreflects your views?
46% Marriage only a man and a woman
45% Allow same-sex couples to marry
5% Neither
4% Unsure
Question - If your local Member of Parliament had views different from your own on the issue of same-sex marriages, would you vote against your federalMP for that reason?
53% Would not vote against MP
42% Would vote against MP
5% Undecided
Question - Thinking of the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage should yourMember of Parliament vote based on……[ROTATE]
54% The views in his/her riding
22% His/her personal views
16% His/her official party position
8% Undecided
Note for those confused by some of the introduction: The sudden lapse to Yiddish is just a symptom of a piece I wrote a while ago and just recently re-read, called The Yiddish of Newfoundland Politics. Maybe I'll post it here soon, although it is a little dated. It could be time to update the concept that takes into account the mishegas about the Accord and the sheer drek being pumped out by some media both here and across Canada on the who issue.
Somewhere along the line I managed to start slipping Yiddish into my speech. The language seems to be tremendously expressive and captures so many aspects of life in a single word or single evocative phrase.
The link I supplied is to a New York deli that has as part of its website a dictionary of Yiddish words and phrases.Sadly, I don't have a Yiddish dictionary that matches my copy of The dictionary of Newfoundland English, so I make do with what I can get. Hmmm. That reminds me to find the online version of that so non-Newfoundlanders will be able to decipher some of the local expressions that may from time to time creep into these postings.
A la prochaine, mes amis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)