The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board regulates the offshore oil and gas industry. The senior administrative position is chairman and chief executive officer.
The provincial government is refusing to issue an order in council appointing a new chairman and CEO arguing that the positions should be slit as a matter of "good corporate governance." A panel appointed under the legislation governing the offshore board recommended the appointment of a single individual to the combined position but added a recommendation that both the feds and the province consider splitting the job. The key thing to bear in mind is that the panel performed its function and, as the legislation provides, its appointment is binding on both the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, commonly called the public utilities board regulates a variety of activities in the province including electricity prices.
The House of Assembly just passed legislation establishing that the senior administrative position at the PUB will be a chairman and chief executive officer. "The chairperson shall be the chief executive officer of the board and shall have full authority for the overall operation, management and financial administration of the board."
So why is it good governance to split the job at one regulatory board but combine the two jobs of chairman and chief executive officer at another?
05 June 2006
Doug House's speech
For some reason the abstract of a speech given recently by Doug House has attracted some attention. The speech itself isn't available online, but an abstract - a summary - is to be found at Simon Fraser University's Centre for Coastal Studies.
I say "for some reason" since, on the face of it, this paper did little more than describe the reality of the province currently. It's hard to imagine what is controversial or contentious about saying that "the current government finds itself under enormous pressure to prop up hurting communities, households and individuals through make-work, income support and the further overexploitation of endangered fish stocks. This vies with and threatens to undermine genuine efforts at rural industrial diversification from both government and community-based agencies."
Is this not the case? Is the Williams government not under pressure to provide make-work projects and income support?
Since people might be interested in what Doug has to say about other subjects, check out the rest of the Simon Fraser Centre's studies on oil and gas, coastal societies and similar topics. You'll find that back in 2000, Doug and a number of others with great experience in the local offshore oil sector discussed events in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past 25 years.
In the meantime, here's the abstract of House's latest speech. See if you find anything problematic or controversial in it.
Update: An alert reader noted in an e-mail that the St. John's Census Metropolitan Area accounts for about 35% of the population and holds about 34% of the seats in the House of Assembly.
The knowledgeable correspondent notes that as such "rural" parts of the province don't hold a preponderance of seats in the provincial legislature that is in any ways out of whack with the population and the allotment of seats.
Maybe the issue for House isn't with the preponderance of seats but rather that the demands for various government supports works against other efforts at economic development and diversification. That's the last sentence of the abstract in slightly different words.
----------------------------
Oil, Fish and Social Change in Newfoundland and Labrador:
Lessons for British Columbia
Wednesday January 11, 2006
4:00 PM, Halpern Centre, Simon Fraser University
Abstract
During the past 20 years, the economy and society of Newfoundland and Labrador have been undergoing significant change. Oil, which has earlier been conceptualized as a "strong staple," has been in the ascendancy; while fish, a "weak staple," has been in decline. The places where the production of these two staples is centred have also changed significantly. Although exploration and production take place hundreds of kilometres offshore, oil company operations, most service and supply activities, research and development, education and training, and the public sector management and administration of this new industry occur almost exclusively within St. John'’s and the surrounding north east Avalon region of the province. The oil industry has also been a major catalyst for the growth of a marine technology cluster in St. John'’s, which also benefits from having Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic, significant physical infrastructure, an airport, a harbour and the seat of government all located within a few square kilometres. Wealth, employment and population are becoming ever-more concentrated in this region.
At the same time, the decline in groundfish stocks, concern about shellfish stocks, and cut-backs to Employment Insurance payments for plant workers (but not fishers) have undermined the economic base of many fishing communities, the traditional outports of coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. People are leaving the outports, not just for mainland Canada but also for St. John'’s and the larger regional resource and service towns. Newfoundland and Labrador is rapidly becoming urbanized. Even the province'’s vibrant cultural industries - —music, drama, literature, film - —although drawing on a somewhat romanticized rural past are, with some notable exceptions, based in and contribute to the further growth of the city. More tourists flock to George Street than to Gros Morne or Twillingate.
What does all this mean for government decision-making and policy? Given the preponderance of rural seats in the legislature, the rhetoric continues to favour rural development. Although committed in principle to "real" economic growth in rural areas through better management of the fisheries and longterm industrial diversification, the current government finds itself under enormous pressure to prop up hurting communities, households and individuals through make-work, income support and the further overexploitation of endangered fish stocks. This vies with and threatens to undermine genuine efforts at rural industrial diversification from both government and community-based agencies.
I say "for some reason" since, on the face of it, this paper did little more than describe the reality of the province currently. It's hard to imagine what is controversial or contentious about saying that "the current government finds itself under enormous pressure to prop up hurting communities, households and individuals through make-work, income support and the further overexploitation of endangered fish stocks. This vies with and threatens to undermine genuine efforts at rural industrial diversification from both government and community-based agencies."
Is this not the case? Is the Williams government not under pressure to provide make-work projects and income support?
Since people might be interested in what Doug has to say about other subjects, check out the rest of the Simon Fraser Centre's studies on oil and gas, coastal societies and similar topics. You'll find that back in 2000, Doug and a number of others with great experience in the local offshore oil sector discussed events in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past 25 years.
In the meantime, here's the abstract of House's latest speech. See if you find anything problematic or controversial in it.
Update: An alert reader noted in an e-mail that the St. John's Census Metropolitan Area accounts for about 35% of the population and holds about 34% of the seats in the House of Assembly.
The knowledgeable correspondent notes that as such "rural" parts of the province don't hold a preponderance of seats in the provincial legislature that is in any ways out of whack with the population and the allotment of seats.
Maybe the issue for House isn't with the preponderance of seats but rather that the demands for various government supports works against other efforts at economic development and diversification. That's the last sentence of the abstract in slightly different words.
----------------------------
Oil, Fish and Social Change in Newfoundland and Labrador:
Lessons for British Columbia
Wednesday January 11, 2006
4:00 PM, Halpern Centre, Simon Fraser University
Abstract
During the past 20 years, the economy and society of Newfoundland and Labrador have been undergoing significant change. Oil, which has earlier been conceptualized as a "strong staple," has been in the ascendancy; while fish, a "weak staple," has been in decline. The places where the production of these two staples is centred have also changed significantly. Although exploration and production take place hundreds of kilometres offshore, oil company operations, most service and supply activities, research and development, education and training, and the public sector management and administration of this new industry occur almost exclusively within St. John'’s and the surrounding north east Avalon region of the province. The oil industry has also been a major catalyst for the growth of a marine technology cluster in St. John'’s, which also benefits from having Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic, significant physical infrastructure, an airport, a harbour and the seat of government all located within a few square kilometres. Wealth, employment and population are becoming ever-more concentrated in this region.
At the same time, the decline in groundfish stocks, concern about shellfish stocks, and cut-backs to Employment Insurance payments for plant workers (but not fishers) have undermined the economic base of many fishing communities, the traditional outports of coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. People are leaving the outports, not just for mainland Canada but also for St. John'’s and the larger regional resource and service towns. Newfoundland and Labrador is rapidly becoming urbanized. Even the province'’s vibrant cultural industries - —music, drama, literature, film - —although drawing on a somewhat romanticized rural past are, with some notable exceptions, based in and contribute to the further growth of the city. More tourists flock to George Street than to Gros Morne or Twillingate.
What does all this mean for government decision-making and policy? Given the preponderance of rural seats in the legislature, the rhetoric continues to favour rural development. Although committed in principle to "real" economic growth in rural areas through better management of the fisheries and longterm industrial diversification, the current government finds itself under enormous pressure to prop up hurting communities, households and individuals through make-work, income support and the further overexploitation of endangered fish stocks. This vies with and threatens to undermine genuine efforts at rural industrial diversification from both government and community-based agencies.
Check out the Chicks
The Dixie Chicks new CD is great, and picks up on the spat from Natalie maines criticism of George Bush.
04 June 2006
A good take on the PMO/news gallery flap
For those tripping over from RGL's latest ad hominem dodge, try this post on for size, from a fellow who styles himself Townie Bastard.
it's as simple and succinct a comment on the matter I have seen.
it's as simple and succinct a comment on the matter I have seen.
01 June 2006
CNLOPB ups estimates of offshore gas and oil reserves
The federal-provincial board regulating the oil and gas industry offshore Newfoundland and Labrador today released revised estimates of the proven and probable reserves at two of the offshore fields that increase the total by about 700 million barrels.
The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board now estimates that Hibernia holds 1.244 billion barrels of oil, an increase of 379 million barrels. Hebron Ben Nevis now stands at 731 million barrels. That is 317 million barrels more than previously estimated.
Natural gas estimates for the offshore also increased. There are now estimated to be 10.234 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids.
Among other implications, this means that the failed Hebron deal was likely worth twice as much to Newfoundland and Labrador as previously thought. Talks collapsed in early April over the provincial government's insistence on a 4.9% equity stake in the operating consortium and its rejection of $500 million in construction phase tax concessions.
Estimates in April were that the provincial government would have received over $10 billion in royalties and other income during the production phase of the project in addition to a considerable portion of the $3.0 to $5.0 billion to be spent in the construction phase.
It isn't clear if that revenue projection was based on the low-range estimate of Hebron at 400 million barrels or the upper part of the range - now confirmed - at over 700 million barrels. If the projection was based on the lower reserve estimate, then it would be safe to nearly double the provincial government revenue; that would have made provincial government revenues almost $20 billion, which is double the provincial accrual debt and approximately the same size as the annual gross domestic product. The tax concessions seem even more puny now than they did before.
The provincial revenue estimate apparently also did not include the 0.858 Tcf of natural gas or the 60 million barrels of natural gas liquids also present in the Hebron complex.
The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board now estimates that Hibernia holds 1.244 billion barrels of oil, an increase of 379 million barrels. Hebron Ben Nevis now stands at 731 million barrels. That is 317 million barrels more than previously estimated.
Natural gas estimates for the offshore also increased. There are now estimated to be 10.234 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids.
Among other implications, this means that the failed Hebron deal was likely worth twice as much to Newfoundland and Labrador as previously thought. Talks collapsed in early April over the provincial government's insistence on a 4.9% equity stake in the operating consortium and its rejection of $500 million in construction phase tax concessions.
Estimates in April were that the provincial government would have received over $10 billion in royalties and other income during the production phase of the project in addition to a considerable portion of the $3.0 to $5.0 billion to be spent in the construction phase.
It isn't clear if that revenue projection was based on the low-range estimate of Hebron at 400 million barrels or the upper part of the range - now confirmed - at over 700 million barrels. If the projection was based on the lower reserve estimate, then it would be safe to nearly double the provincial government revenue; that would have made provincial government revenues almost $20 billion, which is double the provincial accrual debt and approximately the same size as the annual gross domestic product. The tax concessions seem even more puny now than they did before.
The provincial revenue estimate apparently also did not include the 0.858 Tcf of natural gas or the 60 million barrels of natural gas liquids also present in the Hebron complex.
Placentia Bay no place for a tired ship's pilot
According to NTV News, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority (APA) is blaming crew fatigue for the accident that sent one of its two small boats (Left. Photo: APA) in Placentia Bay part way up the rocks on Buffett Island on Monday, injuring one crew member and causing an unspecified amount of damage to the $3.0 million aluminum hulled boat.
The APA pilots guide tankers laden with Iraqi and Grand Banks crude up the bay to moorings at the Come by Chance oil refinery or the Whiffen Head transshipment terminal. The picture at right shows the bows of Canship Ugland's tanker M.V. Mattea. (Photo: Canship Ugland)Placentia Bay is no desolate place. There are bird colonies, rich fishing grounds and a host of other sensitive wildlife in the bay. A recent report supporting the establishment of an improved regional management system for the bay noted it is the most likely spot in Canada for a major oil spill.
So here's the thing: if the guys piloting their own small boat were so tired they put her up on the rocks on what appears to have been a calm, clear day, what's to prevent them from nodding off when they are guiding one of the tankers into or out of such a sensitive marine environment?
No one else seems to be thinking about that.
--------------------------------------------
Personal note: As indicated earlier my mother's family comes from Harbour Buffett, the harbour to which the wracked-up APA pilot boat was towed. She's a Collett and her father's family can trace back to Thomas who arrived in Buffett in the early 19th century. On her mother's side, the Marshall have an equally old - if not older - history in Newfoundland.
According to NTV, the guy who did the towing was named Stan Hollett. Stan is no relation to your humble e-scribbler, at least not for about five or six generations, but my mother recalled him from Buffett before the community was resettled. He apparently moved back some years ago and lives there pretty much year round. In itself, Stan's story is worth further investigation as is the history of the old community. It is picturesque, close to rich fishing grounds and once was a fairly prosperous little town.
In this instance, thankfully Stan and another fisherman were nearby to lend assistance to the APA. Otherwise this might have been a tragedy.
Another take on fastballs to the side of the head
Over at the blogspot site offalnews, Lono is feeling a bit smug.
He contends that Danny Williams "fastball to the side of John Risley's head comment is evidence that his comment about FPI is now proven. Essentially, Lono contends that John Risley should just have smiled quietly and gone on about FPI business rather than point out the obvious that Danny Williams changes to Fishery Products International's board and management won't have much of an impact other than drive up the company's costs.
What will make the difference in these two interpretations is whether or not Danny Williams actually can take stronger measures against FPI without in the process either incurring legal challenges from the company or, worse still, cementing in place a reputation for being as anti-business and anti-investment as any political leader north of the Panama Canal.
Around here, the guess is that Williams and Risley are playing chicken and that this little tiff is just two capable leaders playing some game of "Mine is still bigger." It creates an interesting display for the on-lookers but ultimately it doesn't move FPI any closer to resolving its issues. Williams reaction is proof that Lono is right: i.e. that Risley was inviting a comment. What it doesn't show - yet(?) - is that Williams can actually fire a fastball at Risley's head and avoid a ricochet that will deliver a pretty solid smack to his own goolies in the process.
If you put your gear on the table and start passing out the hammers, at some point someone's tackle is gonna take a hard blow.
Update: John Risley did another interview today, this time an extended one-on-one with Fred Hutton at NTV for the supperhour news. He made a number of comments about how he personally and the current shareholders and directors of FPI have been vilified.
this little exchange with the Premier is likely to go on for a few days. Time will tell whether there is a big hammer the government will drop of if FPI has called the Premier's bluff on legislative changes to FPI.
He contends that Danny Williams "fastball to the side of John Risley's head comment is evidence that his comment about FPI is now proven. Essentially, Lono contends that John Risley should just have smiled quietly and gone on about FPI business rather than point out the obvious that Danny Williams changes to Fishery Products International's board and management won't have much of an impact other than drive up the company's costs.
He [Risley] stated the obvious truth: that these Act amendments are effectively meaningless. But now he's now left the door open for government to claim company resistance and impose real draconian measures. These comments can come back to haunt him.Here at Bond, there's a quandry. On the one hand Lono is dead right. On the other hand, we can also see an argument that Risley is merely belling the William's administration cat.
The lesson here is that public communications is partly theatre and the players are actors on a public stage; play your role to best advantage to your side. If you respect the Fourth Wall, you can use it to your advantage to further your goals.
If you insist on breaching it you do so at your peril.
What will make the difference in these two interpretations is whether or not Danny Williams actually can take stronger measures against FPI without in the process either incurring legal challenges from the company or, worse still, cementing in place a reputation for being as anti-business and anti-investment as any political leader north of the Panama Canal.
Around here, the guess is that Williams and Risley are playing chicken and that this little tiff is just two capable leaders playing some game of "Mine is still bigger." It creates an interesting display for the on-lookers but ultimately it doesn't move FPI any closer to resolving its issues. Williams reaction is proof that Lono is right: i.e. that Risley was inviting a comment. What it doesn't show - yet(?) - is that Williams can actually fire a fastball at Risley's head and avoid a ricochet that will deliver a pretty solid smack to his own goolies in the process.
If you put your gear on the table and start passing out the hammers, at some point someone's tackle is gonna take a hard blow.
Update: John Risley did another interview today, this time an extended one-on-one with Fred Hutton at NTV for the supperhour news. He made a number of comments about how he personally and the current shareholders and directors of FPI have been vilified.
this little exchange with the Premier is likely to go on for a few days. Time will tell whether there is a big hammer the government will drop of if FPI has called the Premier's bluff on legislative changes to FPI.
Belling the cat
John Risley stated the obvious, namely that the government's changes to the Fishery Products International legislation won't have any significant impact on the direction the company will be taking.
Fish minister Tom Rideout (Left. Photo: CBC) couldn't say anything to contradict Risley because Risley is right. The section of the legislation dealing with how many board members FPI must have was stuck in there as a distraction from the real point of the bill. Rideout and Premier Danny Williams spent a lot of time talking about "fettering" the supposedly evil John Risley and another board member named George Armoyan.
For his part, Williams went so far as to brand Risley and Armoyan as being "hostile" to the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. In responding to Risley's comments Williams did his best to ramp up the trash talk, but ultimately he didn't say anything that was either relevant or convincing. Yep, as much as Williams tried to sound un-pussy-like, there's no question the noise we heard all through the little television clip was the dingling of the bell John Risley hung around the Premier's neck.
Now if Risley pointed out that Williams' legislation was really aimed at making it easier to break up FPI and sell off the bits - exactly the opposite of Williams' claims - then the noise would be a gonging so loud even the Premier's best jock bullshit trash talk wouldn't drown out the din.
Fish minister Tom Rideout (Left. Photo: CBC) couldn't say anything to contradict Risley because Risley is right. The section of the legislation dealing with how many board members FPI must have was stuck in there as a distraction from the real point of the bill. Rideout and Premier Danny Williams spent a lot of time talking about "fettering" the supposedly evil John Risley and another board member named George Armoyan.For his part, Williams went so far as to brand Risley and Armoyan as being "hostile" to the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. In responding to Risley's comments Williams did his best to ramp up the trash talk, but ultimately he didn't say anything that was either relevant or convincing. Yep, as much as Williams tried to sound un-pussy-like, there's no question the noise we heard all through the little television clip was the dingling of the bell John Risley hung around the Premier's neck.
Now if Risley pointed out that Williams' legislation was really aimed at making it easier to break up FPI and sell off the bits - exactly the opposite of Williams' claims - then the noise would be a gonging so loud even the Premier's best jock bullshit trash talk wouldn't drown out the din.
30 May 2006
Buffett back in the news
My mother comes from Harbour Buffett, resettled in the 1960s but once a prosperous fishing community on Long Island in Placentia Bay.
She was a bit surprised to hear this morning that a pilot boat had grounded on Buffett Island yesterday.
You can find some information and photographs about Buffett here at the Memorial University Maritime History Archive. The names and some of the people are all ones I recognized although I have no memories of Buffett myself. Masters, Butler, Wareham, Marshall, Upshall, Tulk, Hann and of course Collett, my mother's crowd.
She was a bit surprised to hear this morning that a pilot boat had grounded on Buffett Island yesterday.
You can find some information and photographs about Buffett here at the Memorial University Maritime History Archive. The names and some of the people are all ones I recognized although I have no memories of Buffett myself. Masters, Butler, Wareham, Marshall, Upshall, Tulk, Hann and of course Collett, my mother's crowd.
29 May 2006
Opposition Notes
Liberals: The party brass have anointed interim leader Gerry Reid as the new permanent leader.
Did Gerry have to pay the $10K required of Jim Bennett? Something tells me he didn't. In the meantime, check out the assessment at offalnews. I'd add to Lono's list that Gerry needs to punt Kel Parsons into the great beyond, but I doubt that will happen.
This is LCD politics at its finest. That's lowest common denominator, meaning that Reid is the guy who will make no changes to anything thereby making the entire caucus happy.
This sorry situation virtually guarantees the party will be lucky to hang on to four seats after the next election and many candidates will lose their deposits.
New Democrats: Lorraine Michael wins in as big a majority as can be imagined against a single opponent.
Jack Layton demonstrated this weekend that while he can sing, he does not have the grace and poise to learn how to pronounce the losing candidate's name properly.
Outgoing Dipper boss Jack Harris has been so cozy with his old law partner Danny Williams we may well see Harris' long-rumoured appoint coming through soon to something.
Given Jack's position lately, it was funny to hear him talk of presenting the Dippers as a "Principled Opposition". The party thus far has been neither principled nor has it offered much opposition. On two major pieces of legislation this past sitting, Jack Harris and Randy Collins voted to hand Danny Williams carte blanche to spend public money without any means of accountability. So much for principle, opposition or democracy for that matter.
Maybe the party will change its name to The New Party.
Did Gerry have to pay the $10K required of Jim Bennett? Something tells me he didn't. In the meantime, check out the assessment at offalnews. I'd add to Lono's list that Gerry needs to punt Kel Parsons into the great beyond, but I doubt that will happen.
This is LCD politics at its finest. That's lowest common denominator, meaning that Reid is the guy who will make no changes to anything thereby making the entire caucus happy.
This sorry situation virtually guarantees the party will be lucky to hang on to four seats after the next election and many candidates will lose their deposits.
New Democrats: Lorraine Michael wins in as big a majority as can be imagined against a single opponent.
Jack Layton demonstrated this weekend that while he can sing, he does not have the grace and poise to learn how to pronounce the losing candidate's name properly.
Outgoing Dipper boss Jack Harris has been so cozy with his old law partner Danny Williams we may well see Harris' long-rumoured appoint coming through soon to something.
Given Jack's position lately, it was funny to hear him talk of presenting the Dippers as a "Principled Opposition". The party thus far has been neither principled nor has it offered much opposition. On two major pieces of legislation this past sitting, Jack Harris and Randy Collins voted to hand Danny Williams carte blanche to spend public money without any means of accountability. So much for principle, opposition or democracy for that matter.
Maybe the party will change its name to The New Party.
27 May 2006
PJ Jazzy Jan
Alright, since none of you appear to be trivia nerds, here's the answer to the question about CTV reporter Janis Mackey Frayer's first television gig.
With a degree in international relations and French, CTV's journalist in Kandahar (Left. Photo: ctv.ca), started life on the Canadian cable channel YTV.
Under the name PJ Jazzy Jan (Right), she worked as a "Program Jockey" or PJ who filled the same role as a video jockey (VJ) on Much.
Janis carries on the fine tradition established by Canada's own J.D. Roberts (Left. Photo: ericaehm.com). J.D started life as a VJ on Much in the 1980s.
Today, John Roberts (Right. Photo: cnn.com) is a senior correspondent with CNN and was touted for a while as a potential replacement for Dan Rather on the CBS evening news.
With a degree in international relations and French, CTV's journalist in Kandahar (Left. Photo: ctv.ca), started life on the Canadian cable channel YTV.
Under the name PJ Jazzy Jan (Right), she worked as a "Program Jockey" or PJ who filled the same role as a video jockey (VJ) on Much.
Janis carries on the fine tradition established by Canada's own J.D. Roberts (Left. Photo: ericaehm.com). J.D started life as a VJ on Much in the 1980s.
Today, John Roberts (Right. Photo: cnn.com) is a senior correspondent with CNN and was touted for a while as a potential replacement for Dan Rather on the CBS evening news.
So who did Workman piss off?
[Update. Original posting 26 May 2006]
In shuffling its overseas scribblers, CBC is sending Paul Workman to Kandahar for a year.
A year.
That is twice the deployment length of a Canadian soldier.
In Kandahar.
After spending a decade years in Paris, Paul's gonna have to do some serious attitude adjusting.
I mean this one is surely on the top CBC reporting gigs just like Alert is at the top of the list of places where Canadian Forces members are climbing over each other to get to.
Workman's replacement is Adrienne Arsenault who is heading to Paris having spent some time in the Middle East.
Nice reward.
Over at CTV, their reporter - Janis Mackey Frayer - in Kandahar did a stint in the Middle East. A bit less of an adjustment, to be sure.
(Friday trivia aside: Anyone remember Janis' early national TV gig? Her bio at the CTV site doesn't make mention of it.)
So inquiring minds will now be wondering:
who'd Paul piss off or otherwise annoy?
Update [27 May]: A couple of e-mails pointed out that this decision reflects a strong commitment by the Mother Corp to cover an important Canadian story.
Yep it does. It is also a marked difference between now and 13 years ago when the CBC sent its Moscow correspondent to cover Chechnya - alongside every other news outfit on the planet - rather than send anyone at all to cover Canadians in Somalia.
CBC's decision to send Workman out in the land of Caine and Connery also reflects a competitive issue - which I hinted at - what with CTV having a presence in theatre already and having deployed both Lisa LaFlamme and Janis to the country for some time. CBC's coverage has been good but sending in Workman reflects a commitment of resources.
Still, though, it's gotta be tough to go from Paris for 10 years (albeit with overseas stints every once in a while) to living 24/7 in Kandahar.
No answers so far on the Janis Friday trivia question. What did this international relations and French language graduate do as her first gig in television?
In shuffling its overseas scribblers, CBC is sending Paul Workman to Kandahar for a year.
A year.
That is twice the deployment length of a Canadian soldier.
In Kandahar.
After spending a decade years in Paris, Paul's gonna have to do some serious attitude adjusting.
I mean this one is surely on the top CBC reporting gigs just like Alert is at the top of the list of places where Canadian Forces members are climbing over each other to get to.
Workman's replacement is Adrienne Arsenault who is heading to Paris having spent some time in the Middle East.
Nice reward.
Over at CTV, their reporter - Janis Mackey Frayer - in Kandahar did a stint in the Middle East. A bit less of an adjustment, to be sure.
(Friday trivia aside: Anyone remember Janis' early national TV gig? Her bio at the CTV site doesn't make mention of it.)
So inquiring minds will now be wondering:
who'd Paul piss off or otherwise annoy?
Update [27 May]: A couple of e-mails pointed out that this decision reflects a strong commitment by the Mother Corp to cover an important Canadian story.
Yep it does. It is also a marked difference between now and 13 years ago when the CBC sent its Moscow correspondent to cover Chechnya - alongside every other news outfit on the planet - rather than send anyone at all to cover Canadians in Somalia.
CBC's decision to send Workman out in the land of Caine and Connery also reflects a competitive issue - which I hinted at - what with CTV having a presence in theatre already and having deployed both Lisa LaFlamme and Janis to the country for some time. CBC's coverage has been good but sending in Workman reflects a commitment of resources.
Still, though, it's gotta be tough to go from Paris for 10 years (albeit with overseas stints every once in a while) to living 24/7 in Kandahar.
No answers so far on the Janis Friday trivia question. What did this international relations and French language graduate do as her first gig in television?
26 May 2006
Must be an English thing
Long-time readers of these e-scribbles will know that your not-so-humble scribbler is known to play the euphonium once in a while.
Before the format change, there was a link to euphonium.net, a site maintained by Steven Mead, a professional euphonium player in England. Any resemblance to yours truly is accidental, although he is a dead ringer for a cousin of mine.
All this is an excuse to post the picture at left, which is of a euphonium, specifically a Boosey & Hawkes model.
In the 33 years I have beentorturing others playing, I have never seen the euphonium associated with anything even vaguely suggestive, let alone erotic.
I venture that my relatives who played generations before I was even on the planet never saw the horn as arousing in any way. They missed the obvious pun.
Popular culture reinforces that. Trumpets. Saxophones. Drums. Guitars. All manner of instruments and musicians seem to be associated with sex and sexiness in some way.
But not the lowly tenor tuba.
Until now.
This picture must have originated in England where the euphonium is popular.
So for a Friday afternoon in May, this is a post in a lighter mood.
Completely blind dorks Purists will note this lovely young woman is not holding the instrument correctly.
Every activity includes that sort.
Like the accountants at a party who listened as a fellow told an off-colour joke, the thrust of which involved the rhythmic movement of hips accompanied by chanting "nickel-dime-quarter-buck." The frustrated character in the joke tosses out the chant in favour of "dollar forty, dollar forty, dollar forty".
The guy telling the joke said "dollar thirty-five, dollar thirty-five, dollar thirty-five" at the punch line.
The accountants corrected his math and then laughed.
Ah well. It takes all sorts.
In the meantime, I'll just admire the raven-haired lovely, noting, of course that her embouchure is not bad and her fingers are in the right position.
Before the format change, there was a link to euphonium.net, a site maintained by Steven Mead, a professional euphonium player in England. Any resemblance to yours truly is accidental, although he is a dead ringer for a cousin of mine.
All this is an excuse to post the picture at left, which is of a euphonium, specifically a Boosey & Hawkes model.In the 33 years I have been
I venture that my relatives who played generations before I was even on the planet never saw the horn as arousing in any way. They missed the obvious pun.
Popular culture reinforces that. Trumpets. Saxophones. Drums. Guitars. All manner of instruments and musicians seem to be associated with sex and sexiness in some way.
But not the lowly tenor tuba.
Until now.
This picture must have originated in England where the euphonium is popular.
So for a Friday afternoon in May, this is a post in a lighter mood.
Every activity includes that sort.
Like the accountants at a party who listened as a fellow told an off-colour joke, the thrust of which involved the rhythmic movement of hips accompanied by chanting "nickel-dime-quarter-buck." The frustrated character in the joke tosses out the chant in favour of "dollar forty, dollar forty, dollar forty".
The guy telling the joke said "dollar thirty-five, dollar thirty-five, dollar thirty-five" at the punch line.
The accountants corrected his math and then laughed.
Ah well. It takes all sorts.
In the meantime, I'll just admire the raven-haired lovely, noting, of course that her embouchure is not bad and her fingers are in the right position.
25 May 2006
Harper wants to be mayor of Vancouver
Apparently controlling street racing in a major Canadian city is the next big thing for Stephen Harper to tackle.
Stephen is the Prime Minister of Canada. If he wants to be Mayor of Vancouver or Premier of British Columbia he should quit and run for the job.
Talk about the federal government intruding on an area of provincial jurisdiction...
Stephen is the Prime Minister of Canada. If he wants to be Mayor of Vancouver or Premier of British Columbia he should quit and run for the job.
Talk about the federal government intruding on an area of provincial jurisdiction...
FPI not alone: Sanford affected by high dollar
New Zealand fishing company Sanford has been affected by the relatively high New Zealand dollar as well as international competition.How the company is dealing with the situation is contained in the 2005 annual report, and in a story from the New Zealand Herald.
Sanford has also looked at innovative information management approaches to help reduce costs, control inventory and generate more revenue.
To listen to people in Newfoundland and Labrador, Fishery Products International is the victim of some plot.
Others, like federal fisheries minister Loyola Hearn subscribe to the view that there are no deep-seated problems in the fishery. There are just some difficulties with some companies which will be sorted out in due time.
Both are delusional, of course, albeit in different ways.
In the meantime, look at the fishery globally and then take another look at FPI and the local industry.
The bumpf that comes out of meetings like the one Wednesday just isn't as comforting any more, is it?
Another Sanford tidbit: closing areas of the offshore to trawling
Catch a Newfoundland and Labrador fishing enterprise taking this kind of stand on the environment:
The seafood industry announced today a proposal to close off Benthic Protection Areas (BPAs) to bottom trawl fishing, said the managing director of Sanford Limited, Eric Barratt. Mr Barratt was speaking on behalf of the New Zealand companies involved in deepwater bottom trawling. "This is by far the largest total closure to bottom trawl fishing within an EEZ [exclusive economic zone] ever undertaken in the world."
FPI viewed from down under
Sanford is an international fisheries business based in New Zealand. The company holds about 14.97% of FPI's outstanding shares.
In the ongoing political bumpf about Fishery Products International, people keep forgetting the presence of Sanford in the shareholder pool as well as the place its managing director, Eric Barratt, holds on the FPI board.
Purely for the sake of information, here's the FPI section from Sanford's 2005 annual report. Note two things in particular. First, the major shareholders cannot support the share price in the marketplace by increasing their investment because of the limitations in the FPI Act. After all, a good way of showing confidence in the company's medium- to long-term viability is for the major shareholders to increase their holdings.
Second, note reference to the problems Sanford is experiencing in its own primary division. What FPI is experiencing is a global problem and the problem is one best solved by the business owners, not government bureaucrats and politicians.
Check out the annual report, as well, for a discussion of Sanford's investment in Chinese processing. As a successful publicly-traded company, Sanford has been able to grow and diversify over the years. It does so as a New Zealand enterprise and a large part of its success must surely be attributable to the absence of the level of paranoia and political interference that is currently plaguing the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.
The section of the Sanford annual report reproduced below might just provoke consideration in some minds that maybe investors were attracted to FPI in 2001 not because they could break it up and destroy the company, but because they saw greater potential in what the company could become. The post-2001 FPI leadership may well have made some mistakes, but since 2003 FPI has experienced a level of political interference in its business that would have it difficult for any leadership team to operate successfully.
As a successful, diversified private sector company, Sanford offers a good model for FPI. Unfortunately, in the Wednesday Great Gab-fest, few people floated the idea that maybe - just maybe - the way to move the fishery in the province from its current state to one of a successful locally-dominated industry would be to get guys like Premier Danny Williams, Tom Rideout and Loyola Hearn out of the process.
Instead, the three politicians seem hell-bent on doing the opposite, and in the event will be repeating the same fundamental mistake of virtually every government in this province since 1949.
With rare exceptions, Newfoundland and Labrador politicians are pathologically incapable of make sound business decisions. That is because, collectively, they cannot be interested in anything beyond their political personal survival. The election in October 2007 will be ever-present in the minds of Williams, Rideout and their fellows in the months ahead. As a result, the fundamental needs of the fishing industry will go untended as their political needs take precedence over all else.
What might the assembled throng have concluded if, for once, they took a look at the local fishery from another perspective, perhaps the perspective from down under?
Extract from the Sanford 2005 annual report:
In the ongoing political bumpf about Fishery Products International, people keep forgetting the presence of Sanford in the shareholder pool as well as the place its managing director, Eric Barratt, holds on the FPI board.
Purely for the sake of information, here's the FPI section from Sanford's 2005 annual report. Note two things in particular. First, the major shareholders cannot support the share price in the marketplace by increasing their investment because of the limitations in the FPI Act. After all, a good way of showing confidence in the company's medium- to long-term viability is for the major shareholders to increase their holdings.
Second, note reference to the problems Sanford is experiencing in its own primary division. What FPI is experiencing is a global problem and the problem is one best solved by the business owners, not government bureaucrats and politicians.
Check out the annual report, as well, for a discussion of Sanford's investment in Chinese processing. As a successful publicly-traded company, Sanford has been able to grow and diversify over the years. It does so as a New Zealand enterprise and a large part of its success must surely be attributable to the absence of the level of paranoia and political interference that is currently plaguing the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.
The section of the Sanford annual report reproduced below might just provoke consideration in some minds that maybe investors were attracted to FPI in 2001 not because they could break it up and destroy the company, but because they saw greater potential in what the company could become. The post-2001 FPI leadership may well have made some mistakes, but since 2003 FPI has experienced a level of political interference in its business that would have it difficult for any leadership team to operate successfully.
As a successful, diversified private sector company, Sanford offers a good model for FPI. Unfortunately, in the Wednesday Great Gab-fest, few people floated the idea that maybe - just maybe - the way to move the fishery in the province from its current state to one of a successful locally-dominated industry would be to get guys like Premier Danny Williams, Tom Rideout and Loyola Hearn out of the process.
Instead, the three politicians seem hell-bent on doing the opposite, and in the event will be repeating the same fundamental mistake of virtually every government in this province since 1949.
With rare exceptions, Newfoundland and Labrador politicians are pathologically incapable of make sound business decisions. That is because, collectively, they cannot be interested in anything beyond their political personal survival. The election in October 2007 will be ever-present in the minds of Williams, Rideout and their fellows in the months ahead. As a result, the fundamental needs of the fishing industry will go untended as their political needs take precedence over all else.
What might the assembled throng have concluded if, for once, they took a look at the local fishery from another perspective, perhaps the perspective from down under?
Extract from the Sanford 2005 annual report:
In Canada income trusts dispose of their surplus operating cash flow usually on a monthly basis and the income trust holder is required to account for the income tax on that return. In the normal equity market there is no ability to pay imputed dividends so the income trust structure provides a more tax advantageous situation compared to equity investment. Over the past three years there have been many Canadian companies that have converted all or parts of their business into income trusts.
FPI proceeded on the basis that it would convert its mainly United States-based marketing and added-value business(Ocean Cuisine International) into a Canadian-based income trust and float income trust units for 40% of the business and retain ownership of the remaining 60%. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believed that such a float required their approval. Although the company did not believe that to be the case it sought the provincial government'’s approval. This process took over 12 months by which time the Canadian federal government'’s review of the tax status had been announced and a float was no longer viable.
Part of the proceeds of the float would have been used to repay some of the debt in the FPI primary fishing business. This business is suffering in much the same way as our fishing business. The increased value of the Canadian dollar compared to the United States dollar is threatening the viability of their operations.
Two fish processing plants have had to be closed down and written off in the past 12 months. With the poor underlying primary division results, the write-off of two plants and the write-off of the not insubstantial costs of preparing for the income trust, the Company results have been poor. As a consequence, the limited share trading that has taken place has seen the share price fall to a low of C$4.11 but which has since been trading at C$5 per share. The existing four major shareholder groups are prevented from purchasing additional shares and supporting the share price because they are up against the provincial government legislation restricting ownership to a maximum of 15%.
While the Ocean Cuisine operation has been expanding and has good prospects for the future, the FPI Directors are focused on actively restructuring the business and believe that with a net asset backing per share of C$11.00 per share that further value can be gained from Sanford'’s investment.
The Directors decided to write down Sanford'’s investment by NZ$2.2m as an expense in the current period. The shares are now valued at C$7 in our books which the Directors believe to be a fair value. Both Sanford and Ocean Cuisine continue to benefit from our marketing arrangement which has seen further growth in our trading business.
Status quo not an option: Williams
Predictably, Premier Danny Williams thinks huge progress was made at yesterday's summit/town hall/audience on the fishery.
This sort of meeting usually ends a process, capping off months if not years of private discussion, wrangling and hopefully agreement. If you're the guy calling the meeting at the start of the process, then you are usually either trying to pull a fast one or setting yourself up for a huge fall.
So what is the consensus coming from the meetings? Why that there is plenty of agreement on things that amount to PIFOs: penetrating insights into the obvious.
Take a gander at the CBC News story on the Big Meeting:
Yesterday's meeting did produce what some might consider an odd meeting of the minds. Earle McCurdy, head of the hunter-gatherers' guild, and Danny Williams, local corporatist political supremo, are in complete agreement on the need to take control of Fishery Product's marketing arm, possibly as a Crown corporation. The two guys who bitch about other people wanting to break up FPI are in fact the guys wanting to pull off the smash and grab.
What matters is that the Big Giant Meeting with the Big Giant Head of Newfoundland and Labrador produced amazing results never before seen on the planet.
The official news release said so, in pre-approved, vacuous terms of bureaucrats and dissembling politicians.
Loyola Hearn trumpeted his government's capital gains tax break for fishermen as a way of helping with the crisis. Earle McCurdy wanted to see government money spent on his members. Ditto fish processors looking for cash to bail them out.
Yep all remarkably new and special and splendiferous.
And if you want to know how much wasn't accomplished yesterday?
Look at how hard the Premier and all his posse are trying to convince you that they split the fisheries atom over the course of 11 hours at a ritzy hotel. It's sadly very much the norm for Danny Williams: big flash; no delivery.
Too bad that status quo was not an option.
This sort of meeting usually ends a process, capping off months if not years of private discussion, wrangling and hopefully agreement. If you're the guy calling the meeting at the start of the process, then you are usually either trying to pull a fast one or setting yourself up for a huge fall.
So what is the consensus coming from the meetings? Why that there is plenty of agreement on things that amount to PIFOs: penetrating insights into the obvious.
Take a gander at the CBC News story on the Big Meeting:
Premier Danny Williams says there was a consensus at Wednesday's fisheries summit that the industry is not in a complete crisis, but it does need major restructuring.Knock me over with a feather. We need to restructure the fishery? Geez, these guys accomplished a lot in 11 hours of meetings at taxpayer expense.
"We have acknowledged collectively that status quo in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is not an option," said Williams.Yet more rocket scientist conclusions. This is like acknowledging that the sun came up this morning.
The premier said there was an agreement among participants that everyone has to do a better job of selling fish product on the international market and the size of the industry needs to be concentrated, with fewer plants and workers.Now tell me you heard that conclusion somewhere before: fewer people need to be involved in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. This is pure gold. No one said anything like this before.
Yesterday's meeting did produce what some might consider an odd meeting of the minds. Earle McCurdy, head of the hunter-gatherers' guild, and Danny Williams, local corporatist political supremo, are in complete agreement on the need to take control of Fishery Product's marketing arm, possibly as a Crown corporation. The two guys who bitch about other people wanting to break up FPI are in fact the guys wanting to pull off the smash and grab.
Meanwhile, Fish, Food and Allied Workers union president Earle McCurdy said he is supportive of the premier's idea to create an industry co-op to take over the profitable marketing division of Fishery Products International.There didn't appear to be much support for this sort of idea from anyone actually involved in marketing seafood, but that doesn't matter.
What matters is that the Big Giant Meeting with the Big Giant Head of Newfoundland and Labrador produced amazing results never before seen on the planet.
The official news release said so, in pre-approved, vacuous terms of bureaucrats and dissembling politicians.
Loyola Hearn trumpeted his government's capital gains tax break for fishermen as a way of helping with the crisis. Earle McCurdy wanted to see government money spent on his members. Ditto fish processors looking for cash to bail them out.
Yep all remarkably new and special and splendiferous.
And if you want to know how much wasn't accomplished yesterday?
Look at how hard the Premier and all his posse are trying to convince you that they split the fisheries atom over the course of 11 hours at a ritzy hotel. It's sadly very much the norm for Danny Williams: big flash; no delivery.
Too bad that status quo was not an option.
Ralph's idiotic last stand
Outgoing Alberta Premier has decided to make one last political stand, demonstrating he knows nothing about the Constitution in the process.
According to Canadian Press, Klein is threatening to pull Alberta out of Equalization if the feds include Alberta's resource revenues in the calculation for the federal-provincial transfer. Equalization.
But you see, here's the problem. Alberta, i.e. the province Ralph runs, doesn't really have any say in the matter since the provincial government doesn't really participate in Equalization in the first place. The provincial government doesn't pay any special taxes to Ottawa to fund Equalization. The Government of Alberta
doesn't participate in this program in any way so that it could opt out.
What is under discussion here is the formula being used by the feds to figure out how much money recipient provinces should get. The money for Equalization comes from the federal government's general revenues.
The CP story makes a major-league factual error by calling Equalization "the federal government's revenue-sharing deal with other provinces", but that's another issue.
Basically in one fell swoop, Ralph is showing that he understands exactly squat about federal-provincial relations.
The whole thing sounds suspiciously like Danny Williams offshore nonsense in which he claimed provincial government revenues it collected directly were being taken away by evil Ottawa. In the final agreement Williams signed with then-prime minister Paul Martin, he admitted that the entire premise for his grandstanding the previous year was, in a word, nonsense.
In Williams' case, he got a couple of billion of federal dollars for his pouting.
What does Ralph get out of this little tirade, except further evidence of how much he doesn't know about the country?
According to Canadian Press, Klein is threatening to pull Alberta out of Equalization if the feds include Alberta's resource revenues in the calculation for the federal-provincial transfer. Equalization.
Alberta is threatening to drop out of the federal government's revenue-sharing deal with other provinces if energy income is included in the equalization formula.
But you see, here's the problem. Alberta, i.e. the province Ralph runs, doesn't really have any say in the matter since the provincial government doesn't really participate in Equalization in the first place. The provincial government doesn't pay any special taxes to Ottawa to fund Equalization. The Government of Alberta
doesn't participate in this program in any way so that it could opt out.
What is under discussion here is the formula being used by the feds to figure out how much money recipient provinces should get. The money for Equalization comes from the federal government's general revenues.
The CP story makes a major-league factual error by calling Equalization "the federal government's revenue-sharing deal with other provinces", but that's another issue.
Basically in one fell swoop, Ralph is showing that he understands exactly squat about federal-provincial relations.
The whole thing sounds suspiciously like Danny Williams offshore nonsense in which he claimed provincial government revenues it collected directly were being taken away by evil Ottawa. In the final agreement Williams signed with then-prime minister Paul Martin, he admitted that the entire premise for his grandstanding the previous year was, in a word, nonsense.
In Williams' case, he got a couple of billion of federal dollars for his pouting.
What does Ralph get out of this little tirade, except further evidence of how much he doesn't know about the country?
24 May 2006
St. John's City Garbage
New municipal trash regulations make it mandatory to cover trash put at the curbside for pick-up by council crews.
That is, you have to cover your trash unless you live on the growing list of streets that have bitched and moaned such that the weak-kneed council has granted an exemption to your street.
But in the meantime, the regulations require trash be placed in polyethylene bags of a minimum thickness of 1.5 mils.
Consumer trash bags - bin liners to U.K readers - typically come in a maximum thickness of 1.2 mils. That's the really heavy duty expensive ones. Most bags are under 1.0 mils.
Don't take my word for it. Look at glad.com and check the faq on trash bags.
There are 1.5 mil bags out there. Just don't think you'll get away cheaply. Bags to meet the regulations are available online and will cost between US$30 and US$50 per box depending on how many bags come in the box.
Count on this regulation being repealed pretty quickly.
That is, you have to cover your trash unless you live on the growing list of streets that have bitched and moaned such that the weak-kneed council has granted an exemption to your street.
But in the meantime, the regulations require trash be placed in polyethylene bags of a minimum thickness of 1.5 mils.
Consumer trash bags - bin liners to U.K readers - typically come in a maximum thickness of 1.2 mils. That's the really heavy duty expensive ones. Most bags are under 1.0 mils.
Don't take my word for it. Look at glad.com and check the faq on trash bags.
There are 1.5 mil bags out there. Just don't think you'll get away cheaply. Bags to meet the regulations are available online and will cost between US$30 and US$50 per box depending on how many bags come in the box.
Count on this regulation being repealed pretty quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)