How odd to hear Danny Williams crapping on Robertson Surette, the head-hunters who have bene busily trying to find a chief executive for the offshore Board using a process Danny Williams first wanted but now wants to scuttle.
Rob Sur's local office is run by a former assistant treasury board secretary - one of the most senior public service position there is. The guy is accomplished and professional.
The whole selection process was driven by the provincial and federal governments. They set the criteria; they sat the interviews and developed the questions. Rob Sur's job is to keep the thing on an even and impartial keel.
But media people - you have consistently missed the main issues here:
- the process isn't finished.
- the process is supposed to be open and impartial, not the kind of personal fiat patronage Williams is trying to make it (Don't take my word for it read the Real Atlantic Accord).
- The Prem already has the power to negotiate whatever deal he wants on the offshore - he doesn't need Andy Wells.
What CNLOPB needs is someone who understands the oil industry, who is professional and capable of running the board.
The selection process is designed to find just such a person based on qualities both the feds and the province selected.
Let the process as described in the Accord work.
That's another way we get to be principal beneficiary of the offshore: we replace the political glad-handing of jobs and hire properly qualified people.
20 July 2005
19 July 2005
Let process pick a Mercedes
Despite what Premier Danny Williams might want people to believe about the job as chair of the federal-provincial offshore board, here are a few facts that get in the way of the neat little story he fobbed off on CBC news.
1. The process isn't finished. The premier told CBC news that he rejected the short list. The problem is he shouldn't have seen a short list; the candidates hadn't been interviewed when he started pushing Andy Wells last week.
An e-mail came my way just before I went on holidays documenting the process to date; so far there was no list for the Premier to reject. He is pushing Andy Wells before letting the head-hunters finish their job.
2. What about a woman, Danny? Even if by some chance the selection process was finished, I'd still like to know why Danny is pushing Andy Wells and not a senior executive with bags of offshore knowledge like ..say.. Leslie Galway? If for some reason she wasn't on the list of five slated for interviews, the Prem took a strange step by passing over Leslie in favour of Andy.
Why did the Prem take Leslie out of the CNLOPB process? Or if she was omitted already, why didn't he just put her right back in?
3. Under the Atlantic Accord, the real one signed in 1985, the feds and the province must use an open, competitive process to find a chief executive officer. That's blank and white. If Danny wants to live by the agreement as he claimed during the revenue dispute then he should do so now by sticking to clause 16.
Danny Williams is trying a closed, secretive process instead. If Andy hadn't blabbed, we never would have known. In the process underway, we know that there is little or no room for political interference. We won't see some candidate flung up by one party or another like this was a banana republic: the most qualified person will get the job.
The Accord process is pretty specific:
- an open and transparent process, first and foremost.
- alternatively, an agreed-upon candidate.
- if all else fails, an arbitration process is described which takes the hands of both governments out of the job of finding a chief executive officer.
The Premier's attempt at political interference/patronage simply isn't allowed under the Real Atlantic Accord.
4. The Board doesn't negotiate local benefits. The Prem claims he wants Wells so that Wells can fight for added benefits for the province (What did I tell you he'd say?)
The offshore board regulates and manages exploration, development and production offshore. It doesn't set local benefits. Those things are negotiated by the provincial and federal governments. And here's the ace up the province's sleeve: under the real Accord, the provincial energy minister - namely Ed Byrne - can reject a development application. Even if the offshore board accepts a plan the province doesn't like, Ed Byrne can veto the whole thing.
He has that legal power and don't let anyone tell you differently.
Danny Williams doesn't need Andy Wells at the offshore board to negotiate a better benefits deal with the oil companies. That's Danny's job and he has all the power he needs.
So the question still remains: what is Danny up to?
- The process set out in the Atlantic Accord isn't finished.
- Even if it was, there is a specific means established for selecting a chairman for the offshore Board: Williams is ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the Accord without any reason.
- Why did the Prem take Leslie Galway out of the running for CEO to make room for Andy?
- The Prem already has all the power he needs to negotiate increased industrial benefits for the province. Why is he pushing the nonsense that he needs Andy to help out?
Maybe we could actually let the process - the legal process, free of political interference actually work as the real accord provides. If we take political games out of the offshore, the people of the province might actually get a highly qualified person to run the board - say a Mercedes, a BMW or a Volvo of a CEO.
I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of the fiats.
1. The process isn't finished. The premier told CBC news that he rejected the short list. The problem is he shouldn't have seen a short list; the candidates hadn't been interviewed when he started pushing Andy Wells last week.
An e-mail came my way just before I went on holidays documenting the process to date; so far there was no list for the Premier to reject. He is pushing Andy Wells before letting the head-hunters finish their job.
2. What about a woman, Danny? Even if by some chance the selection process was finished, I'd still like to know why Danny is pushing Andy Wells and not a senior executive with bags of offshore knowledge like ..say.. Leslie Galway? If for some reason she wasn't on the list of five slated for interviews, the Prem took a strange step by passing over Leslie in favour of Andy.
Why did the Prem take Leslie out of the CNLOPB process? Or if she was omitted already, why didn't he just put her right back in?
3. Under the Atlantic Accord, the real one signed in 1985, the feds and the province must use an open, competitive process to find a chief executive officer. That's blank and white. If Danny wants to live by the agreement as he claimed during the revenue dispute then he should do so now by sticking to clause 16.
Danny Williams is trying a closed, secretive process instead. If Andy hadn't blabbed, we never would have known. In the process underway, we know that there is little or no room for political interference. We won't see some candidate flung up by one party or another like this was a banana republic: the most qualified person will get the job.
The Accord process is pretty specific:
- an open and transparent process, first and foremost.
- alternatively, an agreed-upon candidate.
- if all else fails, an arbitration process is described which takes the hands of both governments out of the job of finding a chief executive officer.
The Premier's attempt at political interference/patronage simply isn't allowed under the Real Atlantic Accord.
4. The Board doesn't negotiate local benefits. The Prem claims he wants Wells so that Wells can fight for added benefits for the province (What did I tell you he'd say?)
The offshore board regulates and manages exploration, development and production offshore. It doesn't set local benefits. Those things are negotiated by the provincial and federal governments. And here's the ace up the province's sleeve: under the real Accord, the provincial energy minister - namely Ed Byrne - can reject a development application. Even if the offshore board accepts a plan the province doesn't like, Ed Byrne can veto the whole thing.
He has that legal power and don't let anyone tell you differently.
Danny Williams doesn't need Andy Wells at the offshore board to negotiate a better benefits deal with the oil companies. That's Danny's job and he has all the power he needs.
So the question still remains: what is Danny up to?
- The process set out in the Atlantic Accord isn't finished.
- Even if it was, there is a specific means established for selecting a chairman for the offshore Board: Williams is ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the Accord without any reason.
- Why did the Prem take Leslie Galway out of the running for CEO to make room for Andy?
- The Prem already has all the power he needs to negotiate increased industrial benefits for the province. Why is he pushing the nonsense that he needs Andy to help out?
Maybe we could actually let the process - the legal process, free of political interference actually work as the real accord provides. If we take political games out of the offshore, the people of the province might actually get a highly qualified person to run the board - say a Mercedes, a BMW or a Volvo of a CEO.
I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of the fiats.
Delusions, delusions, delusions
Not much of a surprise here that old Peckford cabinet mates Bill Matthews and Norm Doyle would get into bed together on Andy Wells as head of the board regulating the offshore, as VOCM reports.
Doyle apparently thinks he landed the money in the recent offshore dispute; haven't seen the householder but someone has described it to me.
Ok. So Norm is delusional.
What else is new?
Now he thinks Andy Wells would be a great chairman for the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
Ok.
Fair enough.
But here's the problem and it is linked to Andy's little claim that he is the "official" nominee from the province for the job.
The nominee from either side hasn't been determined yet.
That's because both sides agreed to a simple process involving a selection run by one of the country's top head-hunting firms.
Apparently, Andy didn't apply.
Apparently, Andy didn't get approached by the head-hunters to apply.
So what is Andy Wells?
right now he is a guy the Prem is playing with for some reason.
At some point Danny will tell us, if the mood strikes him.
Maybe the Telegram could submit an access request to see if Karen Ryan has polled on this subject.
At least then we'd know the Prem was actually involved.
We'd hear the denials all the way up here in Kingston.
Doyle apparently thinks he landed the money in the recent offshore dispute; haven't seen the householder but someone has described it to me.
Ok. So Norm is delusional.
What else is new?
Now he thinks Andy Wells would be a great chairman for the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
Ok.
Fair enough.
But here's the problem and it is linked to Andy's little claim that he is the "official" nominee from the province for the job.
The nominee from either side hasn't been determined yet.
That's because both sides agreed to a simple process involving a selection run by one of the country's top head-hunting firms.
Apparently, Andy didn't apply.
Apparently, Andy didn't get approached by the head-hunters to apply.
So what is Andy Wells?
right now he is a guy the Prem is playing with for some reason.
At some point Danny will tell us, if the mood strikes him.
Maybe the Telegram could submit an access request to see if Karen Ryan has polled on this subject.
At least then we'd know the Prem was actually involved.
We'd hear the denials all the way up here in Kingston.
18 July 2005
Let's find something useful for Danny to do.
John Efford was absolutely right when he told CBC news that there was an agreed upon process to find a new chair for the offshore board - and Wells wasn't on the list.
And Andy Wells is right when he says that he knows nothing more than that the Prem suggested Wells' name.
The problem is, Andy, the process is not being followed and the Premier knows full well that his suggestion is offside; maybe more like throwing a monkey-wrench into the works.
So the simple question is this:
What game is Danny Williams playing?
And Andy Wells is right when he says that he knows nothing more than that the Prem suggested Wells' name.
The problem is, Andy, the process is not being followed and the Premier knows full well that his suggestion is offside; maybe more like throwing a monkey-wrench into the works.
So the simple question is this:
What game is Danny Williams playing?
What's Danny up to now?
There's a story today on VOCM that I picked up last week before leaving on vacation:
Despite there being a process already in place to find a highly qualified candidate to head the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, Danny Williams is pushing the appointment of Andy Wells outside the process.
Both the feds and the province agreed to have a national head-hunting company find a new chair for CNLOPB. Ads were placed across the country in April and a raft of highly qualified, local applicants have been screened down to the point where interviews are due to start if they haven't started already.
So where is this plan to appoint Andy Wells coming from?
Straight out of Danny Williams head.
But why?
Well, here are a couple of scenarios:
1. Wells, who knows little about oil and gas regulation but much about kicking up a stink, would be well positioned to bugger around with the forthcoming Hebron proposal. Wells would be a tag team with the Premier to try and push Chevron around a bit and since both men are of similar minds, there'd be less bickering between the two of them than between them and the oil companies.
In this case, Andy would owe his job to Danny, too which would help keep the waters smooth.
Since Andy is supposedly tight with the Prime Minister, Williams probably figures Wells would be a hard one for Paul Martin to reject. If the PM does reject Andy then Wells will likely kick up a fuss and the Prem can claim that the PM doesn't want a strong Newfoundlander on the Board.
Danny would be full of crap if he made that argument but hey, it is something he is almost guaranteed to try. I can hear the Premier on Open Line, Crap Talk and Night Line now.
All things considered, Williams probably figures he comes out a winner either way it goes.
Don't count on it.
2. Maybe Williams doesn't like some of the contenders for the CNLOPB job. He's in a position to know who they are, unlike the rest of us. Williams just removed one candidate by appointing her - out of the blue - to a backwater job as his deputy business minister. Maybe he wants to block the rest by going outside a process designed to find a highly qualified, professional senior executive - in other words, the ideal candidate for the job.
3. Maybe he wants to open the Mayor's job to his own hand-picked guy. Don't be surprised if someone known to be tight to the Prem suddenly emerges as a likely candidate for Andy's job at City Hall. If all goes well, Williams would wind up owning City Hall and CNLOPB.
Regardless of the reason, I just don't see a case for appointing Andy Wells to head CNLOPB. If Wells was so interested in the job, he had plenty of time to apply. If the head-hunting firm thought he was such a qualified candidate they'd have gone hunting Wells already.
This little scenario smells pretty suspicious. I'd be for sticking with the process and see who comes out on top.
But hey, if Danny wants to go outside the process, I have a candidate for him:
Lloyd Matthews.
How can you possibly turn him down, Danny?
After all, Danny knows Lloyd's daughter really well.
Despite there being a process already in place to find a highly qualified candidate to head the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, Danny Williams is pushing the appointment of Andy Wells outside the process.
Both the feds and the province agreed to have a national head-hunting company find a new chair for CNLOPB. Ads were placed across the country in April and a raft of highly qualified, local applicants have been screened down to the point where interviews are due to start if they haven't started already.
So where is this plan to appoint Andy Wells coming from?
Straight out of Danny Williams head.
But why?
Well, here are a couple of scenarios:
1. Wells, who knows little about oil and gas regulation but much about kicking up a stink, would be well positioned to bugger around with the forthcoming Hebron proposal. Wells would be a tag team with the Premier to try and push Chevron around a bit and since both men are of similar minds, there'd be less bickering between the two of them than between them and the oil companies.
In this case, Andy would owe his job to Danny, too which would help keep the waters smooth.
Since Andy is supposedly tight with the Prime Minister, Williams probably figures Wells would be a hard one for Paul Martin to reject. If the PM does reject Andy then Wells will likely kick up a fuss and the Prem can claim that the PM doesn't want a strong Newfoundlander on the Board.
Danny would be full of crap if he made that argument but hey, it is something he is almost guaranteed to try. I can hear the Premier on Open Line, Crap Talk and Night Line now.
All things considered, Williams probably figures he comes out a winner either way it goes.
Don't count on it.
2. Maybe Williams doesn't like some of the contenders for the CNLOPB job. He's in a position to know who they are, unlike the rest of us. Williams just removed one candidate by appointing her - out of the blue - to a backwater job as his deputy business minister. Maybe he wants to block the rest by going outside a process designed to find a highly qualified, professional senior executive - in other words, the ideal candidate for the job.
3. Maybe he wants to open the Mayor's job to his own hand-picked guy. Don't be surprised if someone known to be tight to the Prem suddenly emerges as a likely candidate for Andy's job at City Hall. If all goes well, Williams would wind up owning City Hall and CNLOPB.
Regardless of the reason, I just don't see a case for appointing Andy Wells to head CNLOPB. If Wells was so interested in the job, he had plenty of time to apply. If the head-hunting firm thought he was such a qualified candidate they'd have gone hunting Wells already.
This little scenario smells pretty suspicious. I'd be for sticking with the process and see who comes out on top.
But hey, if Danny wants to go outside the process, I have a candidate for him:
Lloyd Matthews.
How can you possibly turn him down, Danny?
After all, Danny knows Lloyd's daughter really well.
15 July 2005
Pull the other one, Steve Marshall...
It's got bells on it.
The man accused of beating Premier Danny Williams' son (also called Danny Williams) was acquitted this week amid accusations that the Premier and his officials had improperly interfered in the police investigation into the case and the subsequent prosecution.
Little surprise therefore that the family lawyer, and the Prem's former law partner, Steve Marshall is rushing forward to say two things:
1. In an interview in the Telly on Thursday, Marshall acknowledged that Danny Williams the Elder called the police at about 0400 on the morning after the assault. According to Marshall, the Prem wanted to ask the police what the procedure was in this case.
That's where I first yelled bullshit.
If Marshall is to be believed, experienced lawyer Danny Williams, Queen's Counsel, a guy who has represented numerous civil and criminal defendants over the years was suddenly struck stupid. He apparently forgot the procedure one should follow (or that the police should follow) after someone beats the crap out of your adult son.
The story would be plain bullshit if Williams was still just a downtown lawyer.
But, when the guy is also the Premier of the province, Marshall's story turns into something else entirely - more like finely aged bovine excreta.
Not only was Williams ignorant of the law and police procedure, according to Marshall but he also decided that apparently it didn't matter that he was the Queen's first minister in the province and that maybe a call to the local cops might not put their whole system a bit out of whack.
If Marshall is to be believed, the Premier sees nothing wrong with having the Premier of the province picking up the phone and calling the local cops. This is normal, in Marshall's world, and then everyone just goes back to Tim's.
Even if the Prem's call was really, golly gee, just to see what to do next, apparently neither Williams then nor Marshall now think for one tiny instant that maybe, just maybe, the constable that answered the phone might be forced to change his underpants because Williams - the frickin' Premier - was speaking with him personally about a police investigation, underway or pending. The tone of the call was likely not calm, incidentally, if the Premier's reputed mercurial temper was in full bloom at the time.
Now to be fair, had Williams and his lawyer stuck to a more plausible line to try and deflect attention from the political attack the Prem is facing over the call, they might just have been believed. (Lesson learned: Never hire lawyers to handle public relations.)
After all, the police are supposed to take an attack on any Premier or his family damned seriously. I wouldn't want it any other way. Had the Premier been right in his conspiracy theory and adult son Danny got the crap kicked out of him for political reasons, then we should expect the local constab to drop everything and put an end to violence that has a huge political taint to it.
I'd expect the Chief of Police to take notice, for the case to be assigned to Major Crimes and, when it gets to the Crown prosecutor's office, that it is handled by the SPU. That's the Special Prosecutions Unit where the top prosecutors go. It's a sensible approach for a whole bunch of reason.
But here's the problem.
Williams and Marshall are telling an implausible story.
The political thing was bullshit from the start.
The Premier screwed up big-time.
Not only did he - the Premier - threaten people/make false public accusations, he made the call to the cops. Marshall admitted it and his explanation is as unbelievable as the testimony of three guys who were so hammered on the night of the assault they likely had trouble standing up straight.
Even if it was an innocent call, it was grossly inappropriate and that's why he shouldn't have done it. Report it to the cops - better yet have your principal assistant do it - and let them call you back. Keep the Premier himself and the Office as far from the investigation as possible. He ain't just - and never was - Danny from the Block, as much as the Premier has tried to deploy that silly excuse in recent days.
Keep the Premier directly out of it. That's the rule. At the very least, that keeps the process clean so there can be no accusation of impropriety. And there can no genuine impropriety because, trust me, when the Premier of the province calls anyone out there, they sit up and take notice. Add some 'tude to the call and you can imagine how easily someone might start thinking that heads will roll if someone isn't strung up for the beating.
Besides, if Danny Williams doesn't get it that the office he holds carries power, then he is simply a fool. I don't believe he is a fool and he shouldn't treat you and me like one either.
That leads us to:
2. Marshall's claim, seen here for example, that there is some indication that the witnesses who switched from their sworn statements to their original statements - i.e. "I was too drunk to recall my own name, officer" - might have been intimidated into switching their stories.
Given the sequence of events, I am disinclined to believe this claim on three grounds.
First, it surfaced after the Prem was accused of impropriety in his dealings with the police.
That's a bit too convenient for my taste. It smacks of an old tactic the Prem is fond of - distraction. It's just like his constant claims of conspiracy whenever something happens that doesn't look good for him.
Son assaulted - conspiracy (Lone assailant, allegedly, but Danny turns it into a political issue by dragging the guy's Mom into it).
Sino-Energy story broken by media after google search - conspiracy (They actually did a google search, Danny. You guys should learn about the Internet.)
Canadians detest his flag stunt - conspiracy of the Liberals comms machine (Oops almost forgot a poll that kicked the crap out of that nonsense, paid for by the Premier's Office.)
But I digress.
Second, the story as presented in court by the two witnesses is plausible - much more than the Williams/Marshall fable. Under oath on a witness stand in a criminal trial, the two individuals, one of whom was the only eyewitness to the events, decided under oath to tell the truth - not what they changed their story to a few days after being contacted by the police.
The judge - the guy who actually sat through all the evidence - didn't think there was a problem here. If Marshall or anyone else had evidence of tampering why wasn't it taken to the police and hence to the Crown on the file for immediate action? In another high profile case recently, the accused found himself facing more charges related to witness tampering before he even got part way into his bail hearing.
Thirdly, Marshall has yet to offer a plausible theory as to why anyone would want to save the accused's ass in the first place. There isn't any obvious reason and Marshall hasn't even tried to explain why people would make three, count 'em, three threats for the witnesses to change their story.
It doesn't add up, Steve. It just doesn't add up.
This all looks to me like a series of convenient claims by Williams and his lawyer to draw attention away from what might actually be fairly innocent - i.e. a phone call from the Prem to the cops. Improper yes, and easy to explain, but far from undue interference in the process as the Opposition and others are taking.
With the vigor of their denials and claims, Marshall and Williams lend credence to the idea that there was something highly improper at play here and maybe, just maybe involved the kind of political interference in the judicial process for which someone ought to be tossed from office or maybe sent to jail.
That the Premier decided to drag the accused's family into the matter and repeat the unsubstantiated political angle to the assault is bordering on the reprehensible. Sorry, Danny Senior, it isn't common knowledge that the accused's mom was on a picket line. Besides, how the hell would you know that anyway if you weren't keeping close tabs on the whole matter?
While a day ago I thought this story would blow over, I am now of the opinion that this entire file should be handed over to a judicial inquiry immediately.
The next best option would be to call in the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and commit to making the entire OPP report made public.
At the very least, release the audio tapes and transcripts of any and all calls the Premier made to the police on this matter.
Now that the case is finished in court, maybe the local media will start interviewing people who were involved in this matter directly or indirectly. Lots of other details - long rumoured - might burble to the surface and be confirmed or dismissed.
But one thing is certain: the truth will eventually come out.
It's just a matter of time.
The man accused of beating Premier Danny Williams' son (also called Danny Williams) was acquitted this week amid accusations that the Premier and his officials had improperly interfered in the police investigation into the case and the subsequent prosecution.
Little surprise therefore that the family lawyer, and the Prem's former law partner, Steve Marshall is rushing forward to say two things:
1. In an interview in the Telly on Thursday, Marshall acknowledged that Danny Williams the Elder called the police at about 0400 on the morning after the assault. According to Marshall, the Prem wanted to ask the police what the procedure was in this case.
That's where I first yelled bullshit.
If Marshall is to be believed, experienced lawyer Danny Williams, Queen's Counsel, a guy who has represented numerous civil and criminal defendants over the years was suddenly struck stupid. He apparently forgot the procedure one should follow (or that the police should follow) after someone beats the crap out of your adult son.
The story would be plain bullshit if Williams was still just a downtown lawyer.
But, when the guy is also the Premier of the province, Marshall's story turns into something else entirely - more like finely aged bovine excreta.
Not only was Williams ignorant of the law and police procedure, according to Marshall but he also decided that apparently it didn't matter that he was the Queen's first minister in the province and that maybe a call to the local cops might not put their whole system a bit out of whack.
If Marshall is to be believed, the Premier sees nothing wrong with having the Premier of the province picking up the phone and calling the local cops. This is normal, in Marshall's world, and then everyone just goes back to Tim's.
Even if the Prem's call was really, golly gee, just to see what to do next, apparently neither Williams then nor Marshall now think for one tiny instant that maybe, just maybe, the constable that answered the phone might be forced to change his underpants because Williams - the frickin' Premier - was speaking with him personally about a police investigation, underway or pending. The tone of the call was likely not calm, incidentally, if the Premier's reputed mercurial temper was in full bloom at the time.
Now to be fair, had Williams and his lawyer stuck to a more plausible line to try and deflect attention from the political attack the Prem is facing over the call, they might just have been believed. (Lesson learned: Never hire lawyers to handle public relations.)
After all, the police are supposed to take an attack on any Premier or his family damned seriously. I wouldn't want it any other way. Had the Premier been right in his conspiracy theory and adult son Danny got the crap kicked out of him for political reasons, then we should expect the local constab to drop everything and put an end to violence that has a huge political taint to it.
I'd expect the Chief of Police to take notice, for the case to be assigned to Major Crimes and, when it gets to the Crown prosecutor's office, that it is handled by the SPU. That's the Special Prosecutions Unit where the top prosecutors go. It's a sensible approach for a whole bunch of reason.
But here's the problem.
Williams and Marshall are telling an implausible story.
The political thing was bullshit from the start.
The Premier screwed up big-time.
Not only did he - the Premier - threaten people/make false public accusations, he made the call to the cops. Marshall admitted it and his explanation is as unbelievable as the testimony of three guys who were so hammered on the night of the assault they likely had trouble standing up straight.
Even if it was an innocent call, it was grossly inappropriate and that's why he shouldn't have done it. Report it to the cops - better yet have your principal assistant do it - and let them call you back. Keep the Premier himself and the Office as far from the investigation as possible. He ain't just - and never was - Danny from the Block, as much as the Premier has tried to deploy that silly excuse in recent days.
Keep the Premier directly out of it. That's the rule. At the very least, that keeps the process clean so there can be no accusation of impropriety. And there can no genuine impropriety because, trust me, when the Premier of the province calls anyone out there, they sit up and take notice. Add some 'tude to the call and you can imagine how easily someone might start thinking that heads will roll if someone isn't strung up for the beating.
Besides, if Danny Williams doesn't get it that the office he holds carries power, then he is simply a fool. I don't believe he is a fool and he shouldn't treat you and me like one either.
That leads us to:
2. Marshall's claim, seen here for example, that there is some indication that the witnesses who switched from their sworn statements to their original statements - i.e. "I was too drunk to recall my own name, officer" - might have been intimidated into switching their stories.
Given the sequence of events, I am disinclined to believe this claim on three grounds.
First, it surfaced after the Prem was accused of impropriety in his dealings with the police.
That's a bit too convenient for my taste. It smacks of an old tactic the Prem is fond of - distraction. It's just like his constant claims of conspiracy whenever something happens that doesn't look good for him.
Son assaulted - conspiracy (Lone assailant, allegedly, but Danny turns it into a political issue by dragging the guy's Mom into it).
Sino-Energy story broken by media after google search - conspiracy (They actually did a google search, Danny. You guys should learn about the Internet.)
Canadians detest his flag stunt - conspiracy of the Liberals comms machine (Oops almost forgot a poll that kicked the crap out of that nonsense, paid for by the Premier's Office.)
But I digress.
Second, the story as presented in court by the two witnesses is plausible - much more than the Williams/Marshall fable. Under oath on a witness stand in a criminal trial, the two individuals, one of whom was the only eyewitness to the events, decided under oath to tell the truth - not what they changed their story to a few days after being contacted by the police.
The judge - the guy who actually sat through all the evidence - didn't think there was a problem here. If Marshall or anyone else had evidence of tampering why wasn't it taken to the police and hence to the Crown on the file for immediate action? In another high profile case recently, the accused found himself facing more charges related to witness tampering before he even got part way into his bail hearing.
Thirdly, Marshall has yet to offer a plausible theory as to why anyone would want to save the accused's ass in the first place. There isn't any obvious reason and Marshall hasn't even tried to explain why people would make three, count 'em, three threats for the witnesses to change their story.
It doesn't add up, Steve. It just doesn't add up.
This all looks to me like a series of convenient claims by Williams and his lawyer to draw attention away from what might actually be fairly innocent - i.e. a phone call from the Prem to the cops. Improper yes, and easy to explain, but far from undue interference in the process as the Opposition and others are taking.
With the vigor of their denials and claims, Marshall and Williams lend credence to the idea that there was something highly improper at play here and maybe, just maybe involved the kind of political interference in the judicial process for which someone ought to be tossed from office or maybe sent to jail.
That the Premier decided to drag the accused's family into the matter and repeat the unsubstantiated political angle to the assault is bordering on the reprehensible. Sorry, Danny Senior, it isn't common knowledge that the accused's mom was on a picket line. Besides, how the hell would you know that anyway if you weren't keeping close tabs on the whole matter?
While a day ago I thought this story would blow over, I am now of the opinion that this entire file should be handed over to a judicial inquiry immediately.
The next best option would be to call in the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and commit to making the entire OPP report made public.
At the very least, release the audio tapes and transcripts of any and all calls the Premier made to the police on this matter.
Now that the case is finished in court, maybe the local media will start interviewing people who were involved in this matter directly or indirectly. Lots of other details - long rumoured - might burble to the surface and be confirmed or dismissed.
But one thing is certain: the truth will eventually come out.
It's just a matter of time.
Vacation!
All I ever wanted.
Vacation.
Had to get away.
Vacation.
Not to be spent alone.
Ok, so that isn't the song everyone knows. So sue me.
As of 6:20 this morning (a day early and $600 extra thanks to Air Can-do-nada and the exemplary project planning skills of Halifax airport officials), my happy little family and I are off to a well-deserved vacation visiting my wife's parents in Kingston, ON.
For your not-quite-so-humble e-scribbler, it's the first official, feet-up break in a few years and I am looking forward to it.
Not as much as my seven-year old daughter, apparently, who told me bluntly this afternoon that vacations are no fun without Dad along. She wants to play cards (she plays a wicked game of Crazy Eights), go swimming and just hang out, and truthfully I can't think of a better way to spend some hot days in Kingston.
The in-laws have an in-ground pool which we will likely be living in, if the weather stays as hot as it has been lately.
Of course, I'll have access to a computer and my e-mail, but for the next week I'll be away from the blogosphere.
And loving it.
Vacation.
Had to get away.
Vacation.
Not to be spent alone.
Ok, so that isn't the song everyone knows. So sue me.
As of 6:20 this morning (a day early and $600 extra thanks to Air Can-do-nada and the exemplary project planning skills of Halifax airport officials), my happy little family and I are off to a well-deserved vacation visiting my wife's parents in Kingston, ON.
For your not-quite-so-humble e-scribbler, it's the first official, feet-up break in a few years and I am looking forward to it.
Not as much as my seven-year old daughter, apparently, who told me bluntly this afternoon that vacations are no fun without Dad along. She wants to play cards (she plays a wicked game of Crazy Eights), go swimming and just hang out, and truthfully I can't think of a better way to spend some hot days in Kingston.
The in-laws have an in-ground pool which we will likely be living in, if the weather stays as hot as it has been lately.
Of course, I'll have access to a computer and my e-mail, but for the next week I'll be away from the blogosphere.
And loving it.
14 July 2005
Now that I have your attention
Leslie Galway is an accomplished senior executive with extensive experience in the province's energy sector both from her time at the Public Utilities Board and from her time at the Newfoundland Ocean industries Association (NOIA).
Off the top of my head, I can think of three jobs where her talents would be much better applied than as deputy minister of a department that really shouldn't exist in the first place and which, all things considered, still doesn't really have a clearly defined mandate.
1. Chair and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. The job is available. There is an active competition to fill the post. While the competition may be stiff, the CNLOPB job is one that Leslie could handle in spades and make a solid contribution. She may languish in the Business department, but at CNLOPB she could sink her teeth in.
2. Deputy Minister of Natural Resources. I know the job isn't open, but the Prem can easily re-assign people. Again, this is a place where Leslie's experience and ability are natural matches with the job and the department.
3. Energy Policy. There still isn't a comprehensive provincial energy policy. Leslie would be one strong choice to chair a small team to put the policy together. If that wasn't in the cards, then the provincial government could create a small policy section, headed by Galway, to focus on future development of the offshore in all its dimensions. There's a job where, again, Leslie could shine based on her background and her most recent experience. If we want to develop the oil business for the province, then there is a need for something like the old petroleum policy section. Let's revamp it and put Leslie in charge.
In her new job, Leslie is going to be basically following the Premier's lead because the Business department really plays to the Prem's personal strong suit. She might find it a bit limiting, but while she may rise to the challenge, I think we could better apply someone like Leslie Galway in public service than the new job she now faces.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three jobs where her talents would be much better applied than as deputy minister of a department that really shouldn't exist in the first place and which, all things considered, still doesn't really have a clearly defined mandate.
1. Chair and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. The job is available. There is an active competition to fill the post. While the competition may be stiff, the CNLOPB job is one that Leslie could handle in spades and make a solid contribution. She may languish in the Business department, but at CNLOPB she could sink her teeth in.
2. Deputy Minister of Natural Resources. I know the job isn't open, but the Prem can easily re-assign people. Again, this is a place where Leslie's experience and ability are natural matches with the job and the department.
3. Energy Policy. There still isn't a comprehensive provincial energy policy. Leslie would be one strong choice to chair a small team to put the policy together. If that wasn't in the cards, then the provincial government could create a small policy section, headed by Galway, to focus on future development of the offshore in all its dimensions. There's a job where, again, Leslie could shine based on her background and her most recent experience. If we want to develop the oil business for the province, then there is a need for something like the old petroleum policy section. Let's revamp it and put Leslie in charge.
In her new job, Leslie is going to be basically following the Premier's lead because the Business department really plays to the Prem's personal strong suit. She might find it a bit limiting, but while she may rise to the challenge, I think we could better apply someone like Leslie Galway in public service than the new job she now faces.
Doug House's nail clippings: new business DM a waste of provincial cash
While it has been on the books since last year, with one full-time senior employee and an acting deputy minister (until yesterday), try and find some information about the Department of Business, headed by Premier Danny Williams.
I dare you.
On the government website, in the departments and agencies section, isn't a single mention of the department.
Not one.
If you go to the front page and click on the Premier's link, you'll find his smiling mug staring back at you but nary a word about the department he heads.
Here's what the department does, according to the release announcing Leslie Galway's plum new job:
"The Premier said the Department of Business, in close collaboration with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, will take a leadership role in building a competitive economy that is driven by private sector firms operating in all regions of the province. Reporting to the Premier, the deputy minister provides executive leadership and advice regarding governments agenda and its policies and programs, in order to foster business success in the province."
Ok.
Now go back to the release, take a look at Galway's bio and see if you can match the two up.
When you have taken the two seconds to spot the big gaps, go back to hunting for information on the department.
There isn't much.
My favourite place for government information is the budget. Let's see what cash has been allocated, since there must be approval from the House before money gets spent.
The title page of the budget entry for the Department of Business says this:
"The Department of Business is responsible for providing leadership and coordination across Government departments and Crown agencies to promote business development and good business relations. This includes overseeing the design and coordination of broad business development policies and the coordination of common business-related and marketing activities, particularly at the national and international level.
The Department has a particular focus on working with the private and public sectors to develop strategic plans and policies for creating a competitive investment climate in the Province and for leading targeted business attraction and investment prospecting initiatives in key sectors of the economy."
Notice the difference between what Liz Matthews put in the Galway release and what the House of Assembly was told last year. We aren't talking about national and international level marketing activities any more. Maybe the role of the department has been shifting with the sands of fortune. Maybe the government priorities have been shifting.
But anyway, we are finally starting to hit some solid information.
Turn to the next page of Budget 2005 and you start to see some curious things:
The Minister's Office is funded with $45, 000 in transportation and communications and $5,000 in pens, paper and stationery. The Premier is the Minister. He already has a big office and a big budget.
So what's the 45K for travel doing parked over here? Accountability you say? Piffle says me. The Premier can easily account for his travel allocations without having to set aside a specific amount of cash. When his budget is presented to the House, his Clerk can tell the members how the cash is split up. Case closed.
Slide across with your finger and notice that out of last year's allocation, the Prem spent all of $10, 000 last year from this allocation. If we are still in hard times why did he allocate the same amount again? Cut it back I say to the amount needed.
Next item is executive support (the bit where Leslie goes). There's $381, 100 for everything from salaries to travel to pens. But the whole executive group: deputy minister, assistant deputy etc, only get $26, 000 for travel compared to double that for The Boss. Hmmmmm.
Then we get to the biggest line item so far: something called "strategic planning and communications" with a budget of $493, 900. That's funding the so-called branding piece that has been whispered about all over town but few people know about.
The initial market research to support it was done last year by Noel O'Dea and Target Marketing. There was no tender for the contract; Treasury Board exempted it from the usual process. The contract was worth about $98, 000.
In the meantime, the province's senior communications officer - assistant secretary to cabinet Denis Abbott - was the point-of-contact for the ad soliciting bids on actually running the ad campaign. No word on who submitted a bid or where the process is, but it will likely be a major piece. I'd expect to see upwards of several million dollars spent on "branding" the province over the next few years.
The natural choice for the work would be Target, which is so good that to call it world-class (the favourite claim of posers) would be an insult to the team Noel leads. McCain. Air Canada. The Irvings. North Atlantic refining. All Target stuff.
There may be some pressure to give the job to Craig Tucker and the bunch at M5. Tucker helped Danny get elected and M5 has done a fine job with the New Brunswick tourism account, one of their major pieces of business.
Last thing in the budget is the half million in cash allocated for business attraction. I gather this is the actual campaign that will be mapped out in strategic planning bit.
This little rump of a department is basically all cash, with very little in the way of management and staff. Lean is the way to go, after all, especially compared to other government departments.
But, our little stroll through the government website in search of what Leslie Galway will be doing to fill up her days, has yielded very little of consequence. We can't even find a definitive statement of the department's purpose.
I am still wondering why there is a separate department at all whose sole job seems to be the same business promotion that was done extremely effectively in the old Industry department. It needed to be refreshed and renewed, but that wouldn't need a whole new department. As part of InTRD, there would be another $400,000 going to project delivery instead of salaries in the new department. That's lean and efficient.
Consider too that when it comes to "a leadership role in building a competitive economy that is driven by private sector firms operating in all regions of the province", there's no better person for the job than Doug House who literally wrote the book on the subject and then put the book to practice as head of the Economic Recovery Commission.
There's more knowledge of the province's business sector and business development in sociologist Doug House's nail clippings than in every inch of most accountants I know.
He's already working for Kathy Dunderdale over at Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the department that used to own Leslie's budget.
Why not just give Doug two jobs?
I am open to suggestions.
I dare you.
On the government website, in the departments and agencies section, isn't a single mention of the department.
Not one.
If you go to the front page and click on the Premier's link, you'll find his smiling mug staring back at you but nary a word about the department he heads.
Here's what the department does, according to the release announcing Leslie Galway's plum new job:
"The Premier said the Department of Business, in close collaboration with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, will take a leadership role in building a competitive economy that is driven by private sector firms operating in all regions of the province. Reporting to the Premier, the deputy minister provides executive leadership and advice regarding governments agenda and its policies and programs, in order to foster business success in the province."
Ok.
Now go back to the release, take a look at Galway's bio and see if you can match the two up.
When you have taken the two seconds to spot the big gaps, go back to hunting for information on the department.
There isn't much.
My favourite place for government information is the budget. Let's see what cash has been allocated, since there must be approval from the House before money gets spent.
The title page of the budget entry for the Department of Business says this:
"The Department of Business is responsible for providing leadership and coordination across Government departments and Crown agencies to promote business development and good business relations. This includes overseeing the design and coordination of broad business development policies and the coordination of common business-related and marketing activities, particularly at the national and international level.
The Department has a particular focus on working with the private and public sectors to develop strategic plans and policies for creating a competitive investment climate in the Province and for leading targeted business attraction and investment prospecting initiatives in key sectors of the economy."
Notice the difference between what Liz Matthews put in the Galway release and what the House of Assembly was told last year. We aren't talking about national and international level marketing activities any more. Maybe the role of the department has been shifting with the sands of fortune. Maybe the government priorities have been shifting.
But anyway, we are finally starting to hit some solid information.
Turn to the next page of Budget 2005 and you start to see some curious things:
The Minister's Office is funded with $45, 000 in transportation and communications and $5,000 in pens, paper and stationery. The Premier is the Minister. He already has a big office and a big budget.
So what's the 45K for travel doing parked over here? Accountability you say? Piffle says me. The Premier can easily account for his travel allocations without having to set aside a specific amount of cash. When his budget is presented to the House, his Clerk can tell the members how the cash is split up. Case closed.
Slide across with your finger and notice that out of last year's allocation, the Prem spent all of $10, 000 last year from this allocation. If we are still in hard times why did he allocate the same amount again? Cut it back I say to the amount needed.
Next item is executive support (the bit where Leslie goes). There's $381, 100 for everything from salaries to travel to pens. But the whole executive group: deputy minister, assistant deputy etc, only get $26, 000 for travel compared to double that for The Boss. Hmmmmm.
Then we get to the biggest line item so far: something called "strategic planning and communications" with a budget of $493, 900. That's funding the so-called branding piece that has been whispered about all over town but few people know about.
The initial market research to support it was done last year by Noel O'Dea and Target Marketing. There was no tender for the contract; Treasury Board exempted it from the usual process. The contract was worth about $98, 000.
In the meantime, the province's senior communications officer - assistant secretary to cabinet Denis Abbott - was the point-of-contact for the ad soliciting bids on actually running the ad campaign. No word on who submitted a bid or where the process is, but it will likely be a major piece. I'd expect to see upwards of several million dollars spent on "branding" the province over the next few years.
The natural choice for the work would be Target, which is so good that to call it world-class (the favourite claim of posers) would be an insult to the team Noel leads. McCain. Air Canada. The Irvings. North Atlantic refining. All Target stuff.
There may be some pressure to give the job to Craig Tucker and the bunch at M5. Tucker helped Danny get elected and M5 has done a fine job with the New Brunswick tourism account, one of their major pieces of business.
Last thing in the budget is the half million in cash allocated for business attraction. I gather this is the actual campaign that will be mapped out in strategic planning bit.
This little rump of a department is basically all cash, with very little in the way of management and staff. Lean is the way to go, after all, especially compared to other government departments.
But, our little stroll through the government website in search of what Leslie Galway will be doing to fill up her days, has yielded very little of consequence. We can't even find a definitive statement of the department's purpose.
I am still wondering why there is a separate department at all whose sole job seems to be the same business promotion that was done extremely effectively in the old Industry department. It needed to be refreshed and renewed, but that wouldn't need a whole new department. As part of InTRD, there would be another $400,000 going to project delivery instead of salaries in the new department. That's lean and efficient.
Consider too that when it comes to "a leadership role in building a competitive economy that is driven by private sector firms operating in all regions of the province", there's no better person for the job than Doug House who literally wrote the book on the subject and then put the book to practice as head of the Economic Recovery Commission.
There's more knowledge of the province's business sector and business development in sociologist Doug House's nail clippings than in every inch of most accountants I know.
He's already working for Kathy Dunderdale over at Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the department that used to own Leslie's budget.
Why not just give Doug two jobs?
I am open to suggestions.
13 July 2005
Galway gets big thank you from Danny
It only took the better part of two years but Danny Williams finally rewarded Leslie Galway, formerly the president of the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) with a new job as deputy minister of the Department of Business.
Galway beat out at least one other contender, a guy from Scotland with plenty of experience in business development.
Now that the announcement is made go back and take a look at a few posts on the Bond papers from February, like, Say "A take of two cities, Part Three" from February 20. There's also some stuff here and here and here.
My all-time fave, in light of today's announcement is the NOIA news release Leslie issued about the offshore revenue deal. While it is linked in one of those bits above, here's a direct line.
Note especially the last picture.
I still stick by the assessment back in February and April:
The giant full page add NOIA took out attacking Ottawa and all the Danny-sucking certainly didn't win NOIA any favours with the feds. It also displayed a real lack of understanding of the Atlantic Accord and NOIA members best interests.
Maybe it wasn't supposed to.
Galway beat out at least one other contender, a guy from Scotland with plenty of experience in business development.
Now that the announcement is made go back and take a look at a few posts on the Bond papers from February, like, Say "A take of two cities, Part Three" from February 20. There's also some stuff here and here and here.
My all-time fave, in light of today's announcement is the NOIA news release Leslie issued about the offshore revenue deal. While it is linked in one of those bits above, here's a direct line.
Note especially the last picture.
I still stick by the assessment back in February and April:
The giant full page add NOIA took out attacking Ottawa and all the Danny-sucking certainly didn't win NOIA any favours with the feds. It also displayed a real lack of understanding of the Atlantic Accord and NOIA members best interests.
Maybe it wasn't supposed to.
Australian SAS head to Afghanistan
The Australian government announced today that a special forces task group comprising 150 soldiers will deploy to Afghanistan following requests from the Afghan government, the United States and the United Kingdom. The task group is expected to comprise members of the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS).
The task group is expected to spend upwards of one year in Afghanistan working with allied forces in combating locally-based terrorist forces.
This comes less than a week after the Australian government announced AUS$207 million will be spent to improve the base housing the country's special forces command.
In May, Canada began the process of relocating its Afghan contingent from Kabul to Kandahar and switching roles to providing reconstruction of local civilian infrastructure.
The task group is expected to spend upwards of one year in Afghanistan working with allied forces in combating locally-based terrorist forces.
This comes less than a week after the Australian government announced AUS$207 million will be spent to improve the base housing the country's special forces command.
In May, Canada began the process of relocating its Afghan contingent from Kabul to Kandahar and switching roles to providing reconstruction of local civilian infrastructure.
To infinity and beyond!
Space Transportation System mission 114 (STS-114) will launch from pad 39B at Canaveral space centre 13 July 2005 at approximately 1531 hrs Eastern Daylight Savings Time using an inclination of 51.6%.
That means the space shuttle will transit across the Grand Banks, not too far off the track used by the NROL-16, the last Titan 4B mission in May that caused a near panic in the oil patch offshore Newfoundland and in the provincial government. Maybe google-searching is a government wide deficiency.
So how come people aren't losing their minds about an even bigger hunk of metal that has a track record of blowing up rather spectacularly?
Incidentally, as I noted earlier this year, the shuttle has flown over the Grand Banks on more than half its launches since 1981. Yet no one in the oil patch noticed.
The last shuttle mission had problems on launch such that the American space administration team might have aborted before that giant liquid tank made it to orbit; that is, had they known that on recovery the thing was going to scatter bits and pieces of people and machine from California to Mississippi.
So come this afternoon, I'll be sipping my coffee, watching CNN and enjoying the show, minus the local melodrama.
Incidentally, has anyone finished the internal review on the Hill to find out why the provincial government's emergency management system blew to bits when it first heard of the Titan missile?
Might be a good subject for an access to information request.
Incidentally, incidentally, how many provincial government employees hold valid security clearances as a result of their provincial jobs such that they could receive classified national briefings on things like, say, intelligence reports or other matters of national security? The answer explains a lot of what happened during the Titan thing.
Yet another good access to info request.
That means the space shuttle will transit across the Grand Banks, not too far off the track used by the NROL-16, the last Titan 4B mission in May that caused a near panic in the oil patch offshore Newfoundland and in the provincial government. Maybe google-searching is a government wide deficiency.
So how come people aren't losing their minds about an even bigger hunk of metal that has a track record of blowing up rather spectacularly?
Incidentally, as I noted earlier this year, the shuttle has flown over the Grand Banks on more than half its launches since 1981. Yet no one in the oil patch noticed.
The last shuttle mission had problems on launch such that the American space administration team might have aborted before that giant liquid tank made it to orbit; that is, had they known that on recovery the thing was going to scatter bits and pieces of people and machine from California to Mississippi.
So come this afternoon, I'll be sipping my coffee, watching CNN and enjoying the show, minus the local melodrama.
Incidentally, has anyone finished the internal review on the Hill to find out why the provincial government's emergency management system blew to bits when it first heard of the Titan missile?
Might be a good subject for an access to information request.
Incidentally, incidentally, how many provincial government employees hold valid security clearances as a result of their provincial jobs such that they could receive classified national briefings on things like, say, intelligence reports or other matters of national security? The answer explains a lot of what happened during the Titan thing.
Yet another good access to info request.
It must be a hoser thing
For those who want some entertainment, try flipping over to a blog run by a guy named Calgarygrit and take a look at his post on calls for Alberta independence.
I have no idea about the background of this Alberta-stan movement, but with the resurgence of independence...well, sovereignty...well, separatism...well sorta-good friends with sleep-over privileges...here in Newfoundland, it sure makes for some damned funny reading.
One of the big differences between here and there is that in Alberta someone actually has the guts to write a column advocating independence for Alberta-stan. Ok. That puts them ahead of us even though we have a newspaper called The Independent (hint, hint) with the pink,white and green on its masthead that I think, has voted for sending Ottawa an angry note saying we want more transfer payments but we don't want to call them transfer payments.
Ok, so they call them reparations.
Yet more Alice through the looking glass crapola like when the Prem was interviewed on CBC last October trying to explain why getting Equalization after we didn't qualify for Equalization really wasn't Equalization it would be fine because there was an agreement between Ottawa and St. John's that called it an Equalization offset and yes while I know it says Equalization offset I am going to cover up the word Equalization with my thumb here on this piece of paper so when you read it you will only see the word offset but never mind that because it is really just money that should actually be ours anyway and while it is actually like Equalization it isn't really that because...I have my thumb over it.
I'd link you back to the interview so you could see that I was quoting almost verbatim but hey, what's the point?
Anyway...
For hump-day, enjoy reading about the people in Alberta who want to create their own little paradise on the prairie.
Maybe we could hook up with them and be like India and Pakistan when they split up in 1947.
Canada would be like India.
The western guys could be West Alberta and we could be East Alberta.
Some of you can see where I am going with that.
For the others, just think: we would be getting rid of the long name we have right now.
I have no idea about the background of this Alberta-stan movement, but with the resurgence of independence...well, sovereignty...well, separatism...well sorta-good friends with sleep-over privileges...here in Newfoundland, it sure makes for some damned funny reading.
One of the big differences between here and there is that in Alberta someone actually has the guts to write a column advocating independence for Alberta-stan. Ok. That puts them ahead of us even though we have a newspaper called The Independent (hint, hint) with the pink,white and green on its masthead that I think, has voted for sending Ottawa an angry note saying we want more transfer payments but we don't want to call them transfer payments.
Ok, so they call them reparations.
Yet more Alice through the looking glass crapola like when the Prem was interviewed on CBC last October trying to explain why getting Equalization after we didn't qualify for Equalization really wasn't Equalization it would be fine because there was an agreement between Ottawa and St. John's that called it an Equalization offset and yes while I know it says Equalization offset I am going to cover up the word Equalization with my thumb here on this piece of paper so when you read it you will only see the word offset but never mind that because it is really just money that should actually be ours anyway and while it is actually like Equalization it isn't really that because...I have my thumb over it.
I'd link you back to the interview so you could see that I was quoting almost verbatim but hey, what's the point?
Anyway...
For hump-day, enjoy reading about the people in Alberta who want to create their own little paradise on the prairie.
Maybe we could hook up with them and be like India and Pakistan when they split up in 1947.
Canada would be like India.
The western guys could be West Alberta and we could be East Alberta.
Some of you can see where I am going with that.
For the others, just think: we would be getting rid of the long name we have right now.
12 July 2005
Put John Crosbie in the dock over Upper Churchill
In his last television interview before his death on Sunday from cancer, former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Frank Moores said he doubted the value of buying the Upper Churchill.
Moores said at the time it seemed like a good idea. He said that with all the difficulties of dealing with the Quebec government and trying to develop other hydro projects, the province could have done something better with the initial purchase price of $168 million.
Moores was evidently basing his second-thoughts on the fact that the purchase price represented 25% of the province's budget expenditure for the year. At the time, the province couldn't afford it.
Too bad someone didn't probe this a bit more with Moores, especially given all the mythology that has built up around the Upper Churchill.
Some of that mythology is spread by the buy-outs major proponent, John Crosbie. Crosbie's memoir, No holds barred, doesn't really provide much factual evidence to back his financial case for taking over the Upper Churchill. Some of it is couched in terms like "I have been told that..." Quebec gets something like $800 million whole the province gets a pittance. In another spot, Crosbie doesn't explain how a project that was going to cost the province money when it was a private sector project would suddenly be a winner if it was nationalized.
My favourite part, though, is the bit where Crosbie uses a drop in Equalization because of new revenues as a loss for the province and hence a reason for taking it over. It's the same bullshit argument he foisted recently during the Williams offshore fracas.
[Note: Number 1: the province doesn't lose any money in the scenario. Number 2: the feds fixed the problem in 1982 and might well have done it earlier had they been asked. As a result of a decision by the Trudeau government, the province actually has its Upper Churchill revenues hidden from Equalization. It's worth about $50 million annually to the province.]
BUT back to the point, and here is Crosbie's big but, it was an argument he rejected as utter nonsense in only the most crass and rude terms only someone like Crosbie could muster in 1990 when the provincial government tried to rework the Atlantic Accord (1985).
Maybe it is time for a public inquiry into purchase of the Upper Churchill by Crosbie. Put the old boy in the dock of public opinion with someone putting some hard questions to him.
At the very least, a solid historical analysis - no one has studied the Upper Churchill in detail - might finally put to rest some of the hot air emanating from people like John Crosbie. We'd all be able to see what happened and then maybe learn what mistakes to avoid the next time.
Crosbie's old boss doubted the value of spending 25% of a poor province's budget on a giant cash pit. At least Crosbie, described it as a cash pit in his memoir but as a justification for spending all that cash and saddling the province with all the debt from the construction. Of course, it wouldn't be the only time Crosbie ever changed his tune on a policy or an idea to suit his purpose at the time.
For those who want to do the math, Hydro's debt load of about $1.4 billion is counted against us by the banks and the provincial government when working out our current debt load. Go check the budget. It might be a relatively small portion of the debt today, which runs around $12.0 billion, but look at the figures for a decade ago. Hydro debt was $1.3 billion, part of a total debt in the budget of $6.8 billion and an accrual debt load of about $8.0 billion.
We are still paying for it today and listening to Crosbie justify the cutbacks and the layoffs from what may well have been his biggest public policy blunder.
Moores said at the time it seemed like a good idea. He said that with all the difficulties of dealing with the Quebec government and trying to develop other hydro projects, the province could have done something better with the initial purchase price of $168 million.
Moores was evidently basing his second-thoughts on the fact that the purchase price represented 25% of the province's budget expenditure for the year. At the time, the province couldn't afford it.
Too bad someone didn't probe this a bit more with Moores, especially given all the mythology that has built up around the Upper Churchill.
Some of that mythology is spread by the buy-outs major proponent, John Crosbie. Crosbie's memoir, No holds barred, doesn't really provide much factual evidence to back his financial case for taking over the Upper Churchill. Some of it is couched in terms like "I have been told that..." Quebec gets something like $800 million whole the province gets a pittance. In another spot, Crosbie doesn't explain how a project that was going to cost the province money when it was a private sector project would suddenly be a winner if it was nationalized.
My favourite part, though, is the bit where Crosbie uses a drop in Equalization because of new revenues as a loss for the province and hence a reason for taking it over. It's the same bullshit argument he foisted recently during the Williams offshore fracas.
[Note: Number 1: the province doesn't lose any money in the scenario. Number 2: the feds fixed the problem in 1982 and might well have done it earlier had they been asked. As a result of a decision by the Trudeau government, the province actually has its Upper Churchill revenues hidden from Equalization. It's worth about $50 million annually to the province.]
BUT back to the point, and here is Crosbie's big but, it was an argument he rejected as utter nonsense in only the most crass and rude terms only someone like Crosbie could muster in 1990 when the provincial government tried to rework the Atlantic Accord (1985).
Maybe it is time for a public inquiry into purchase of the Upper Churchill by Crosbie. Put the old boy in the dock of public opinion with someone putting some hard questions to him.
At the very least, a solid historical analysis - no one has studied the Upper Churchill in detail - might finally put to rest some of the hot air emanating from people like John Crosbie. We'd all be able to see what happened and then maybe learn what mistakes to avoid the next time.
Crosbie's old boss doubted the value of spending 25% of a poor province's budget on a giant cash pit. At least Crosbie, described it as a cash pit in his memoir but as a justification for spending all that cash and saddling the province with all the debt from the construction. Of course, it wouldn't be the only time Crosbie ever changed his tune on a policy or an idea to suit his purpose at the time.
For those who want to do the math, Hydro's debt load of about $1.4 billion is counted against us by the banks and the provincial government when working out our current debt load. Go check the budget. It might be a relatively small portion of the debt today, which runs around $12.0 billion, but look at the figures for a decade ago. Hydro debt was $1.3 billion, part of a total debt in the budget of $6.8 billion and an accrual debt load of about $8.0 billion.
We are still paying for it today and listening to Crosbie justify the cutbacks and the layoffs from what may well have been his biggest public policy blunder.
11 July 2005
Getting the deal - Danny Williams and Atlantic Accord polling
[Note: This is an opinion piece, intended to offer one possible explanation of events.
The following is an account of the offshore discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador between January 2004 and January 2005. It is based on anecdotal information, correspondence between both governments, previous posts to the Bond Papers and on the research report submitted to the provincial government in January 2005 and recently released to news media.
References to strategy by the Williams' government are solely those of the author taking inferences from events and publicly available information.]
Getting the deal
Through the fall of 2004, attitudes grew increasingly gloomy among the Premier's Office staff in St. John's.
The original plan had been to snag a quick deal for extra cash from the offshore before the federal election. There was no detailed position paper, no legal argument that the federal government had somehow failed to live up to the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
What there had been was passion and attitude, playing up the sense of alienation from Ottawa and dissatisfaction among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians documented in research done for the Royal Commission on strengthening and renewing our place in Canada.
Premier Danny Williams found policy gold in the Young commission. A fiscal paper written by a former deputy minister of finance under Brian Peckford was readily adopted; one of its keystones had been an elaborate explanation of how the federal government was making billions from the offshore while Newfoundland and Labrador made a relative pittance from its "own" resource. Roger Grimes had been the latest of a series of provincial premiers to fail at having Ottawa rework the cash portions of the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
Here was a ready-made triumph for Williams.
Williams would tackle Ottawa like it was an insurance company, using a combination of the charm and bluster that had worked so often before in his private law practice.
Shag the facts.
Point to the shameful injustice of it all. Press Ottawa for cash. If they made an offer, up the ante and then seek more cash in public using whatever means possible. Ottawa Liberals would not want to be jammed up before a federal election, as Williams himself said in the early spring of 2004.
Play up the drama.
An impoverished province in desperate financial straits.
A new government in a province full of promise and hope, forced to slash services and freeze wages while billions in cash poured to ever-rich Ottawa.
Fight the case in the court of public opinion where, as Williams had learned through years of experience, the judge and jury are less concerned with pesky matters like details than in a real court-room. In public opinion's court, the more tears shed, the more money in the settlement.
And so it had rolled out.
The letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin in January 2004. Lengthy and relying entirely on a supposedly independent outside financial analysis, it made the case for a financial settlement from Ottawa that would make a modest adjustment to the existing Equalization offsets in the original Accord. This wouldn't be for grievance or indeed for justice. Rather, the feds would help because the money was needed to put a roof over the heads and food in the belly of Williams' 520, 000 clients.
The Prime Minister accepted the idea for further discussion later in January, sending his regional minister, John Efford, to meet with Williams and his officials in late February. Williams charmed Efford, couching the whole matter in the simplest of simple terms, ones that Efford was sure to accept. There was the news conference after the meeting in which Williams talked of there being a two-headed horse fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Never mind that Efford would never, ever grasp either the political manoeuvering around him or the substance of the offshore revenue issue. If the feds coughed up cash, Danny would claim victory. If they stalled or rejected the idea, Efford was the easy scapegoat. He was no Crosbie, whose grasp of the facts and vicious tongue could dissect an opponent with the finesse of a broadaxe. Nor was he a Tobin. Efford was an easy mark.
There were claims by Williams of support from all the premiers. There were comments on the frustration of waiting for Ottawa to act. Behind the scenes there was little substantive provincial activity. There was no written proposal that spelled out Williams' ideas in legal detail. What they did slap together was an overhead slide show that would surely have suggested to anyone familiar with the Accord that the provincial officials didn't understand the history of the deal or the original deal itself. Anyone, like say Efford's deputy minister, who had helped negotiate the Accord in 1985 and who would likely remain opposed to the province's arguments based on his own knowledge of the original deal.
There was the odd short letter to the PM or telephone call. The letters said little more than: "Come on bye, ye gotta do something."
The goal was a commitment from the prime minister. No officials. No intermediaries. No getting bogged down in give and take. Williams wanted the words from Paul Martin's own lips: "I agree".
Williams got the commitment on June 5, 2005. The PM had accepted Williams' proposal, presumably the letter from January. Williams followed up five days later with a letter that thanked the prime minister for his accepting the province's position. Williams then restated the position increasing both the amount of money and duration of the deal from what had been discussed before, released it to the public and then set a deadline of the late summer for getting the thing finished.
The premier was not happy. He could never be happy. Every offer would be just short of what was required to make him happy enough.
and so the ante was upped.
A late summer deadline was set by Williams. Efford suggested it might be more like September.
By September, no deal had been reached.
The feds met a new October deadline for a proposal imposed by Williams but only just. Regardless of what was in the offer, Williams would never have accepted it. It wasn't his style. bad news for Williams though, came from the other provincial premiers who were finally waking up to a looming deal that had been, to now, underneath the national radar screen.
They realized that what Williams was asking for was a federal transfer to Newfoundland, equal to its offshore revenues, even if the province grew as rich as any other. Ontario's Dalton McGuinty would have none of it. He wrote to the feds stating Ontario's rejection of any such arrangement that smacked of Equalization as a provincial right. The letter of support he had written Williams finally surfaced, a note of such importance that his office couldn't find a copy. When faxed to them by Williams' staff it turned out to be little more than "the weather is here, wish you were beautiful" platitudes; certainly it didn't live up to the billing Williams had given it earlier.
So Williams stormed from a federal-provincial conference on Equalization without a deal and without suffering any closed-door gryping from his fellow premiers.
He sat with Don Newman on Newsworld and vented his frustration at Ottawa, his jaw clenching and unclenching visibly to the cameras. He started a news conference alongside his finance minister, cutting the whole affair off quickly by telling Loyola Sullivan that it was time they were going.
A confusing interview with CBC television's Carole MacNeil didn't help persuade national audiences that Williams wasn't looking to eat his oil cake and have his Equalization too.
More acrimony and then the December deadline.
In the meantime, the feds were hardening their position. They were refusing to play on Williams' terms or in his arena. Only Efford - his lack of influence in Ottawa painfully obvious with each passing day - would blunder to the public stage issuing a take-it or leave-it challenge on the October offer only to deny the plain facts of his statement when the public turned on him.
All the while, the province was being forced slowly to go where Williams had not wanted to go. After the October offer, St. John's started actually negotiating with Ottawa, sending off draft agreements, reworking clauses for the first time since the whole offshore issue had been raised with Ottawa 10 months beforehand.
No one in Ottawa would say much of anything publicly, neither repudiating nor accepting Williams' June letter. What was growing increasingly clear, though, was that Williams could achieve nothing even close to his June claim of doubling oil revenues in perpetuity.
With the realization, came the gloom.
One last deadline was set: December.
Time for a Christmas present if the news was good or to label the feds as the Grinch if need be.
Off to Winnipeg for a new federal offer which Williams praised to the media on the way up. Public optimism soared, especially on the province's radio call-in shows which had become, since Brian Tobin's time, a popular poll used by Premier's Offices to gauge what the public was thinking. Williams seemed to live on Open Line himself. Later he would implement a policy that required each of the senior public servants in the communications division to spend almost one entire day a week in rotation doing nothing but monitoring the radio and having someone on to counteract criticism. No negative comment was to go unchallenged for more than a few minutes.
Public optimism was shattered as Williams stormed from the meeting, flew back to St. John's and scheduled a media briefing for December 22. He announced there was no Christmas present from Paul Martin. Williams' talked of getting a slap in the face.
Then he ordered Canadian flags to be taken from every provincial building. "Why would we fly their flag and pretend everything is rosy?" he told reporters at Confederation Building.
There is no sign he had planned the announcement or had discussed it outside of a limited number of close confidantes. The province's most senior public servant, for example, normally unflappable, scrambled from the room to have public works security guards get the flags down. The security guard himself, who appeared on every TV set on every TV news broadcast in the country for days afterward appeared like he had been roused from a sleep and handed a dust-covered and seldom-used dress uniform cap to look his best.
At the news conference, Williams himself systematically pointed to each flag behind him intoning "That one will be coming down and that one and that one." The pointing wasn't as telling as the tone of his voice.
For a man who needed national public opinion to be on his side, Williams' actions could not have produced a more disastrous result. Over Christmas the public dismay mounted at using the national flag as a political tool. Letters, faxes and e-mails poured into the Premier's Office. National opinion polls turned against Williams, including one in the Globe and Mail, Canada's erstwhile national newspaper which had already endorsed Williams' offshore goal.
Locally the move was a hit, especially among the province's anti-Confederates. Williams' tried later to blow off the national public reaction as being orchestrated by the federal Liberal communications team. He was well off the mark with this, the latest of his conspiracy theories.
Coming back after a Christmas and new year's break, Williams launched an offensive. He would head to Toronto to make the case to national media. [As it turned out, the Globe editorial the day after its editorial board met with Williams was hardly positive for the premier. Others would follow suit, telling WIlliams he should accept the deal in front of him.]
Williams would soften his line on the flags a bit, hinting that they might go back after a suitable period and no longer, as he previously wanted, once Ottawa met his demands. He would write the prime minister and announce so publicly, to shift focus to Ottawa.
In the meantime, Williams commissioned a poll. Ryan Research and Communications was a firm which Danny had come to rely upon increasingly for insights into public moods. The principal consultant, Karen Ryan, was an experienced market researcher who had worked for one of the country's leading marketing firms before branching out on her own. Ryan did work for Vic Young on the Royal Commission and had polled for Danny himself virtually every month from December 2003 onward. She was a natural choice.
On January 3, 2005, Ryan was asked to survey attitudes in the province on the offshore negotiations and on the flag. Work was to start on the 4th of January and finish as quickly as possible. The Premier's Office quickly decided on a national survey and so 800 surveys were administered across the country from January 4 to January 9, 2005 on top of the 400 in Newfoundland and Labrador that had been wrapped up on January 5th. Its purpose, as the research report's executive summary stated, was "to gain insight into and understanding of Canadian's support for Premier's Williams' efforts to secure 100% of provincial offshore royalties and whether they perceived that the Prime Minister should honor his commitment of June 5th, 2004."
On that basis, the research report, subsequently obtained by The Telegram is a curious document. Aside from the standard questions about age, education and income, there are only five specific questions about different aspects of the offshore oil issue. That is typical in simple surveys.
What isn't typical is the wording, the ordering or the structuring of the questions. It wasn't a push poll - not a poll at all, really, but a propaganda technique pioneered in the United States - but the Danny Williams' messages would get across nonetheless, if that was the goal. If nothing else, the poll would give Williams something he could talk about publicly to give the appearance things were going better than they were.
The first one basically asked if the respondent believed the Prime Minister should live up to his commitments, but it did so with wording that would likely lead a respondent to answer in the affirmative.
Specifically it asked: "On June 5th 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin publicly committed to accepting the proposal put forth by Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams that would see Newfoundland and Labrador keep 100% of its provincial offshore revenues. Do you believe that Prime Minister Martin should honor this commitment to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 100% of its provincial offshore royalties?"
The question contained the Premier's key message, not once but twice, that the whole discussion was about the province keeping its own money. Intuitively, few would argue with the point, except those that understood the intricacies of federal-provincial financial arrangements or the Atlantic Accord. Few did, including cabinet ministers and former ministers. Facts weren't important; the message was.
Nationally, 72% of respondents agreed with the idea of honoring the commitment. Fully 96% of Newfoundlanders agreed, along with 72% of Westerners, 68% of Ontarians, 73% of Quebeckers and 84% of Martimers. Even with the polls margins of error - 2.83% nationally, almost five percent in Newfoundland and almost 8% in the other regions, the figures were unmistakable.
So too with the second question, which asked: "Overall, all things considered, how supportive are you of Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams' efforts to secure a deal with the Federal Government that would see 100% of Newfoundland's offshore revenue kept in that province?"
The responses were structured as a Likert scale, in which respondents are usually offered an equal number of positive and negative choices in order to gauge the intensity of their attitudes. In this instance, respondents were offered three positive choices (completely, mostly or somewhat supportive) and only one negative choice (not supportive at all), likely leading them to pick a soft positive one, even if they were actually opposed.
The total level of support was unmistakable with 72% picking one of the positive choices, but nationally, the individual positive choices were almost even. Outside Newfoundland and Labrador, where 73% supported the premier's efforts completely, or the Maritimes where 42% did so, the results were similar to the national figures, suggesting strongly that people had some reservations about the efforts.
The third question was about the flag and again was structured as a Likert scale with three positive and only one negative choice:
"To what extent do you support Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams' decision to remove Canadian flags from Newfoundland's government buildings to protest Prime Minister Martin and the Government of Canada not living up to the commitment to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 100% of provincial oil revenues?"
There was no question as to how familiar people were with the issue, nor was there a simple question about the respondent's feeling about removing the flags. The question included the Premier's rationale for the move in detail.
Despite the leading nature of the question, having heard the same rationale about commitment's and revenues in two previous questions and despite the skewed nature of the scale which would tend to have respondent's pick a positive response, 60% of respondents nationally picked the sole, extreme negative choice.
The view was as clear in the regions across the country, even allowing the poll's margins of error. Respondents strongly opposed the flag move in every region except Quebec and Newfoundland. Even 63% of Maritimers were not supportive at all. In Quebec, where flag flaps were old news, the figure was 45% not supportive at all, the single largest response category by more than two to one.
In Newfoundland and Labrador 38% were completely supportive and 29% were not supportive at all. With a margin of error of almost five percent, those figures could be 33% completely supportive and 34% completely unsupportive. Those results were available to the Premier possibly as early as January 6 and may have prompted his admission to news media on January 7 that the flag issue had cost him support. Even at home, as Williams may well have known, his flag flap was a loser at worst, a distraction at best.
There is no way of knowing for sure, but it is interesting the coincidence that this polling was completed nationally on January 9 and that Premier Williams ordered flags raised on January 10. The move surprised everyone, coming, as it did, in the midst of a news conference to announce a call for expressions of interest in developing the Lower Churchill.
There is no specific date on the polling research report. Those familiar with polling know that it is possible to produce quick results that simply tally responses. Those could easily have been available to the premier by late on the 9th or early on the 10th.
With the flags back, the Premier removed a issue that had overshadowed his campaign on offshore revenues. On January 14, the Prime Minister released his reply to Williams' letter both accepting Williams' request for a face-to-face meeting as an attempt to resolve the ongoing offshore issue and making it clear that the federal government was never going to accept the June double-up scheme.
The deal reached in late January 2005 has been discussed in detail elsewhere. The first clause of the agreement repudiates the very basis on which Williams made his public case: the provincial government already received 100% of offshore revenues. ("This agreement reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia that both provinces already are collecting and will continue to collect 100 percent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land.")
In the end, the province accepted a cash lump sum of $2.0 billion, as had been offered in October but increased to reflect then-current oil prices. Other details of the deal did nothing to change the fact which had served as the foundation of the Young commission's report and Williams' case as well: Equalization and Equalization offsets would not continue if the provincial government no longer qualified for Equalization.
The lump sum was more than was on the table in the beginning but it fell far short of the provincial government's June objectives. It even fell short of its January 2004 goal.
But the deal was done.
And the Premier claimed victory.
The message was important, not the details.
Postscript:
Is there other provincial government Accord polling? Maybe.
Ryan Research conducted polling for the Williams administration almost every month from December 2003 to August 2004 and again in January 2005. Those are the polls that were paid for by the provincial government and which have been acknowledged publicly.
Despite a ruling by the province's access to information commissioner, the Williams administration is withholding any polls done by Ryan. They have released research done by other firms, despite the claim that polling done for Executive Council reveals cabinet deliberations.
Only work by Ryan Research is being withheld.
The following is an account of the offshore discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador between January 2004 and January 2005. It is based on anecdotal information, correspondence between both governments, previous posts to the Bond Papers and on the research report submitted to the provincial government in January 2005 and recently released to news media.
References to strategy by the Williams' government are solely those of the author taking inferences from events and publicly available information.]
Getting the deal
Through the fall of 2004, attitudes grew increasingly gloomy among the Premier's Office staff in St. John's.
The original plan had been to snag a quick deal for extra cash from the offshore before the federal election. There was no detailed position paper, no legal argument that the federal government had somehow failed to live up to the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
What there had been was passion and attitude, playing up the sense of alienation from Ottawa and dissatisfaction among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians documented in research done for the Royal Commission on strengthening and renewing our place in Canada.
Premier Danny Williams found policy gold in the Young commission. A fiscal paper written by a former deputy minister of finance under Brian Peckford was readily adopted; one of its keystones had been an elaborate explanation of how the federal government was making billions from the offshore while Newfoundland and Labrador made a relative pittance from its "own" resource. Roger Grimes had been the latest of a series of provincial premiers to fail at having Ottawa rework the cash portions of the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
Here was a ready-made triumph for Williams.
Williams would tackle Ottawa like it was an insurance company, using a combination of the charm and bluster that had worked so often before in his private law practice.
Shag the facts.
Point to the shameful injustice of it all. Press Ottawa for cash. If they made an offer, up the ante and then seek more cash in public using whatever means possible. Ottawa Liberals would not want to be jammed up before a federal election, as Williams himself said in the early spring of 2004.
Play up the drama.
An impoverished province in desperate financial straits.
A new government in a province full of promise and hope, forced to slash services and freeze wages while billions in cash poured to ever-rich Ottawa.
Fight the case in the court of public opinion where, as Williams had learned through years of experience, the judge and jury are less concerned with pesky matters like details than in a real court-room. In public opinion's court, the more tears shed, the more money in the settlement.
And so it had rolled out.
The letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin in January 2004. Lengthy and relying entirely on a supposedly independent outside financial analysis, it made the case for a financial settlement from Ottawa that would make a modest adjustment to the existing Equalization offsets in the original Accord. This wouldn't be for grievance or indeed for justice. Rather, the feds would help because the money was needed to put a roof over the heads and food in the belly of Williams' 520, 000 clients.
The Prime Minister accepted the idea for further discussion later in January, sending his regional minister, John Efford, to meet with Williams and his officials in late February. Williams charmed Efford, couching the whole matter in the simplest of simple terms, ones that Efford was sure to accept. There was the news conference after the meeting in which Williams talked of there being a two-headed horse fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Never mind that Efford would never, ever grasp either the political manoeuvering around him or the substance of the offshore revenue issue. If the feds coughed up cash, Danny would claim victory. If they stalled or rejected the idea, Efford was the easy scapegoat. He was no Crosbie, whose grasp of the facts and vicious tongue could dissect an opponent with the finesse of a broadaxe. Nor was he a Tobin. Efford was an easy mark.
There were claims by Williams of support from all the premiers. There were comments on the frustration of waiting for Ottawa to act. Behind the scenes there was little substantive provincial activity. There was no written proposal that spelled out Williams' ideas in legal detail. What they did slap together was an overhead slide show that would surely have suggested to anyone familiar with the Accord that the provincial officials didn't understand the history of the deal or the original deal itself. Anyone, like say Efford's deputy minister, who had helped negotiate the Accord in 1985 and who would likely remain opposed to the province's arguments based on his own knowledge of the original deal.
There was the odd short letter to the PM or telephone call. The letters said little more than: "Come on bye, ye gotta do something."
The goal was a commitment from the prime minister. No officials. No intermediaries. No getting bogged down in give and take. Williams wanted the words from Paul Martin's own lips: "I agree".
Williams got the commitment on June 5, 2005. The PM had accepted Williams' proposal, presumably the letter from January. Williams followed up five days later with a letter that thanked the prime minister for his accepting the province's position. Williams then restated the position increasing both the amount of money and duration of the deal from what had been discussed before, released it to the public and then set a deadline of the late summer for getting the thing finished.
The premier was not happy. He could never be happy. Every offer would be just short of what was required to make him happy enough.
and so the ante was upped.
A late summer deadline was set by Williams. Efford suggested it might be more like September.
By September, no deal had been reached.
The feds met a new October deadline for a proposal imposed by Williams but only just. Regardless of what was in the offer, Williams would never have accepted it. It wasn't his style. bad news for Williams though, came from the other provincial premiers who were finally waking up to a looming deal that had been, to now, underneath the national radar screen.
They realized that what Williams was asking for was a federal transfer to Newfoundland, equal to its offshore revenues, even if the province grew as rich as any other. Ontario's Dalton McGuinty would have none of it. He wrote to the feds stating Ontario's rejection of any such arrangement that smacked of Equalization as a provincial right. The letter of support he had written Williams finally surfaced, a note of such importance that his office couldn't find a copy. When faxed to them by Williams' staff it turned out to be little more than "the weather is here, wish you were beautiful" platitudes; certainly it didn't live up to the billing Williams had given it earlier.
So Williams stormed from a federal-provincial conference on Equalization without a deal and without suffering any closed-door gryping from his fellow premiers.
He sat with Don Newman on Newsworld and vented his frustration at Ottawa, his jaw clenching and unclenching visibly to the cameras. He started a news conference alongside his finance minister, cutting the whole affair off quickly by telling Loyola Sullivan that it was time they were going.
A confusing interview with CBC television's Carole MacNeil didn't help persuade national audiences that Williams wasn't looking to eat his oil cake and have his Equalization too.
More acrimony and then the December deadline.
In the meantime, the feds were hardening their position. They were refusing to play on Williams' terms or in his arena. Only Efford - his lack of influence in Ottawa painfully obvious with each passing day - would blunder to the public stage issuing a take-it or leave-it challenge on the October offer only to deny the plain facts of his statement when the public turned on him.
All the while, the province was being forced slowly to go where Williams had not wanted to go. After the October offer, St. John's started actually negotiating with Ottawa, sending off draft agreements, reworking clauses for the first time since the whole offshore issue had been raised with Ottawa 10 months beforehand.
No one in Ottawa would say much of anything publicly, neither repudiating nor accepting Williams' June letter. What was growing increasingly clear, though, was that Williams could achieve nothing even close to his June claim of doubling oil revenues in perpetuity.
With the realization, came the gloom.
One last deadline was set: December.
Time for a Christmas present if the news was good or to label the feds as the Grinch if need be.
Off to Winnipeg for a new federal offer which Williams praised to the media on the way up. Public optimism soared, especially on the province's radio call-in shows which had become, since Brian Tobin's time, a popular poll used by Premier's Offices to gauge what the public was thinking. Williams seemed to live on Open Line himself. Later he would implement a policy that required each of the senior public servants in the communications division to spend almost one entire day a week in rotation doing nothing but monitoring the radio and having someone on to counteract criticism. No negative comment was to go unchallenged for more than a few minutes.
Public optimism was shattered as Williams stormed from the meeting, flew back to St. John's and scheduled a media briefing for December 22. He announced there was no Christmas present from Paul Martin. Williams' talked of getting a slap in the face.
Then he ordered Canadian flags to be taken from every provincial building. "Why would we fly their flag and pretend everything is rosy?" he told reporters at Confederation Building.
There is no sign he had planned the announcement or had discussed it outside of a limited number of close confidantes. The province's most senior public servant, for example, normally unflappable, scrambled from the room to have public works security guards get the flags down. The security guard himself, who appeared on every TV set on every TV news broadcast in the country for days afterward appeared like he had been roused from a sleep and handed a dust-covered and seldom-used dress uniform cap to look his best.
At the news conference, Williams himself systematically pointed to each flag behind him intoning "That one will be coming down and that one and that one." The pointing wasn't as telling as the tone of his voice.
For a man who needed national public opinion to be on his side, Williams' actions could not have produced a more disastrous result. Over Christmas the public dismay mounted at using the national flag as a political tool. Letters, faxes and e-mails poured into the Premier's Office. National opinion polls turned against Williams, including one in the Globe and Mail, Canada's erstwhile national newspaper which had already endorsed Williams' offshore goal.
Locally the move was a hit, especially among the province's anti-Confederates. Williams' tried later to blow off the national public reaction as being orchestrated by the federal Liberal communications team. He was well off the mark with this, the latest of his conspiracy theories.
Coming back after a Christmas and new year's break, Williams launched an offensive. He would head to Toronto to make the case to national media. [As it turned out, the Globe editorial the day after its editorial board met with Williams was hardly positive for the premier. Others would follow suit, telling WIlliams he should accept the deal in front of him.]
Williams would soften his line on the flags a bit, hinting that they might go back after a suitable period and no longer, as he previously wanted, once Ottawa met his demands. He would write the prime minister and announce so publicly, to shift focus to Ottawa.
In the meantime, Williams commissioned a poll. Ryan Research and Communications was a firm which Danny had come to rely upon increasingly for insights into public moods. The principal consultant, Karen Ryan, was an experienced market researcher who had worked for one of the country's leading marketing firms before branching out on her own. Ryan did work for Vic Young on the Royal Commission and had polled for Danny himself virtually every month from December 2003 onward. She was a natural choice.
On January 3, 2005, Ryan was asked to survey attitudes in the province on the offshore negotiations and on the flag. Work was to start on the 4th of January and finish as quickly as possible. The Premier's Office quickly decided on a national survey and so 800 surveys were administered across the country from January 4 to January 9, 2005 on top of the 400 in Newfoundland and Labrador that had been wrapped up on January 5th. Its purpose, as the research report's executive summary stated, was "to gain insight into and understanding of Canadian's support for Premier's Williams' efforts to secure 100% of provincial offshore royalties and whether they perceived that the Prime Minister should honor his commitment of June 5th, 2004."
On that basis, the research report, subsequently obtained by The Telegram is a curious document. Aside from the standard questions about age, education and income, there are only five specific questions about different aspects of the offshore oil issue. That is typical in simple surveys.
What isn't typical is the wording, the ordering or the structuring of the questions. It wasn't a push poll - not a poll at all, really, but a propaganda technique pioneered in the United States - but the Danny Williams' messages would get across nonetheless, if that was the goal. If nothing else, the poll would give Williams something he could talk about publicly to give the appearance things were going better than they were.
The first one basically asked if the respondent believed the Prime Minister should live up to his commitments, but it did so with wording that would likely lead a respondent to answer in the affirmative.
Specifically it asked: "On June 5th 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin publicly committed to accepting the proposal put forth by Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams that would see Newfoundland and Labrador keep 100% of its provincial offshore revenues. Do you believe that Prime Minister Martin should honor this commitment to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 100% of its provincial offshore royalties?"
The question contained the Premier's key message, not once but twice, that the whole discussion was about the province keeping its own money. Intuitively, few would argue with the point, except those that understood the intricacies of federal-provincial financial arrangements or the Atlantic Accord. Few did, including cabinet ministers and former ministers. Facts weren't important; the message was.
Nationally, 72% of respondents agreed with the idea of honoring the commitment. Fully 96% of Newfoundlanders agreed, along with 72% of Westerners, 68% of Ontarians, 73% of Quebeckers and 84% of Martimers. Even with the polls margins of error - 2.83% nationally, almost five percent in Newfoundland and almost 8% in the other regions, the figures were unmistakable.
So too with the second question, which asked: "Overall, all things considered, how supportive are you of Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams' efforts to secure a deal with the Federal Government that would see 100% of Newfoundland's offshore revenue kept in that province?"
The responses were structured as a Likert scale, in which respondents are usually offered an equal number of positive and negative choices in order to gauge the intensity of their attitudes. In this instance, respondents were offered three positive choices (completely, mostly or somewhat supportive) and only one negative choice (not supportive at all), likely leading them to pick a soft positive one, even if they were actually opposed.
The total level of support was unmistakable with 72% picking one of the positive choices, but nationally, the individual positive choices were almost even. Outside Newfoundland and Labrador, where 73% supported the premier's efforts completely, or the Maritimes where 42% did so, the results were similar to the national figures, suggesting strongly that people had some reservations about the efforts.
The third question was about the flag and again was structured as a Likert scale with three positive and only one negative choice:
"To what extent do you support Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams' decision to remove Canadian flags from Newfoundland's government buildings to protest Prime Minister Martin and the Government of Canada not living up to the commitment to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 100% of provincial oil revenues?"
There was no question as to how familiar people were with the issue, nor was there a simple question about the respondent's feeling about removing the flags. The question included the Premier's rationale for the move in detail.
Despite the leading nature of the question, having heard the same rationale about commitment's and revenues in two previous questions and despite the skewed nature of the scale which would tend to have respondent's pick a positive response, 60% of respondents nationally picked the sole, extreme negative choice.
The view was as clear in the regions across the country, even allowing the poll's margins of error. Respondents strongly opposed the flag move in every region except Quebec and Newfoundland. Even 63% of Maritimers were not supportive at all. In Quebec, where flag flaps were old news, the figure was 45% not supportive at all, the single largest response category by more than two to one.
In Newfoundland and Labrador 38% were completely supportive and 29% were not supportive at all. With a margin of error of almost five percent, those figures could be 33% completely supportive and 34% completely unsupportive. Those results were available to the Premier possibly as early as January 6 and may have prompted his admission to news media on January 7 that the flag issue had cost him support. Even at home, as Williams may well have known, his flag flap was a loser at worst, a distraction at best.
There is no way of knowing for sure, but it is interesting the coincidence that this polling was completed nationally on January 9 and that Premier Williams ordered flags raised on January 10. The move surprised everyone, coming, as it did, in the midst of a news conference to announce a call for expressions of interest in developing the Lower Churchill.
There is no specific date on the polling research report. Those familiar with polling know that it is possible to produce quick results that simply tally responses. Those could easily have been available to the premier by late on the 9th or early on the 10th.
With the flags back, the Premier removed a issue that had overshadowed his campaign on offshore revenues. On January 14, the Prime Minister released his reply to Williams' letter both accepting Williams' request for a face-to-face meeting as an attempt to resolve the ongoing offshore issue and making it clear that the federal government was never going to accept the June double-up scheme.
The deal reached in late January 2005 has been discussed in detail elsewhere. The first clause of the agreement repudiates the very basis on which Williams made his public case: the provincial government already received 100% of offshore revenues. ("This agreement reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia that both provinces already are collecting and will continue to collect 100 percent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land.")
In the end, the province accepted a cash lump sum of $2.0 billion, as had been offered in October but increased to reflect then-current oil prices. Other details of the deal did nothing to change the fact which had served as the foundation of the Young commission's report and Williams' case as well: Equalization and Equalization offsets would not continue if the provincial government no longer qualified for Equalization.
The lump sum was more than was on the table in the beginning but it fell far short of the provincial government's June objectives. It even fell short of its January 2004 goal.
But the deal was done.
And the Premier claimed victory.
The message was important, not the details.
Postscript:
Is there other provincial government Accord polling? Maybe.
Ryan Research conducted polling for the Williams administration almost every month from December 2003 to August 2004 and again in January 2005. Those are the polls that were paid for by the provincial government and which have been acknowledged publicly.
Despite a ruling by the province's access to information commissioner, the Williams administration is withholding any polls done by Ryan. They have released research done by other firms, despite the claim that polling done for Executive Council reveals cabinet deliberations.
Only work by Ryan Research is being withheld.
Generic Obit-generator
Newly developed is this simple list of phrases for people writing obituaries, especially of former politicians:
- He was a great man/she was a great woman.
- H/She was a great Canadian.
- H/she was hard-working. Variation: H/she was a tireless worker.
- Politician: H/she worked on behalf of the people of his/her province/Canada. Vary location as appropriate; may be combined with "hard-working" quote from above.
- His/her death is a loss for [insert name of province here]/[Canada]. May combine both province and country for extra emphasis.
- H/she was committed to making the world/province/city/community a better place.
- We owe him/her a debt of gratitude. [the reason for the debt is irrelevant]
Now that you have seen this list, take a peak at this VOCM story, and the Premier's official statement, and the Prime Minister's statement on the death yesterday of former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Frank Moores.
While you're at it, here's the CBC web story. Click on the link to an audio clip of Brian Tobin, who apparently has been rehabilitated as a public commentator. Note a few things: the number of names Tobin drops particularly in the story about being on a military "jet" [If it was actually a jet at altitude and a door seal broke, odds are good we wouldn't be hearing any reminiscences from Tobin and all the other people on the plane]; the cell phone dingling in the background at one point; the reference to Tobin's previous life as a "journalist".
I have written a few of these things in my time and not every one was a gem. At least, I tried to make it appropriate to the person being remembered.
- He was a great man/she was a great woman.
- H/She was a great Canadian.
- H/she was hard-working. Variation: H/she was a tireless worker.
- Politician: H/she worked on behalf of the people of his/her province/Canada. Vary location as appropriate; may be combined with "hard-working" quote from above.
- His/her death is a loss for [insert name of province here]/[Canada]. May combine both province and country for extra emphasis.
- H/she was committed to making the world/province/city/community a better place.
- We owe him/her a debt of gratitude. [the reason for the debt is irrelevant]
Now that you have seen this list, take a peak at this VOCM story, and the Premier's official statement, and the Prime Minister's statement on the death yesterday of former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Frank Moores.
While you're at it, here's the CBC web story. Click on the link to an audio clip of Brian Tobin, who apparently has been rehabilitated as a public commentator. Note a few things: the number of names Tobin drops particularly in the story about being on a military "jet" [If it was actually a jet at altitude and a door seal broke, odds are good we wouldn't be hearing any reminiscences from Tobin and all the other people on the plane]; the cell phone dingling in the background at one point; the reference to Tobin's previous life as a "journalist".
I have written a few of these things in my time and not every one was a gem. At least, I tried to make it appropriate to the person being remembered.
10 July 2005
Frank Duff Moores (1933-2005)
The second premier of Newfoundland and Labrador after Confederation and successful businessman, Frank Moores died today in Perth, Ontario of complications from liver cancer.
Gregarious and affable in his public and personal life, Moores won three general elections as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (plurality, 1971; majority, 1972 and 1975) before retiring in 1979. His term as premier saw the completion of Smallwood-era megaprojects, purchase of the Upper Churcill project and the development of oil and gas policy by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
He later helped organize the successful campaign of Brian Mulroney for national progressive Conservative leader and later prime minister. Moores started a powerful and influential consulting business in Ottawa shortly afterward.
Moores began working with the family fish business, becoming president of the company before entering politics in 1968 as the member of parliament for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Moores became provincial Progressive Conservative leader in 1970 and set about rebuilding the party for an anticipated provincial general election. His coalition of disaffected Liberals like John Crosbie, T Alex Hickman and Val Earle and lifelong Conservatives like Anthony J. (Ank) Murphy, Gerry Ottenheimer and Tom Hickey won 21 seats in the 1971 general election compared to 20 seats for the Liberals under Joe Smallwood and one seat held by the New Labrador Party candidate Tom Burgess.
After much political manoeuvering by Smallwood, the lieutenant governor invited Moores to form an administration in January 1972. Political uncertainty caused by shifting political allegiances and resignations led Moores to seek issuance of a writ of election. Under the slogan "The time has come", Moores won a majority over the Liberal Party led by Edward Roberts.
In his first term as premier, Moores completed several of the projects begun by Smallwood including a crude oil refinery at Come by Chance and the Upper Churchill hydro electric development, which Moores' administration later purchased from the private developers Brinco along with that company's mineral and timber rights throughout the province.
In his second term, Moores' administration started a major fisheries initiative in which the province extended loans to fishing businesses. Discussions with Quebec over recall of upper Churchill power proved fruitless and Moores began talks to develop the Lower Churchill's hydroelectric potential.
Moores may be remembered as the premier under whom the provincial government began seriously to establish provincial regulations for offshore oil exploration and development under energy ministers Leo Barry and later Brian Peckford. During Peckford's term as energy minister in the second Moores administration, the provincial government released a position paper which laid out the provincial government's claim for ownership of the offshore resources.
Gregarious and affable in his public and personal life, Moores won three general elections as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (plurality, 1971; majority, 1972 and 1975) before retiring in 1979. His term as premier saw the completion of Smallwood-era megaprojects, purchase of the Upper Churcill project and the development of oil and gas policy by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
He later helped organize the successful campaign of Brian Mulroney for national progressive Conservative leader and later prime minister. Moores started a powerful and influential consulting business in Ottawa shortly afterward.
Moores began working with the family fish business, becoming president of the company before entering politics in 1968 as the member of parliament for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Moores became provincial Progressive Conservative leader in 1970 and set about rebuilding the party for an anticipated provincial general election. His coalition of disaffected Liberals like John Crosbie, T Alex Hickman and Val Earle and lifelong Conservatives like Anthony J. (Ank) Murphy, Gerry Ottenheimer and Tom Hickey won 21 seats in the 1971 general election compared to 20 seats for the Liberals under Joe Smallwood and one seat held by the New Labrador Party candidate Tom Burgess.
After much political manoeuvering by Smallwood, the lieutenant governor invited Moores to form an administration in January 1972. Political uncertainty caused by shifting political allegiances and resignations led Moores to seek issuance of a writ of election. Under the slogan "The time has come", Moores won a majority over the Liberal Party led by Edward Roberts.
In his first term as premier, Moores completed several of the projects begun by Smallwood including a crude oil refinery at Come by Chance and the Upper Churchill hydro electric development, which Moores' administration later purchased from the private developers Brinco along with that company's mineral and timber rights throughout the province.
In his second term, Moores' administration started a major fisheries initiative in which the province extended loans to fishing businesses. Discussions with Quebec over recall of upper Churchill power proved fruitless and Moores began talks to develop the Lower Churchill's hydroelectric potential.
Moores may be remembered as the premier under whom the provincial government began seriously to establish provincial regulations for offshore oil exploration and development under energy ministers Leo Barry and later Brian Peckford. During Peckford's term as energy minister in the second Moores administration, the provincial government released a position paper which laid out the provincial government's claim for ownership of the offshore resources.
Ask a simple question...[Update II]
Ignore the simple answer.
You have to hand it Ryan Cleary.
He is relentless in his pursuit of something or other.
The real problem for readers of the Independent is that it is hard to know sometimes what he is after or why he can't seem to find what everyone else has already uncovered.
But he keeps digging.
And reporting that he and his staff can't find stuff.
And blaming other people for not telling them what they should have been able to find out on their own.
Like Ryan's column in this week's Independent in which he complains that the Spindy crew couldn't find out the answers to a few questions. There's a front page story by Clare-Marie Goose on the whole thing, but more of that later.
Well, here are the questions and the answers.
1. How much does the federal government make from the oil industry on the Grand Banks?
I don't have the most up-to-date figures right at hand but I can give you a decent idea of what the federal and provincial government are taking in; at least I can give you a sense of the proportions. In fact, this information has been posted to the Bond Papers before and, if memory serves, I e-mailed a chart to Ryan when he was making up his six part series on how Canada bleeds us white. Even though the tables I sent Ryan are factual, nothing even close to it ever appeared in print.
When Husky presented the White Rose development proposal they paid local economist Wade Locke to estimate the treasury impacts for both governments of the project over a 15 year life-span. The figures for provincial royalties are based on a price per barrel of US$20.
(A) Provincial:
Of direct revenues, only the province collects royalties from offshore production, just as in Alberta and exactly as the Atlantic Accord (1985) provides. As well, the province collects corporate and personal income taxes and the payroll tax.
Locke estimated that provincial direct revenues from White Rose would be $908 million over the life of the project. Annual royalties were estimated to be a little under $30 million.
(B) Federal:
Direct federal revenues consist only of corporate and personal income taxes. Locke estimated the feds would make $741 million in direct revenues.
But here's an important point to recall. Provincial royalties are tied directly to the price of a barrel of oil; federal corporate taxes are not. With oil trading at three times the figure in Locke's estimate, provincial royalties alone jump dramatically while federal revenues won't.
There are also some indirect revenues as well, resulting from spin-offs from the oil business and from the impact economic growth has on things like reduced social assistance costs or increased premiums for employment insurance. Ms. Gosse's story points that out - sort of - but only mentions the indirect federal revenues; the provincial government collects indirect cash as well, like say its portion of the HST on refined petroleum products.
Incidentally, Jim Wright from Memorial University is right when he suggests the offshore has larger impacts on the federal treasury than the provincial one. In Locke's analysis, it is easy to see that the most significant source of federal revenue comes from its corporate income taxes. After all, the feds can tax a corporate head office in Calgary or a sub-office or business in Ontario that someone can add in as being revenue from the offshore. That just reflects the fact that the feds can tax across the country, but provincial governments only tax within their provinces.
[By the way, using that same sort of approach, Ralph Klein actually makes cash from Hibernia through his provincial taxes. Is he next on the hit list for cash?]
The second biggest treasury impact for the feds comes from Canada Pension and Employment Insurance premiums that result solely from increases in employment levels. The Newfoundland and Labrador government doesn't have any program even vaguely like that so it would be hard for it to collect the same type of revenue.
For the sake of at least starting to answer the Spindy question, let's just stick with the direct figures since they are...well...direct. Armed with that information, the Spindies could certainly get a sense of how the revenues flow to Ottawa and St. John's, even if the exact figures weren't readily available.
2. How much does the federal government collect from Alberta's oil? What's Ottawa's take of a dollar of crude in Alberta versus here?
In both, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, Ottawa does not make any money from a barrel of oil, that is if we look directly at royalties.
Under the real Atlantic Accord, offshore oil is treated exactly as if it were on land.
Pretty simple so far?
Therefore, the federal government doesn't collect a penny from royalties in either province.
If you are asking something else, go back to question 1.
3. How does Ottawa own "our" oil?
Part of the problem here may be that Ryan doesn't actually want to read anything that has been written on the two offshore decisions from the early 1980s. Ryan just likes to mention the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1984 but something tells me he is ignoring the answers on this one because they interfere with his pre-conceived editorial slants.
Here's a link to the 1984 so-called Hibernia reference to the SCC from the Government of Canada. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland decision on the provincial government reference isn't online but a trip to the province's library system will get it easily. There are enough mentions of it in the link I just gave, though, that you can get a good sense of it.
Anyway, here it is in a nutshell.
Offshore oil actually doesn't belong to Canada (or any part of Canada) in the same way oil under land does.
Under international law, Canada has exclusive rights to exploit sub-seabed mineral resources.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland determined and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld in two completely separate references that since the right to exploit the resources is a result of Canada's external sovereignty, under the Constitution, exclusive legislative rights to the offshore rests with the Government of Canada.
BUT, under the real Atlantic Accord, the Government of Canada agreed to share management rights and gave this province certain powers under the real Atlantic Accord that basically give the provincial government virtually all the benefits of offshore oil without actually having legal title to them.
Pretty neat idea, huh?
It's actually not hard to understand at all, unless you want to deliberately misrepresent stuff for some reason.
Any oil on land, though, is treated exactly the same here as anywhere else in the country. The rig that is busily pumping oil from a couple of wells on the Port au Port is pumping royalties directly to St. John's. Here's a little quirk though. Any of that oil out to three miles from shore belongs to this province and this province alone. That puts us in a position unlike any other coastal province.
Guess who decided that.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in the ruling Ryan likes to ignore. That too upsets his anti-Ottawa slant, so I guess there's an answer and a question both of which can get ignored down in a building that ironically housed a place called "The Light"..
I could probably tackle the other questions furrowing Ryan's editorial brow but I just thought I'd deal with the major ones.
As a final point, it is really strange that in Claire-Marie Gosse's story, the Spindy reports provincial revenues this year from oil as being only $215 million.
For one thing, anyone who paid attention to the March budget knows that the province based that projection of royalties on a relatively low price of oil. The whole issue was well-dissected in the media at the time (not in the Spindy though) and here at the Bond Papers.
It gets better. If I recall correctly, CBC news reported just last week that current estimates of provincial revenues will add about $400 to 500 million to that figure.
Back in the winter, Wade Locke used these figures when discussing provincial offshore revenues. Note that the figure for this year is somewhere around $600 million.
How in the heck did the Spindy miss that one?
Ms. Gosse also neglects to point out that the Terra Nova project will move to a higher royalty tier this year, largely as a result of oil prices coupled with the lower start-up costs from not building a gravity based structure. Either Clare-Marie didn't know that information - it was widely reported - or she knew better than to write something that would praise a project her boss hates.
Anyway...
Ryan's column started out just fine. He pointed to the different ways reporters get information, noting that at the Spindy they try asking questions.
Ok. I'll buy that.
After filling up lots of space with many words, he ends with a flourish:
"In the end, the Independent is left with a choice: scrap the story about how the offshore pie is divided or point out the shortage of facts and the trouble it takes to get them.
Either way it's a story."
As with so many Spindy pieces, neither Ms. Gosse's writing on the offshore nor Ryan's column are stories.
Unless, that is, one was reporting on the bizarre inability of a newspaper that prides itself on investigative journalism, yet which can't seem to find it's backside in broad daylight with both hands.
[UPDATE: A regular reader pointed out in an early morning e-mail that I forgot to include the federal shares in Hibernia.
Yep, I did. No excuses.
That would have to be added in to a calculation, but oddly that was missing from the Indy piece as well, so I don't feel quite so bad.
The offshore is an issue which is greatly misunderstood and most of the public commentary over the past two to three years has been founded on more myth than fact. As my morning correspondent noted, each project has to be examined differently for a number of reasons. Again, he is spot-on.
The Bond Papers grew out of my own frustration with the high level of noise and very small signal found in the offshore discussions.
All that does, though is point to the need for an investigative newspaper like say...ooooh...the Indy... to invest some time and energy in an investigation, followed by the reporting. Report the facts - not the preconceived ideas. Actually explain stuff to people.
That would be awesome news.]
[UPDATE II: Another faithful reader of these e-scribbles fired off an e-mail to point out that if the fed's share of Hibernia is included in a calculation, then consideration has to be given to its cost of acquiring those shares.
Again, another valid point.
Two things occurred to me after writing the original post and the first update.
First, if one were to include the federal government Hibernia shares, then one might actually want to look at what share of a typical offshore barrel of oil is claimed by the oil companies themselves. This might actually be a more interesting study. One must take into consideration the economics of the thing, such as the relatively high costs and of course one must admit that the party taking the financial risks is naturally entitled to a handsome share of the revenues.
In that respect, the federal Hibernia shares are not substantively different from the Exxon ones. As I believe I noted in the early days of this blog, it is passing strange that the Premier has not to date complained about the oil companies revenue shares. Yes, I know he is trying something on with Chevron but until now, it is an issue he hasn't bothered with. More importantly though, I don't recall hearing the Spindites, the Open Liners or any of the pseudo-nationalists attacking the oil companies with any vigor.
Second, if one is to divy up relative revenue shares of all types, then one will actually be dealing with a notional barrel of oil that is worth a lot more than US$60.
No matter how you slice it, the information is out there. One merely has to look for it and accept what one finds.
And that really was the point of the original post.]
You have to hand it Ryan Cleary.
He is relentless in his pursuit of something or other.
The real problem for readers of the Independent is that it is hard to know sometimes what he is after or why he can't seem to find what everyone else has already uncovered.
But he keeps digging.
And reporting that he and his staff can't find stuff.
And blaming other people for not telling them what they should have been able to find out on their own.
Like Ryan's column in this week's Independent in which he complains that the Spindy crew couldn't find out the answers to a few questions. There's a front page story by Clare-Marie Goose on the whole thing, but more of that later.
Well, here are the questions and the answers.
1. How much does the federal government make from the oil industry on the Grand Banks?
I don't have the most up-to-date figures right at hand but I can give you a decent idea of what the federal and provincial government are taking in; at least I can give you a sense of the proportions. In fact, this information has been posted to the Bond Papers before and, if memory serves, I e-mailed a chart to Ryan when he was making up his six part series on how Canada bleeds us white. Even though the tables I sent Ryan are factual, nothing even close to it ever appeared in print.
When Husky presented the White Rose development proposal they paid local economist Wade Locke to estimate the treasury impacts for both governments of the project over a 15 year life-span. The figures for provincial royalties are based on a price per barrel of US$20.
(A) Provincial:
Of direct revenues, only the province collects royalties from offshore production, just as in Alberta and exactly as the Atlantic Accord (1985) provides. As well, the province collects corporate and personal income taxes and the payroll tax.
Locke estimated that provincial direct revenues from White Rose would be $908 million over the life of the project. Annual royalties were estimated to be a little under $30 million.
(B) Federal:
Direct federal revenues consist only of corporate and personal income taxes. Locke estimated the feds would make $741 million in direct revenues.
But here's an important point to recall. Provincial royalties are tied directly to the price of a barrel of oil; federal corporate taxes are not. With oil trading at three times the figure in Locke's estimate, provincial royalties alone jump dramatically while federal revenues won't.
There are also some indirect revenues as well, resulting from spin-offs from the oil business and from the impact economic growth has on things like reduced social assistance costs or increased premiums for employment insurance. Ms. Gosse's story points that out - sort of - but only mentions the indirect federal revenues; the provincial government collects indirect cash as well, like say its portion of the HST on refined petroleum products.
Incidentally, Jim Wright from Memorial University is right when he suggests the offshore has larger impacts on the federal treasury than the provincial one. In Locke's analysis, it is easy to see that the most significant source of federal revenue comes from its corporate income taxes. After all, the feds can tax a corporate head office in Calgary or a sub-office or business in Ontario that someone can add in as being revenue from the offshore. That just reflects the fact that the feds can tax across the country, but provincial governments only tax within their provinces.
[By the way, using that same sort of approach, Ralph Klein actually makes cash from Hibernia through his provincial taxes. Is he next on the hit list for cash?]
The second biggest treasury impact for the feds comes from Canada Pension and Employment Insurance premiums that result solely from increases in employment levels. The Newfoundland and Labrador government doesn't have any program even vaguely like that so it would be hard for it to collect the same type of revenue.
For the sake of at least starting to answer the Spindy question, let's just stick with the direct figures since they are...well...direct. Armed with that information, the Spindies could certainly get a sense of how the revenues flow to Ottawa and St. John's, even if the exact figures weren't readily available.
2. How much does the federal government collect from Alberta's oil? What's Ottawa's take of a dollar of crude in Alberta versus here?
In both, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, Ottawa does not make any money from a barrel of oil, that is if we look directly at royalties.
Under the real Atlantic Accord, offshore oil is treated exactly as if it were on land.
Pretty simple so far?
Therefore, the federal government doesn't collect a penny from royalties in either province.
If you are asking something else, go back to question 1.
3. How does Ottawa own "our" oil?
Part of the problem here may be that Ryan doesn't actually want to read anything that has been written on the two offshore decisions from the early 1980s. Ryan just likes to mention the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1984 but something tells me he is ignoring the answers on this one because they interfere with his pre-conceived editorial slants.
Here's a link to the 1984 so-called Hibernia reference to the SCC from the Government of Canada. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland decision on the provincial government reference isn't online but a trip to the province's library system will get it easily. There are enough mentions of it in the link I just gave, though, that you can get a good sense of it.
Anyway, here it is in a nutshell.
Offshore oil actually doesn't belong to Canada (or any part of Canada) in the same way oil under land does.
Under international law, Canada has exclusive rights to exploit sub-seabed mineral resources.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland determined and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld in two completely separate references that since the right to exploit the resources is a result of Canada's external sovereignty, under the Constitution, exclusive legislative rights to the offshore rests with the Government of Canada.
BUT, under the real Atlantic Accord, the Government of Canada agreed to share management rights and gave this province certain powers under the real Atlantic Accord that basically give the provincial government virtually all the benefits of offshore oil without actually having legal title to them.
Pretty neat idea, huh?
It's actually not hard to understand at all, unless you want to deliberately misrepresent stuff for some reason.
Any oil on land, though, is treated exactly the same here as anywhere else in the country. The rig that is busily pumping oil from a couple of wells on the Port au Port is pumping royalties directly to St. John's. Here's a little quirk though. Any of that oil out to three miles from shore belongs to this province and this province alone. That puts us in a position unlike any other coastal province.
Guess who decided that.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in the ruling Ryan likes to ignore. That too upsets his anti-Ottawa slant, so I guess there's an answer and a question both of which can get ignored down in a building that ironically housed a place called "The Light"..
I could probably tackle the other questions furrowing Ryan's editorial brow but I just thought I'd deal with the major ones.
As a final point, it is really strange that in Claire-Marie Gosse's story, the Spindy reports provincial revenues this year from oil as being only $215 million.
For one thing, anyone who paid attention to the March budget knows that the province based that projection of royalties on a relatively low price of oil. The whole issue was well-dissected in the media at the time (not in the Spindy though) and here at the Bond Papers.
It gets better. If I recall correctly, CBC news reported just last week that current estimates of provincial revenues will add about $400 to 500 million to that figure.
Back in the winter, Wade Locke used these figures when discussing provincial offshore revenues. Note that the figure for this year is somewhere around $600 million.
How in the heck did the Spindy miss that one?
Ms. Gosse also neglects to point out that the Terra Nova project will move to a higher royalty tier this year, largely as a result of oil prices coupled with the lower start-up costs from not building a gravity based structure. Either Clare-Marie didn't know that information - it was widely reported - or she knew better than to write something that would praise a project her boss hates.
Anyway...
Ryan's column started out just fine. He pointed to the different ways reporters get information, noting that at the Spindy they try asking questions.
Ok. I'll buy that.
After filling up lots of space with many words, he ends with a flourish:
"In the end, the Independent is left with a choice: scrap the story about how the offshore pie is divided or point out the shortage of facts and the trouble it takes to get them.
Either way it's a story."
As with so many Spindy pieces, neither Ms. Gosse's writing on the offshore nor Ryan's column are stories.
Unless, that is, one was reporting on the bizarre inability of a newspaper that prides itself on investigative journalism, yet which can't seem to find it's backside in broad daylight with both hands.
[UPDATE: A regular reader pointed out in an early morning e-mail that I forgot to include the federal shares in Hibernia.
Yep, I did. No excuses.
That would have to be added in to a calculation, but oddly that was missing from the Indy piece as well, so I don't feel quite so bad.
The offshore is an issue which is greatly misunderstood and most of the public commentary over the past two to three years has been founded on more myth than fact. As my morning correspondent noted, each project has to be examined differently for a number of reasons. Again, he is spot-on.
The Bond Papers grew out of my own frustration with the high level of noise and very small signal found in the offshore discussions.
All that does, though is point to the need for an investigative newspaper like say...ooooh...the Indy... to invest some time and energy in an investigation, followed by the reporting. Report the facts - not the preconceived ideas. Actually explain stuff to people.
That would be awesome news.]
[UPDATE II: Another faithful reader of these e-scribbles fired off an e-mail to point out that if the fed's share of Hibernia is included in a calculation, then consideration has to be given to its cost of acquiring those shares.
Again, another valid point.
Two things occurred to me after writing the original post and the first update.
First, if one were to include the federal government Hibernia shares, then one might actually want to look at what share of a typical offshore barrel of oil is claimed by the oil companies themselves. This might actually be a more interesting study. One must take into consideration the economics of the thing, such as the relatively high costs and of course one must admit that the party taking the financial risks is naturally entitled to a handsome share of the revenues.
In that respect, the federal Hibernia shares are not substantively different from the Exxon ones. As I believe I noted in the early days of this blog, it is passing strange that the Premier has not to date complained about the oil companies revenue shares. Yes, I know he is trying something on with Chevron but until now, it is an issue he hasn't bothered with. More importantly though, I don't recall hearing the Spindites, the Open Liners or any of the pseudo-nationalists attacking the oil companies with any vigor.
Second, if one is to divy up relative revenue shares of all types, then one will actually be dealing with a notional barrel of oil that is worth a lot more than US$60.
No matter how you slice it, the information is out there. One merely has to look for it and accept what one finds.
And that really was the point of the original post.]
09 July 2005
Outing another Lower Churchill company
Rob Antle's July 6 2005 story in the Telly on a proposed underwater cable to carry Lower Churchill power into the Maritimes ("Proposal would skip Quebec") was based on this story by Stephen Maher in the Halifax Chronicle Herald from Monday, July 4.
Keep your eyes peeled. There may be other Maher stories coming. He's been working on this for a while now.
In any event, both stories report on a proposal by British Columbia company Sea Breeze Power to run a power cable under water from Labrador to either Prince Edward island or Nova Scotia to hook into the Maritime power grid.
Certainly, the idea is technically feasible. Engineers can put the arse back in a cat with enough time and money.
Time isn't an issue here.
It's money and that's what ultimately affected the Upper Churchill too, despite the nonsense foisted on local audiences by everyone from former politicians to crap talk mavens.
It's the financing that remains a question. Someone has to pay for it and if it is built as part of the overall project, the one paying will be the end user. The project economics will have to ensure that the power gets to a consumer at a competitive price.
Note in Maher's story that some unnamed industry experts predict Labrador power can be taken to an American market for little more than a third the current market price of electricity in New York.
Be very skeptical of those figures, if only because the source is unnamed.
Be skeptical too because megaproject proponents (and their official and unofficial supporters) grossly underestimate the cost of their projects. They deliberately minimise the costs. The undersea cable idea has been around since the 1960s and what prevented it from working then was cost.
There's an interesting reference to an unnamed source in Newfoundland who talks about the premier heading off to New York to try and get financing for the secretive Sino-Energy deal.
Note that according to the unidentified source Premier Williams' requests for financing were rejected in New York because the idea wasn't seen a viable.
If that's true, (and I'd be very skeptical of the source unless the name is revealed or the information confirmed) then we have yet another piece in the mysteriously secret deal that involved a Chinese company under sanctions in the US for illegal arms shipments. Rob didn't report that part in his Wednesday story likely because he couldn't confirm it and I doubt very much that you'll see anyone here coming forward to comment on it.
Energy minister Ed Byrne lied to the House of Assembly about discussions with the company and government kept secret its business dealings with the company for upwards of six months before suddenly springing the news. These include a secret memorandum of understanding that gave the alliance of two Canadian and one Chinese state-owned company unrestricted access to any information they wished on the Lower Churchill project.
Later revelations by ousted Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Board member Danny Dumaresque suggest the sudden revelation may have be triggered by fear in the Premier's Office that some members on the Hydro Board, who were questioning the projects internal financial arrangements, might leak news of the secret Chinese deal.
Local news outlets never really got to the bottom of Sino-Energy.
There are a couple of other things worth noting from these two stories:
1. Quebec is a net importer of electricity.
2. The shortest route and the cheapest costs of production and hence the greatest potential profit come from selling the power into Quebec.
3. Sea Breeze's Eugene Hodgson knows how to pitch a story (see the quotes at the end of the Maher piece) but his deeper understanding of Lower Churchill power may not be quite as slick.
4. There are actually several proposals that have been confirmed, even though these stories note only one.
- We know about the joint Quebec-Ontario government proposal which includes SNC Lavelin as the construction manager. This proposal also includes a significant upgrade to the power grid between Ontario and Quebec around Cornwall, an area very familiar to Fortis Inc.
- There is another proposal from Quebec alone. Since Lower Churchill talks resumed in 1990, Quebec has insisted it has sufficient demand for the Lower Churchill power to be the only customer. While the Prem's Office may be silent, there is reportedly another proposal from Hydro Quebec.
- There is supposedly a proposal from Upper Churchill engineer and Stunnel proponent Eric Kierans. I wonder what it might involve.
Keep your eyes peeled. There may be other Maher stories coming. He's been working on this for a while now.
In any event, both stories report on a proposal by British Columbia company Sea Breeze Power to run a power cable under water from Labrador to either Prince Edward island or Nova Scotia to hook into the Maritime power grid.
Certainly, the idea is technically feasible. Engineers can put the arse back in a cat with enough time and money.
Time isn't an issue here.
It's money and that's what ultimately affected the Upper Churchill too, despite the nonsense foisted on local audiences by everyone from former politicians to crap talk mavens.
It's the financing that remains a question. Someone has to pay for it and if it is built as part of the overall project, the one paying will be the end user. The project economics will have to ensure that the power gets to a consumer at a competitive price.
Note in Maher's story that some unnamed industry experts predict Labrador power can be taken to an American market for little more than a third the current market price of electricity in New York.
Be very skeptical of those figures, if only because the source is unnamed.
Be skeptical too because megaproject proponents (and their official and unofficial supporters) grossly underestimate the cost of their projects. They deliberately minimise the costs. The undersea cable idea has been around since the 1960s and what prevented it from working then was cost.
There's an interesting reference to an unnamed source in Newfoundland who talks about the premier heading off to New York to try and get financing for the secretive Sino-Energy deal.
Note that according to the unidentified source Premier Williams' requests for financing were rejected in New York because the idea wasn't seen a viable.
If that's true, (and I'd be very skeptical of the source unless the name is revealed or the information confirmed) then we have yet another piece in the mysteriously secret deal that involved a Chinese company under sanctions in the US for illegal arms shipments. Rob didn't report that part in his Wednesday story likely because he couldn't confirm it and I doubt very much that you'll see anyone here coming forward to comment on it.
Energy minister Ed Byrne lied to the House of Assembly about discussions with the company and government kept secret its business dealings with the company for upwards of six months before suddenly springing the news. These include a secret memorandum of understanding that gave the alliance of two Canadian and one Chinese state-owned company unrestricted access to any information they wished on the Lower Churchill project.
Later revelations by ousted Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Board member Danny Dumaresque suggest the sudden revelation may have be triggered by fear in the Premier's Office that some members on the Hydro Board, who were questioning the projects internal financial arrangements, might leak news of the secret Chinese deal.
Local news outlets never really got to the bottom of Sino-Energy.
There are a couple of other things worth noting from these two stories:
1. Quebec is a net importer of electricity.
2. The shortest route and the cheapest costs of production and hence the greatest potential profit come from selling the power into Quebec.
3. Sea Breeze's Eugene Hodgson knows how to pitch a story (see the quotes at the end of the Maher piece) but his deeper understanding of Lower Churchill power may not be quite as slick.
4. There are actually several proposals that have been confirmed, even though these stories note only one.
- We know about the joint Quebec-Ontario government proposal which includes SNC Lavelin as the construction manager. This proposal also includes a significant upgrade to the power grid between Ontario and Quebec around Cornwall, an area very familiar to Fortis Inc.
- There is another proposal from Quebec alone. Since Lower Churchill talks resumed in 1990, Quebec has insisted it has sufficient demand for the Lower Churchill power to be the only customer. While the Prem's Office may be silent, there is reportedly another proposal from Hydro Quebec.
- There is supposedly a proposal from Upper Churchill engineer and Stunnel proponent Eric Kierans. I wonder what it might involve.
08 July 2005
We will fight them in the tube stations - Update
Over at Macleans, Inkless Wells beat me to use of one of my favourite Churchill quotes.
He does link to a very short message from a Londoner who was in the underground this morning to the thus-far anonymous murderers who planted the bombs.
As Paul says, can anyone think of a worse target for terrorists than London.
Then he links to this guy who demonstrates the value of saying things simply, concisely, accurately and clearly.
WARNING: The language in the link is NOT for the faint of heart or those easily offended.
UPDATE: For those who think the Internet can't make someone famous for unusual reasons, take a look at the number of comments Andrew from London has received. Click here.
He does link to a very short message from a Londoner who was in the underground this morning to the thus-far anonymous murderers who planted the bombs.
As Paul says, can anyone think of a worse target for terrorists than London.
Then he links to this guy who demonstrates the value of saying things simply, concisely, accurately and clearly.
WARNING: The language in the link is NOT for the faint of heart or those easily offended.
UPDATE: For those who think the Internet can't make someone famous for unusual reasons, take a look at the number of comments Andrew from London has received. Click here.
Trevor Taylor - up tarring the roof
Thankfully, Trevor Taylor came down off the roof and took some time to call Bill Rowe on Crap Talk, the afternoon call-in show on VOCM.
That is a tongue-in-cheek reference to his opening comments about trying to re-shingle the roof and repair the eaves on his mother's house. When my grandmother was ticked off with someone repeatedly asking where so-and-so was, she'd always say he was up tarring the roof. With some of the tired voices from the past calling open line shows altely, I wish some of them were actually up tarring a roof.
As busily as I was trying to scribble down notes, I finally just stopped and listened to his frank comments on the issues in the fishery and current government policy. It was such a broad swath of topics that there was no way to keep up with him.
If people actually listened to what he is saying, they'd understand he is probably one of the best fisheries minister the province has ever had. There are no illusions clouding his judgment. Taylor speaks with a lifetime of knowledge about the fishery and it shows. He is genuine and sincere.
As Trevor climbs back out on the ledge to fix the eave he should consider pulling together a bunch of people for an informal brain-storming session on the future of the province's fisheries. Rather than go through the usual dog-and-pony shows of Royal Commissions or public consultations, maybe Trevor would call a few people who normally don't get called. ignore the tired voices and let them shingle the tumble-down shacks of their worn-out complaining. Maybe he could call a few people who usually never discuss fisheries issues but who might just have some creative ideas.
Give them a hammer, a pile of shingles and some nails.
Then get to work.
Have a chat in the summer sunshine and chew over what is going on and more importantly where we need to go with the fishery in the province.
My morning e-mailer noted that we can't have a fisheries policy here, just a fish processing policy.
I disagree.
I am firmly convinced that if we brought the right people together, we can find a new fisheries policy that would change Trevor's life for the better and put something on paper that federal fish minister Geoff Regan couldn't ignore.
The worst that will happen is that the province will be right where it is now and a couple of the helpers will wind up with a skill to fall back on in hard times.
The best is that we might actually be able to bring about some fundamental and meaningful changes to the benefit of everyone in the province. Taylor is the kind of guy who could not only bring together the right people; he could also persuade people to give the group's ideas a try.
At the very least, his mom would have a roof that isn't shingled with the best of intentions.
That is a tongue-in-cheek reference to his opening comments about trying to re-shingle the roof and repair the eaves on his mother's house. When my grandmother was ticked off with someone repeatedly asking where so-and-so was, she'd always say he was up tarring the roof. With some of the tired voices from the past calling open line shows altely, I wish some of them were actually up tarring a roof.
As busily as I was trying to scribble down notes, I finally just stopped and listened to his frank comments on the issues in the fishery and current government policy. It was such a broad swath of topics that there was no way to keep up with him.
If people actually listened to what he is saying, they'd understand he is probably one of the best fisheries minister the province has ever had. There are no illusions clouding his judgment. Taylor speaks with a lifetime of knowledge about the fishery and it shows. He is genuine and sincere.
As Trevor climbs back out on the ledge to fix the eave he should consider pulling together a bunch of people for an informal brain-storming session on the future of the province's fisheries. Rather than go through the usual dog-and-pony shows of Royal Commissions or public consultations, maybe Trevor would call a few people who normally don't get called. ignore the tired voices and let them shingle the tumble-down shacks of their worn-out complaining. Maybe he could call a few people who usually never discuss fisheries issues but who might just have some creative ideas.
Give them a hammer, a pile of shingles and some nails.
Then get to work.
Have a chat in the summer sunshine and chew over what is going on and more importantly where we need to go with the fishery in the province.
My morning e-mailer noted that we can't have a fisheries policy here, just a fish processing policy.
I disagree.
I am firmly convinced that if we brought the right people together, we can find a new fisheries policy that would change Trevor's life for the better and put something on paper that federal fish minister Geoff Regan couldn't ignore.
The worst that will happen is that the province will be right where it is now and a couple of the helpers will wind up with a skill to fall back on in hard times.
The best is that we might actually be able to bring about some fundamental and meaningful changes to the benefit of everyone in the province. Taylor is the kind of guy who could not only bring together the right people; he could also persuade people to give the group's ideas a try.
At the very least, his mom would have a roof that isn't shingled with the best of intentions.
Outside the box - The politics of history
An early morning e-mail from a regular reader caused me to go back and review a column I had originally written for the Independent back in its early days. I don't recall if it ever appeared in print; something tells me it did.
The e-mail took issue with my Jack Byrne post, noting specifically that I was remiss (and maybe partisan) in failing to note that the Job Creation Program ( form of make-work) was actually an invention of Beaton Tulk.
Ok. I didn't point it out, but partisan had nothing to do with it. Anyone who does follow my stuff will realise that I have been as critical of the Tobin/Tulk crowd over things as anyone else. In fact, I know I have made the point on many occasions that Tobin marked a return to Peckfordism on a whole bunch of levels.
The point of my Byrne post (in case I wasn't clear) was that in the absence of a policy, governments tend to default to either bureaucratic or partisan genetic memory. Hence, the blatant make-work program Byrne announced. I also drew the parallels between Byrne's talking points and those of Glenn Tobin nearly two decades earlier.
While I had thought about this old column before, it seems appropriate to resurrect it now since it speaks to the basic idea that political rhetoric in this province seems to come around again and again. There's no point in pretending the column is comprehensive and elegant; it isn't. I was grappling with finding possible explanations for what seems to be an obvious phenomenon.
Reviewing the column now about 18 months after I wrote it, the only thing I would disagree with is the conclusion: I was wrong. People here don't seem to tire of having the same carpet threads being pushed in front of them again and again. Actually, I'd have to admit that over the past 18 months we have seen old ideas and old threads being sold time and again at their original price, marked up to account for inflation.
Jack Byrne just wound up being the latest salesman. Whether the ideas were his, those of his colleagues or solely those of the Premier is irrelevant from where I sit.
I am just astonished that we keep doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result.
Anyway, here's the column as it was originally presented...
The politics of history
History is a powerful thing in Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
In his victory speech a few weeks ago, premier-elect Danny Williams pledged that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had voted to seize control of their destiny using words eerily reminiscent of Smallwood, Peckford and Tobin. "There will be no more giveaways. The giveaways end right here and right now!"
Why are we stuck on this rhetorical merry-go-round?
One reason is that political leaders take a Calvinist approach to history. As Calvin told his stuffed tiger Hobbes many years ago, people reinvent history to suit modern prejudices and to fit modern needs. We spin our history, old and new, reweaving the threads of fact to suit the immediate need. Tories blame the Liberals for job cuts in the early 1990s, conveniently forgetting the world recession, and the abysmal state of the province'’s finances. New Liberals blame old Liberals for the Upper Churchill give-away. Nationalists blame foreigners for everything from the collapse of responsible government to current resource "giveaways", all the while forgetting that we have controlled our own destiny for most of the past 200 years.
The second reason is that spin seems to work. Politicians like to get elected. Brian Tobin and Brian Peckford won huge majority governments promising that one day the sun will shine, that we will be masters in our own house or that not one teaspoon of ore will leave the province. They hammered at the giveaways, vowing never again. At least in Peckford'’s case, he stuck around long enough to make a decision, yet, as good as his intentions were in signing the Atlantic Accord, newer politicians have found in that deal their latest scapegoat.
The third reason is that politicians are people and people like sameness; it'’s a human characteristic. Change in any form is often intimidating. For politicians in a province that has experienced relatively little change throughout its history, more of the same seems like the answer to everything, especially if you want to get elected.
The fourth reason is that there is a certain expectation that everything in the province is government'’s responsibility. For most of our history, Newfoundland and Labrador has been a top-down place. Churches and politicians ran things. The churches handled schools, salvation and morality. The government ran everything else, from job creation to the dole. If voters expect you to walk on water, and you don'’t have a better idea, politicians found it easier to take a step or blame someone else for the supposed failure, if they wanted to get elected.
History seems to push politicians to more of the same, but ironically, history is about change. And as the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate changes, they are getting better able to spot the same carpet being sold to them time and again.
The choice for the new crop of politicians elected last month is whether to spin history for immediate, and ultimately short-lived, gains. Or use history - our experience, our culture - as one tool to guide substantive changes in and for Newfoundland and Labrador. In eight years time, they may find that many of the changes they hoped for like massive new industries will still be little more than the fodder for someone else'’s rhetoric.
The four factors just mentioned, though, are all within their power to change.
For a politician to change those in Newfoundland and Labrador would be something truly historic.
The e-mail took issue with my Jack Byrne post, noting specifically that I was remiss (and maybe partisan) in failing to note that the Job Creation Program ( form of make-work) was actually an invention of Beaton Tulk.
Ok. I didn't point it out, but partisan had nothing to do with it. Anyone who does follow my stuff will realise that I have been as critical of the Tobin/Tulk crowd over things as anyone else. In fact, I know I have made the point on many occasions that Tobin marked a return to Peckfordism on a whole bunch of levels.
The point of my Byrne post (in case I wasn't clear) was that in the absence of a policy, governments tend to default to either bureaucratic or partisan genetic memory. Hence, the blatant make-work program Byrne announced. I also drew the parallels between Byrne's talking points and those of Glenn Tobin nearly two decades earlier.
While I had thought about this old column before, it seems appropriate to resurrect it now since it speaks to the basic idea that political rhetoric in this province seems to come around again and again. There's no point in pretending the column is comprehensive and elegant; it isn't. I was grappling with finding possible explanations for what seems to be an obvious phenomenon.
Reviewing the column now about 18 months after I wrote it, the only thing I would disagree with is the conclusion: I was wrong. People here don't seem to tire of having the same carpet threads being pushed in front of them again and again. Actually, I'd have to admit that over the past 18 months we have seen old ideas and old threads being sold time and again at their original price, marked up to account for inflation.
Jack Byrne just wound up being the latest salesman. Whether the ideas were his, those of his colleagues or solely those of the Premier is irrelevant from where I sit.
I am just astonished that we keep doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result.
Anyway, here's the column as it was originally presented...
The politics of history
History is a powerful thing in Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
In his victory speech a few weeks ago, premier-elect Danny Williams pledged that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had voted to seize control of their destiny using words eerily reminiscent of Smallwood, Peckford and Tobin. "There will be no more giveaways. The giveaways end right here and right now!"
Why are we stuck on this rhetorical merry-go-round?
One reason is that political leaders take a Calvinist approach to history. As Calvin told his stuffed tiger Hobbes many years ago, people reinvent history to suit modern prejudices and to fit modern needs. We spin our history, old and new, reweaving the threads of fact to suit the immediate need. Tories blame the Liberals for job cuts in the early 1990s, conveniently forgetting the world recession, and the abysmal state of the province'’s finances. New Liberals blame old Liberals for the Upper Churchill give-away. Nationalists blame foreigners for everything from the collapse of responsible government to current resource "giveaways", all the while forgetting that we have controlled our own destiny for most of the past 200 years.
The second reason is that spin seems to work. Politicians like to get elected. Brian Tobin and Brian Peckford won huge majority governments promising that one day the sun will shine, that we will be masters in our own house or that not one teaspoon of ore will leave the province. They hammered at the giveaways, vowing never again. At least in Peckford'’s case, he stuck around long enough to make a decision, yet, as good as his intentions were in signing the Atlantic Accord, newer politicians have found in that deal their latest scapegoat.
The third reason is that politicians are people and people like sameness; it'’s a human characteristic. Change in any form is often intimidating. For politicians in a province that has experienced relatively little change throughout its history, more of the same seems like the answer to everything, especially if you want to get elected.
The fourth reason is that there is a certain expectation that everything in the province is government'’s responsibility. For most of our history, Newfoundland and Labrador has been a top-down place. Churches and politicians ran things. The churches handled schools, salvation and morality. The government ran everything else, from job creation to the dole. If voters expect you to walk on water, and you don'’t have a better idea, politicians found it easier to take a step or blame someone else for the supposed failure, if they wanted to get elected.
History seems to push politicians to more of the same, but ironically, history is about change. And as the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate changes, they are getting better able to spot the same carpet being sold to them time and again.
The choice for the new crop of politicians elected last month is whether to spin history for immediate, and ultimately short-lived, gains. Or use history - our experience, our culture - as one tool to guide substantive changes in and for Newfoundland and Labrador. In eight years time, they may find that many of the changes they hoped for like massive new industries will still be little more than the fodder for someone else'’s rhetoric.
The four factors just mentioned, though, are all within their power to change.
For a politician to change those in Newfoundland and Labrador would be something truly historic.
More poll dancing - as promised
This is just a teaser.
After lunch, I'll throw up the post on the January offshore poll.
There are some interesting things in there and so far the assessments from the people I have bounced the poll off are almost word for word the same.
Stay tuned.
Same Bond Time.
Same Bond channel.
For an exploration of political decision-making a la Danny Williams.
After lunch, I'll throw up the post on the January offshore poll.
There are some interesting things in there and so far the assessments from the people I have bounced the poll off are almost word for word the same.
Stay tuned.
Same Bond Time.
Same Bond channel.
For an exploration of political decision-making a la Danny Williams.
07 July 2005
It could never happen here...
In the wake of the London terror attacks, it is very interesting watching the Ontario emergency measures boss Julian Fantino and Ontario public security minister giving a media briefing and taking questions about the possibility of such attacks in Canada.
Makes me ponder our local preparedness.
Makes me ponder our local preparedness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)