Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan delivered his budget for Fiscal Year 2006 this afternoon, with a 10% increase in government spending and cash poured into just about every existing demand in the province.
Consider this the first of two budgets aimed at winning every seat in the province for Danny Williams in the next election. By October 2007, the entire electorate will be asking "What other choice is there?" except to vote for Danny Williams. Judy Foote, the member for Grand Bank district and former cabinet minister, may rue the day she uttered the same phrase when talking about her motion yesterday calling for an "independent" public inquiry in Fishery Products International.
Total spending is projected to be $5.6 billion. The provincial government's own-source revenues are higher than the entire provincial budgets delivered less than a decade ago.
Biggest cash increase came from oil and gas which generated almost $1.0 billion dollars last year in revenues. Government deliberately low-balled the numbers last year.
Some preliminary highlights and observations:
1. The budget for Danny's own Department of Business has more than doubled going from $1.7 million last year to $3.8 million this year.
Still no word on the main departmental initiative, namely the Young and Cool rebranding initiative.
Question: who got the rebranding contract?
2. $100,000 to design and implement a communication strategy to support the sealing industry.
Question: Who will get that contract and how will it be awarded?
3. Oil and gas royalties in 2005 were more than double last year's budget projections. Last March, Bond Papers noted the budget spin control deployed by government for last year's budget.
This year's budget shows just how much Rain Man spun his numbers last year, especially on oil and gas revenues.
4. Loyola Sullivan's revenue projections were out of whack yet again. In 2005, Loyola Sullivan projected a deficit of almost $500 million. His actual position at year-end showed a surplus of over $70 million. That's a pretty big shift. But then again, he was off in his first budget as well, by an equally horrendous amount.
If we use the past to guide our projections, expect that this budget will see revenues about $500 million higher than Loyola is allowing. Oil and gas revenues plus the full production impact of Voisey's Bay will be the drivers.
5. Look back at the March archive for the Bond Papers and you'll see Loyola was musing about huge deficits for the foreseeable future and investing the offshore cash in a way other than what he did. They dropped it all into the unfunded pension liabilities.
6. Equalization dropped this year by about $191 million even though oil revenues grew by more than that. At the same time, the combination of the Real Atlantic Accord (1985) and the January 2005 deal produced "offsets" of $329 million.
When Danny Williams claimed "We got it" what he supposedly meant was "we got the original plan" in which the offsets were supposed to equal oil revenues. By my rough calculation, the "offsets" are roughly $142, 800, 000 less than the actual royalties from 2005, much less the total revenues for that year. They 2006 offsets are about 50% of the total royalties projected for FY 2006.
7. While provincial own-source revenues are higher than total government spending a decade ago, the federal transfer portion remains about the same in dollar terms as it has been for some time. The Government of Canada will send Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.6 billion in FY 2006 to help make ends meet.
30 March 2006
Spindy unwinds?
CBC's Here and Now reported this evening that the upstart local newspaper The Independent, known affectionately around here as the Spindy, will publish its last number this weekend.
I'll save my obit until there is confirmation, but the Ceeb claimed to have it confirmed from three sources. Presumably neither of the sources had the last name Dobbin or Cleary.
I'll save my obit until there is confirmation, but the Ceeb claimed to have it confirmed from three sources. Presumably neither of the sources had the last name Dobbin or Cleary.
Who is surprised by Loyola and Jerry?
That's Loyola Hearn and Jerry Vlasak.
Vlasak (left), for his part, has repeatedly stated he believes it's just peachy to kill humans if animals are saved in the process. At the Bond Papers, we have discussed Vlasak, his wife - former child actor Pam Ferdin, and their associations with Paul Watson and the animal extremists. Check here, here and here, from last October's archive.
Vlasak told a 2003 animal rights convention:
Also known is (left//Photo: Greg Locke) Loyola Hearn, the federal fish minister, who is known at least if you pay attention to what Hearn says and does as opposed to what you may wish he was saying and doing.
CBC reports "Loyola Hearn said the hunt must be open to public scrutiny."
"He fears that if the federal government doesn't issue observer permits, it will look like seal hunters have something to hide."
Hearn knows full-well that there are grounds for keeping some animal extremists out of the country and for restricting their activities that are not about observing the hunt at all. Vlasak has been barred from some countries; Canada should be added to his personal No-Fly list.
But Hearn's position is hardly surprising for a guy who has toed the pre-existing policy line in Ottawa since taking office. Hearn has a couple of problems, not the least of which is a shortage of qualified staff. Some reports have the bulk of his people coming out of the bowels of his department because others don't want the job or can't pass the sniff test for getting hired.
Ryan Cleary, long Hearn's chief booster in the province, was reported here as having the job earlier. He later said publicly he wasn't offered a job and wouldn't take it if he was offered one. The details will never be known why Cleary isn't getting paid for supporting Hearn, but somehow, it's hard to imagine Cleary siding with the department officials he loathes on a matter like Vlasak and the seal hunt.
Political staff can serve a valuable purpose of giving a minister a perspective different from that of department officials. Hearn isn't getting it, apparently, although around here, we'd argue Hearn as minister is just being the kind of politician he has always been regardless of who is staffing his office.
Either way both Vlasak and Hearn are known quantities acting predictably.
Why are people surprised by their comments?
Vlasak (left), for his part, has repeatedly stated he believes it's just peachy to kill humans if animals are saved in the process. At the Bond Papers, we have discussed Vlasak, his wife - former child actor Pam Ferdin, and their associations with Paul Watson and the animal extremists. Check here, here and here, from last October's archive.Vlasak told a 2003 animal rights convention:
"I don't think you'’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many vivisectors," Vlasak said, "before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives." When one woman in the audience disagreed, saying that Vlasak's approach was no different from that of abortion-clinic bombers, Vlasak was undeterred. "Absolutely," he countered. "I think they had a great strategy going."Vlasak's a known quantity.
Also known is (left//Photo: Greg Locke) Loyola Hearn, the federal fish minister, who is known at least if you pay attention to what Hearn says and does as opposed to what you may wish he was saying and doing.CBC reports "Loyola Hearn said the hunt must be open to public scrutiny."
"He fears that if the federal government doesn't issue observer permits, it will look like seal hunters have something to hide."
Hearn knows full-well that there are grounds for keeping some animal extremists out of the country and for restricting their activities that are not about observing the hunt at all. Vlasak has been barred from some countries; Canada should be added to his personal No-Fly list.
But Hearn's position is hardly surprising for a guy who has toed the pre-existing policy line in Ottawa since taking office. Hearn has a couple of problems, not the least of which is a shortage of qualified staff. Some reports have the bulk of his people coming out of the bowels of his department because others don't want the job or can't pass the sniff test for getting hired.
Ryan Cleary, long Hearn's chief booster in the province, was reported here as having the job earlier. He later said publicly he wasn't offered a job and wouldn't take it if he was offered one. The details will never be known why Cleary isn't getting paid for supporting Hearn, but somehow, it's hard to imagine Cleary siding with the department officials he loathes on a matter like Vlasak and the seal hunt.
Political staff can serve a valuable purpose of giving a minister a perspective different from that of department officials. Hearn isn't getting it, apparently, although around here, we'd argue Hearn as minister is just being the kind of politician he has always been regardless of who is staffing his office.
Either way both Vlasak and Hearn are known quantities acting predictably.
Why are people surprised by their comments?
Greg Locke meet Greg Locke
Anyone who knows the superlative local photographer will know he holds strong convictions and is capable of the odd harangue in favour of his cause.
It must be something about the name.
It must be something about the name.
29 March 2006
Harper, cabinet and the constitutional thingy
As Canadian Press reports, Prime Minister Steve Harper considers that cabinet secrecy is a constitutional thing.
To a point.
Cabinet meetings are secret, but to be perfectly accurate, the PM should have said that the contents of cabinet deliberations are secret. In other words, unless you are a member of cabinet or an official or other person specifically permitted by cabinet in the room, no one gets to know who said what to whom about what. That level of secrecy is intended to allow cabinet ministers to discuss the sensitive matters they deal with each day in the most frank way possible.
The secrecy of deliberations is intended to keep cabinet what it is: collectivly responsible for decisions. There is little if any possibility of having the government appear divided on an issue and thereby demolishing public confidence in the core of government.
And, as much as we like to speak popularly of this prime minister or another being responsible for everything, cabinet government has traditionally made the prime minister merely primus inter pares, first among equals. Certain first ministers, like say Danny Williams, can dominate a cabinet and make whatever decisions he pleases. But let Danny slip in the polls. Let his shenanigans cost the government political support and he might find himself faced with a cabinet as unified as the herd of cats Roger Grimes fronted.
An Australian politics website describes it well:
Once upon a time, only a handful of people would know when cabinet was meeting. These days, though, most jurisdictions not under terrorist threat don't make a secret of time and place in which cabinet regularly meets. Not knowing when cabinet met, much like the secrecy of deliberations, prevented the sovereign from meddling in the affairs of the elected parliament.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, it used to be Thursdays starting at 9:00 AM. These days, I might not be able to tell you when Danny pulls the crowd together to formally record their "Yes" votes, but odds are good that news media know and the information could be readily uncovered even though it has never been a practice here to issue news releases about schedules of meetings and such.
In Ottawa, the practice since before Joe Clark has been for cabinet meetings to be publicized and for news media to be allowed to gather in controlled circumstances and intercept ministers as they leave. There is nothing to stop cabinet from organizing other meetings aside from its regular session and undoubtedly those have occurred repeatedly since Confederation (1867).
The current battle between the prime minister's office (PMO) and the parliamentary press gallery (PPG) is not the most serious fight facing anyone, but it is an unnecessary racket. Stephen Harper makes much of his commitment to accountability. If this were true then he should merely let the established practice continue.
By attempting to exert control over the PPG, and by tightly controlling what ministers may say and when they may speak, the prime minister is demonstrating that he is the antithesis of genuine accountability.
By muzzling cabinet and by attempting to manage the media Harper is himself pushing against some more substantive constitutional provisions and confirming that he looks on his new job just as did some of his predecessors.
Like Jean Chretien.
The prime minister's office in Canada has become too much like the White House over the past three decades, but without the legal counterweights to the first minister's legal ability. Gordon Robertson, formerly the most senior public servant in Canada told the National Post in 2002 that "[o]ur concentration of power is greater than in any other government with a federal cabinet system. With the lack of checks and balances, the prime minister in Canada is perhaps the most unchecked head of government among the democracies."
Robertson made those comments in the waning days of the Chretien administration, while Paul Martin was talking of a democratic deficit and before Harper and his allies, like Loyola Hearn, engineered the merger of the old Alliance party with the Progressive Conservatives. At the time, Harper though t a key to curbing the powers of the prime minister was an elected senate. That promise appears to have slipped from the Prime Minister's list of priorities.
More to the point though, Harper could demonstrate his commitment to reforming parliament, the prime minister's office and to keeping both accountable by his actions. Harper has the power simply to be accountable, rather than talk about it or consider putting it in legislation.
Genuine accountability does not come from an act of the legislature. It comes from the actions of the prime minister.
In the Great cabinet Secrecy Racket, Harper's actions on accountability and change in government speak far more loudly than his words.
It's a shame.
"Meetings of cabinet are private. It's a constitutional thing," the prime minister argued at a mid-day availability.Well, he's right.
To a point.
Cabinet meetings are secret, but to be perfectly accurate, the PM should have said that the contents of cabinet deliberations are secret. In other words, unless you are a member of cabinet or an official or other person specifically permitted by cabinet in the room, no one gets to know who said what to whom about what. That level of secrecy is intended to allow cabinet ministers to discuss the sensitive matters they deal with each day in the most frank way possible.
The secrecy of deliberations is intended to keep cabinet what it is: collectivly responsible for decisions. There is little if any possibility of having the government appear divided on an issue and thereby demolishing public confidence in the core of government.
And, as much as we like to speak popularly of this prime minister or another being responsible for everything, cabinet government has traditionally made the prime minister merely primus inter pares, first among equals. Certain first ministers, like say Danny Williams, can dominate a cabinet and make whatever decisions he pleases. But let Danny slip in the polls. Let his shenanigans cost the government political support and he might find himself faced with a cabinet as unified as the herd of cats Roger Grimes fronted.
An Australian politics website describes it well:
Ministers must be able to speak freely within the cabinet room. They need to be able to discuss issues and political strategy with each other in a frank and uninhibited manner. Discussions would be seriously circumscribed if ministers thought that their comments would be reported outside.What Steve Harper is talking of is something far less than a constitutional convention.
Once upon a time, only a handful of people would know when cabinet was meeting. These days, though, most jurisdictions not under terrorist threat don't make a secret of time and place in which cabinet regularly meets. Not knowing when cabinet met, much like the secrecy of deliberations, prevented the sovereign from meddling in the affairs of the elected parliament.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, it used to be Thursdays starting at 9:00 AM. These days, I might not be able to tell you when Danny pulls the crowd together to formally record their "Yes" votes, but odds are good that news media know and the information could be readily uncovered even though it has never been a practice here to issue news releases about schedules of meetings and such.
In Ottawa, the practice since before Joe Clark has been for cabinet meetings to be publicized and for news media to be allowed to gather in controlled circumstances and intercept ministers as they leave. There is nothing to stop cabinet from organizing other meetings aside from its regular session and undoubtedly those have occurred repeatedly since Confederation (1867).
The current battle between the prime minister's office (PMO) and the parliamentary press gallery (PPG) is not the most serious fight facing anyone, but it is an unnecessary racket. Stephen Harper makes much of his commitment to accountability. If this were true then he should merely let the established practice continue.
By attempting to exert control over the PPG, and by tightly controlling what ministers may say and when they may speak, the prime minister is demonstrating that he is the antithesis of genuine accountability.
By muzzling cabinet and by attempting to manage the media Harper is himself pushing against some more substantive constitutional provisions and confirming that he looks on his new job just as did some of his predecessors.
Like Jean Chretien.
The prime minister's office in Canada has become too much like the White House over the past three decades, but without the legal counterweights to the first minister's legal ability. Gordon Robertson, formerly the most senior public servant in Canada told the National Post in 2002 that "[o]ur concentration of power is greater than in any other government with a federal cabinet system. With the lack of checks and balances, the prime minister in Canada is perhaps the most unchecked head of government among the democracies."
Robertson made those comments in the waning days of the Chretien administration, while Paul Martin was talking of a democratic deficit and before Harper and his allies, like Loyola Hearn, engineered the merger of the old Alliance party with the Progressive Conservatives. At the time, Harper though t a key to curbing the powers of the prime minister was an elected senate. That promise appears to have slipped from the Prime Minister's list of priorities.
More to the point though, Harper could demonstrate his commitment to reforming parliament, the prime minister's office and to keeping both accountable by his actions. Harper has the power simply to be accountable, rather than talk about it or consider putting it in legislation.
Genuine accountability does not come from an act of the legislature. It comes from the actions of the prime minister.
In the Great cabinet Secrecy Racket, Harper's actions on accountability and change in government speak far more loudly than his words.
It's a shame.
Province pays multi-nationals to keep locals employed
The upshot of this ministerial statement by provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is willing to pay a large international company so that local workers will keep their jobs.
But now Ed Byrne will write Kruger a cheque to subsidize its operations so the loggers will get paid and, presumably Kruger will still bring in the wood from the Maritimes.
There are 250 seasonal workers affected by the decision, so it's only fair to ask how much money government is putting into Kruger. When about the same number of jobs came on the block in Stephenville, government was willing to drop upwards of $12 million a year to create a situation where basically we'd have been paying the company to take our resources away and make money on them.
So how much cash is involved here?
But more importantly, one must wonder why a couple of hundred part-time workers on the west coast got swift action on their grievance when on the south coast the people of Harbour Breton are in the second year of waiting for Danny Williams to do anything substantive for them.
And, more to the point, Fishery Products International on the Burin peninsula are waiting for the province to come up with an older-worker-adjustment program, commonly known as early retirement.
When can the people of the Burin peninsula expect the same speedy commitment of provincial cash to help them out?
We have reached a short-term agreement with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that will see them continue to purchase pulpwood from the Northern Peninsula this year. In exchange, the province has agreed to look within its existing budget to see what can be done to mitigate the costs to the industry of the fire suppression, spray, silviculture and access roads programs.Byrne explains later in the statement that the Kruger mill in Corner was planning to import wood from the Maritimes which is now on the market as a result of mill closures there. Kruger could get the wood brought by barge across the Gulf of St. Lawrence for less than they could get wood cut on the Great Northern Peninsula and brought to the mill by truck.
But now Ed Byrne will write Kruger a cheque to subsidize its operations so the loggers will get paid and, presumably Kruger will still bring in the wood from the Maritimes.
There are 250 seasonal workers affected by the decision, so it's only fair to ask how much money government is putting into Kruger. When about the same number of jobs came on the block in Stephenville, government was willing to drop upwards of $12 million a year to create a situation where basically we'd have been paying the company to take our resources away and make money on them.
So how much cash is involved here?
But more importantly, one must wonder why a couple of hundred part-time workers on the west coast got swift action on their grievance when on the south coast the people of Harbour Breton are in the second year of waiting for Danny Williams to do anything substantive for them.
And, more to the point, Fishery Products International on the Burin peninsula are waiting for the province to come up with an older-worker-adjustment program, commonly known as early retirement.
When can the people of the Burin peninsula expect the same speedy commitment of provincial cash to help them out?
28 March 2006
Offal news
Back from the frozen North, Simon Lono takes a look at FPI in his first major posting over at Offal News.
It's worth checking out.
Ouch.
It's worth checking out.
The problem is not FPI - FPI is reacting to changing world conditions. The current noise and smoke coming from Rideout and others mask the fact that government has fallen into a vicious cycle of short-sighted crisis management and populist damage control instead of realistic appraisals and sensible solutions. If they have a plan, it is well hidden.
Ouch.
Control freaking
Canadian Press is reporting on the growing controversy in Ottawa over prime Minister Stephen Harper's ongoing efforts to restrict media access to cabinet ministers.
Yesterday's broohaha focused on Harper's office having security guards to keep reporters from horning in on a photo op. The bigger issue is Harper's plan to move reporters away from the cabinet room and likely hold secret cabinet meetings.
Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, gave the official response to media comments on the issue: "I don't think the average Canadian cares [about media access] as long as they know their government is being well run."
Ahem.
That may well be true.
Unfortunately, Canadians will have a harder time finding out how well run the government is if the reporters who would carry that message are cheesed off by the prime minister's efforts to piss off all but the most blatantly Conservative reporter on the Hill.
Look at the number of stories today that highlight the unimpressive nature of the upcoming Throne Speech. The damn thing hasn't even been delivered yet, but Sandra's sterling efforts at pissing people off are reaping a predictable reward.
If you stop and think about it though, this administration, less than 100 days in office, has not implemented any great policy initiatives. It hasn't really been demonstrating how well things are run.
Nope.
And that might be the clue as to why the biggest thing on Sandra Buckler's agenda - aside from vetting thousands of e-mails, letters to the editor and other ministerial communications - is to shag around with news media access.
If Harper and company were actually doing something news-worthy, Sandra wouldn't have to worry about message control. Sure the guys have only been in office a few weeks but, come on, they must have something they could be doing rather than frigging with deciding who can and cannot ask Steve a few questions.
Bill Clinton's team of amateurs tried this sort of access control and it failed miserably.
Other world leaders have tried it too.
It some places the Harper/Buckler approach works...
Places like Khazakstan.
Or Zimbabwe.
This is hardly the model we should be emulating.
Yesterday's broohaha focused on Harper's office having security guards to keep reporters from horning in on a photo op. The bigger issue is Harper's plan to move reporters away from the cabinet room and likely hold secret cabinet meetings.
Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, gave the official response to media comments on the issue: "I don't think the average Canadian cares [about media access] as long as they know their government is being well run."
Ahem.
That may well be true.
Unfortunately, Canadians will have a harder time finding out how well run the government is if the reporters who would carry that message are cheesed off by the prime minister's efforts to piss off all but the most blatantly Conservative reporter on the Hill.
Look at the number of stories today that highlight the unimpressive nature of the upcoming Throne Speech. The damn thing hasn't even been delivered yet, but Sandra's sterling efforts at pissing people off are reaping a predictable reward.
If you stop and think about it though, this administration, less than 100 days in office, has not implemented any great policy initiatives. It hasn't really been demonstrating how well things are run.
Nope.
And that might be the clue as to why the biggest thing on Sandra Buckler's agenda - aside from vetting thousands of e-mails, letters to the editor and other ministerial communications - is to shag around with news media access.
If Harper and company were actually doing something news-worthy, Sandra wouldn't have to worry about message control. Sure the guys have only been in office a few weeks but, come on, they must have something they could be doing rather than frigging with deciding who can and cannot ask Steve a few questions.
Bill Clinton's team of amateurs tried this sort of access control and it failed miserably.
Other world leaders have tried it too.
It some places the Harper/Buckler approach works...
Places like Khazakstan.
Or Zimbabwe.
This is hardly the model we should be emulating.
27 March 2006
On time or on target
but seldom both at the same time.
An old joke at the expense of gunners everywhere but likely not an accurate description of the crew manning this 155 mm howitzer from A Battery, 1 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery. (Photo: Louie Palu/The Globe and Mail)
The M777 howitzer is brand new, being fielded this year by the Canadian army, the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.
At less than 10, 000 pounds, the M777 is light in weight but packs all the punch of a 155 mm system. At Charge 8, the M777 has a range of 24.7 kilometres; it rocket-assisted rounds can reach ranges up to 30 kilometres.
Some Canadian critics of the army and its performance claim the Canadian military lacks modern, capable equipment.
The critics need to update their information.
An old joke at the expense of gunners everywhere but likely not an accurate description of the crew manning this 155 mm howitzer from A Battery, 1 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery. (Photo: Louie Palu/The Globe and Mail) The M777 howitzer is brand new, being fielded this year by the Canadian army, the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.
At less than 10, 000 pounds, the M777 is light in weight but packs all the punch of a 155 mm system. At Charge 8, the M777 has a range of 24.7 kilometres; it rocket-assisted rounds can reach ranges up to 30 kilometres.
Some Canadian critics of the army and its performance claim the Canadian military lacks modern, capable equipment.
The critics need to update their information.
SEALs fight back
The war on terror took a bizarre turn today as United States Navy SEALs launched a counterattack against men and women who are reportedly clubbing their brethren in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
At left, two members of a SEAL detachment are seen skiing cross-country to intercept the fishermen, described by one Pentagon source as "terrorists".
The once clandestine SEALs have been reported for some time walking openly in the streets of some eastern Canadian communities (right).
Fishermen complain that fish stocks are being decimated by the SEALS, who patrol river mouths and eat salmon and other species as the fish head up river to spawn.
At left, two members of a SEAL detachment are seen skiing cross-country to intercept the fishermen, described by one Pentagon source as "terrorists".
The once clandestine SEALs have been reported for some time walking openly in the streets of some eastern Canadian communities (right). Fishermen complain that fish stocks are being decimated by the SEALS, who patrol river mouths and eat salmon and other species as the fish head up river to spawn.
Backupable Tom: floundering fish minister likely to be gutted, head on
Fisheries minister Backupable Tom Rideout (left) issued a news release Friday in which he continues to point out that Fishery Products International (FPI) didn't have permission from either Rideout or his predecessor to ship fish outside the province for processing.Ok.
Just for a moment let's assume that's true.
That means that Trevor Taylor, Rideout's predecessor, is either incompetent or he's a liar. Taylor told reporters repeatedly that he gave FPI permission to ship fish in 2004 and 2005.
Ditto Rideout.
Until relatively recently he told reporters - and hence everyone else - that FPI had permission to ship fish. And that's part of the problem with Rideout's latest crusade against nothing. Until be stuck a funny hat on his head and mounted the back of a truck, Rideout was insisting FPI had permission to send undersized fish outside the province for processing.
Rideout hasn't disputed, either, that FPI has said that shipping the undersized fish outside the province actually saved FPI money that was used to subsidize it's expensive processing operations in the province.
Rideout also hasn't told anyone what would have happened to the undersize fish if it hadn't been shipped outside the province.
So basically Rideout is launching an attack...on himself and his own administration.
Smooth.
Real Smooth.
Sorta reminds one of this picture from the 1989 campaign (right) in which Rideout appears to be holding up a pistol.Look closely, though, at which way the barrel appears to be pointing.
But through it all, no matter how many releases Rideout issues, he just can't duck the substantive questions about the FPI issue and about his less-than-sterling performance:
1. The most-obvious one: If what he is now saying is true, why did Rideout and his predecessor lie repeatedly about FPI's shipments of fish outside the province.
2. The next-most-obvious one: Why is Rideout hammering at this issue of whether or not FPI had permission to export undersize fish instead of dealing with the real problem - people are running out of Employment Insurance benefits and Rideout and his boss need to get an early retirement package in place for FPI workers?
3. The maybe-not-so-obvious-but-still-relevant one: What would have happened to the fish if Taylor hadn't approved its export? [Clue: It wouldn't be processed in the province, except by worms.]
4. The not-really-obvious-but-still-good one: Was there any kind of industry group - either organized by Rideout's department or existing with the full knowledge of his department - looking at the issue of how to process undersize fish profitably?
For the other questions, go back and read the posts here and here, at the Bond Papers.
Around here, we understand that some of these questions have been tossed at Rideout but he and his comms director have been ducking them.
Here's a little free advice for Backupable Tom and his comms director: a funny hat and reissuing the same release over again don't constitute a strategy.
Try following Tom's own wise words: Be the truth.
Bonus advice: Everyone can see that the export thing is a diversion. Once the real story hits in a couple of weeks time, the only difference between Backupable Tom and the small yellowtail flounder is that Tom will be filleted in the province...free of charge...and served up on the nightly news again and again and again.
Oh yeah.
One more thing.
Rest assured that the media will have permission - Danny's permission - to gut Rideout and serve him up head-on.
That's backupable.
25 March 2006
Another "beggar" will soon come forward
Andrew Coyne picked up on an aspect of the looming clash between Ottawa and the provinces over the fiscal imbalance and wrote about it on Friday, saying the federal Connies' love affair with the provinces may soon be at an end.
Three provinces just turned in budgets so fat with cash the local treasurer had a hard time spending it all.
On Thursday next - that's March 30 - add Newfoundland and Labrador to the pile.
So lush is the harvest of the offshore that Danny Williams will poke his finance minister Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan and bring down the largest budget in Newfoundland and Labrador history. An interim supply bill current before the House seeks approval of $1.5 billion in spending.
But that's just for one fiscal quarter.
As outgoing provincial New Democrat boss Jack Harris said during the debate on Tuesday, that means were are likely to see a full budget in excess of $6.0 billion dollars.
Every nickel will be spent and there will be a budget balance if not a lovely little surplus.
The budget for the current fiscal year will likely be in a hefty surplus as well...that is, if Danny and the rain man haven't followed their usual practice and engaged in a flurry of last-minute and sometimes unreported spending to make the budget look less rosey..
Meanwhile, Danny Williams will be the first premier at the trough lining up for his share of federal largesse, all the while claiming he is broke.
But Newfoundland and Labrador is on the verge of phenomenal wealth thanks - solely (?) - to his phantasmagorically splendiferously solid gold leadership style.
Williams' amazing financial picture is due entirely to offshore oil and gas prices.
He can claim no credit for that.
Unless he delivers a Hebron deal next week as well, to meet the deadline he and the Hebron partners imposed on themselves.
Three provinces just turned in budgets so fat with cash the local treasurer had a hard time spending it all.
On Thursday next - that's March 30 - add Newfoundland and Labrador to the pile.
So lush is the harvest of the offshore that Danny Williams will poke his finance minister Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan and bring down the largest budget in Newfoundland and Labrador history. An interim supply bill current before the House seeks approval of $1.5 billion in spending.
But that's just for one fiscal quarter.
As outgoing provincial New Democrat boss Jack Harris said during the debate on Tuesday, that means were are likely to see a full budget in excess of $6.0 billion dollars.
Every nickel will be spent and there will be a budget balance if not a lovely little surplus.
The budget for the current fiscal year will likely be in a hefty surplus as well...that is, if Danny and the rain man haven't followed their usual practice and engaged in a flurry of last-minute and sometimes unreported spending to make the budget look less rosey..
Meanwhile, Danny Williams will be the first premier at the trough lining up for his share of federal largesse, all the while claiming he is broke.
But Newfoundland and Labrador is on the verge of phenomenal wealth thanks - solely (?) - to his phantasmagorically splendiferously solid gold leadership style.
Williams' amazing financial picture is due entirely to offshore oil and gas prices.
He can claim no credit for that.
Unless he delivers a Hebron deal next week as well, to meet the deadline he and the Hebron partners imposed on themselves.
Did she clear her remarks with Steve first?
On Thursday, federal environment minister Rona Ambrose had this to say about dumping raw sewerage into Canadian harbours:
and prop up a faltering local Conservative premier.
Included in the cash Steve threw from the door of his Challenger jet?
$3.0 million to help Saint John stop polluting the harbour.
_______________________
h/t to Mark over at nottawa.
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose says municipalities that dump raw sewage in the ocean are placing public health at risk.On Friday - the day after Rona's comments - her boss flew to New Brunswick to dole out millions in federal pork.
Interviewed by telephone yesterday from Mexico City, where she is attending the World Water Forum, Ms. Ambrose said 19 Canadian municipalities continue to dump raw sewage into the sea.
They include Halifax, St. John's, Saint John, and Victoria.
She acknowledged that the federal government has limited ability to intervene since water falls under provincial jurisdiction, but suggested that something needs to be done.
Included in the cash Steve threw from the door of his Challenger jet?
$3.0 million to help Saint John stop polluting the harbour.
_______________________
h/t to Mark over at nottawa.
Wanna understand Canadians in Afghanistan?
Read Christie Blatchford in Saturday's Grope and Flail.
or get this:
Makes the rhetoric of the "peace" movement sound as hollow when used on Afghanistan and the Canadian men and women working there today as it was tinny 20 years ago when Soviet soldiers were napalming those Afghan villages where today people want nothing more grandiose than cooking oil.
And the "peace" movement never batted an eyelid.
I have a friend who, in regarding the modern urban male, frequently wonders: "How is it they got to be the hunters and gatherers?"This is the sort of stuff you get when reporters live with their subjects. It is straight-up - it describes the people I know from my short time in the military and long time around the Canadian Forces.
In the lads of the 1-3, in all the Patricias, I found the answer, or an answer anyway: Men weren't always quite the way they are now.
Left to their own devices, largely untouched by the most effete of modern cultural conventions and contemptuous of those few that veer near, and trained to a razor's edge, this lot are by turns ruthlessly and broadly so competent (from making a decent meal out of the good-for-five-years "individual meal packs," or IMPs, to keeping their primitive quarters at Gombad as pristine as a mud hut can be, to clambering over hill and dale and ultimately to soldiering), shockingly cheerful and patient, generous to one another, funny, outrageously tender and, given the times, so patriotic as to appear almost quaint.
or get this:
That was my first brush with the regard, widespread among the dozens of Canadians I talked to, for both Afghan soldiers and civilians. Only once did I hear a soldier make a disparaging remark (young and stupid, he referred to the undernourished locals as "the skinnies").Honest stories, honestly told.
Makes the rhetoric of the "peace" movement sound as hollow when used on Afghanistan and the Canadian men and women working there today as it was tinny 20 years ago when Soviet soldiers were napalming those Afghan villages where today people want nothing more grandiose than cooking oil.
And the "peace" movement never batted an eyelid.
24 March 2006
Plan Eh! for FPI
Deputy Premier Tom Rideout today met with senior officials of Resoh Corp on possible alternative industrial uses for Fishery Products International (FPI) fishplants scheduled to be closed as part of the company's efforts to deal with its financial problems.
Plan Eh! would see Resoh convert at least two former FPI plants to recycling beer bottles.
Bob McKenzie (left, with chief executive officer Doug Mckenzie) is Chief financial officer for Resoh. Meeting with reporters after the Rideout meeting, McKenzie said: "Gooday, eh. Like, Newfoundlanders drink a lot of beer, eh. So, like we thought this would be a good place for a new plant."
Following a television, music and movie career in Canada and the United States, the McKenzie brothers created Resoh as a way of giving back to communities across Canada. "We also have a company that puts mice into the bottles, eh, so like if you have mice or shrews, we could even do secondary processing," said Doug McKenzie.
Rideout, who is provincial fisheries minister and a former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, said he will be taking the proposal to his cabinet colleagues for further discussion.
Plan Eh! would see Resoh convert at least two former FPI plants to recycling beer bottles.
Bob McKenzie (left, with chief executive officer Doug Mckenzie) is Chief financial officer for Resoh. Meeting with reporters after the Rideout meeting, McKenzie said: "Gooday, eh. Like, Newfoundlanders drink a lot of beer, eh. So, like we thought this would be a good place for a new plant."Following a television, music and movie career in Canada and the United States, the McKenzie brothers created Resoh as a way of giving back to communities across Canada. "We also have a company that puts mice into the bottles, eh, so like if you have mice or shrews, we could even do secondary processing," said Doug McKenzie.
Rideout, who is provincial fisheries minister and a former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, said he will be taking the proposal to his cabinet colleagues for further discussion.
Friday chuckle: more talks on Fishery Products?
Left: Fisheries minister Tom Rideout and senior officials of the provincial fisheries department arrive for meetings on the future of Fishery Products International.
Later that afternoon, Rideout addressed news media on the results of the meeting. (Right)
23 March 2006
Rideout and Williams knew FPI plan in December
Provincial fisheries minister Tom Rideout and Premier Danny Williams were fully briefed on the seriousness of Fishery Product's International's (FPI) situation, and - at the very least - the outline of how the company intended to proceed to right its financial ship, as early as mid-December last year.
That information is contained in a news release issued today by FPI in response to comments by Rideout that the company was facing charges for exporting fish to China for processing.
The story coming from Rideout to date has been different.
In January, 2006, The Independent reported in an unattributed comment that "FPI met with the province in mid December when the company informed Fisheries Minister Tom Rideout and Premier Danny Williams the company's internal review wouldn't be complete by the end of the year, a deadline the company itself had imposed."
Rideout himself told CBC that he would like to know what the company was proposing. A January 6, 2006 CBC news report contains the following statement:
William's very first question focused on the need to be proactive in dealing problems in the fishing industry:
Now there are other questions from the same incident and FPI's news release:
1. If the provincial government knew of FPI's problems and plans in December, why has it taken over four months for the issue to come to a head in public yet with no solution in sight?
2. Has the provincial government made any efforts to achieve a deal with the new Harper administration about either the early retirement option proposed by Danny Williams last November or the retraining option floated by Stephen Harper in his reply to Williams?
3. Why did FPI wait so long to announce its plans publicly when it appears the provincial government had working knowledge of the FPI plans in late 2005?
4. Why did Tom Rideout launch an audit of FPI fish exports in February- even though his office ought to have the information readily available and even though the provincial government was fully aware of both the problems FPI was facing and, presumably the necessity of shipping at least some of its products overseas for processing?
5. Why did Rideout announce at a union-organized rally that FPI had broken the law and would be charged over its fish exports?
6. Does the Williams administration actually have a plan to deal with FPI other than to threaten the company in public with charges about its export practices or with raising the spectre of further legislating restrictions on the company's ability to operate as a private sector company?
Left: Without a beard and moustache, fisheries minister Tom Rideout didn't stand a chance in the garden gnome look-alike contest. [Photo: CBC]
That information is contained in a news release issued today by FPI in response to comments by Rideout that the company was facing charges for exporting fish to China for processing.
FPI formally briefed the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on the magnitude of the challenges in the groundfish sector and their impact on the future operations on December 13, 2005.That's the first time anyone has acknowledged the provincial government received what appears to be a full briefing in mid-December on FPI's plans to deal with the fish company's financial troubles.
The story coming from Rideout to date has been different.
In January, 2006, The Independent reported in an unattributed comment that "FPI met with the province in mid December when the company informed Fisheries Minister Tom Rideout and Premier Danny Williams the company's internal review wouldn't be complete by the end of the year, a deadline the company itself had imposed."
Rideout himself told CBC that he would like to know what the company was proposing. A January 6, 2006 CBC news report contains the following statement:
Fisheries Minister Tom Rideout met with FPI officials last month. He said he would also like to know what the company plans to do.Danny Williams letter to the three federal party leaders during last winter's federal election also suggest the provincial government had a good idea of what FPI was planning.
"In terms of final decisions, we have not be apprised of any final decisions at this point in time," Rideout said.
William's very first question focused on the need to be proactive in dealing problems in the fishing industry:
Significant changes are facing our fishing industry, such as resource declines, exchange rate pressures and increasing global competition.There is an urgent need for the Provincial and Federal Governments [sic] to take a proactive and cooperative approach to assist the industry and individuals in facing these challenges and capturing new opportunities. The alternative - waiting for a crisis to develop and reacting to it - is unacceptable. [Emphasis added]This is strikingly similar to the content of a news release issued by FPI in early November 2005 in which the company announced the departure of Derrick Rowe from the chief executive officer's job and the establishment of an internal operational review.
Significant factors with respect to the availability of the natural resource, the stability of the U.S. dollar, Pound Sterling and Euro, the rising cost of fuel and the impact of low cost producers on the world marketplace, on an individual basis and in combination, have negatively impacted the Primary Group's business and will continue to negatively impact this business for the rest of the year. [Emphasis added]Questions have already been raised about Rideout and his management of the fisheries department by the minister's own comments a few days ago that FPI was to be charged with illegally shipping fish outside the province.
Now there are other questions from the same incident and FPI's news release:
1. If the provincial government knew of FPI's problems and plans in December, why has it taken over four months for the issue to come to a head in public yet with no solution in sight?
2. Has the provincial government made any efforts to achieve a deal with the new Harper administration about either the early retirement option proposed by Danny Williams last November or the retraining option floated by Stephen Harper in his reply to Williams?
3. Why did FPI wait so long to announce its plans publicly when it appears the provincial government had working knowledge of the FPI plans in late 2005?
4. Why did Tom Rideout launch an audit of FPI fish exports in February- even though his office ought to have the information readily available and even though the provincial government was fully aware of both the problems FPI was facing and, presumably the necessity of shipping at least some of its products overseas for processing?
5. Why did Rideout announce at a union-organized rally that FPI had broken the law and would be charged over its fish exports?
6. Does the Williams administration actually have a plan to deal with FPI other than to threaten the company in public with charges about its export practices or with raising the spectre of further legislating restrictions on the company's ability to operate as a private sector company?
Left: Without a beard and moustache, fisheries minister Tom Rideout didn't stand a chance in the garden gnome look-alike contest. [Photo: CBC]
FPI responds to Rideout's allegations - the news release
ST. JOHN'S, March 23 /CNW/ - FPI Limited ("FPI" or "the Company") today responded to remarks by the Hon. Tom Rideout, provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture ("the Minister").
The extraordinary and inflammatory statements, which were made by the Minister on Tuesday during his participation in a demonstration in front of the Company's head office, included the offensive allegation that FPI had deliberately contravened the Fish Inspection Act by exporting unprocessed fish. This is not true.
FPI states emphatically that its exports of non-commercial fish were carried out properly and in a manner completely consistent with the past practices of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture ("the Department") and the directives of its senior staff. Department officials were consulted specifically and repeatedly on this practice. Furthermore, any insinuation that the Company concealed or attempted to conceal any shipments is completely false. In addition to the consultation with Department officials, every pound of fish in every shipment was approved for export, duly documented, signed and sealed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Also on Tuesday, the Minister further alleged in a news release that FPI has been less than cooperative with the second phase of the provincial government's independent accounting review. This is simply wrong. FPI has cooperated fully throughout the process, and will continue to do so.
FPI formally briefed the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on the magnitude of the challenges in the groundfish sector and their impact on the future operations on December 13, 2005. Since that time, related discussions have been held with both the Province and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union (FFAW/CAW). The goal of these discussions has been to arrive at a solution, with the participation of all stakeholders, that can re-establish economic viability in FPI's Burin peninsula operations while minimizing negative impacts on the workforce. FPI reiterates that it cannot and will not deliberately run operations that create losses averaging approximately $1 million per month.
Seemingly lost in the recent focus on public spectacle have been the objective facts of the current situation and the importance of a rational approach to external challenges that will not be diminished by being ignored.
It is simply not productive to attempt to vilify a company for dealing realistically and responsibly with a soaring Canadian dollar, high production costs, cheap foreign competition and inadequate raw material supply. These facts are real, they apply throughout the industry, and they must be addressed head on. FPI has been and remains prepared to show leadership to meet these challenges in its business. The goal cannot be achieved without constructive
government and union participation. The Company calls on the other stakeholders to refocus their energies on more constructive efforts on behalf of those who will be most dramatically affected if economic viability cannot be restored to operations on the Burin peninsula.
FPI's core business is its Primary Group, which holds substantial rights to access a variety of quotas in Eastern Canada and operates its own fleet and processing plants. These plants are supplied by FPI's own vessels and from other harvesters.
Ocean Cuisine International, an operating division of FPI Limited, is headquartered in Danvers, Massachusetts and services foodservice, retail, and industrial customers throughout North America. Ocean Cuisine International is a leading source for seafood throughout North America, with solid processing and global seafood sourcing operations. It markets a wide range of finfish and shellfish products.
FPI Limited trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol FPL.
The extraordinary and inflammatory statements, which were made by the Minister on Tuesday during his participation in a demonstration in front of the Company's head office, included the offensive allegation that FPI had deliberately contravened the Fish Inspection Act by exporting unprocessed fish. This is not true.
FPI states emphatically that its exports of non-commercial fish were carried out properly and in a manner completely consistent with the past practices of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture ("the Department") and the directives of its senior staff. Department officials were consulted specifically and repeatedly on this practice. Furthermore, any insinuation that the Company concealed or attempted to conceal any shipments is completely false. In addition to the consultation with Department officials, every pound of fish in every shipment was approved for export, duly documented, signed and sealed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Also on Tuesday, the Minister further alleged in a news release that FPI has been less than cooperative with the second phase of the provincial government's independent accounting review. This is simply wrong. FPI has cooperated fully throughout the process, and will continue to do so.
FPI formally briefed the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on the magnitude of the challenges in the groundfish sector and their impact on the future operations on December 13, 2005. Since that time, related discussions have been held with both the Province and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union (FFAW/CAW). The goal of these discussions has been to arrive at a solution, with the participation of all stakeholders, that can re-establish economic viability in FPI's Burin peninsula operations while minimizing negative impacts on the workforce. FPI reiterates that it cannot and will not deliberately run operations that create losses averaging approximately $1 million per month.
Seemingly lost in the recent focus on public spectacle have been the objective facts of the current situation and the importance of a rational approach to external challenges that will not be diminished by being ignored.
It is simply not productive to attempt to vilify a company for dealing realistically and responsibly with a soaring Canadian dollar, high production costs, cheap foreign competition and inadequate raw material supply. These facts are real, they apply throughout the industry, and they must be addressed head on. FPI has been and remains prepared to show leadership to meet these challenges in its business. The goal cannot be achieved without constructive
government and union participation. The Company calls on the other stakeholders to refocus their energies on more constructive efforts on behalf of those who will be most dramatically affected if economic viability cannot be restored to operations on the Burin peninsula.
-30-
About FPI: FPI Limited is a Newfoundland and Labrador-based seafood company engaged in harvesting, processing, global sourcing, and marketing a wide selection of high quality seafood products.FPI's core business is its Primary Group, which holds substantial rights to access a variety of quotas in Eastern Canada and operates its own fleet and processing plants. These plants are supplied by FPI's own vessels and from other harvesters.
Ocean Cuisine International, an operating division of FPI Limited, is headquartered in Danvers, Massachusetts and services foodservice, retail, and industrial customers throughout North America. Ocean Cuisine International is a leading source for seafood throughout North America, with solid processing and global seafood sourcing operations. It markets a wide range of finfish and shellfish products.
FPI Limited trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol FPL.
22 March 2006
Innovation: at last
From Wednesday's Throne Speech, the Williams administration announced that it will shortly release something called Innovation Newfoundland and Labrador: A Blueprint for Prosperity.
This is a much-welcome and long-overdue initiative.
The central premise of the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)was the need to diverse the provincial economy and to build on our collective strengths. The SEP has lasted as government policy to the present day because it represents a genuinely strategic approach to long-range economic development.
The new Williams document will fit nicely within the overall framework of the SEP's economic diversification by focusing on areas where entrepreneurs in this province have already shown their ability to compete successfully around the globe. The new plan will apparently focus on marine-related technology, health sciences and information technology.
Interestingly enough all the examples cited in today's Throne Speech have developed since 1992, several with assistance from the programs developed under the SEP. Missing from the list was Northern Radar which continues to develop a commercially viable offshore surveillance radar system out of a concept that was originally intended to detect surface ocean currents.
This innovation policy is something to look at more closely once it is released.
This is a much-welcome and long-overdue initiative.
The central premise of the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)was the need to diverse the provincial economy and to build on our collective strengths. The SEP has lasted as government policy to the present day because it represents a genuinely strategic approach to long-range economic development.
The new Williams document will fit nicely within the overall framework of the SEP's economic diversification by focusing on areas where entrepreneurs in this province have already shown their ability to compete successfully around the globe. The new plan will apparently focus on marine-related technology, health sciences and information technology.
Interestingly enough all the examples cited in today's Throne Speech have developed since 1992, several with assistance from the programs developed under the SEP. Missing from the list was Northern Radar which continues to develop a commercially viable offshore surveillance radar system out of a concept that was originally intended to detect surface ocean currents.
This innovation policy is something to look at more closely once it is released.
A Throne Speech by Gold-Member
Following are some choice excerpts from the latest provincial Throne Speech, delivered today:
1. Public masturbation should be illegal:
Count the number of times where the speech mentions the recent Olympic gold-medal win by Brad Gushue's curling rink. One would almost think Brad or someone else on the team had once dated a member of the Williams clan.
1. Public masturbation should be illegal:
My First Minister is to be commended for taking the lead in fighting relentlessly for fairness in the allocation of offshore revenues and returning home in triumph many arduous months later with a monumental new agreement on the Atlantic Accord. Newfoundland and Labrador is today celebrating the black-gold victory that has provided to our province a fairer share of the return on the oil and gas that saturates the caverns of our continental shelf. My First Minister has also been successful in bringing home new agreements to strengthen our health care sector, the equalization program and our province'’s Aboriginal communities and in many other initiatives that have made Newfoundland and Labrador stronger than it was. [Emphasis added]2. Then there's piggybacking on someone else's glory:
Count the number of times where the speech mentions the recent Olympic gold-medal win by Brad Gushue's curling rink. One would almost think Brad or someone else on the team had once dated a member of the Williams clan.
Nowhere has this new attitude manifested itself with more fire than on the icy rinks of Pinerolo, where our province'’s Olympians have spun granite rocks into gold. The passion that lived there at the Torino Games was born and nurtured right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in that international arena, it burned with searing intensity in the gold medal performances of Brad Gushue, Mark Nichols, Russ Howard, Jamie Korab and Mike Adam. Newfoundland and Labrador salutes the first Newfoundland and Labrador based team to stand atop the Winter Olympics podium. These are the torchbearers of a new generation of heroes whose sights are now set on Vancouver and Beijing and a thousand other arenas of endeavour: athletic, academic, artistic, technological, commercial. Newfoundland and Labrador is not intimidated by any competition because we are confident in our capacity to shine like gold among the very best.
My Government entered office in 2003 facing challenges of Olympic proportions:...
...Newfoundland and Labrador is today celebrating the black-gold victory...(Translation: Celebrate Danny and last year's new federal cash transfer deal)
No Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were more enthused and inspired by our curling team'’s Olympic performance than the young people who cheered on their heroes from homes and arenas in communities throughout our province....
...The bold new attitude that is driving our citizens and My Government to take on Olympic-size challenges with confidence can also enable individuals to face personal challenges and achieve personal triumphs....
...Success may not come without an Olympic-size effort, but when we really understand what we are truly capable of achieving and helping others to achieve, we no longer see that effort as an exercise in futility. We see clearly the possibility of victory. We catch a vision of triumph. We glimpse the glitter of the gold, and we know the dream that drives us is worth the effort....
Murphy starts gas and oil blog
George Murphy, the local guy who has gained quite a reputation for tracking and predicting retail gasoline prices has stared his own blog.
You can find it at gasandoil.blogspot.com, or by clicking here.
Hopefully he'll start posting his price analyses there and a wider audience can benefit from his considerable analytical abilities.
You can find it at gasandoil.blogspot.com, or by clicking here.
Hopefully he'll start posting his price analyses there and a wider audience can benefit from his considerable analytical abilities.
21 March 2006
Was Rideout asleep in the wheelhouse?
Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries minister Tom Rideout told a crowd of Fishery Products International (FPI) workers protesting at the company's headquarters today that FPI will be charged with violations under the province's Fish Inspection Act.
Rideout said the company shipped fish out of the province for processing last year, in violation of the law. The province gave FPI permission in 2004 to ship small yellowtail flounder to China, but today he appeared to say that any shipments in 2005 were illegal.
Left: Provincial fisheries minister Tom Rideout addresses a crowd of FPI workers during a protest at the company's St. John's headquarters. Rideout proves some people shouldn't wear toques. [Photo: vocm.com]
Rideout started an audit of fish exports in February this year during discussions with FPI over the company's plans to get out of its current financial troubles. At the time, Rideout told CBC News that FPI did have permission to ship upwards of one million pounds.
At the very least Fish Inspection Act requires that processors submit annual reports to the provincial fisheries department, so Rideout's claim that FPI violated its license raises a number of questions:
1. Did FPI submit the annual reports as required by the Act?
2. Did the fisheries department conduct any inspections of FPI facilities or its records during the past two years to ensure the company was complying with provincial laws?
3. In lieu of or in addition to inspections, did the provincial government require FPI to submit reports on a more frequent basis than annually - for example, quarterly - on the amount of fish it was shipping outside Newfoundland and Labrador for processing?
As much as Rideout may claim that he is getting tough with FPI, there is a good possibility that Rideout's department missed something. The provincial fisheries department is responsible for overseeing the province's processing sector. It's hard to imagine how FPI could ship fish illegally in 2005, as Rideout now seems to be claiming, or that it exceeded its allowable exports by over four million pounds, as others are reporting today, unless the provincial fisheries officials - including Rideout and his predecessor Trevor Taylor - were asleep in the wheelhouse.
Rideout said the company shipped fish out of the province for processing last year, in violation of the law. The province gave FPI permission in 2004 to ship small yellowtail flounder to China, but today he appeared to say that any shipments in 2005 were illegal.
"Not only did they ship... but they shipped, and they shipped, and they broke the law," Rideout told the crowd.
"Today they're under investigation and they'll be charged. We're not going to put up with it...they'll be charged like anybody else who breaks the law and they will pay the price."
Left: Provincial fisheries minister Tom Rideout addresses a crowd of FPI workers during a protest at the company's St. John's headquarters. Rideout proves some people shouldn't wear toques. [Photo: vocm.com]Rideout started an audit of fish exports in February this year during discussions with FPI over the company's plans to get out of its current financial troubles. At the time, Rideout told CBC News that FPI did have permission to ship upwards of one million pounds.
At the very least Fish Inspection Act requires that processors submit annual reports to the provincial fisheries department, so Rideout's claim that FPI violated its license raises a number of questions:
1. Did FPI submit the annual reports as required by the Act?
2. Did the fisheries department conduct any inspections of FPI facilities or its records during the past two years to ensure the company was complying with provincial laws?
3. In lieu of or in addition to inspections, did the provincial government require FPI to submit reports on a more frequent basis than annually - for example, quarterly - on the amount of fish it was shipping outside Newfoundland and Labrador for processing?
As much as Rideout may claim that he is getting tough with FPI, there is a good possibility that Rideout's department missed something. The provincial fisheries department is responsible for overseeing the province's processing sector. It's hard to imagine how FPI could ship fish illegally in 2005, as Rideout now seems to be claiming, or that it exceeded its allowable exports by over four million pounds, as others are reporting today, unless the provincial fisheries officials - including Rideout and his predecessor Trevor Taylor - were asleep in the wheelhouse.
The other March madness, or, the Bow Wow Parliament returns
Today, marks the start of the other March Madness.
The House of Assembly re-opens today to allow the government to jam through an interim supply bill to hold them over until the main budget motion can pass next month. Tomorrow, the Lieutenant Governor will read the Throne Speech, presumably one as miserable as the last insult to our collective comprehension of the English language. Then next week there will be the budget speech, although pretty much the whole thing has already been announced in one news conference or another by the Premier.
In itself, that little piece of news - a planned, one day supply bill debate - is a sign of both the decline of the House of Assembly and the Premier's attitude to it. Danny Williams' contempt for the legislature is well known and displayed almost every day, particularly the last few weeks as he sets about announcing budget measures for the next fiscal year that normally would never be breathed in public before the finance minister reads his budget speech...in the legislature.
The silence of the Opposition on this interim supply process merely adds to the decline of the legislature as part of our democracy. Supply is the fundamental measure the legislature can grant a government. Without money the government cannot function. Since everything in government involves spending money, a supply bill allows for the full discussion of every action government is taking. It is the chance to hold the government accountable.
But it is hard to care about parliamentary democracy - about the proper examination by the voters' representatives of government measures - when the current administration goes about insulting the members almost daily and those members sit dumb.
Just cast back to last spring when fishermen, angry over a government measure, took control of the legislature day after day and not a single member of the House of Assembly from the incompetent Mr. Speaker to the most ordinary of ordinary members voiced a single word of objection. One could easily imagine a member of the legislature saying that the protests didn't matter since there was nothing much to do in the House anyway.
We are set for just the same tawdry display this year.
We have had a taste of it already in the actions of newbie Liberal leader Jim Bennett. So unconcerned is Bennett for the legislature that he feels he can seek election in a year and half's time without having once set foot on its floor while the Mace sat in its cradle. What difference is there between Bennett and the current Premier who joked to a national audience, shortly after taking election, that if he had his way the legislature would be abolished?1
Before now, none of his predecessors - not a single Prime Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador - back to Philip Francis Little would have dared make such a contemptuous remark. The only Opposition leaders to have sat outside the legislature were those who could not get a seat in it, either by losing elections or, as in the case of some, because the incumbent administration dared not call the necessary by-election.
The only significant difference in this year's March Madness is that it won't be crab fishermen taking the House on their backs. Instead, starting today, we may well see disgruntled Fishery Products International employees disrupting the House day after day after day. That is a purely cosmetic difference. Underneath it all will be a decline of our democracy and with it our province.
The loss here is not merely one of process or of symbols.
Rather the loss to be felt is one of genuine accountability.
It is a long-established democratic principle that the government cannot undertake any measure without the approval of the elected delegates of the people of our province.
Magna Carta.
Charles 1 and The Civil War.
The Boston Tea Party.
All are part of our democratic heritage and all had to do - on some level - with holding the government responsible to its citizens not only on voting day but each and every day. The premier and his cabinet must answer questions. They must explain themselves publicly and, for any measure, the government must have the approval of the elected representatives of the people they presume to govern.
When the House is not in session the government has a duty to present its program for review. We have seen the growth in sham announcements or the repeat announcements from government in the last 10 years. All the while, substantive issues such as our offshore oil and gas policy or, in the upcoming budget, our long range financial plans will slip by the wayside.
In their place, we will be consumed day-in and day-out with such pressing questions as whether or not the latest gaggle of the disgruntled will force the closure of the legislature or whether the Premier will tear down the flags over his latest irk.
How ironic that at a time when half a world away so many of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are risking their lives, working with local citizens to build a democracy, so many at home ignore the relentless slip of our own democracy into little more than a sham.
How ironic too that when this place was first granted self government - in 1832 - the very notion was ridiculed as the Bow Wow Parliament in the infamous cartoon, at left.
When others mock us, we grow angry.
Yet, when we mock ourselves - as surely we will beginning again today - we seem unable to see the insult, although the self-inflicted wound is more grievous.
As Mr. Speaker found in the cartoon, the Bows have it, indeed.
---------------------
1 Danny Williams,Macleans:
The House of Assembly re-opens today to allow the government to jam through an interim supply bill to hold them over until the main budget motion can pass next month. Tomorrow, the Lieutenant Governor will read the Throne Speech, presumably one as miserable as the last insult to our collective comprehension of the English language. Then next week there will be the budget speech, although pretty much the whole thing has already been announced in one news conference or another by the Premier.
In itself, that little piece of news - a planned, one day supply bill debate - is a sign of both the decline of the House of Assembly and the Premier's attitude to it. Danny Williams' contempt for the legislature is well known and displayed almost every day, particularly the last few weeks as he sets about announcing budget measures for the next fiscal year that normally would never be breathed in public before the finance minister reads his budget speech...in the legislature.
The silence of the Opposition on this interim supply process merely adds to the decline of the legislature as part of our democracy. Supply is the fundamental measure the legislature can grant a government. Without money the government cannot function. Since everything in government involves spending money, a supply bill allows for the full discussion of every action government is taking. It is the chance to hold the government accountable.
But it is hard to care about parliamentary democracy - about the proper examination by the voters' representatives of government measures - when the current administration goes about insulting the members almost daily and those members sit dumb.
Just cast back to last spring when fishermen, angry over a government measure, took control of the legislature day after day and not a single member of the House of Assembly from the incompetent Mr. Speaker to the most ordinary of ordinary members voiced a single word of objection. One could easily imagine a member of the legislature saying that the protests didn't matter since there was nothing much to do in the House anyway.
We are set for just the same tawdry display this year.
We have had a taste of it already in the actions of newbie Liberal leader Jim Bennett. So unconcerned is Bennett for the legislature that he feels he can seek election in a year and half's time without having once set foot on its floor while the Mace sat in its cradle. What difference is there between Bennett and the current Premier who joked to a national audience, shortly after taking election, that if he had his way the legislature would be abolished?1
Before now, none of his predecessors - not a single Prime Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador - back to Philip Francis Little would have dared make such a contemptuous remark. The only Opposition leaders to have sat outside the legislature were those who could not get a seat in it, either by losing elections or, as in the case of some, because the incumbent administration dared not call the necessary by-election.
The only significant difference in this year's March Madness is that it won't be crab fishermen taking the House on their backs. Instead, starting today, we may well see disgruntled Fishery Products International employees disrupting the House day after day after day. That is a purely cosmetic difference. Underneath it all will be a decline of our democracy and with it our province.
The loss here is not merely one of process or of symbols.
Rather the loss to be felt is one of genuine accountability.
It is a long-established democratic principle that the government cannot undertake any measure without the approval of the elected delegates of the people of our province.
Magna Carta.
Charles 1 and The Civil War.
The Boston Tea Party.
All are part of our democratic heritage and all had to do - on some level - with holding the government responsible to its citizens not only on voting day but each and every day. The premier and his cabinet must answer questions. They must explain themselves publicly and, for any measure, the government must have the approval of the elected representatives of the people they presume to govern.
When the House is not in session the government has a duty to present its program for review. We have seen the growth in sham announcements or the repeat announcements from government in the last 10 years. All the while, substantive issues such as our offshore oil and gas policy or, in the upcoming budget, our long range financial plans will slip by the wayside.
In their place, we will be consumed day-in and day-out with such pressing questions as whether or not the latest gaggle of the disgruntled will force the closure of the legislature or whether the Premier will tear down the flags over his latest irk.
How ironic that at a time when half a world away so many of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are risking their lives, working with local citizens to build a democracy, so many at home ignore the relentless slip of our own democracy into little more than a sham.
How ironic too that when this place was first granted self government - in 1832 - the very notion was ridiculed as the Bow Wow Parliament in the infamous cartoon, at left.When others mock us, we grow angry.
Yet, when we mock ourselves - as surely we will beginning again today - we seem unable to see the insult, although the self-inflicted wound is more grievous.
As Mr. Speaker found in the cartoon, the Bows have it, indeed.
---------------------
1 Danny Williams,Macleans:
Have you called your first session of the House of Assembly?
I'm not going to call. We're not going to bring the House back ever again! It's just a personal preference. [Laughs.] No, it's going to be probably the second week of March. I have to say, I found in opposition there were times I shook my head and said, "You know, this could be so much more productive." I find there's a lot of wasted time in the House where people get up to talk just for the sake of talking. I'd like to find ways to make it more efficient, more productive, so we can go ahead and get the work done.[Emphasis added]
20 March 2006
Incoming!
From strategypage.com, this amateur video of American soldiers in Afghanistan during a mortar attack by insurgents.
The rounds are relatively few in number and the first couple are well wide of the target which is the American compound. After a few incoming rounds, the Americans start shelling a nearby hillside.
Fair warning: There is some foul language in the video. Portions are out of focus.
But just listen for the whistling of the incoming rounds.
The rounds are relatively few in number and the first couple are well wide of the target which is the American compound. After a few incoming rounds, the Americans start shelling a nearby hillside.
Fair warning: There is some foul language in the video. Portions are out of focus.
But just listen for the whistling of the incoming rounds.
A bloody war or a sickly season
Traditionally, naval officers used to offer a toast for a bloody war or a sickly season, either of which would kill off their fellows and speed the chances for promotion.
Well, St. John's city council and the St. John's International Airport Authority aren't quite that blood-thirsty, but you have to wonder how they might possibly increase military aircraft traffic through St. John's by some 300 aircraft per year. They are considering adding more ramp and taxi-way space to the airport and, presumably some sort of promotional work.
They call this military tourism, a phrase they likely picked up from the Baghdad Visitor and Convention Bureau.
Allied military aircraft that can't refuel in the air use St. John's on their way to and from Europe. If they aren't heading back and forth, there's no reason to drop in here.
The single biggest reason for recent increases in traffic at the airport has been the war in central Asia and Iraq.
So...
The only way to increase military tourism - the phrase smacks of fundamental ignorance - would be to have the Americans become more deeply involved in military operations in the Middle East.
Now there's a good idea.
I can't wait to see the marketing plan for this latest bright idea from city council.
Left: United States Air Forces crew pose in front of their C-130 Hercules on the ramp at St. John's. [Photo: Paul Daly]
Well, St. John's city council and the St. John's International Airport Authority aren't quite that blood-thirsty, but you have to wonder how they might possibly increase military aircraft traffic through St. John's by some 300 aircraft per year. They are considering adding more ramp and taxi-way space to the airport and, presumably some sort of promotional work.
They call this military tourism, a phrase they likely picked up from the Baghdad Visitor and Convention Bureau.
Allied military aircraft that can't refuel in the air use St. John's on their way to and from Europe. If they aren't heading back and forth, there's no reason to drop in here.
The single biggest reason for recent increases in traffic at the airport has been the war in central Asia and Iraq.
So...
The only way to increase military tourism - the phrase smacks of fundamental ignorance - would be to have the Americans become more deeply involved in military operations in the Middle East.
Now there's a good idea.
I can't wait to see the marketing plan for this latest bright idea from city council.
Left: United States Air Forces crew pose in front of their C-130 Hercules on the ramp at St. John's. [Photo: Paul Daly]
19 March 2006
CBC shifts views on "embedding"
Stephen Puddicombe just got back from spending six weeks with the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as an embedded journalist.
As the BBC describes the practice embedding means that "reporters eat and sleep alongside soldiers and, thanks to recent advances in technology, bring live reports of firefights and artillery onslaughts into our living rooms."
Jeff Gilhooley from CBC radio St. John's Morning Show interviewed Stephen about his experiences last Friday. You can find the interview here.
[http://www.cbc.ca/thestjohnsmorningshow/
media/20060317puddicombe_embedded.ram]
The link requires RealPlayer.
Biggest news: Puddicombe's attitudes have changed to being embedded, just as the CBC's views on the subject seem to have changed.
One of the first things Stephen says is that he initially rejected the offer to go to Kandahar, based on the attitude toward embedding that CBC News displayed during the Iraq invasion three years ago.
At the time CBC refused any opportunity to embed with coalition forces claiming that they would lose their ability to report independently. There were plenty of suggestions that embedding was just a Pentagon tactic to control the media or influence coverage in a subversive fashion:
Workman described his approach versus embedding this way comparing embedding to a report he had filed on an Iraqi who was upset with the war:
It's interesting to see that in 2004, CBC's editor chief Tony Burman said the decision against embedding in Iraq was practical, not philosophical. Compare that to Paul Workman's report, linked above, in which Workman states that the decision against embedding with American or British troops was both practically and philosophically based.
There is some evidence that Workman's view was correct. CBC television had a number of incidents in which stories were deliberately skewed against Americans through dubious editing practices. One of the more egregious examples was using footage of a dramatic fire on an American M-109 howitzer - with soldiers running for cover - with a story on depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and their supposed horrific impacts on Iraqi civilians. M-109s don't fire depleted uranium and the soldiers. In that piece, CBC even contradicted its own detailed story on the same issue from only a couple of years earlier, lending weight to Iraqi claims that had previously been dispelled.
Puddicombe is now convinced of the value of embedding. As he told Gilhooley, "being there and getting to know the men and women that were serving and going out on patrols and what have you really changed your perspective on being embedded. It's a first hand access we otherwise wouldn't have had."
That's what embedding is supposed to do. There's nothing sinister about it. And, as Puddicombe and others have found, reporters get access to stories they otherwise would never have come across. In Iraq, CNN could reporter live from the field as an on-scene American army chemical weapons unit inspected a farm suspected of being a chemical weapons cache. The magic of the report came when the detachment commander provided his assessment live, before having submitted the formal report through his chain of command: this was a farm and the chemicals were typical agricultural fertilizers and pesticides.
In my own relatively limited experience with embedding, reporters got access to information and episodes simply by being there. The subsequent reports were thorough and accurate, even if some sensitive information was deleted for admittedly legitimate reasons.
Those reading, watching and listening to the reports also got more detailed reporting than they would have otherwise had.
Will they be fooled by it?
Likely not. News consumers are increasingly a sophisticated lot that can smell spin - bullshit - for what it is.
What they do have is more information on which to base their own judgments.
When it comes to the deployment of Canadian troops in any part of the world - including Kandahar - an informed public is a good thing.
As the BBC describes the practice embedding means that "reporters eat and sleep alongside soldiers and, thanks to recent advances in technology, bring live reports of firefights and artillery onslaughts into our living rooms."
Jeff Gilhooley from CBC radio St. John's Morning Show interviewed Stephen about his experiences last Friday. You can find the interview here.
[http://www.cbc.ca/thestjohnsmorningshow/
media/20060317puddicombe_embedded.ram]
The link requires RealPlayer.
Biggest news: Puddicombe's attitudes have changed to being embedded, just as the CBC's views on the subject seem to have changed.
One of the first things Stephen says is that he initially rejected the offer to go to Kandahar, based on the attitude toward embedding that CBC News displayed during the Iraq invasion three years ago.
At the time CBC refused any opportunity to embed with coalition forces claiming that they would lose their ability to report independently. There were plenty of suggestions that embedding was just a Pentagon tactic to control the media or influence coverage in a subversive fashion:
They call it embedding. It would be disingenuous to suggest this is all because the Pentagon has been struck with First-Amendment fever. Rather, it's a savvy PR campaign to win the hearts and minds of the nation with stories of fresh-faced troops in historic victories.Paul Workman, CBC television's workman international correspondent, spent a great deal of his time three years ago reporting as an "independent" journalist on his inability to gain access to areas of the battle zone. "We approached the Mutlaa Road check point for the third time in 24 hours...". Sadly, his comments on that incident are no longer linked from the cbc.ca site, although the link page is still active. His National story is available here.
Workman described his approach versus embedding this way comparing embedding to a report he had filed on an Iraqi who was upset with the war:
You're not getting interviews like that from embedded reporters. You're more likely to see a glorified view of American power and morality, in a war much of the world considers unnecessary, unjustified or plain wrong, and is being covered at every crossroads, at every captured bridge, by a press corps that's sleeping with the winner."Puddicombe's comments are startling in contrast, and sign of a change in CBC attitudes since deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Peter Mansbridge's first trip to Kabul prompted the National Post to cover the change in embedding policy.
It's interesting to see that in 2004, CBC's editor chief Tony Burman said the decision against embedding in Iraq was practical, not philosophical. Compare that to Paul Workman's report, linked above, in which Workman states that the decision against embedding with American or British troops was both practically and philosophically based.
There is some evidence that Workman's view was correct. CBC television had a number of incidents in which stories were deliberately skewed against Americans through dubious editing practices. One of the more egregious examples was using footage of a dramatic fire on an American M-109 howitzer - with soldiers running for cover - with a story on depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and their supposed horrific impacts on Iraqi civilians. M-109s don't fire depleted uranium and the soldiers. In that piece, CBC even contradicted its own detailed story on the same issue from only a couple of years earlier, lending weight to Iraqi claims that had previously been dispelled.
Puddicombe is now convinced of the value of embedding. As he told Gilhooley, "being there and getting to know the men and women that were serving and going out on patrols and what have you really changed your perspective on being embedded. It's a first hand access we otherwise wouldn't have had."
That's what embedding is supposed to do. There's nothing sinister about it. And, as Puddicombe and others have found, reporters get access to stories they otherwise would never have come across. In Iraq, CNN could reporter live from the field as an on-scene American army chemical weapons unit inspected a farm suspected of being a chemical weapons cache. The magic of the report came when the detachment commander provided his assessment live, before having submitted the formal report through his chain of command: this was a farm and the chemicals were typical agricultural fertilizers and pesticides.
In my own relatively limited experience with embedding, reporters got access to information and episodes simply by being there. The subsequent reports were thorough and accurate, even if some sensitive information was deleted for admittedly legitimate reasons.
Those reading, watching and listening to the reports also got more detailed reporting than they would have otherwise had.
Will they be fooled by it?
Likely not. News consumers are increasingly a sophisticated lot that can smell spin - bullshit - for what it is.
What they do have is more information on which to base their own judgments.
When it comes to the deployment of Canadian troops in any part of the world - including Kandahar - an informed public is a good thing.
18 March 2006
Emergency!
Premier Danny Williams announced on Friday that the province will be spending about $5.0 million next fiscal year to improve the province's ability to respond to emergencies.
Aside from the new bodies in health and wildlife, there will be three new people hired in the province's emergency measures organization, including a new fire protection officer, a new financial assistance co-ordinator and a new emergency management officer.
A new deputy minister position was also created some time ago specifically responsible for emergency response planning.
All this is very good news, especially in light of the Titan missile fiasco last year or the September 11 thing. The provincial government's inability to process intelligence and respond appropriately was painfully obvious in both incidents. The technical term for the situation on those occasions was TARFU.
Let's see how things improve.
Two things to note, however:
1. There is no sign the provincial government has created an ability to assess information coming to it and make appropriate decisions. Information co-ordination - i.e. intelligence gathering and analysis - is a key element of the emergency response puzzle.
Otherwise, as in the Titan fiasco, we wind up with GIGO: garbage in, garbage out, which inevitably leads back to TARFU.
Or, as in the 9/11 thing we wind up watching people pull things out of the nearest available bodily orifice.
The technical term for this is SNAFU, which is not what you want by any means, either.
2. There is no communications/public information/public relations position anywhere in the mix. If we have learned anything in emergency response in North America over the past decade, it would be that emergency communications is a crucial element in the overall success of the mission.
Unless this gets fixed sooner rather than later, the whole emergency response will be FUBAR no matter how many public health nurses there are, doses of bird flu vaccine sitting in storage or how many new financial assistance co-ordinators are busily co-ordinating financial assistance for the new emergency management officer and the new fire protection officer.
There needs to be a dedicated emergency communications co-ordinator, with staff and the appropriate resources to help get everyother jurisdiction in the province sorted out.
Psst. there's federal money available to help pay for this, by the way.
Aside from the new bodies in health and wildlife, there will be three new people hired in the province's emergency measures organization, including a new fire protection officer, a new financial assistance co-ordinator and a new emergency management officer.
A new deputy minister position was also created some time ago specifically responsible for emergency response planning.
All this is very good news, especially in light of the Titan missile fiasco last year or the September 11 thing. The provincial government's inability to process intelligence and respond appropriately was painfully obvious in both incidents. The technical term for the situation on those occasions was TARFU.
Let's see how things improve.
Two things to note, however:
1. There is no sign the provincial government has created an ability to assess information coming to it and make appropriate decisions. Information co-ordination - i.e. intelligence gathering and analysis - is a key element of the emergency response puzzle.
Otherwise, as in the Titan fiasco, we wind up with GIGO: garbage in, garbage out, which inevitably leads back to TARFU.
Or, as in the 9/11 thing we wind up watching people pull things out of the nearest available bodily orifice.
The technical term for this is SNAFU, which is not what you want by any means, either.
2. There is no communications/public information/public relations position anywhere in the mix. If we have learned anything in emergency response in North America over the past decade, it would be that emergency communications is a crucial element in the overall success of the mission.
Unless this gets fixed sooner rather than later, the whole emergency response will be FUBAR no matter how many public health nurses there are, doses of bird flu vaccine sitting in storage or how many new financial assistance co-ordinators are busily co-ordinating financial assistance for the new emergency management officer and the new fire protection officer.
There needs to be a dedicated emergency communications co-ordinator, with staff and the appropriate resources to help get everyother jurisdiction in the province sorted out.
Psst. there's federal money available to help pay for this, by the way.
If the gag fits
From the Saturday Telegram editorial on the Prime Minister's gag order:
Left: the latest Harper cabinet fashion accessory.
The Telly-torialist makes some solid observations, not the least of which is the bit that comes after the section just quoted above. The Telly points out that by gagging cabinet ministers now and cutting access to the media, the Harper Conservatives are running a strong risk of alienating a group of people they will need later to help spread their own messages.
True enough. But the Telly's advice may be a case of casting pearls.
The Conservatives dislike and distrust the media. Their efforts to control messaging reflect the sort of actions that go with their established attitude. Moreover, they also go with the anal-retentive attitude Stephen Harper displayed as Leader Opp and the one he has shown in spades since taking office: he will not speak to media at all unless the encounter is highly controlled and the interview is a softball affair.
More importantly though, the sort of centralized control the prime minister's office is imposing is doomed to failure. The federal government is simply too big to have every communication vetted by Harper's staff. Having seen gag orders in action, like the one imposed in National Defence in the mid-1990s, I can tell you they simply don't work.
As the Globe notes in its Saturday edition, public relations experts and those with experience of political comms know that gag orders like this simply can't work in the real world.
In the short term, though, the gag order also sends a powerfully negative message about the Harper government. Gagging your own team tells the world that you are not in control, that you are afraid. If Stephen Harper and his ministers can't deal with a few scraggly reporters, how in the name of heavens will they cope with the real challenges every prime minister will face?
There aren't enough carefully stage-managed photo-ops in Afghanistan to undo the image of a shit-baked1 government.
--------------------------
1 shit-baked: adj. scared shitless
Conspicuously missing in that list of five issues [being emphasized by the Harper administration] are pretty much any local issue that might have influenced votes for Conservative candidates in this province.
To those who trumpeted Loyola Hearn as a fresh approach - and some in the media went so far as to claim Hearn was the only approach - during the last federal election, this news must come as something of a surprise and perhaps a disappointment, as well.
The idea was that, with a new minister and a new government, concerns affecting this province, like custodial management, would take the fore. That hope seems sadly misguided now - but not unexpectedly so.
Reporters dealing with the new fisheries minister - when they can get him to do an interview - say he's different now. Cautious isn't strong enough to describe his approach.
Hearn has already come under fire from those who note that his pre-election belief in the necessity of custodial management - and the uselessness of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) - has tempered to the point that he now seems to be echoing past ministers of fisheries about reforming NAFO, not scrapping it. It's a disappointing turn of events, to say the least. [Emphasis added]
There are legitimate reasons for a new prime minister to lower the cone of silence over his minister: rookie ministers make rookie mistakes, and you need look no further than last weekend'’s crossed wires over the Conservatives' plan for the Atlantic Accord money and equalization to realize that.
Left: the latest Harper cabinet fashion accessory.
The Telly-torialist makes some solid observations, not the least of which is the bit that comes after the section just quoted above. The Telly points out that by gagging cabinet ministers now and cutting access to the media, the Harper Conservatives are running a strong risk of alienating a group of people they will need later to help spread their own messages.
True enough. But the Telly's advice may be a case of casting pearls.
The Conservatives dislike and distrust the media. Their efforts to control messaging reflect the sort of actions that go with their established attitude. Moreover, they also go with the anal-retentive attitude Stephen Harper displayed as Leader Opp and the one he has shown in spades since taking office: he will not speak to media at all unless the encounter is highly controlled and the interview is a softball affair.
More importantly though, the sort of centralized control the prime minister's office is imposing is doomed to failure. The federal government is simply too big to have every communication vetted by Harper's staff. Having seen gag orders in action, like the one imposed in National Defence in the mid-1990s, I can tell you they simply don't work.
As the Globe notes in its Saturday edition, public relations experts and those with experience of political comms know that gag orders like this simply can't work in the real world.
Patrick Gossage, a former press secretary to prime minister Pierre Trudeau who coaches politicians on media relations, said the new government's strategy is simply unworkable.Delays - politically deadly delays - will occur in a business that is time sensitive. In the end, the Harper government will experience more political problems as a direct consequence of the gag order than the order could ever hope to solve.
"Every PMO in the history of PMOs since Trudeau's PMO at least have made attempts to control the message centrally, usually without success," he said. "We tried to do it for a little while. It didn't work.... They're in a way, dysfunctional, because it makes the team look like it's not a team."
In the short term, though, the gag order also sends a powerfully negative message about the Harper government. Gagging your own team tells the world that you are not in control, that you are afraid. If Stephen Harper and his ministers can't deal with a few scraggly reporters, how in the name of heavens will they cope with the real challenges every prime minister will face?
There aren't enough carefully stage-managed photo-ops in Afghanistan to undo the image of a shit-baked1 government.
--------------------------
1 shit-baked: adj. scared shitless
17 March 2006
Honouring things Irish
On this St. Patrick's day, take some time to visit pauldaly.net.Admire the work of an expatriate Irishmen who had the good sense and good taste to marry a gorgeous woman from Newfoundland and settle his arse in St. John's.
Paul Daly is a photographer of exceptional ability.
He has an eye, as they say, as can be seen from these samples of his work.
Paddy-whacking
It's St. Patrick's Day.
Again.
The day when the popular image of a proud, noble and ancient culture is reduced to the drunken ramblings of Irish-wannabe wankers (including the legions of ex-pats) who take a break from the green pilsner only long enough to torture everyone within earshot with another round of Danny Boy that sounds more like someone beating a cat in a bag with a shillelagh.
It's the day when everyone thinks it's fine to be a paddy.
To put this into terms the locals might appreciate, consider having a day in which every knob on the planet feels obliged to adopt an appalling accent, trace their dubious ancestry to the same couple of first cousins who once settled in Hibb's Hole, and who slobber over all who will listen about the joys of being...a newfie.
Now I am neither Irish nor a wannabe, but it always struck me that, if I were Irish, I would fervently hope that St. Patrick's Day might be something that eventually people might grow tired of.
But they don't.
And perhaps the Irish still in Ireland are smart enough to use St. Patrick's Day as a clever way to lure the rest of the world into the orbit of the Great Celtic Global Conspiracy.
And so to that extent, good on 'em.
For those who want to experience Ireland - the real one - here's a link to the Irish tourism outfit (tourismireland.com), along with samples of their awesome television spots aimed at North Americans.
Forget the green pilsner or lager; try the elixir of life, Guinness.
Tackle a little James Joyce.
Heck, find out about the edgy comedy of the late Dermot Morgan and wonder why Newfoundland and Labrador never produced that kind of in-your-face political satire Dermot cranked out on Scrap Saturday. It's not like we don't have enough fodder right in front of our faces to replicate the CJ/PJ thing.
In other words, celebrate everything genuinely Irish on this, St. Patrick's Day.
Again.
The day when the popular image of a proud, noble and ancient culture is reduced to the drunken ramblings of Irish-wannabe wankers (including the legions of ex-pats) who take a break from the green pilsner only long enough to torture everyone within earshot with another round of Danny Boy that sounds more like someone beating a cat in a bag with a shillelagh.
It's the day when everyone thinks it's fine to be a paddy.
To put this into terms the locals might appreciate, consider having a day in which every knob on the planet feels obliged to adopt an appalling accent, trace their dubious ancestry to the same couple of first cousins who once settled in Hibb's Hole, and who slobber over all who will listen about the joys of being...a newfie.
Now I am neither Irish nor a wannabe, but it always struck me that, if I were Irish, I would fervently hope that St. Patrick's Day might be something that eventually people might grow tired of.
But they don't.
And perhaps the Irish still in Ireland are smart enough to use St. Patrick's Day as a clever way to lure the rest of the world into the orbit of the Great Celtic Global Conspiracy.
And so to that extent, good on 'em.
For those who want to experience Ireland - the real one - here's a link to the Irish tourism outfit (tourismireland.com), along with samples of their awesome television spots aimed at North Americans.
Forget the green pilsner or lager; try the elixir of life, Guinness.
Tackle a little James Joyce.
Heck, find out about the edgy comedy of the late Dermot Morgan and wonder why Newfoundland and Labrador never produced that kind of in-your-face political satire Dermot cranked out on Scrap Saturday. It's not like we don't have enough fodder right in front of our faces to replicate the CJ/PJ thing.
In other words, celebrate everything genuinely Irish on this, St. Patrick's Day.
16 March 2006
Rumpole and the Old Boy Net, Newfoundland and Labrador version
What would Horace think?
No point in being Premier if you can't put your brother and former law partners in silk.
The Queen's Counsel (Q.C.) list was announced today.
Among the lawyers now entitled to wear silk:
* Tommy Williams, the Premier's brother and a partner at O'Dea Earle, proud sponsors of the Rogers Cable program Out of the Fog, which has another strong connection to the Premier;
* Steve Marshall, the Premier's former law partner and the guy who navigated the assault case involving Danny's son through the court of public opinion;
* Glenda Best, another partner at Danny's old chambers;
* Stephanie Newell, a partner at Danny's brother's chambers;
* Tom Fraize, a long-time Conservative operative;
* Brian Murphy, a former law partner of the current Minister of Justice, Tom Marshall; and,
* Valerie Marshall, whose father is Bill Marshall, former Tory cabinet minister under Frank Moores and Brian Peckford, retired justice of the Supreme Court Trials Division and the guy who served on Danny's transition team. He's also the fellow who gave us the term "rack of Confederation".
The other Q.C. is Edward Cardwell, a Crown prosecutor, who has no apparent political connections despite being the namesake of the British secretary of war who abolished the practice of purchasing commissions in the British army (1870).
Under the Queen's Counsel Act, the appointments are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council - that is, the cabinet - on recommendation of the Minister of Justice. The Minister is required to consult with the Legal Appointments Board, a body appointed by cabinet.
The Q.C. Act does not contain any basis for making the appointments, such as merit or exceptional contribution to the practice of law, noting only that someone is "right" to be appointed as being "learned in the law".
In other jurisdictions, the appellation Queen's Counsel recognizes exceptional merit and contribution to the legal profession. Unfortunately, no one can make a clear determination of the merit of any of the local Q.C. appointments since the news release announcing them contained only the sketchiest of biographies.
In jurisdictions still making Q.C. appointments, the practice has come under review from time to time. Quebec stopped the practice of making such appointments in 1976 and Ontario did likewise in 1985. In Manitoba, Queen's Counsel have been replaced by Senior Counsel, an appointment made entirely by the Law Society of Manitoba. This is similar to the practice now followed in Australia, where in at least one jurisdiction there are clear definitions of the criteria for designation as Senior Counsel.
Now while there should be no doubt that all the new silks in today's announcement
are fine individuals and lawyers, this list draws to attention the extent to which a title which should be an honour may at the very least appear to be tainted by personal and/or political connections to the people making the appointments. It is astonishing that fully seven of the eight appointments have obvious connections to the Premier, the Minister of Justice or the political party to which they belong.
To put this in perspective, the 2004 list contained some individuals like Glen Roebothan, who is the Premier's former law partner. However, out of the 10 lawyers who took silk, there is a much greater diversity in the appointments both in terms of the type of practice represented or even the firms involved.
Similarly, in 2005, while another of the Premier's former law partners took silk, the list is diverse in the firms involved and in the areas of the province from which the Q.C.s come.
Two of the appointments, namely Jerome Kennedy and Randy Piercy are eminent barristers with impressive records in the criminal courts. Few could question the appropriateness of those two appointments, in particular.
It's time to change the practice of appointing Queen's Counsel in Newfoundland and Labrador. Take it out of the hands of the Premier and cabinet and give the responsibility to lawyers themselves and judges, as done in Australia and Manitoba. Then the honour can be the deserved recognition of one's peers.
Publicly recognizing exceptional performance is one mark of a society that encourages the pursuit of excellence.
Sadly, it appears the Q.C. list, like the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador may be headed back to the days when what you got depended on who you knew.
15 March 2006
Loyola Regan strikes again
Federal fish minister Loyola Hearn announced today that the total allowable catch for harp seals this year will be the same as it has been for most of the past 13 years.
So far, Mr. Hearn hasn't made a decision that his predecessor Geoff Regan didn't make already for him.
But Hearn is still a newbie and there's time for him to change some federal policies.
Like say the one on NAFO, the international organization that sets fisheries quotas in the northwest Atlantic.
Here's what Loyola had to say a couple of weeks ago when he announced Canada would be developing an new international fisheries management approach. Work on the approach began in 1999.
Lampoon Post in mid February, shortly after the noob minister was sworn in:
Maybe that's like custodial management, Hearn's pre-election hobby horse. Hearn has gone from wanting to take control unilaterally of waters outside Canada's 200 mile economic zone to supporting the same policy his predecessor was following.
[h/t to an e-mail correspondent for Hearn's new name. Blarney the Green Dinosaur was getting shopworn.]
So far, Mr. Hearn hasn't made a decision that his predecessor Geoff Regan didn't make already for him.
But Hearn is still a newbie and there's time for him to change some federal policies.
Like say the one on NAFO, the international organization that sets fisheries quotas in the northwest Atlantic.
Here's what Loyola had to say a couple of weeks ago when he announced Canada would be developing an new international fisheries management approach. Work on the approach began in 1999.
"Arriving at this model with a member state of the European Union provides the opportunity for the international community to show its commitment to results;" stated Minister Hearn. "I hope it will lead to an acceleration of the NAFO reforms we're already seeking."[Emphasis added]Now the really freaky thing about that last line on reforming NAFO is not what Minister Hearn told John Ivison of the National
Numerous parliamentary committees have complained over the years that the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, which is meant to enforce fishing quotas, is toothless and in urgent need of reform. However, Mr. Hearn said it is too late to reform NAFO, and Canada has to take on its responsibilities with the backing of other nations that oppose overfishing. [Emphasis added]What happened in the matter of a couple of weeks for Hearn to go from claiming NAFO was beyond reform to wanting to reform NAFO?
Maybe that's like custodial management, Hearn's pre-election hobby horse. Hearn has gone from wanting to take control unilaterally of waters outside Canada's 200 mile economic zone to supporting the same policy his predecessor was following.
[h/t to an e-mail correspondent for Hearn's new name. Blarney the Green Dinosaur was getting shopworn.]
Ed Byrne on PetroNewf and the equity position
Atlantic Business Magazine has a great oil and gas supplement in the current issue, including an interview with provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne.
Check out the Byrne interview at atlanticbusinessmagazine.com, but here are a couple of excerpts.
On PetroNewf, that is having Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro get into oil and gas:
On the equity position in Hebron Premier Danny Williams is apparently making a condition of any development agreement for the last offshore oil field:
Check out the Byrne interview at atlanticbusinessmagazine.com, but here are a couple of excerpts.
On PetroNewf, that is having Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro get into oil and gas:
Over the last year and a half we have moved Nnewfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Department of Natural Resources, particularly the Energy Division, to more of an integrated approach with each other, particularly on the bigger files and the big public policy issues. We'’ve moved Hydro towards an energy corporation that could potentially participate in the oil and gas play, both offshore and onshore.
...
ABM: Are you turning Hydro into an oil company?
MINISTER BYRNE: No, we'’ve talked about Hydro becoming more of an energy corporation that moves beyond what it has traditionally done in building dams and burning oil.
ABM: Like doing seismic work and drilling in the offshore?
MINISTER BYRNE: I'’m not sure that'’s where it'’s going. But certainly if there'’s a legitimate business opportunity that will provide a benefit to the province and revenues to Hydro, and thus to the province, we won'’t turn anything down. But all that is being assessed and we are at the ground floor of that right now.
On the equity position in Hebron Premier Danny Williams is apparently making a condition of any development agreement for the last offshore oil field:
ABM: Do you see Hydro taking an equity stake in Hebron?
MINISTER BYRNE: That'’s a public policy position we'’ve laid down that as a province we'’d like to have some equity stake in the emerging oil and gas industry, not unlike what'’s happened in Norway, not unlike what'’s happened in other jurisdictions in the world. Those are some of the things up for discussion right now.
...
From our point of view, equity is important from this perspective: it puts us at the table and helps us develop an intellectual capacity that doesn't necessarily exist within the provincial structure right now. It puts us in the seat as a legitimate bona fide partner in developments. It helps us gain further insight, expertise and knowledge into the oil and gas industry. It has worked successfully as a model in other jurisdictions and there'’s no reason to think it wouldn't here. Other jurisdictions are both equity partners and royalty partners. So while there is some legitimacy in saying that equity is represented by royalty, there are other benefits associated with being an equity partner.
14 March 2006
Stephen Harper au Quebec: The heart and cradle of Canada
Policy Options also has the full text of Stephen Harper's December 19 speech in Quebec.
Some excerpts:
Some excerpts:
Nous ne devons jamais oublier que le Canada a ete fonde a Quebec, par des francophones. Voila pourquoi je dis que le Quebec est le coeur du Canada, et que la langue francaise est un element indeniable de l'’identite de tous les Canadiens, meme si certains d'’entre nous ne le parlons pas aussi bien que nous le devrions.
...
Nous reconnaitrons l'’autonomie des provinces et les responsabilites culturelles et institutionnelles speciales du gouvernement du Quebec. Nous respecterons les competences federales et provinciales telles que definies dans la Constitution canadienne. Et nous elaborerons des mecanismes qui donneront aux provinces un plus grand role dans leurs propres champs de competence sur des questions internationales. Je sais, par exemple, que le gouvernement Charest aimerait un plus grand role pour le Quebec en ce qui concerne ces competences a l'’UNESCO. Selon le modele du Sommet de la francophonie, un nouveau gouvernement conservateur va inviter le Quebec a participer a l'’UNESCO!
Inside the mind of Stephen Harper
Check out the latest issue of Policy Options for a raft of good articles on the last election and other public policy stuff.
Then read the short interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On federal-provincial relations: The New Incrementalism
Then read the short interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On federal-provincial relations: The New Incrementalism
It's probably not useful for me to go back and revisit the discussions of 10 or 15 years ago and where we would be vis-a-vis that. I think the most important thing, and something I came to see clearly about three or four years ago after I became leader of the opposition, was that what the country really needed in dealing with federal-provincial matters, the federation in Quebec in particular, was to look forward rather than backward, stop worrying about who was right and wrong in Meech Lake and concern ourselves more with contemporary issues.On the fiscal imbalance: Let's talk
...
We'’re trying to make significant changes, but in a way that is step-by-step and achievable, and will actually happen.
I doubt I would go the full-fledged route of a Royal Commission. The first thing, hopefully in the very near future I'’m going to be sitting down with the provinces informally, to talk a little bit about their thoughts. We'’ve got a couple of reports pending, we'’ve got an equalization review that was set out by the previous government, and the provinces have their own report on the fiscal imbalance. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of a joint body go off and do some thinking on this before we go out into tough negotiations, but frankly, I'’d probably stop short of a full-fledged Royal Commission unless everyone thought that was a good idea.On Quebec: A New Option
Je dis depuis longtemps que les Quebecois veulent une option qui n'est pas la separation, qui n'est pas la corruption ou qui n'est pas un parti impuissant ou un parti du status quo et du centrisme. Et je dis aussi depuis longtemps que, - un moment donne, les Quebecois vont se decider a essayer quelque chose de different. Je ne savais pas exactement quand ils allaient se decider, mais evidement je suis tres heureux qu'’ils aient commence pendant la campagne electorale (RIRE). Je crois que notre resultat aurait meme ete meilleur si la campagne avait compte une semaine de plus.On Canada-United States relations:
My difficulty with the previous government was not simply that they had fights with the United States, but their fights with the United States did nothing to advance Canadian interests.On the Afghan commitment:
It is a very dangerous mission. But it is a commitment that Canada has made, a commitment to play a significant role for some time in Afghanistan. I think quite frankly, my sense is that the allied participation in Afghanistan is paying dividends, that we are making progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)