Background on legislature allowances

It took eight months, but someone finally put together an excellent backgrounder on the House of Assembly remuneration for legislators and the history of their allowances and other indemnities.

Rob Antle has it in Saturday's Telegram.

Insipid sameness, as some pretentious columnist called what's in the Telegram, turns out to be the sort of robust journalism the equally pretentious paper that prints her column just can't seem to produce. Can't produce, no matter how many times its editor claims to be doing just that.

Gimme insipid any day, if the alternative is pretentious blather.

If one article wasn't enough, there's also an excellent article by Antle in the Lifestyles section that describes the circumstances surrounding the changes to the internal economy commission legislation in 2000.

Antle gives us as much detail as we could expect in these two articles and there can be no excuses for people accepting the simplistic version of events tossed out from politicians anymore.

Still, there are four points Antle hasn't tackled in these pieces.

First, there's the curious saga of ejecting the Auditor General from the legislature in 2000. Antle notes "[Danny] Williams, leader of the PC party, was against it [barring the Auditor General from the legislature's accounts], but was not a member of the IEC."

That's true. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the commission; nor is the Premier. But in both cases some of the most senior members of the cabinet and the opposition caucus sit on the legislature's executive committee. Their job is to reflect the views of their caucus members and ultimately their respective bosses. It shouldn't matter that Danny didn't sit on the IEC; if he had a grip at all on his caucus he ought to have been able to handle this differently. That's especially the case of point supposedly so central to Williams' pledge of accountability and transparency.

Skip ahead to April 2004 and the Internal Economy Commission allowed the Auditor General to review the legislature's books once again. Williams takes credit for the move, but he wasn't on the commission as Premier any more than he was as Leader Op.

There's much more to this story that hasn't been told. It may never be told, but the version presented, even by Antle, doesn't explain how Williams could triumph at one point - supposedly - despite having failed earlier.

Antle doesn't explain the May 2004 bonus which Williams knew about at the time it was issued and, implicitly sanctioned. He couldn't be powerful at one moment and impotent the next without some better explanation than the one offered so far. Actually there hasn't been an explanation of this local version of the magic, reversing bullet.

Second, Antle notes changes made to the legislature's administration after April 2004. He points to cuts in allowances. Sadly, he doesn't explain how it could be that while members' allowances were cut, overspending on the budget line item that covers those allowances ballooned. According to the government's official, audited financial statements the legislature overspent its allowance line item by a total of almost $1.0 million in FY 2004 and FY 2005. The Auditor General's reports to date have only accounted for about $200,000 of that amount.

Third, Antle says that "Auditors found a 'significant spike' in overspending after the decision to bar them in 2000." The Auditor General may claim there was a spike in that year, but the Public Accounts - audited by John Noseworthy's staff and that of his predecessor Beth Marshall - showed a consistent pattern of overspending in the allowances line item from 1998 to 2005.

As the red line shows in the table above, the spike in spending occurred before the AG was barred, i.e. in FY 1999, tamped down for two fiscal years - after the AG was blocked - and then started its upward trend in 2003. That upward trend continued in 2004 and grew higher in 2005 in plain view of the Auditor General.

The yellow line in the table above represents the amounts identified by the Auditor General. His numbers may confirm his own theory, but the facts contained in the Public Accounts say something completely different. Sometimes people see what they look for, rather than what was. The "what was" may raise other questions that some would find uncomfortable.

The fourth point Antle hasn't touched is about the comptroller general. The version of events offered by both the current administration and the Auditor General is that the government's chief financial officer could not see what was going on in the legislature since the claims his office received in order to generate payments did not contain receipts.

This defies even a layman's reading of the Financial Administration Act, let alone beggar's the belief of anyone even passingly familiar with how things work inside Confederation Building's East Block.

Simply put, there's no way to run over a line item in the budget - especially by the $3.2 million total shown in the Public Accounts - without the guy who writes the cheques knowing about it. If he knew, then others knew or ought to have known.

Antle's last comment is well taken: "To appreciate why those changes are necessary, it’s important to remember how they were done in the past."

The difficulty is that even after his yeoman service in two fine articles, there are still crucial pieces of information missing.

It would seem that the only way to get to the bottom of the whole matter is through a properly constituted public inquiry.

Egyptian blogger jailed

From Associated Press:

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt, Feb. 22 -- An Egyptian blogger was convicted Thursday and sentenced to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egypt's president, sending a chill through fellow Internet writers who fear a government crackdown.

Abdel Kareem Nabil, a 22-year-old former student at Egypt's Al-Azhar University, had been a vocal secularist and sharp critic of conservative Muslims in his blog. He often lashed out at Al-Azhar -- the most prominent religious centre in Sunni Islam -- calling it "the university of terrorism" and accusing it of encouraging extremism.

Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil, 22, centre, is escorted by police officers from a police van and towards a court house in Alexandria, Egypt Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007. The Egyptian blogger was convicted of insulting Islam and President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced to four years in prison on Thursday in Egypt's first prosecution of a blogger. (AP Photo)

Roger Grimes and the Lower Churchill

1. From The Independent, a story buried in the print edition last week but given prominence on the website.

Former premier Roger Grimes says when -- or if -- Danny Williams signs a deal to develop the lower Churchill, it will be "almost identical" to the one Grimes nearly signed with Quebec in 2002. He says the project remains undeveloped because of political games played by Danny Williams' administration.

"My assessment of it, quite frankly, is this: if Danny Williams ever does a lower Churchill deal," Grimes tells The Independent, "he'll do the deal I had on the table, or very close to it, because it is the only one that makes any economic sense."

There's another story this week featuring an interview with Dean MacDonald. It won't be online until Wednesday, but as soon as your humble e-scribbler can grab a copy, there'll be a post.

2. As a backdrop to all this, read for yourself the draft agreement Roger, Dean and Danny are talking about.

Combat medicine

From CBC Newfoundland and Labrador, this profile of Lieutenant Commander Bob Farrell, a Canadian Forces medical officer recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. [Note: ram file]

Let's do the Time Warp

Let's take a little trip through the Magic Time Machine of Hansard, back to March 12, 2002.

Danny Williams, then Leader of the Opposition was in full flight, debating Bill 65, an act to amend the Fishery Products International Act.

Mr. Williams:...It did not have to happen. We have a black eye now on the business reputation of this Province. People do not like heavy-handed intervention. They do not like it, and that is what happened in the business community. The national media are looking at it and they now see our intervention as heavy-handed. If it had happened back in April of last year, back in May of last year, there would have been no problem.

The hon. Member for Lewisporte talked about his concern about a privitive clause. We all share that concern. There should be no need for a privitive clause. There should be no need to hide behind your mistakes, so that people who have a right to sue you can rightfully sue you. We have done it; it is out there. You have this unique legislation that talks about privity, so you cannot sue us because we made mistakes. That is wrong. That could have been prevented. The legal opinion that you had last spring said that you could change that legislation for public policy reasons, and you did not do it. [Emphasis added]

Black eye on the business reputation of the province?

Think Fishery Products International after Danny Williams came to power. Think Hebron and threats to take out ExxonMobil. Think Abitibi and the threats to expropriate.

Privitive clause?

No need to hide behind your mistakes?

Think Max Ruelokke and Danny Williams' argument that the courts had no right to review government's decisions, or to be accurate their persistent failure to act as the law directed.

Something suggests Don Burridge was carrying a brief he did not write on that one.

But you know, when you go back to what Danny said then and what happened later...

It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep control

...

It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You're there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
You're spaced out on sensation, like you're under sedation
Let's do the Time Warp again!

Man, that was fun. We'll have to do the time warp again, really soon.

More like a small gene pool

The local New Democrats are still a little miffed that Karen Oldford decided to run for the Liberals in Labrador West instead of the party of Tommy Douglas.

"I'm quite disgusted.… I've never heard of this stuff happening before," said Nancy Riche, responding to Karen Oldford's decision to run for the Liberals in the March 13 byelection in Labrador West.

NDP president Nancy Riche said she is appalled that the Liberals competed for a candidate her party had lined up to run in Labrador West. NDP president Nancy Riche said she is appalled that the Liberals competed for a candidate her party had lined up to run in Labrador West.

"It really speaks to principles [and] lack of principles and ethics, I think."

That's a quote from the CBC story.

As much as Nancy Riche is a solid commentator and a savvy political operative, this comment suggests the early stages of late onset pinocchiosis.

Now that we have a bit more information, the whole thing sounds like typical daily life in the small gene pool known as Newfoundland and Labrador politics.

I used to be commonplace to see the same person being courted by at least two parties at the same time. That was back before the ice sheet retreated and Pangaea split up; you know back when your humble e-scribbler was actively involved in politics.

Young readers will be excused for googling Pangaea to see who played lead guitar.

In the run up to the 1989 Cucumber Battle between Tom "Shakeylegs" Rideout, right, and Clyde "Unconscionable" Wells, there was one candidate who was fiercely pursued by both Grit and Tory suitors. In the end, the candidate elected to go Tory figuring that Rideout would win. It was a fair bet and had the candidate chosen correctly, well, a cabinet seat was waiting either way. That wasn't part of the inducement; it's just a natural conclusion given who the individual is.

Trevor Taylor ran as a Dipper, if memory serves. Ditto Wally Noel, the former King of Pleasantville who could easily knock off the singularly unimpressive natural resources minister even if he ran again even for the Radical Looney A-ha-ha Party.

Floor crossing is an old sport in this province after an election. Sometimes people start out working with one party only to see the error of their ways and switching to another team.

If Nancy really wants to find the culprit in this little drama, she can look to Jack who hit the road after 16 years as head of the local NDP having done nothing obvious in the meantime to give the part a reasonable shot at being the official opposition, let alone take government.

As good as she is at partisan politics, Nancy couldn't hope to undo a decade and a half of inertia in a handful of weeks.

Province wants assets for free?

Fish minister Tom Rideout confirmed Wednesday that any sale of Fishery Products International Limited must include transfer of FPI's most valuable asset - fishing quotas - to the provincial government.

Rideout gave no indication the provincial government was prepared to purchase the quota or any other assets. His comments suggest that the provincial government will use its power under the Fishery Products International Act to obtain the quotas for free. Under the Act, any sale of FPI assets must be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

As CBC News reports, the provincial government acquired fishing quotas as part of a deal to keep the Arnold's Cove fish plant from closing.

A 2005 review by the province's auditor general found substantive problems with the Arnold's Cove deal.

Auditor General John Noseworthy reported that the provincial government provided $3.5 million in financial assistance to Icewater Seafoods Inc. contrary to government policy that prohibits direct financial assistance and loan guarantees to primary fish processors.

Noseworthy said the allocations were acquired by Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation (NIDC) in order to avoid concerns raised by the federal government over transfering quotas to the provincial government directly. As part of this transaction, the provincial government, through NIDC, "received a groundfish quota from High Liner Foods Incorporated comprised of allocations for [nine] groundfish species totaling 3,676 metric tonnes for 2004-05. In addition, the company agreed to pay NIDC a minimum annual lease fee of $50,000 relating to this quota."

Noseworthy concluded the provincial government violated the Financial Administration Act by advnacing money from the Department of Finance to NIDC. Noseworthy said the pre-commitment "would not meet the requirement in the Financial Administration Act for 'an agreement to be entered into for the provision of goods or services to be delivered in a subsequent fiscal year.'"

Noseworthy said that while Ice Water Seafoods was required to pay $50,000 annually to lease the quotas, that amount did not cover the carrying costs of the $3.5 million, estimated at $200,000.

While the deal was presented to the public on the basis of retaining control over the right to fish in waters adjacent to the province, Noseworthy said that Icewater subsequently transferred 72 tonnes of its allocation to a Nova Scotia interest for processing in that province. An additional 300 tonnes was transferred from Icewater to an unnamed Newfoundland and Labrador processor.

While the provincial government invested $3.5 million in Icewater, there is no indication the provincial government is planning any investment in a future operator of FPI assets. However, acquiring a business interest with no capital investment is similar to a fear being expressed about the province's oil patch and the upcoming energy plan.

In a December 19, 2006 article in the Financial Post, bureau chief Claudia Cattaneo said "[t]he province is expected to unveil an energy plan early in the new year that will bring back government ownership and control of oil and gas resources in Canada for the first time since the 1980 National Energy Program. One the greatest fears is that the plan will mandate equity ownership in oil projects by the province without contributing capital...."

Sanford Limited acknowledges purchase offer

Sanford Limited, the New Zealand fishing enterprise with slightly less than a 15% interest in Fishery Products International Limited confirmed for New Zealand media in late January that it had received unspecified offers for "most of its Canadian business" held through FPIL.

Managing director Eric Barratt is reported to have indicated that while the outcome of the offers was unknown, the offer(s) would not be detrimental to the carrying value of the company's investment.

Sanford recently disposed of its Argentinian assets. Barratt told the Dominion Post that several offers were being considered for FPIL, but that selling out of overseas fisheries was not part of Sanford's international structure.

In May 2006, Bond Papers reported on Sanford's 2005 annual report. At the time, the company directors noted that they were prohibited by Newfoundland and Labrador law from increasing their investment in the company. Increasing their investment would have shown Sanford's confidence in the medium- to long-term viability of FPI under its current ownership and management.

As well, Sanford was compelled to write down the value of its shares, which had been booked at CDN$11.00 per share, due to persistent trading of FPI shares at less than CDN$6.00 per share.

The Minister for High Dudgeon

Recreation minister Tom Hedderson "takes great offense" at allegations surrounding the selection of Corner Brook as the site for the next Newfoundland and Labrador summer games. He also finds the allegation "contemptible."

"It is very upsetting to me that completely unfounded allegations of political interference by the Opposition may have taken some of the good feelings of pride and expectation that the people of Corner Brook and all of the athletes across Newfoundland and Labrador who will be there in 2008 should be feeling right now," said Minister Hedderson. "I urge all involved in the planning and preparation for these games to ignore the senseless innuendo taking place for crass political gain."

For some reason that is completely unfathomable to normal human beings, politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador seem to feel that their emotional condition qualifies as news.

It doesn't.

Just about every paragraph of this news release is an expression of some form over emotion in reaction to the idea that a member of the opposition might make an allegation that maybe the awarding of the games wasn't kosher, that it might be politically motivated. There are few facts, if any, except that Corner Brook last hosted the games in 1986, while Harbour Grace hosted the games in 1992. The original release was much better in explaining the rationale behind selecting Corner Brook.

What we have here is a highly predictable news release from the Liberal member for the Harbour Grace-Carbonear district. It actually isn't worthy of a response.

If there was a reply, one might expect the minister to merely state the reasons offered in the original release, note the number of strong bids received and wish the bidders better luck the next time around.

What we get instead is more just more of the melodrama that passes for politics in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier loves to express his anger, his frustration or his pride in this that or something else. Now his ministers have caught the same political disease.

Now to be fair, not so long ago, the Liberals used to do exactly the same sort of thing. It was silly then. It is even sillier now, especially considering that this administration was elected on the pledge that they were bringing a new approach to government. Some of us thought that the foolishness would go; little did we know that what Danny Williams' team they really meant was that they would raise silliness to a new height.

Harbour Grace-Carbonear didn't get the games. Too bad. Suck it up and move on. The opposition member alleges political interference. Wow: that's original. The minister is irked. Who really gives a sweet you know what.

The risk being run here is that people who are already tuning out political news out of disgust at the House of Assembly debacle will just become convinced that politics in general consists mostly of people being sooky. Forget the important issues the province is facing: let's just yak about what - in the bigger scheme of things - is simply irrelevant.

Given Tom Hedderson's comments today, it would be hard to blame them for changing the channel, or in the case of these two legislators, changing the incumbent next time out.

Arse-lickers of Satan

Another blow for bad ideas

Nova Scotia maintains barriers to inter-provincial free trade in beer.

Beer.

That's positively un-Canadian, for cryin' out loud.

Restrictions on beer?

Another blow is struck for the cause of provincialism.

Protectionism isn't a new thing for Nova Scotia, of course, but one can only wonder why the province insists on repeating the mistakes of the past and others, closer to home, continue to advocate the same counter-productive approaches from the murky past.

Getting rid of $1.32 levy per case would be selling the farm, there, Rodney?

Get a life.

It's surprising that some politicians in Atlantic Canada didn't try to make the East Germans an offer on The Wall. You know, seeing as how they aren't using it any more. What a waste of all that good concrete, not to mention the guard dogs and land mines.

Dipper moves to Libs

The New Democrats are claiming that the provincial Liberals "poached" their candidate in Labrador West.

of course, candidates aren't like fish. You can't poach them if they aren't poachable.

Ending parliamentary immunity: as easy as pie

Last week, Premier Danny Williams stated his unequivocal support for allowing anyone to sue parliamentarians in Newfoundland and Labrador for comments made in the legislature.

If the Williams administration decided to act on the Premier's comments, it would be remarkably easy to achieve the goal. In this, the first of two articles, Bond Papers will briefly discuss the notion of privileges and immunities and how they apply in the House of Assembly. In the second article, we will examine the implications of removing parliamentary privilege and immunity as it relates to free speech.

It is important to note that Premier Williams made the comments in response to a reporter's question during a scrum:

Let's change it. From my perspective, I think the legislature should have the exact same accountability [ i.e. being sued for defamation]. That's a democratic practice that goes way, way beyond me. But from my perspective, I'd be prepared to be held accountable...those laws get changed [sic]...or anybody else in the House has to be held accountable for what they say. I have no problem with that.

Like all Westminster style parliaments, the House of Assembly and its members enjoy certain privileges and immunities. Privilege exists for several reasons, one of which is the constitutional separation of powers. The notion is embodied in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689, "that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."

This notion has been reaffirmed by courts in Canada. In New Brunswick Broadcasting v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), a case heard on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993, the majority held that:

Our democratic government consists of several branches: the Crown, as represented by the Governor General and the provincial counterparts of that office; the legislative body; the executive; and the courts. It is fundamental to the working of government as a whole that all these parts play their proper role. It is equally fundamental that no one of them overstep its bounds, that each show proper deference for the legitimate sphere of activity of the other.

Freedom of speech is also widely held to be an important right of legislators for the wider public interest it serves. Members of the legislature are entitled to make whatever statements they wish in dealing with a public issue. The same privilege extends to those called before the legislature or its committees as witnesses. All may speak freely and openly without fear and without concern that comments out to be proven true before they are made.

As in all Westminster parliaments, the House of Assembly is master of its own privileges and immunities. Term 7 of the Terms of Union revived the Newfoundland constitution as it existed in February 1934. That constitution included several aspects, including the fundamental power of the legislature to decide its own internal business.

The Terms of Union also provide that the Canadian constitution applies to Newfoundland and Labrador except as varied in the Terms. This general provision not only reinforces the inherent privileges and immunities of the legislature but also provides that the provincial legislatures can establish their own procedures free of interference of the courts. This notion is affirmed in New Brunswick Broadcasting (1993).

The House of Assembly established in section 19 of the House of Assembly Act that the legislature and its members enjoy the privileges, immunities and powers of the federal House of Commons.

The privilege - including free speech - is established easily.

It can also be removed as easily.

If the Williams administration wished to remove privilege and immunity related to free speech for the House of Assembly, it need only introduce an amendment to section 19 of the House of Assembly Act. Given that the administration enjoys the support of a majority of members, it is likely the measure would pass and receive Royal Assent. Only a majority of 50% plus one of members in the legislature at the time would be needed for the measure to proceed through each of the three stages a bill goes through.

Privilege may be a part of the constitution, but it is a portion which applies only to the legislature. As such a simple majority of members may remove a constitutional provision dating back at least to the 16th century.

Thank God for snow days

Seems like Simon's posts are better - if that's possible - when he's stuck indoors.

1. A short piece on the growing tendency of elected officials hiding behind appointed officials...likely telling us how "accountable" they are all the while.

2. A longer piece on how Newfoundlanders (and likely less so Labradorians) are joining the ranks of the world's remittance labourers.

And their government is jiggy with that.

When minds are closed

They miss an interesting study that suggests one way to improve Canada's global competitiveness.

Of course, those same closed minds leap at trivial issues and petty jealousies hold them back from thinking new thoughts.

On the trivial issues front, look around for a long list of who funded the study and who worked on it. Yep. It's a conspiracy to get at our vital bodily fluids.

Petty jealousies? Plenty of those too. How ironic that St. John's Mayor Andy Wells greets the idea of Halifax being a major hub city with the same derision people in Mount Pearl reserve for his pet idea of annexing their city to his own fiefdom.

That's just like shipping government jobs out of a capital city to the hinterland. Wells opposed it when it means moving taxpayers from his city to the various bits of Newfoundland and Labrador devoid of public servants. Wells is in favour of the big waste of money - of course - when the jobs are flowing from Ottawa into his tax base.

Typical.

Wells derides Halifax as an oil centre yet misses the fact that St. John's is rapidly losing its status as an oil and gas centre largely because of the policies he advocates.

Anyway, go against the grain. Keep your mind open. Read the Conference Board of Canada's study on major cities.

You'll be rewarded with sensible observations like this one:

The Balkanization of our Economic Space

Every volume of this report emphasizes the adverse consequences to Canadians of chopping up our national economic space. The non-tariff barriers to interprovincial
trade, mobility and investment are at times so severe that they inhibit the kinds of east–west connections that characterize our deep connections outside Canada. People cannot move easily to work, some industries cannot recruit easily, students face difficulties in transferring credits from one post-secondary institution to another, and supply chains across provincial borders can face obstacles that global supply chains have eliminated. In an age of global mobility, it simply makes no sense to add degrees of difficulty to the movement of people, goods and services from one province to another.

Separated at birth 2

Conrad Black, left [Photo: canada.com], is suing an author for allegedly defaming Black's wife.

Danny Williams, right [Photo: Greg Locke], is threatening to sue people for defamation.

What's the difference?

Well, much like the grumpy-looking visages, there isn't much of a difference actually. At least on this point.

Except, maybe that Black's lawsuit demonstrates both a breathtaking command of obscure words that mean really bad things and an almost fetishistic penchant for hyphens.

Danny Williams likes short sentence. Crisp ones. Half sentences. Fragments really. Sometimes half-thoughts.

The purpose is both cases is the same: people with money, power and a penchant for free speech seek to chill free speech for others through the use of the courts.

Bonus points on this snow storm Tuesday for anyone who could read about Black's law suit and didn't have to look up harridan and slattern.

Government helps cut price on FPI sale

If current speculation is correct, Clearwater Seafoods Income Fund is floating a $43 million debenture issue to purchase some of the assets of Fishery Products International Limited (FPI). There's an option for an additional $6.0 million to be issued.

Something's in the works: fisheries minister Tom Rideout [Right] issued a news release on FPI on Monday.

If it turns out to be true, Clearwater will buy up FPI for about half the value of the income trust proposal, dithered and delayed by the Williams administration until it became useless.

Almost 50 million bucks is less than half the value of FPI's income trust fund proposal.

The impact of government policy is obvious.

Makes one wonder what was the cost per share of Tom Rideout's little dance on the tailgate of a truck in front of FPI's headquarters this time last year and the subsequent decision to prosecute the company for exporting fish.

Curious that exporting undersized fish was one of the ways FPI subsidized it s money-losing groundfish operations. That was very likely something FPI briefed government on in December 2005 when the company let government in on its financial situation and its plans for getting out of the fiscal hole.

That little tidbit did become public until after Rideout's little tailgate party. Odd that, in light of Rideout's very public declarations about the company.

Yes, if Clearwater's debenture issue is intended to finance an FPI purchase, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should demand a public inquiry into government's (in)action over such a long period. The consequences of what appears to be neglect and bad policy could be dismantling of a company developed with public money with assets sold off for less than their real value. Take a look at a write-down Sanford took last year as a result of the FPI shenanigans.

Don't forget too that, as Bond Papers noted last may, changes to the FPI legislation were intended to make it easier to sell off the company in bits and pieces. Some others have only figured that out now.

But that easy sell-off wouldn't necessarily extend to Clearwater, a company from outside Newfoundland and Labrador and therefore - by definition - one of the foreign demons Danny Williams' administration likes to fight against.

That's where the whole thing gets a bit murky.

The provincial government wants to acquire - completely free of charge - FPI's quotas. If Clearwater wants the whole company or the bits with quota, expect the provincial government to veto the deal or try and squeeze its advantage.

But if Clearwater wants any other part of FPI at all, like say the valuable overseas marketing arm, the whole FPI saga could be over in a matter of a few weeks.

It only took three years to break up a once-proud company, with the help of the provincial government.

Changing the channel

In politics, they call it changing the channel.

That's when an incumbent is taking a few smacks in the skull without let up. So he starts talking about something else entirely.

It's especially important when the provincial pollster is in the field.

Like right now.

After all, this Premier does nothing if he doesn't try to goose polls to demonstrate how much support he has. He needs those numbers to dazzle people, like say a columnist for the Globe.

The provincial government issued 55 news releases last week in an effort to change channels from the by-election loss and the ongoing spending scandal in the House of Assembly. That's the latest aspect of the spending scandal, which of course is different from the previous scandal, as Danny Williams will tell you.

It is different of course since this aspect of it happened since he became Premier and despite earlier assurances that all inappropriate spending was stopped on 22 October 2003.

But I digress.

Let's put that 55 releases in a week in some kind of perspective.

Since the government started it's online news archive in 1996, last week was the seventh heaviest week of releases.

Those 55 releases are the second highest number for Danny Williams' administration. Only Budget 2005 beat it out, but only but two releases.

The typical number of news releases for February over the past two years is around 34. During the same week in 2004, the provincial government issued on 19 releases.

Yessirreee Bob, that's a serious effort at changing the channel.

Manitoba, Ontario move closer on electricity

Manitoba has the electricity Ontario needs.

Manitoba will develop new supplies of electricity to feed demand both in Manitoba and in Ontario.

Ontario gets the power.

Manitoba gets Ontario's cash.

Everybody is happy.

Everybody, that is, except a few people who see plots and schemes in everything designed to rob Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of their precious bodily fluids.

The concern in this province should be that the Lower Churchill will not be built simply because everyone else will get power to market before we do. No one should worry about some secret plans on the mainland to rob us blind; that's just another fantasy devoid of any basis in fact.

In the meantime, some people will continue to advocate that Newfoundland and Labrador follow the successful example of Enver Hoxha's Albania: no export of anything to anyone for any reason. Everything was developed, if it was developed at all, on a go-it-alone basis.

The approach was so successful the country was propped up by hand-outs from outsiders.

Enjoy the story from the weekend Winnipeg Free Press.

Equalization made easy

For those who can't quite figure out this Equalization thing, a short piece from the Edmonton Journal.

If you can't figure out, you aren't alone. There are about five people who actually understand how it works.

Neither of the five currently work for any provincial government in Canada.

Rectifying history

The past is whatever the Party chooses to make it....
If the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered.

George Orwell, 1984

Apparently someone at Confederation Building read 1984 - or more likely saw the movie - and didn't get the point.

One of the major activities of The Party's Ministry of Truth was the constant rewriting of history to conform to whatever mythology The Party was spreading at the moment, especially about Big Brother.

Witness the latest Newspeak utterance from the Premier's propaganda department announcing the by-election for Labrador West.

"It is a pleasure to announce that residents of Labrador West will have the opportunity to go to the polls and vote for new representation on March 13," said Premier Williams. "The legislation was amended in 2004 to ensure a district does not go without representation for a prolonged period of time."

Seems that some Winston fouled up. He or she was supposed to go back and amend all the previous amendments to the amendments to conform to the current distortion. The factual material would then be dropped down the memory hole whence it could not escape.

A quick check of the 2004 changes to the Elections Act shows that the time to call a by-election was reduced from 90 days to 60 days. The original version was introduced by the Wells administration in 1992. Prior to that the government could wait pretty much as long as it pleased to call a by-election. That's what happened in 1987 when Clyde Wells was elected leader of the Liberal Party. The Tories decided to delay the by-election in Windsor-Buchans as long as they could. So, as premier, Wells introduced changes to the Act to prevent that kind of abuse.

Danny didn't have to wait that long to get his seat in the House.

The Williams change was a cosmetic change at worst. At best, the changes brought in by Danny Williams were inconsequential, tiny, insignificant even, at least when it comes to ensuring that the people of any part of Newfoundland and Labrador were properly represented in the House of Assembly in a timely way once a vacancy had occurred.

Only The Ministry would view it otherwise.

By the looks of it though, someone will be sent off for re-education.

Of course, he/she and his/her error will be erased as if they never existed.

Oil and Gas Week 2007

What a difference a year makes.

For Oil and Gas Week 2006, there was no news release from the provincial government praising the future potential of the industry.

Nope.

There was an announcement that consultations were starting on an energy plan due later in the spring or summer.

Hebron negotiations were moving ahead on a deal for the fourth offshore field.

The oil industry knew that the Hibernia partners would be looking to develop the 300 million barrels at Hibernia South.

Now it's 2007.

No Hebron.

No Hibernia South.

No energy plan. It's only been under development for 10 years.

Natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale issues a news release talking about all the undiscovered potential offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Not a peep about the contribution the oil industry already makes to the provincial economy and to the government's treasury.

Then she adds this thought:

We are continuing our efforts to establish a competitive and efficient offshore and onshore regulatory regime that encourages exploration and the timely development of discoveries, while also ensuring a fair return to the people of the province and industry...

The competitive regulatory regime for the offshore already exists and what needs to be adjusted is being adjusted - by the offshore regulatory board. Dunderdale's recent rejection of Hibernia South - based apparently on a series of flimsy excuses - hasn't done a thing to creative a competitive environment for the local offshore sector. Rather it just adds to a very difficult environment in which government demands remain incalculable.

The folly of that can be found in a number of documents, including - oddly enough - a paper written almost a decade ago by former Peckford advisor Cabot Martin. He noted at the time that the oil industry makes its capital decisions on the basis of long-term calculations measured in decades. How true.

Leaping ahead a few years, its easy to see that decisions to investigate Hebron and try to bring it onstream were taken almost a decade ago based in no small measure on the competitive offshore royalty regime the province had at the time. Likewise, the decision to shelve the project means that it will be a while before the proponents come back to the negotiating table.

By comparison, note that Newfoundland and Labrador has never accepted zero royalties, as the Americans did to jump-start exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico. The local royalty regime also provides significantly better royalties to the provincial government than the American federal regime would provide if the recent Congressional decision is implemented.

There's been nothing done in the past three years to encourage exploration. To the contrary, exploration continues to putter along at an incredibly slow rate due in no small measure to the climate created by Hebron, Hibernia South and the foot-dragging on the gas royalty regime and the energy plan.

Any change in the current freeze offshore will depend on what sits in that energy plan. If it turns out to be a plan modelled on such paragons of sensible economic development as Algeria or Venezuela, we can expect the oil industry to invest its billions somewhere else. Danny Williams' prediction of a better tomorrow a decade from now will have to turn into a longer timescale.

With little or no action in the province's offshore, it seems words now have to serve as a poor substitute.

Our Place in Canada: More in than out

A recent study released by Statistics Canada shows that Newfoundland and Labrador generated $4,741 per capita in federal government revenues in Fiscal Year 2004 but received $9,356 per capita in federal transfers.

A widely-criticized series of articles by The Independent claimed that Newfoundland and Labrador contributed more to Canada than it received in return. It also claimed that a great deal of information wasn't available despite the fact that Statistics Canada generates both raw data and analyses of all aspects of economic activity in Canada, including federal-provincial transfers.

Among the provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador is the largest recipient of transfers to individuals on a per capita basis, at $3,468. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the second largest per capita recipient of government transfers, at slightly more than $2,800.

For the record: Danny Williams on ending parliamentary free speech

Let's change it. From my perspective, I think the legislature should have the exact same accountability [ i.e. being sued for defamation]. That's a democratic practice that goes way, way beyond me. But from my perspective, I'd be prepared to be held accountable...those laws get changed [sic]...or anybody else in the House has to be held accountable for what they say. I have no problem with that.

That's what Danny Williams told reporters on Tuesday in answer to a question about the right of members of the legislature to speak freely, immune from legal proceedings in a court. The words don't flow well simple because the Premier was speaking off the top of his head, but there's no mistaking what he meant: let's change the rules so legislators can be sued for anything they say, anywhere, anytime. A right that dates back to the 16th century needs to go, not just by the boards, but over them with a hip check.

NTV wins the brownie points this week for being the only media outlet to report the Premier's unquestionable - dare we say enthusiastic - support for ending the centuries-old right of free speech accorded to members of the legislature.

While comments made about four individuals, including your humble e-scribbler garnered considerable public and news media attention, the comments quoted above have far more ominous implications.

There'll be more to say about the idea of ending parliamentary free speech, but for now let's just let Danny Williams speak for himself.

The legacy of Sir Sam

Canada has had its fair share of blow-hard and/or incompetent defence ministers.

The ones that do the most damage are the former military officers who never made it to the top while in uniform but manage to circumvent the eminent good judgment of the professional promotion system and get there through the political route.

Witness one Gordo, the current MND, but formerly a brigadier general who spent his career bouncing around inside a tank.

O'Connor seems determined to follow in the fine tradition of politicians who, as national defence minister, presume to know considerably more than they do.

Gordo, as many across the country have known for far too long, is trying to impose his vision for the Canadian Forces on a professional and highly-competent officer corps that knows their business far better than the retired zipperhead. His ideas do not stand up on their merit. Instead, O'Connor persists in advancing his ludicrous notions - like relocating JTF 2 to Trenton or creating whole new battalions of currently non-existent troops for deployment across Canada - merely because he is the political boss.

In the meantime, the far more competent Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, faces the challenge of reconciling the demands of the men and women in the field doing the hard work of defending the country with a budget that cannot support them and Gordo's foolishness.

To give an indication of how obvious was the problem with Gordo, consider that Bond Papers pointed it out fully one year ago, shortly after the retired tank driver was appointed to the job at 101 Colonel By.

Also noted at the time was the misery being inflicted on the people of Goose Bay who have been taken in by O'Connor's promises of troops, troops and more troops. They have their hopes pinned on O'Connor's commitments.

If they are lucky, Gordo will be fired - the sooner the better - and the community can start finding a new direction for the town's major employer.

If they are unlucky, the current federal administration will leave the decidedly wrong man defence minister, waste millions of taxpayers dollars fulfilling Gordo's pledges and in the process hook the people of Goose Bay to a form of economic crack cocaine: political patronage and pork.

It will fall to a future administration, gifted with more reasonable leadership to cope with the results of the mistake inherent in putting retired military men or women in charge of national defence.

It's not like we haven't been down this road before, far, far, far too many times.

The truth hurts, part deux

The Offal News take on Tom Rideout's concerns about supposed "irregularities" in the Humber Valley by-election.

To paraphrase Lono at Offal News, Rideout's irregularity seeems to be that his candidate - correction - the Premier's candidate lost.

Hey, Denis: The truth hurts.

The period of cuts to the Canadian Forces ushered in by Jean Chretien was a dark period for not just the men and women in uniform.

It was a dark period for the whole country.

Simple thing, there, Denis Coderre, is the truth hurts.

Suck it up.

Memo to Stephane: Punt this guy into the cheap seats. He embarrasses the country.

Either that or hire him some better advisors. I can make some suggestions.

You know how to reach me.

Put on a happy face

It's polling season.

There is disquiet in some elements of the electorate.

News media are fried at the threats of law suits over libel chill.

Government's response is to flood a Friday morning with every manner of happy-face news releases.

A dozen before noon.

Still nothing though on the attack on our pride from Wisconsin.

Remember the Alamo?

A tongue-in-cheek piece in the Badger Herald calls for the United States to liberate Canada as part of the war on terror.

But is it humour or is there a serious threat being made?

With support, our Canadian heartland brethren can break the shackles of liberalism for once and for all. This would be accomplished by providing significant financial, organizational, and material backing to strengthen the position of Canadian conservatives. When they have gained sufficient power and popular support, they should be impelled to secede from the liberal elite dominating the country from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

Preferably, this would be the first step toward statehood, though an independent Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan loyal to the United States would also be acceptable. If the Canadian government attempted to quash the push for independence, we would be forced to move American troops into Canada and dissolve their government to maintain law and order, incorporating Canada into the United States as a protectorate. In this event it would be best to grant Quebec autonomy, and allow it sovereignty over New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other useless parts of the former Canadian nation. While some may find the creation of a Vichy Quebec undesirable in contrast to total annexation, let us pose a simple question. Does the United States need millions of croissant-loving French and Newfies pouring over the border and taking jobs from hard-working Americans? We most certainly think not. [Emphasis added]

Newfies?

Useless?

Hmmm.

Anyone familiar with history knows the real story of the Alamo.

Ask any Mexican nationalist.

It looks like humour.

This guy Bill Rowe wrote a column a few weeks ago that sounds suspiciously like one component of this little plan: annex Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec.

Perhaps he's a fifth columnist on this one.

The Telegram.

Badger Herald.

Both newspapers.

Coincidence?

Maybe there's something sinister behind the clown mask.

If nothing else there is an effort here to bring down not merely a single individual but an entire nation.

We await the Premier's next scrum.

Our pride is at stake.

Let's reform campaign finance laws too, Tom

Tom Rideout is the lead man for Danny Williams efforts to take the Humber Valley by any means necessary.

It's called desperation, but hey, if they have nothing better to do than try and overturn a vote by the electorate, that's their problem.

But when Tom Rideout starts talking about the by-election with tones like "we can now confirm..." he starts to sound a bit like the police inspector in Casablanca who declares "Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked!"

Rideout is intimately familiar with the province's election laws. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that ballot boxes were moved about seniors homes in his own district.

But Rideout's efforts here seem aimed at the type of innuendo that often substitutes for the lack of evidence . By implication, Rideout is smearing the neutral elections officials who did nothing but follow the law and common practice in the way set down by the legislature.

Nothing new here. Public servants in the House of Assembly - all of them the same as elections officials - are used to being blamed for the failings of politicians.

It seems a common practice for this administration to take no responsibility even for things it does. In this case it seems that the loss of an election, despite the Premier's supreme efforts, must now be blamed on those who did nothing other than follows the rules, as established, that applied equally to all candidates and all parties.

In the meantime, Rideout seems unconcerned to reform election finance laws. There are plenty of issues there from out of province donations to soft money that need to be addressed too.

Unfortunately, those things - all of which would enhance accountability and fairness in the electoral process - wouldn't help in soothing the political frustration Danny Williams' is feeling right at the moment.

Heaven knows we can't have Danny frustrated.

Countries respond to Al Queda threats to US oil supplies

Al Queda issued a general threat Wednesday to American oil supplies, including possible attacls on Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.

Bond Papers discussed oil rig security in the province's offshore last November, based on a report in the Ottawa Citizen that the federal government had drafted legislation on the issue.

The federal government is taking the threat seriously, according to public security minister Stockwell Day. Alberta has increased security, while the Saskatchewan government appears confident in the security of its oil production.

Rutter wins $3.5 million Brazilian oil contract

St. John's manufacturing company Rutter Inc.(TSX: RUT) announced on Wednesday that its 74%-owned subsidiary Unicontrol International Ltda. (Unicontrol) has successfully
renewed its contract to provide support services to 32 Petrobras platforms operating in the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.

It's that time of the month

There are by-elections.

Corporate Research Associates must be in the field with their quarterly omnibus survey.

How do we know?

The number of government news releases about capital spending in rural areas shot up this week. Like Thursday where the first four releases are about rural infrastructure.

Hickey to pay own tab, Oram flubs badly

Despite his vehement defence of having the public treasury cover transportation minister John Hickey's legal bills in the battle with former premier Roger Grimes, Premier Danny Williams today told VOCM Open Line that Hickey would be footing the bill himself.

Many in the province - heck most people - were taken aback by the sudden change of direction.

Late in the day, Hickey turned up to tell CBC Radio that "I've thought it through and I decided that I wanted to change course here.... I'm going to pick up whatever legal cost that's going to be associated with this particular issue."

Later in the day still, Paul Oram, the Premier's tried vainly to explain to Back Talk host Bill Rowe what the heck the whole dispute was about. Rowe, a former politician and lawyer, tried in vain to get Oram to state specifically what remarks Grimes should apologise for.

Oram went down several roads, always making the same unsubstantiated claim likely contained in the talking points from the Premier's publicity department. At every juncture, Rowe shut him down with simple, obvious questions related specifically to the case.

To embarrass the hapless politician even more, Rowe insulted him at several points, essentially begging Oram to take offense and threaten to sue Rowe. Each time, Oram declined, thereby confirming that his initial point was impossible to defend. Of course that means that the Premier's point on the whole affray is nonsense as well.

Memo to the Premier: Paul Oram deserves a cabinet seat solely for his ability to defend the indefensible, repeatedly, despite the savaging of his own credibility in the process.

Williams slags Bond: the audio record

1. An audio clip of Premier Danny Williams scrum on Tuesday, from CBC Radio Noon. [The relevant part is at around 12:25 on your counter.]

2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]

The value of criticism

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.

Winston Churchill, 1874-1965

Meeker on media

Communications consultant Geoff Meeker has joined the online revolution with a new blog, Meeker on media.

As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".

Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.

His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.

Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.

Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.

Check him out.

You won't be disappointed.

Canada West Foundation backs Harper on Equalization

Canada West Foundation issued a paper on Monday praising the inclusion of 50% of natural resources revenues in Equalization calculations as an "interesting compromise" on the issue.

"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.

Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

From the abstract:

The federal government has said that it wants to address the fiscal imbalance in the upcoming budget. Broadly speaking, this means dealing with fiscal arrangements between, and clarifying roles of, the federal and provincial governments, and fixing the equalization program. This paper does three things to stimulate debate on possible options for reform. First it discusses three broad policy pillars that together constitute a consistent approach to fiscal federalism. These pillars are: 1) "equalization as glue," which argues for the importance of equalization for our federation; 2) "after equalization, equal transfers per capita," which argues that programs outside equalization should treat all Canadians equally; and 3) "re-balancing the federation," which argues for clarifying federal and provincial roles and responsibilities.

The paper then discusses political and economic constraints facing the government as it seeks to address the fiscal imbalance. These include the current inefficiencies of the equalization program, cost challenges faced by the federal government, the political importance of Quebec and Ontario, and the influence of promises made previously by the Conservative government. Finally, the paper provides some reform options grouped into three categories: 1) the really difficult; 2) the really, really difficult; and 3) the nearly impossible.

The paper lists options for both fixing equalization and addressing other federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. When it comes to addressing the fiscal imbalance, there are many possible paths. The real challenge for the current government is to choose a path that results in a coherent system of fiscal federalism while addressing very real political and fiscal constraints. The paper does not put such a package together—it leaves this task to the current government. It does, however, present ideas that widen the menu of options currently being discussed.

The Canada West Foundation paper contains a number of recommendations, many of which the authors acknowledge would be difficult if not impossible to implement.

A fundamental right in any democracy

From the Bill of Rights 1689:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

The elected representatives of the people enjoy a right of free speech in British parliamentary democracy for a reason. It prevents them from being intimidated by outside or inside forces.

Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.

In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.

What he said, another one

Libel chill, from Offal News.

Stupid is...?

Transportation minister John Hickey is suing former premier Roger Grimes for defamation over comments Grimes made about Hickey's double-billing of expenses to the legislature.

Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.

Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.

Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.

If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.

On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.

The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.

Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.

And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.

Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.

Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.

Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.

On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.

The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.

Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.

That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.

The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.

Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.

Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.

In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.

But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.

When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.

To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.

The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.

The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.

By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.

In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.

No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.

Dwight wins, Danny loses

Every Tory except John Hickey and Jack Byrne came off the benches to try and win the Humber Valley by-election, but in the end, Deer Lake pharmacist Dwight Ball squeeked out an 18 vote victory.

The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.

Maine, NB cooperate on electricity, NL likely behind development curve

Maine Governor John Baldacci and New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham signed a memorandum of understanding on Friday to explore increased co-operation between the state and the province on electricity distribution.

Gov. Baldacci noted that both Maine and New Brunswick produce surplus electricity much of it coming from environmentally friendly sources like wind energy. Maine has also been looking at alternatives to an agreement covering New England states that the Maine Public Utilities Commission believes will cost Maine residents US$616 million over the next five years. As a result, Maine has begun to look at alternative energy sources to ensure Maine residents are not subsidizing excessive energy consumption in other states.

The memorandum commits the two jurisdictions to explore over the next two years options on establishing a common market for electricity, improvements to transmission facilities and interconnections and generally to examine areas of co-operation on electricity generation and distribution. While both jurisdictions produce more power than is consumed in the jurisdictions, both have peak demand times when power must be imported.

The Maine-New Brunswick agreement casts doubts about the meaning and value of a recent announcement by the Newfoundland and Labrador government on the Lower Churchill.

The day before the Maine-New Brunswick agreement, Premier Danny Williams announced that his province's hydroelectricity Crown corporation had filed an application with New Brunswick's electricity regulator for long-term transmission service.

The Newfoundland and Labrador announcement is essentially exploratory in nature, since the Lower Churchill project has not been approved for construction. As Premier Williams acknowledged to news media, his government is not currently in discussion with any potential purchasers of Lower Churchill power since the costs of the project have not been finalized.

By contrast, Maine and New Brunswick are exploring options over the next to years that would lead to freer energy flow between the two jurisdictions. Even according to official timelines, Lower Churchill will not be sanctioned before 2009 and no power is forecast to flow until 2015 at the earliest. Maine's requirements are immediate and New Brunswick and Quebec have the capacity to meet those needs well before 2015.

Cost of Lower Churchill power might also place it out of competition for New England needs. Some estimates put the cost of installing subsea cabling and other transmission systems to New Brunswick in excess of $2.0 billion. That's in addition to the cost of building the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating complexes.

There is some reason to believe the so-called Anglo-Saxon route for Lower Churchill power would be unprofitable. Premier Williams told reports last week that he was considering selling power into New England under a deferred revenue arrangement. That's likely code for selling at a loss.

Text of MOU:

Memorandum of Understanding Between The Province of New Brunswick And The State of Maine To Enhance The Mutual Benefits Of the Maine/New Brunswick Electrical Interconnections

WHEREAS, The State of Maine (“Maine”) shares electrical interconnections with the Province of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”);

Maine also shares electrical interconnections with other New England states;

New Brunswick also shares electrical interconnections with the Maritime Provinces and Quebec;

New Brunswick and Maine each have located within their respective borders adequate and at most times abundant generation capacity;

New Brunswick and Maine export significant quantities of generation to southern New England for the benefit of all consumers;

New Brunswick and Maine each have abundant natural resources from which renewable energy, such as wind and tidal energy, can be harvested to generate electrical energy;

Maine and New Brunswick have each adopted policies to promote the development of renewable resources;

The northeastern United States needs new supplies of electrical energy, including renewables;

Maine and New Brunswick wish to expand opportunities for the mutual development and export of new electric generation capacity resources;

Maine and New Brunswick wish to increase the opportunities to transmit energy between the State and Province and to their neighbors in Canada and the United States;

Maine and New Brunswick wish to improve the efficiency of their respective electric systems and the interconnections between them to benefit consumers and the environment; and New Brunswick and Maine acknowledge the significance of climate change and recognize the importance of emphasizing the development and deployment of low emission electricity generation in the future.

NOW THEREFORE,

I, Shawn Graham, Premier of the Province of New Brunswick, and I, John Elias Baldacci, Governor of the State of Maine, do hereby enter into this “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Province of New Brunswick and The State of Maine To Enhance The Mutual Benefits Of the Maine/New Brunswick Electrical Interconnections” and do hereby agree as hereinafter set forth.

Maine and New Brunswick agree to explore expansions of generation capacity, including renewables, and transmission opportunities by agreeing to jointly undertake the following tasks:

1. Study the feasibility of expanding generation capacity and transmission infrastructure to increase electrical flows across borders;

2. Identify processes and systems to provide transparency and efficiency in Maine and New Brunswick markets;

3. Study the feasibility of developing common market rules that could be applied in Maine and New Brunswick;

4. Explore the potential benefits and technical and legal impediments to the common provisioning of control area services (including balancing, dispatch and reserve sharing);

5. Explore the tariff and governance structures required for a regional transmission organization for Maine and New Brunswick; and

6. Examine the opportunities for compatible greenhouse gas emissions reduction regimes in the electricity sector.

Maine and New Brunswick agree to dedicate sufficient resources from their respective state and provincial agencies for the completion of the tasks described herein. Maine and New Brunswick agree to appoint one person from each government to serve as each state’s or province’s, as applicable, point of contact (the “Joint Representatives”).

The tasks are to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 work will overview the tasks, will assess priorities and possibilities, and will identify common principles (the “Principles”) to guide additional work and any future implementation. The Joint Representatives shall deliver to their respective governments a report on the Phase 1 activities no later than June 1, 2007.

Upon completion of Phase 1, and agreement on the Principles, Maine and New Brunswick agree to proceed to Phase 2. It will be guided by the Principles and will complete detailed assessments of all tasks. The Joint Representatives shall present a final Phase 2 report to their respective governments no later than January 1, 2008.

Upon completion of the tasks identified above, Maine and New Brunswick agree to consider entering into a further agreement to implement mutually beneficial actions. Upon mutual consent, this further agreement may include other states or provinces.

Signed and delivered this 9th day of February, 2007.

Premier Graham Official Signature Block

Governor Baldacci Official Signature Block

[Source: Maine Governor's Office]