Putting two and two together

One of the last pieces of legislation approved by the legislature was something called the Crown Liability Act.

Specifically, it holds the provincial government immune from any legal action resulting from the break-up of Fishery Products International.

The thing was introduced in the House on June 4 and passed through second reading, committee and third reading on June 11 and 12. There were two trivial amendments. The whole thing passed through the legislature with breath-taking speed.

The thing is, there really isn't much of substance available in the public record on the purpose of this bill. A portion of the Hansard - the bit from the night sitting - isn't available on line.

So, is it possible that the real purpose behind this bill, which opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons noted appeared to have been drafted in haste, was intended to head off any problems with Cooke Aquaculture?

The New Brunswick company announced last October that it was developing a major fish farming enterprise in southern Newfoundland. Part of the FPI sale approved this month included the sale of FPI's Fortune plant to Cooke.

Suddenly - less than 10 days later - Cooke is raising doubts about the sale.

Are the two things related?

We may never know.

-srbp-

Government likes rubber stamp legislature

Deputy premier, fisheries minister and government house leader Tom Rideout is "extremely pleased with the quality and quantity of business that was achieved during this past session of the House of Assembly."

Let's take a look at the tale of the tape of accountability and transparency.

Of the 34 bills introduced in the current session, 27 were passed through second and third stages in a single day. That's 70% of the total.

Another six bills went through the detailed study stages in three days of debate or less.

Another bill was left on the order paper.

In some instances, such as the related bills on a new energy corporation, a hydro corporation and amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act, government distributed the bills publicly only a day before they were debated in the legislature. The EPCA changes weren't even disclosed publicly until the day before the legislature closed.

Neither the opposition nor the general public can be said to have had sufficient time to study any of these measures, let alone develop any idea of their implications. In the case of the energy bills, opposition members relied entirely on a canned government briefing for their remarks in the legislature during the hasty debate.

In the 2006/07 session, the House of Assembly dealt with 72 bills, 57 of which went through the supposed detailed study stage and received third reading approval within a single day. That's 79% of the total number of bills. Of the remainder, the majority were disposed of in less than a week.

One of the bills rammed through in 2006 were changes to the hydro corporation act that linked electricity prices to unregulated business activity. The revised bill introduced in the session just finished was touted as fixing the problem. In fact, the problem remains.

As a senior minister in any government, Tom Rideout should be proud. He was able to ram an amazing amount of legislation through the legislature without even the most cursory of discussion or public debate. As the senior minister in a government that supposedly supports accountability and transparency, he might be just a little chagrined.

-srbp-

Living in a fog: one Connie offers his thoughts

Mainland Connies think the people of Atlantic Canada are, to quote the Wonderful Grand Band, living in a fog, living in a dreamworld.

Nonsense like this stuff from the ironically titled My Conservative Dreamworld should give a good idea of how much traction the provincial government's arguments have out past the Port au Port peninsula.

If the Premier can't get at the Conservative vote base, there's not much hope for his so-called ABC option. He doesn't need to convince Liberals and New Democrats that Stephen Harper is a bad idea; they didn't vote for him in the first place.

In passing, it is worth noting how little this form of institutionalized bribery actually benefited its instigators. The concession on ownership rights (by Mulroney) and on natural resource revenue clawbacks (by Paul Martin) did not produce quite the electoral harvest those two gentlemen were anticipating. This also has its own rationale: when voters have grown accustomed to welfare they view it as a right, and then why should they sell their votes for something that is rightfully theirs? The Atlantic Accords is therefore that rare political event that is worse than a corrupt vote-buying exercise - namely a failed, corrupt vote-buying exercise.

Some of these guys actually want to demolish the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

Think about it.

-srbp-

Wait five minutes

Only a couple of days after dismissing legal action against the federal government as a waste of time, Premier Danny Williams is considering joining Saskatchewan in its case against the Harper administration on Equalization.

The Premier said he hadn't considered the idea of legal action, preferring to try the matter in the court of public opinion.

Meanwhile, McGill constitutional law professor Stephen Scott says there is a way to put the matter in front of the courts.

The fastest, most economical route through the legal system would be to start an action for a declaratory order to see if the agreement is legally binding.

Then Nova Scotia could use the power of reference that every province has in its statute books to send a set of detailed questions to the court of appeal.

-srbp-

300 or all politics is local

How many times have provincial cabinet ministers or the Premier's parliamentary assistant claimed that the 2005 Equalization offsets deal put $300 million in the provincial treasury this year?

Lots of times? Too many times.

Paul Oram did it this morning speaking with Randy Simms on VOCM's Open Line.

But here's the thing: it isn't true.

The 2005 offshore deal has not added a single penny of new cash to the provincial coffers since 2005.

Here's why.

The 2005 Equalization offsets deal provided for two specific things that are relevant. First, there was an advance payment of $2.0 billion. Second, the clause covering that advance payment also provided:

Amounts calculated starting in 2004-05 under clauses 3 and 4 will not result in actual payments to the province until such time as their cumulative value exceeds $2.0 billion. [Emphasis added]

The cheque was received and applied against a portion of the unfunded pension liability in 2005.

Spent.

All that has occurred over the past four budgets (FY 2004 to FY 2007) is that the finance minister is accounting for the payment that the province is entitled to receive under the deal.

There's no new cash involved. That's because there won't be new cash until the full $2.0 billion has been accounted for annually. right now, the four year total (including the paper money cabinet minister talk about for this year) is $847 million. Simple calculation: another $1.153 billion will have to be drawn down before that deal actually generates new cash in the bank.

Take a look at any of the calculations done by Wade Locke and you will see pretty quickly that the 2005 deal will not generate any new cash before the deal expires. The provincial government will not qualify for Equalization under either system - fixed pot or 50% exclusion - long before the add-on benefits reach that figure of $1.153 billion.

In some respects, the ongoing racket over the so-called side deals is a bit overblown. The Atlantic Accord (1985) provided for temporary, declining Equalization offsets intended to cushion the provincial treasury against a sudden drop in transfers. The transitional cash was intended to support debt reduction and infrastructure development.

Improving the financial lot of Newfoundland and Labrador makes sense for the province and it makes eminent sense for the country. Temporary transfers from the federal government to Newfoundland and Labrador for a well-understood purpose, even if linked to the Equalization program, is backed by precedent and the focused nature of the transfers doesn't come close to destroying the fundamental fairness of the Equalization system.

Ontarian taxpayers, among others, can rest easy that they will not be funnelling cash into a gaping maw. The whole thing is set up as a limited program. Take a look at even the most recent assessment of the Equalization program and the offsets, and one thing becomes clear: Newfoundland and Labrador's economy will do so well in the next four years that the provincial government will become a so-called "have" province in short order. Ontarians, and others upset about the offsets arrangements should follow a simple rule: don't look at the theatrics continuously surrounding the 2005 agreements; look at the facts.

Even the 2005 deal is a temporary arrangement with triggers designed to shut the whole cash tap off when the provincial government becomes a "have" province. The final agreement - as opposed to the October draft - has a dual trigger to shut down the cash flow. The province must be meet two conditions to keep receiving offsets; the draft version had an "either/or" option that made it easier to extend the deal under any Equalization formula.

Politically, it would impossible for any federal government of any stripe to produce an Equalization program that ignored completely non-renewable resource revenues. It wasn't possible in 1962 when the object of attention was Alberta and it sure as heck isn't possible today when the focus is on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Only the most fool-hardy of political parties or a party with no hope of actually forming a government would make a political promise that is politically untenable.

And in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, aside from the people who voted Conservative on the basis of the Equalization promise - were there any? - few people are likely to organize a lynch mob for Conservatives now or in the future. Sure, there are plenty of provincial Progressive Conservatives who took the cue from the Premier and worked on Conservative campaigns. Realistically, though, Equalization wasn't likely a vote driver except for a very limited number of people.

Conservative candidates may face some heat next time and a year from now they may face a vengeful provincial premier, but realistically, they can rest easy knowing that a year is a long time in local politics. Things change. In 2004, Danny Williams rejected Harper's 100% exclusion option. A year later, Harper supposedly delivered the pyjama's for Danny's cat. A year after that, Harper is "untrustworthy" and his Conservative members of parliament are "traitors".

If nothing else, Conservatives have likely taken heart from the most recent regional poll. That's why they voted for the budget on third reading, despite the intense political pressure. Look at the whole picture: the only place when Connies are currently facing a real problem is Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal Conservatives likely are counting on Danny Williams' limited traction outside his own province and, given the available evidence, he doesn't seem to have much traction.

That's because his messages are aimed mainly at his own province. His communications plan ignores the attitudes toward his goals and his approach; it makes no effort to put the local issue in a context that genuinely counteracts perceptions. It does nothing to connect with his audience except, as in the case of teachers and students, with their instinctive, ideological opposition to the federal Conservatives.

Behind it all, though Danny Williams knows full well that his province is not hurting financially. In the worst case scenario, that is where he plays it smarts and opts to maximize the cash, federal transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador through Equalization and offsets will be $2.787 billion over the next four years.

The gap between that and the old Equalization system, according to APEC figures, is less than $300 million a year over that period and that amount will likely be generated in the economy anyway. The Premier knows there will be new investment in western Labrador through Consolidated Thompson. He can count on a couple of other major developments in the next five years or so and maybe, just maybe, there will be renewed interest in the offshore oil and gas industry.

Danny Williams is a smart guy and he is playing the whole Equalization racket very smartly. If he has learned one thing over the past three years it is that Danny Williams can make whatever claim he wants and people will react to it without thinking. That's the $300 million thing, for example. He knows he can create a firestorm of domestic political controversy that makes him look good and makes others look like, well, traitors. It reinforces his status as the only force in provincial politics and that's really the point of the whole exercise.

All politics is indeed very local.

-srbp-

Why cabinet avoided a public inquiry

When judges have real powers they can upset carefully concocted sets of excuses.

Like say Chief Justice Derek Green's conclusions on the secret bonus money handed out to members of the House of Assembly, after the Accountability and transparency police came to office.

Bear in mind Green's terms of reference did not give his commission the powers of a public inquiry.

Yet he was still able to make this observation, as quoted in the Telegram:

MHAs contended the two events were unrelated.

The chief justice disagreed.

"If I were sitting in a court of law assessing, as sworn evidence, the information I have been presented with, I would not have too much difficulty in drawing the inference that the issue must have been present in the minds of at least some of the participants in the decision," he wrote.

That's judge-speak for "pull the other one, it's got bells on it."

Imagine what Green would have done if he'd put everyone he spoke to under oath.

Some politicians and their scripted supporters said the inquiry would take too long.

Like maybe a year?

Green took almost a year.

Pull the other one, indeed.

-srbp-

SK court case to undermine NL and NS

Saskatchewan's court case over Equalization will tackle the issue of fundamental fairness in the system, according to Premier Lorne Calvert.

CBC News is reporting it this way:

Calvert said the legal action would not be over a broken campaign promise.

If a lawsuit was filed for every broken Conservative promise, there wouldn't be enough lawyers, he said.

Instead, he said, the suit would be based on the sections of the constitution that require the equalization program to be fair and equitable.

One possible route to that argument will undermine the offshore side deals from 2005 between the federal government and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why?

Because those side deals are effectively a political work-around for the Equalization program. After all, if Saskatchewan's argument is based on fair and equitable treatment, the province that's been looking for an Accord-type exemption might just put that point on the table.

If Saskatchewan doesn't raise the issue directly, we might well see other provinces weigh in on the case. Bet your bottom dollar that those other provinces - already fried about the deals - will bring it up as an example of a fundamental inequity in the federal government's approach to Equalization.

Ask Ed Stelmach if his province might seek standing on this one. His province has had its non-renewable revenues clawed back, to use that idiotic phrase, for 45 years. Why would it be equitable, from Alberta's perspective to treat that province differently from the others?

-srbp-

Offal News round up

Some choice posts from another local blog:

1. A post on the First Law of Petropolitics, a reprint of a column from the Globe on the implications in Canada.

2. "Jobs out east", a look at the local supply and service sector for the oil industry.

3. Energy transportation issues.

-srbp-

Andrew Coyne on the Equalization racket

From the National Post:

It is not true, then, to say that the Accord has been violated. It is true that Mr. Harper played Atlantic Canadians for suckers. At least he is paying the price.

Well, suckers is a strong word. Appropriate but strong.

And it's not fair to lump all Atlantic Canadians into one lot.

Only some people were suckered, and the ones who are angriest now are the ones who were fooled.

-srbp-

APEC assessment of Budget 2007 and Equalization

From the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council:

June 13, 2007

APEC releases study on the Equalization Options of Budget 2007 for the Atlantic Provinces

APEC is today releasing a new report on the implications of the proposed changes to the Equalization program for the four Atlantic provinces. The report entitled Assessing the Equalization Options of Budget 2007 for the Atlantic Provinces has been prepared by Professor Paul Hobson of Acadia University and Professor Wade Locke of Memorial University, both Senior Policy Advisors of APEC.

Following on the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Equalization, the new Equalization program includes the re-establishment of a ten province standard, simplified measures of fiscal capacity and a more predictable and stable payment system that is formula driven. The new program also reverses a pre-election commitment to exclude natural resource revenues, and includes 50% of these revenues.

The study provides estimates of the revenue flows to the four provinces under the current program (Fixed Framework) and the new Equalization program for each fiscal year from 2007-2008 to 2019-2020, the year in which the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Accords expire. These simulations utilize publicly available data projected forward, based on certain key assumptions. In particular, it is assumed that the aggregate of the fiscal equalization payments under the Fixed Framework will grow at an annual rate of 3.5% (as currently specified by legislation) and that non-oil and gas fiscal capacities for all provinces grow at an annual rate of 1.4% (the aggregate rate of growth of per-capita fiscal capacity in Canada over the last ten years). In addition, the simulations take into account changes to the Fiscal Arrangements Act, and to Offshore Accord legislation as detailed in the Budget Implementation Act (Bill C-52).

The Atlantic Accord, signed in 1985, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord, signed in 1986, gave Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, respectively, the right to collect royalties and to levy taxes on offshore operations as if the resources were on provincial land. In addition, the Accords provide Equalization offset provisions to compensate for potential reductions in Equalization payments as these additional revenues come on stream. The 2005 Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act provided for additional Equalization offset payments to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that each province would receive 100 percent of the benefit of its offshore revenues. That is, offset payments would ensure no claw back of offshore revenues through Equalization.

The summary revenue implications for each of the four Atlantic provinces are provided in the table below. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are better off financially under the new Equalization program for two years and thereafter are disadvantaged by the revised Equalization program. Newfoundland and Labrador is immediately worse off under the new program.

Specifically, the impacts on the provincial treasuries are:

o Nova Scotia - $159 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.4 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;
o New Brunswick - $68 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.1 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;
o Prince Edward Island - $7 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $196 million less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;
o Newfoundland and Labrador - $654 million reduction in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, an increase of $22 million in the third year, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.4 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework. It should be noted that Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be a recipient of Equalization after 2008-2009, under both the Fixed Framework and the new Equalization program. [Emphasis added]

Beyond 2007-2008, both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can choose to permanently opt into the new Equalization program or remain under the Fixed Framework. The results clearly indicate that both provinces should remain under the Fixed Framework. Since other provinces were not offered this choice, this would result in an unprecedented situation in which two distinct Equalization programs are operating simultaneously, a situation which is not likely to be sustainable.

Furthermore, Equalization payments under the new program are constrained by a fiscal capacity cap. For purposes of the cap, fiscal capacity is measured, on a per-capita basis, as the sum of non-resource fiscal capacity, one hundred percent resource fiscal capacity, (pre-cap) Equalization entitlements and payments under the Accord legislation (applicable only to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador). Total fiscal capacity of a receiving province cannot rise above that of the lowest non-receiving province. Should it do so, Equalization payments are to be reduced accordingly.

The Budget Implementation Bill contains significant changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord, and to the 2005 Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, necessitated by the introduction of the new Equalization program. The protection provided by the Accords is undermined by any Equalization reductions caused by the fiscal capacity cap, since any reductions amount to claw backs of Accord payments. In the authors’ view, this violates both the letter and the spirit of the Accords. [Emphasis added]

****************************
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council is an independent, non-profit research and public policy organization that seeks to advance the economic development of the Atlantic region.

-srbp-

Williams big on Harper promise...in 2006

From the archives, a couple of stories containing Danny Williams' fulsome praise for the newly elected Harper administration.

Did the Premier actually claim he never trusted the guy?

Williams sees new allies in Ottawa
CBC News

Premier Danny Williams says a new Conservative government in Ottawa is nothing to fear – and could deliver on long-standing issues involving the federal government.

"I think Atlantic Canadians are going to be very pleasantly surprised and pleased with the performance of Mr. Harper," said Williams.

While Williams embraced Harper's response to a letter he sent to the major party leaders on issues pertinent to Newfoundland and Labrador, he refrained from actively campaigning for the Conservatives in the election.

Instead, Williams planted a sign supporting Conservative candidate Norm Doyle outside his residence, and used cautious language during the campaign.

During the campaign, Williams also applauded a response from NDP leader Jack Layton to the same list of questions, while being cool to the response from Liberal leader Paul Martin.

Williams also denied a rift between himself and the new MP for Avalon, Fabian Manning.

Manning was booted from the provincial Progressive Conservative caucus last May, after Manning spoke out against the provincial government's controversial raw materials sharing plan for the crab industry.

Williams said the dispute was "a caucus issue" and applauded Manning's victory.

"In all fairness to Fabian, I wouldn't take anything from Fabian's victory tonight. It was expected," said Williams, who noted a number of the members of the provincial Tory caucus campaigned for Manning.

In fact, Williams suggested that the Atlantic Accord dispute – in which he launched salvo after salvo against the Martin Liberals in a campaign to wrest more financial benefits from the offshore oil industry – helped Manning take the seat.

"That was John Efford's former district. The Atlantic Accord played a big role in that particular district, as it has played a role in the entire province," Williams said.

Efford, who won the Avalon race in 2004 with almost 60 per cent of the vote, became a lightning rod for anger when he rebuked Williams in the early days of the Atlantic Accord fuss.

"We basically had to drag Ottawa kicking and screaming to come with the Accord deal … I think it played a significant factor."

Efford announced his retirement in November, citing his lengthy battle with diabetes.

Williams, meanwhile, said he looks forward to a productive relationship with Harper.

"It's a delicate job [and] it's a difficult job to manage the relationship between the premiers and the prime minister of the country. However, I think it will be a refreshing change," Williams said.

He said he expects Harper to follow through on pledges involving the fishery, energy issues and the "fiscal imbalance" in Atlantic Canada.


Provincial Politicians Weigh In on Election - Jan 24, 2006
VOCM

Premier Danny Williams says he was a little surprised at last night federal election results. Williams says he thought Stephen Harper's Conservatives would get a larger minority than they did. He's also surprised that Atlantic Canada did not go a little stronger towards the Conservatives. Overall though he is generally pleased with the
result. He says the biggest issue facing the province is the fishery.

Williams says he did give some consideration to calling a by-election in Placentia-St. Mary's today, but he says this wouldn't be fair to party workers having just come off a federal election which saw Fabian Manning win John Efford's old seat. The by-election will be held soon.

Opposition Leader Gerry Reid says Paul Martin has made the right decision to step down as Liberal leader. Following his defeat last night, Martin announced he will leave the post after an orderly transition of power. Reid says Martin realizes that he can't lead the party to another victory. Reid says he believes Brian Tobin would be a good choice and Canadians would accept him.

Provincial NDP leader Jack Harris says given the calibre of local NDP candidates he's very disappointed the Province hasn't sent an NDP member to Ottawa. As for the Conservative minority victory, Harris told VOCM Open Line the federal NDP will have a strong voice in the House of Commons.

How times change.

-srbp-

A spotter's guide to plants and other political flora

That would be labradore, which ha staken lately to tracking the appearances of the various planted and scripted supporters of the current provincial governing administration.

labradore's wjm has also been known to tackle the factually dubious comments of individuals, including reporters on subjects of interest to the province. Odds are he's right and the quibbles he raises are only sometimes trivial.

If David Cochrane actually claimed - as wjm says - that Danny Williams was neutral in the last federal election, then Cochrane would have to be officially classed as out-to-lunch. Progressive Conservative members of legislature would not have dared campaign openly for Connie candidates if Danny Williams himself disapproved.

Danny Williams himself would not have actually invented commitments from Stephen Harper if he was not actively involved in the federal election campaign.

If a claim is made, odds are that wjm will challenge it. Incidentally, CTV's Bob Fife is a fact checker's nightmare, but oddly wjm hasn't set his sites on that guy yet.

But to return to the main story, wjm is especially adept at spotting the numerous planted callers organized by the premier's office to spread the official partisan position of the moment on the issue of the moment. He's named most of them who call regularly. He's noted their odd habit lately of stating that "it's not like they get told what to say from the premier's office", or words to that effect.

Kinda like saying "It's not about Danny" two or three times on a subject that pretty much is all about Danny.

Roger Grime's is quoted in news media? A raft of callers will turn up saying "I don't know how he can gave the gall to stick him head up...".

Like dandelions after a good rain, they will pop up all saying exactly the same thing. People who don't normally call will suddenly be spouting obscure references to something that happened in the House of Assembly during a late-night sitting (not broadcast) in 1993.

Really odd stuff that even politcal junkies like your humble e-scribbler long ago forgot. But someone claiming to be a house-frau from Humber will be able to cite chapter and verse from a cabinet meeting minutes.

or they'll just repeat Standard Anti-Grimes Position Number 6. it's like they are little japanese soldiers deserted on some island, destined to carry out their last order unti, they pass out or are killed by a falling cocoanut.

And that's what some of it is like. A Marx Brothers movie.

Bizarre stuff, really, but it gets on the air. Most often at VOCM, but increasingly the planted callers - Progrsssive Conservative and Liberal - are turning up at CBC. Easy know there's an election coming up in October: the bulls**t is already so deep you need something by bodyglove to get through it without getting an infection

So if you want a convenient spotter's guide to the politcal flaura and fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador, check out WJM's labradore.

Here's a question to start your search through the local political jungle: what newspaper columnist, author and former Tory candidate actually claimed that in 1949 the Newfoundland government gave away all its resources and received a miserable allowance in return?

Hint: a collection of her greatest calls to Open Line will likely be titled: The other Gin and Tonic Gardener.

-srbp-

Don't blame me!

I didn't vote for 'em.

In fact, Bond Papers raised some fairly consistent questions about the Harperites and some of the claims on their own political effectiveness made by one of the cabinet ministers soon to be efforded.

Now Dr. Bondolo may have been wrong about how short some people's memories were, but the Equalization forecast and how other provinces viewed the offshore deals? Bang on!

Oddly enough and despite all the public evidence that problems were looming on the federal political horizon, others did encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to vote for Stephen Harper's merry band of reverse leprechauns.

Like this one, or for that matter the Big One.

Frankly, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador most-pissed by the Harper administration right now are those who voted for them, encouraged others to vote for them or invented bizarre political theories to promote the Harper cause only to find out that the theories were nonsense.

They should be ticked off.

They were caught flat by the Connie performance and these former Harper supporters ignored solid evidence in order to make their pitches.

For example, Premier Danny Williams says he is astonished at Norm Doyle's behaviour. Had he read Bond Papers, then he'd have seen an account of Doyle's voting history in the Commons. There's nothing in it that suggests he will buck the party line. Had the Premier read Bond, he would have seen all along the numerous questions with the Conservatives' positions.

Heck, he might not have claimed there was a loan guarantee on the Lower Churchill from Harper when there obviously wasn't one.

Wishful thinking. Maybe Derek Green will put it in a report and then it will be accepted.

Because, ya know, it's not like these Harper Connies haven't said one thing and then done another right in front of our eyes.

Like say on custodial management, something they abandoned during the campaign.

Or "federal presence" which Loyola Hearn abandoned a couple of days after polling day.

So while you are wondering what will happen next in the Equalization racket, just ask yourself a simple question:

For all the concern about public safety offshore and in the air raised by Connies and their provincial cousins in the last federal election, is there any marine or aviation forecasting being done at Gander?

Ya might just want to think about that next time someone suggests who you should vote for.

-srbp-

Public policy on the fly

Does anyone else wonder if Kathy Dunderdale and her colleagues are making this stuff up as they go along?

One of things likely contained in the changes to the Electrical Power Control Act will be the correction to this problem, hopefully.

All of this just fixes the mess created last year with a hastily drafted piece of legislation setting up the the Hydra Corporation in the first place.

-srbp-

A meaningless gesture

And an entirely pointless debate.

Under amendments to the FPI Act passed last year - in just a single day - the power to break up the once-proud Newfoundland based company and sell the assets to a grab bag of local and international companies was passed to the cabinet.

Cabinet has exercised its powers; that's why the deal has been announced already.

The old FPI legislation can be scrapped without any worries.

It's just too late to do anything about the sale of the company.

The Opposition gave up their right to deal with this issue last year. They can't moan about it now or accuse the cabinet of doing something improper.

-srbp-

Where's John?

The Atlantic Accord negotiating team photo.

That's the real Atlantic Accord signed in 1985.

Where's John Crosbie?

Draw the obvious conclusion.

-srbp-

Harper team fragmenting

Loyola Hearn is clearly out of touch.

Now on top of that ctv.ca is reporting that Jim Flaherty's infamous weekend letter was originally supposed to be signed by Peter MacKay, DDS.

MacKay refused.

Insiders say that Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's communications director, instructed MacKay to sign the letter, which rejected any side deals with Nova Scotia.

-srbp-

Housing trends, St. John's 1992-2007

Courtesy of the Dominion statistician, a chart showing average house prices and new house starts in St. John's, from 1992 to 2007.

Housing starts began an upward climb in early 2001 and peaked in early to mid 2004.

-srbp-

Take it to the bank!

Danny Williams, from 2003:

Our voice in Ottawa must be strong and passionate, however it must also be rational and levelheaded. Only then will we be effective in achieving for this Province the rights and benefits we have earned and deserve. My government will work cooperatively and collaboratively with our federal counterparts. In so doing, we will develop a mutual respect with the federal government, which in my experience is the key to successful and productive relationships.

Stephen Harper, from 2006:

It is my hope as Prime Minister to initiate a new style of open federalism which would involve working more closely and collaboratively with the provinces and the Council of the Federation to develop Canada’s economic and social union, to clarify appropriate federal and provincial responsibilities, and to resolve the fiscal imbalance between the federal and provincial-territorial governments...

We believe that a new equalization formula should exclude non-renewable resource revenues for all provinces, but also that no province should be adversely affected during the transition to any new equalization formula. We look forward to hearing the suggestions of the expert-panel review currently underway on the equalization formula, and to working collaboratively with the provinces and territories to develop a renewed equalization formula that is fair and acceptable to all provinces and territories.

Jim Flaherty, from March 2007:

"Now we can get over the bickering and now the federal government can concentrate on our constitutional responsibilities."

Stephen Harper, May 2007:

"If we cannot continue with this agreement ... we will have to address it ourselves in the courts."

-srbp-

Pat Carney joins the fray

From the Chronicle Herald, a letter from Senator Pat Carney.

It seems that Bond Papers isn't the only one questioning John Crosbie's grip on the facts of the 1985 Atlantic Accord:

In Stephen Maher's June 6 story, "Crosbie pushed PM to honour offshore deals," it says John Crosbie was "instrumental in negotiating the l980s deals under which the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney ceded control of offshore petroleum to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland."

In fact, and despite claims to the contrary, John Crosbie was never involved in the offshore negotiations with either province in the l980s. That task was assigned by prime minister Brian Mulroney to me, on the grounds that a Western MP and minister with an energy background would bring more balance to an issue which involved intense regional as well as national implications.

Mr. Mulroney was still leader of the Opposition when he signed the original principles of the Atlantic accord with then premier Brian Peckford on June 14, 1984, three months before the Conservatives won the federal election. The completion of negotiations, led by me, was a priority of his government.

There would be no Atlantic accords without the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney. The primary objective was to treat the provinces with offshore resources on the same basis as provinces like Alberta with land-based resources, in the interest of national unity. That object has been accomplished.

The actions of Mr. Crosbie in attacking the Atlantic accord provisions in the Harper budget show Mr. Mulroney's concerns were valid.

Pat Carney, PC,
Senator for British Columbia

-srbp-

A dispute that divides familes

Gerald Keddy, Harper Conservative member of parliament, married to...

Judy Streatch, one of Rodney MacDonald's cabinet ministers.

Now that situation has to be uncomfortable, but word on Monday is that Keddy is wavering in his support for Harper over Equalization changes.

Makes sense.

-srbp-

Harper to Rodney and Danny: Bite me!

Now this could get really interesting if the Stephen Harper administration actually refers the current Equalization spat to the courts for an opinion on whether or not his administration is violating the Atlantic offshore revenue deals.

Harper might have an argument on the 2005 deals.

On the 1985 one?

Pretty much black letter.

Under s. 60 of the 1985 memorandum of understanding neither party can change the enabling legislation without mutual consent.

The Harperites might try a legal argument based on some provisions of the constitution, but that's just a possibility.

The Prime Minister would have to send the thing to court first. Of course, there's nothing to stop the provincial government from sending the thing to the courts either.

Somewhere along the line someone must have surely uttered the words "constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in this country for decades".

That's basically what the Prime Minister is threatening, and all because he made a terribly poor political judgment.

-srbp-

Harper's impact on Connie support

To get a sense of how deep the federal Conservative slide has been in the past three months take a look at the chart.

It tracks Progressive Conservative or Conservative party support in Newfoundland and Labrador at each federal general election since Confederation (1949). The last number is the latest CRA poll.

Local Conservatives can thank Stephen Harper for bringing them to the lowest point in their party's history and for doing so with what appears to be the sharpest decline in support for any federal party in Newfoundland and Labrador history.

That takes real political skill.

-srbp-

A lamentable trend

God bless his heart, but on Friday Bill Rowe - unabashed cheerleader for a series of provincial governments of a certain approach - questioned the idea that the legislation to implement Chief Justice Derek Green's excellent report on legislators' indemnities should proceed through the House of Assembly without delay.

He wondered why this legislation should not be debated and discussed for some considerable period. Rowe recalled the good old days when legislation was tabled early in the session, thereby giving the public and members of the opposition time to review the implications of proposed legislation.

Rowe is generally right of course, but not about this particular bill. Green's report came with its own enabling legislation attached as an appendix. The report itself is as thorough and detailed as any report presented to government has been. The issue has been widely discussed and the various pernicious practices in the legislature over the past decade have been well exposed. The remedy is pretty clear too: Green's legislation would stop legislators from doing the things that most of us would generally consider inappropriate.

The whole thing is cut and dried.

On the other hand, Rowe does not appear to have any trouble with other pieces of legislation sailing through the House with only cursory debate even though they carry serious implications for the province.

• Take for example, changes to the Hydro Corporation Act that, as a consequence of of its provisions hooked electricity rates to activities by the Crown-owned utility not related to electricity generation or distribution. Given first reading (but not distributed) on March 22, 2006. Distributed on May 18, pushed through second reading the same day and given third reading and approved on May 23.
  

• Or a series of changes to the provincial court judges pension act and related legislation. Run through all three stages in a single day last spring.
  

• Or a bill to establish regional health authorities that flew through the House the day before the judges bill, and like the judges bill having been read a first time only a week beforehand.
  

• Or changes to the Fishery Products International Act that actually made it easier to break up the company and sell it off than the legislation originally provided. First reading 18 may, second reading 23 May, committee stage and third reading on May 26.
  

• Or the energy corporation act and the revised hydro corporation bill, introduced in the session. First reading (but not distributed) on May 29 and then pushed through the House on June 4 and 5, along with the Sustainable Development Act.

• Or the bill to repeal the FPI Act that was introduced at the start of the session but only distributed after the deal was announced publicly. That bill will also be pushed through in a few hours of debate in all likelihood.

The trend here is not a new one, nor does it reflect one political party or another or even one individual legislator or another.

It dates back the better part of a decade and reflects, as much as anything else, an attitude that the legislature is an inconvenience or that public disclosure and public debate are undesirable on most pieces of legislation.

There are a great many routine pieces of legislation that come to the legislature and many that can indeed be passes with a minimum of debate. The list above does not contain any of those, since even the changes to the judges pension plan change eligibility for pensions. Those carry financial implications for the public treasury if nothing else.

The FPI and Hydro bills each contain very significant provisions which were missed - in their entirety - by the opposition and were never commented on by the government. In the case of the Hydro bills, the government didn't comment on them until this year when another new piece of legislation was rammed through the House unopposed. Perhaps the basic flaws in the first bill would have been caught if Government wasn't intent on ramming ill-considered changes through and the Opposition was not anxious to go along for the ride. Perhaps the same flaw would not have been continued in the second bill if anyone was focused on the job of being a legislator.

This trend to limit debate - and limit public access to bills before debate even begins - coincides with the steady reduction in the number of sitting days in the legislature. Before 1996, members of the House of Assembly sat in the legislature for three months of the year. They put in long hours in various committees and in debating bills. Most worked very hard for their pay.

These two trends - fewer days and little or no debate - means that the public are being ill-served by what Brian Tobin used to refer to - somewhat ironically it seems - as "the people's House". Fundamentally, the same attitude appears to be taken taken to the fundamental business of the legislature that was taken to administrative business, as Chief Justice Green noted. Lip service is being paid to accountability and transparency, but the reality is that far too often over the past decade, significant measures have slipped through the House of Assembly as if they were covered in API 70 oil from Garden Hill.

It is far too easy to forget that the legislature exists to keep the government accountable to the residents of the province. It is fundamental in our system of democracy that any power sought by any government must be subjected to scrutiny by the elected representatives of the common citizens. That is the essence of responsible government.

There are greater implications to the House of Assembly scandal than how the members handled public cash for the House administration, as grave as that issue is.

The trends over the past decade go to the very heart of how our elected representatives view their role and responsibilities in our must fundamental of democratic institutions.

In this election year, perhaps Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should insist on a discussion of how our democracy runs. We should look to alter fundamentally the relationship between voters and those we entrust with the responsibility of looking after the affairs of our province.

Rather than listen to pledges that one side will be "Putting People First" or that another will be "Getting Our Fair Share", we should start from the most basic point: these men and women want to be tenants in our House of Assembly.

The crew that have been there over the past decade, generally speaking, haven't been living up to the terms of their historic lease. The place is run down and needs some serious attention.

As their landlords, let us see how they - individually and collectively - propose to run the place for the next four years. Let's see how they propose to restore the proper functioning of our democratic institutions.

If they merely offer the same approach as we have seen for the past 10 years, then perhaps we need to issue some eviction notices or, in other cases, not lease out the seat in the first place.

Either way, it is time for the landlords to assert their rights.

-srbp-

Crown Liability Act?

So why exactly has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced a specific piece of legislation that will prevent any legal action against the Crown in relation to the break-up of Fishery Products International?

The Crown Liability Act, 2007 provides that

"2. (1) An action or proceeding does not lie or shall not be instituted or continued against the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown based on a cause of action arising from, resulting from or incidental to the disposition of the assets, business and other undertakings of FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited.

(2) A cause of action against the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown arising from, resulting from or incidental to the disposition of the assets, business and other undertakings of FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited is extinguished.

and...

3. A person is not entitled to compensation or damages from the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown arising from, resulting from or incidental to the disposition of the assets, business and other undertakings of FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited.

-srbp-

The Pitcher Plants are in full bloom

labradore makes some observations on comments found at vocm.com.

Yes, it's spring (almost summer), in an election year, and suddenly the orchestrated political comments - known as astroturf, or Pitcher Plants in their local variety - come popping up everywhere.

Chief Justice Derek Green's report may change some of the things Danny Williams inherited from Brian Tobin, but it seems the Premier is still addicted to Tobin's greatest political legacy: the organized support calls to VOCM and the manipulation of its public forum "Question of the Day."

-srbp-

Shooting one's own foot off

Telegram columnist Brian Jones does a fine job of shooting his own argument out of the water in a column today.

Offal News tears it apart nicely.

-srbp-

Jim Flaherty: myth monger

Federal finance leprechaun Jim Flaherty is just as much a myth monger on the Altantic Accord (1985) and even the 2005 side deal as his predecessor, John Crosbie.

Flaherty writes in the Chronicle Herald:

Let me be clear, Canada’s New Government is honouring the Atlantic accords fully in its budget.

If this were true, Flaherty would not need to amend the 1985 Accord, in his budget bill, thereby violating section 60 of the 1985 agreement.

Since he is applying a capto the 1985 and 2005 agreements, he is also not honouring either the letter or spirit of either agreement.

For him to claim otherwise is to state something which is incorrect, and in truth, Flaherty ought to know that what he is stating is patently false.

Perhaps he has been listening too much to Crosbie.

-srbp-

The disingenuous Mr. Crosbie

John Crosbie has waded into the current budget and Equalization row with the federal government.

He builds his claim on the contention that it was the intention of the Government of Canada in 1985 - when he was the Newfoundland and Labrador regional minister - to ensure that under the real Atlantic Accord the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would receive 100% of oil and gas revenues as well as Equalization in full as if the oil revenues did not exist. He appears to be saying that it was the intention to have this situation continue in perpetuity.

Mr. Crosbie is either:

1. Extremely forgetful;

2. Deliberately misleading the people of Canada and in particular, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; or,

3. Attempting to blame others for his own failures in 1985.

Either way, the 1985 Atlantic Accord makes no such provision as Mr. Crosbie claims.

Indeed in 1990, Mr. Crosbie himself specifically dismissed the issue - with characteristic sneering condescension - as being a case of the provincial government attempting to bite the hand that fed the province.

Mr. Crosbie's efforts at historic revisionism make Stalinist photo retouchers look like kindergarten finger painters.

Following is an extract from an unpublished follow-on paper to Which is to be master?

Additionally, specific sections of the Mulroney offer, and of the Atlantic Accord, deal with Equalization. It is important to note that these are not included in the section on revenue sharing in either document. Therefore, Equalization was not seen by either parties to the Atlantic Accord as representing a form of revenue to be shared among the parties. The Mulroney letter contains the sentence: “The Current [sic] Equalization provisions will apply.” This clearly established that the Atlantic Accord and any revenues related to offshore oil would be subject to the Equalization program; as such, the provincial government’s Equalization entitlement would normally be reduced by growth in offshore oil revenue.

The Mulroney offer contained a caveat that there should not be a dollar-for-dollar loss of Equalization payments as provincial own-source revenues increased from oil production. As such the Atlantic Accord contains a section to provide a payment to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the form of an Equalization offset. It is clear from the structure of this section of the Accord and of the enabling legislation that the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador accepted this offset as a temporary, transitional and declining offset.

The offset mechanism established in the original Atlantic Accord did not provide the level of Equalization protection implied in Mulroney’s letter, although it matched in general outline the declining format he proposed in June 1984. The offset provisions of the Atlantic Accord, as signed in 1985, had the effect of shielding only three cents of every dollar in oil revenue from Equalization.

This was apparent by 1989-90 and was raised publicly by the Wells administration following the signing of the Hibernia agreement. In a speech in Clarenville, Premier Clyde Wells countered arguments that Hibernia was a massive make-work scheme by pointing to the direct and indirect benefits accruing to the Government of Canada. One of those benefits was reduced federal transfer payments to Newfoundland and Labrador. John Crosbie dismissed complaints about reduced transfer payments in this way:

"That’s the whole point to the [Equalization] formula… This is nothing to complain about; this is something to be joyous about. So why would they try to pretend that Newfoundland gains nothing from the royalties? I mean this is absolutely bloody nonsense…".*

The Wells administration had been briefed on this aspect of the Accord prior to the Hibernia signing and a further brief was sent to cabinet in December 1990 ; it is likely the shortcomings of the federal proposal were known in 1985.

In a 1991 assessment conducted for the Institute of Social and Economic Research at Memorial University, economist Wade Locke confirmed that the Accord offset actually shielded as little as 3% of provincial revenues from Equalization. Locke had earlier cautioned against public expectation that Hibernia development would cure the province’s unemployment or debt problems. In an article published in the Newfoundland Quarterly, Locke concluded that "[w]hile it may be true that the sun will shine one day, it does not appear that have not will be no more because of Hibernia." Similar cautionary flags had been raised by Doug House and others, as early as the environmental review of Hibernia in 1983.

Whatever the reasons for Mr. Crosbie's claims about federal (i.e. his intentions) in the 1985 Atlantic Accord, there is no question that what he claims today is simply not true.

His own words condemn him.

-srbp-

* Philip Lee, “Newfoundland, Ottawa clash over Atlantic Accord royalty provisions”, The Sunday Express (St. John’s), 23 September 2004, p. 14 [continued from page 1 under head: “Almost ‘dollar-for-dollar’ loss will leave province no better off, Gibbons claims”.

Latest shocker: Connies poll numbers drop

Another poll from Corporate Research Associates shows the the federal Tories have dropped nine percent in voter support across the Atlantic region, standing at 30% regionally compared to 39% in CRA's last post.

The Connie satisfaction rating in Newfoundland and Labrador stands at 17%, compared with 47% in February.

Is this really a surprise to anyone?

Regional results have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%, 19 times out of 20. The provincial results have an MoE of plus or minus 4.9%.

-srbp-

The case against Mr. Harper

"A little neglect may breed great mischief"

The Harper administration's move to alter fundamentally two bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and two provinces is proof of Ben Franklin's age old aphorism on the great consequences bred of the seemingly smallest of actions.

Stephen Harper and his administration are neglecting the commitments not only contained in the agreements involved but the fundamental principles on which those agreements are based.

Two Travelors On the Road to Perdition

John Crosbie has waded into the affair, through private correspondence now provided to the news media, and his memoranda identify the core of the problem. Unfortunately, along the way he engages in an example of historical revisionism which would make Stalinists seem like rank amateurs at the game of altering the public record to state the opposite of what occurred. He also proposes an unduly complex series of possible actions that would, on some level, also strike the fundamental principles underpinning the agreements he helped negotiate.

For his part, Premier Danny Williams has met the Harper affront with entirely appropriate anger and indignation. Sadly, his mercurial temper has led him to run bare headed at the whole matter. In the process, the Premier has set himself on a course that cannot attain its destination.

He has set an impossible policy goal, namely removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the calculation under Equalization of a province's fiscal capacity. The results of such an approach would be to create fundamental inequities in a federal program that ought to be equitable in its treatment of all provinces. As difficult as some may find the O'Brien Equalization formula, cap or no cap, it is at least an honest compromise among contending proposals on Equalization. It's result would be fair.

Mr. Williams has set himself on a political goal - namely defeating Harper at the polls - which is, if not impossible, one which also sets an appalling - if not downright dangerous - precedent. For the first time in recent memory, an administration of one province has set itself on a policy of defeating the administration of another jurisdiction.

Were the Premier to carry his campaign beyond a few speeches, he is unlikely to achieve that political goal either, but at the same time he has set a precedent which would justify any administration in Canada, federal or provincial, overtly or covertly conspiring to defeat Mr. Williams or any of his successors. His anti-Harper campaign is potentially as dangerous for the future of the country as the grievance he seeks to redress; while his intentions may be excellent, Mr. Williams might well find in his actions proof of another truism about the road to perdition.

Casey has it right

Of all the politicians discussing Equalization and the various accords, the only one to get it right is Nova Scotia Tory Bill Casey.

He said a Canadian signature on a contract should mean something and if the government can walk away from its commitment, what does the future hold?

“It is our reputation as a country,” he said in the House. “It is important that people around the world know when the government of Canada signs a contract, it is bullet proof, one can depend on it. It is important. It is bullet proof, solid gold.”

No one has said it as cleanly as that. Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Williams are chasing irrelevant side-issues and each does so for his own individual reasons.

Both are missing the issue of greatest importance to the people of the province. That is as unconscionable as it is unfathomable.

Section 60 of the 1985 Atlantic Accord - the real Atlantic Accord - states simply that neither party can amend the enabling legislation unilaterally. Yet that is exactly what Stephen Harper is doing in one consequential amendment in his current budget bill.

If Mr. Harper can change one provision of the Accord and get away with it, what else can he change in that deal? Management? Revenues? He can change anything he wants.

Successive Liberal and Conservative federal government's have honoured the Accord both in letter and spirit since it was signed. (Mr. Crosbie ought to know that his claims are false on this point) Successive federal governments have improved on the original deal to cope with problems. That would include, incidentally, the 2005 subsidiary agreement that delivered - apparently - what Mr. Crosbie could not get himself or - if we look to 1990 - didn't want to give the ingrates in his own province.

In the end, Mr. Crosbie seems to embody his own cheap words about cake and regurgitation. Entirely appropriate, given how many Conservatives seem to be guilty of the same failings they usually have attributed to others.

But all that ignores the very dangerous course Mr. Harper is on, one made no less perilous by the focus of both Mr. Williams and Mr. Crosbie on the irrelevant.

Changing the 1985 Atlantic Accord - the real one - can take away the very basis on which the second one even exists. Changing the original agreement can take away the entire industry, not merely the extra revenue from federal transfers.

And it's not like that thought hasn't been tossed into the public discussion. Conservative Norm Doyle told a VOCM audience yesterday that times changes and so the Accord must change as well. He warned that nothing is permanent, or words to that effect. Under pressure, it would seem that something a little closer to the truth slipped out than anything Doyle has said previously on the offshore.

Fundamentally, the case against Mr. Harper is exactly as Bill Casey has described it.

It remains a mystery why Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn, cabinet minister's in Newfoundland when the 1985 Accord was reached, would put the whole thing in jeopardy.

Likewise, it remains a mystery why both Danny Williams and John Crosbie have each gone off
on their own tangents, ignoring in the process a simple point with potentially profound consequences.

Bill Casey figured it out.

What's wrong with the rest of them?

-srbp-

Local case influences SCC decision on Alberta case

The Supreme Court of Canada today overturned the conviction of an Alberta man in a case where the trial judge issued his written decision 11 months after issuing a verbal verdict.

By majority decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled:

Although not precluded from announcing a verdict with "reasons to follow", a trial judge in all cases should be mindful of the importance that justice not only be done but also that it appear to be done. Reasons rendered long after a verdict, particularly where it is apparent that they were crafted after the announcement of the verdict, may cause a reasonable person to apprehend that the trial judge engaged in result‑driven reasoning. The necessary link between the verdict and the reasons will not be broken, however, on every occasion where there is a delay in rendering reasons after the announcement of the verdict. Since trial judges benefit from a presumption of integrity, which in turn encompasses the notion of impartiality, the reasons are presumed to reflect the reasoning underlying the decision. Fairness and impartiality must not only be subjectively present but must also be objectively demonstrated to the informed and reasonable observer. While the presumption can be displaced, the onus is on the appellant to present cogent evidence showing that, in all the circumstances, a reasonable person would apprehend that the reasons constitute an after‑the‑fact justification of the verdict rather than an articulation of the reasoning that led to it. Here, the written reasons should not have been considered by the Court of Appeal. While the written reasons do not appear to have been crafted to answer points raised in the appeal, in the particular circumstances of this case, a reasonable person would apprehend that these reasons, delivered more than 11 months after the verdict was rendered, did not reflect the real basis for the convictions. Without this requisite link, the written reasons provide no opportunity for meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the decision. However, the delay in rendering reasons, in and of itself, does not give rise to this apprehension. In this case, it is the combination of several factors that constitutes cogent evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of integrity and impartiality.

Interestingly, the courts cited the case of R v. Sheppard [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, an SCC decision on a case from Newfoundland and Labrador in which the court decided on how much a judge must state orally or in writing in delivering a verdict.

The trial judge addressed none of the troublesome issues in the case but said only: "Having considered all the testimony in this case and reminding myself of the burden on the Crown and the credibility of witnesses, and how this is to be assessed, I find the defendant guilty as charged." A majority of the Court of Appeal characterized the trial reasons as "boiler plate". The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered based on the absence of adequate reasons.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed. The trial judge erred in law in failing to provide reasons that were sufficiently intelligible to permit appellate review of the correctness of his decision.

Representing the Crown in that appeal was Harold Porter, then deputy director of public prosecutions and currently the Provincial Court Judge in Grand Bank. Porter's decisions from the bench in Grand Bank have sometime made news for their clear writing and humour.

Porter made the local papers in Ottawa at the time Sheppard was first heard by the SCC. In an exchange with then Madam Justice Louise Arbour, Porter offered the view that a judge must offer some indication of the reasons for a decision. The length of the indication would have to fall somewhere in length between what had been offered by the trial judge in Sheppard and Marcel Proust's A la recherche de temps perdu.

For other Porter cases and their sometimes colourful summary of the evidence and the law, consider:

R.v Kearley, which begins with the lines:

Lobsters, being creatures of the sea, do not routinely migrate ashore en masse to take up habitation in plastic boxes under fishing stages. Therefore, the thirty seven live lobsters and fourteen codfish that the fisheries officers found under Kearley’s shed on January 10, 2004, must have been put there by somebody. By laying the charges, the Crown has alleged that the fish were caught and hidden under the step of Kearley’s shed by the Accused. For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that the Crown has failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

or the other R. v Kearley or R. v. Kearley.

Then there's R. v. Mitchell, an impaired driving case. This one is worth reading for the inadvertent humour in a deplorable circumstance. Police testified that they encountered the accused at approximately 3:00 AM speeding. Porter summarises the events of the case, as presented in evidence.

There are passages like this:

The Accused says that he did not realize until he had parked his car that the police were behind him, and that he had wanted to go into the house to check on his teenaged daughter. He denies that he overshot his driveway, and says that he often parks in the same place as where he left his car that night. He also denies saying the things to the police that they say that he said, although he does admit to having said some "misdemeanour words", which include the phrases "fuck off and leave me alone" and "what the fuck is going on?" He also admits that he might have asked "who ratted me out ? ".

[Police testified they pursued the accused for upwards of three kilometres in the middle of the night as he sped along at 23 kilometres per hour above the posted speed limit.]

Who said being a judge couldn't be fun as well as socially useful?

-srbp-

The Green Report

You can find Chief Justice Derek Green's report at the provincial government website.

Bond Papers will tackle the report in detail over the next couple of days.

In the meantime, and in light of Bond Papers' previous posts on soft money take a close look at Chapter 10 and recommendation 76.

And when that is done, consider Chapter Three in which Chief Justice Green describes in greater detail the consistent pattern of overspending by the House of Assembly previously revealed by Bond Papers.

-srbp-

Will Ron recover his credibility?

Offal News' Simon Lono takes a look at a controversy swirling around newbie councillor Ron Ellsworth and his different stories about who sponsored a poll done recently on possible mayoral candidates.

Lono calls Ellsworth an amateur.

That's obvious.

How will any citizen of St. John's trust this overly ambitious fellow, again?

-srbp-

Stelco sells stake in Wabush to Consolidated Thompson

From the Globe and Mail:

Stelco Inc., which slapped a "For Sale" on its door last week, is selling its stake in the Wabush iron ore mine joint venture for an estimated $163.4-million as part of its efforts to "surface value" for shareholders.

As its annual meeting was getting under way Wednesday morning, the Hamilton, Ont., steel maker, announced it has struck a deal to sell its 44.6 per cent stake in the venture to Consolidated Thompson Mines Ltd. (CLM) of Toronto.

-srbp-

I am Big Oil

The small-minded will no doubt take the headline as an admission of the scurrilous crap they have been circulating about your humble e-scribbler.

Not sorry to disappoint.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is running a series of television spots highlighting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in the local and gas industry.

At some point, I'll take a closer look at these videos from the standpoint of message and impact, but for now, here they are:

The Globe on bridge building

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are surely agog with the attention paid by the Globe and Mail to the province's offshore oil and gas industry.

First the story on Tuesday that contained little in the way of new information and missed a great deal of other stuff. There's a Bond commentary with a link to the first Globe story.

Now on Wednesday a piece focusing on Hydro chief executive Ed Martin and his supposed role of building bridges between the major oil companies and the provincial government.

The Globe parses the core issue reasonably well: there are two different perspectives with two contending objectives.

The role attributed to Martin is difficult to confirm. Certainly, he is an experienced oil and gas industry executive and he can certainly understand how the industry operates. How much he is able to do in building any bridges between the two perspectives is less clear. As NOIA's outgoing president Ted Howell put it in the Globe piece:

"He knows how the companies evaluate projects, and he brings that to the table with government. But ultimately, it is going to be the Premier's call in terms of what he feels is the appropriate deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

The main problem in building the bridge may well be determining how wide is the span that needs to be built. The Globe story gets it monumentally wrong.

Industry officials warn that, if the province insists on making unrealistic demands, the international oil companies will simply not explore or develop in the waters off Newfoundland. In a nutshell, the message is: Five per cent of nothing equals nothing.

The equity position demand is more like 10%, not five. The government has stated - and as the Globe reported on Tuesday - that the equity demand in the forthcoming energy plan will be more than 5%.

More importantly, though, there appears to be a fundamental disagreement between industry and government over what shape the equity takes. That point is found only in the last paragraph of the story: the oil companies would expect that a state-owned enterprise would farm in, that is, buy in and take the risks everyone else takes.

That's essentially what occurs in some other places, like Norway, where the government's oil and gas company Statoil operates in the private sector like all the other companies in the business. Statoil, now merged with Norsk Hydro, has been able to expand its operations outside Norway and works globally with private sector companies and other state-owned oil and gas enterprises.

The alternative - the one that appears to be government's intention - is to add the equity position onto government's royalty regime. That's where the problem starts and it is at the core of why the Hebron deal failed.

As Bond Papers has noted previously, one of the major philosophical divides between the parties on Hebron centred on Ed Martin's conflicting roles as the chief tax and benefits negotiator for the province on the one hand and then his position as a potential business partner on the other.

The two interests are fundamentally incompatible, to some minds. As an operator, the concern would be about controlling costs and maximizing profitability. As the government's agent, the goal would be to maximize local benefits through royalties, jobs and - as in government's original Hebron demand - expensive capital projects that may not be required except to meet the political demand.

The Globe missed that entirely, except for what can read into the comments from Ed Martin:

"So from a strategic perspective the province is crystal clear: Premier Williams wants to make sure he gets this right in terms of how these developments occur for the benefit of the province. And for that, you need a seat at the table."

The Globe also missed the obvious: for all the talk about a seat at the table and the strategic importance of oil and gas, the provincial government still hasn't figured out exactly what role Martin's new energy company will fill or how that so-called seat at the table will be acquired.

Ask Ed Martin or Danny Williams whether the energy company will acquire licenses and operate like any other oil business and you'll likely hear the reply that that option hasn't been ruled out.

Ask about farming in - that is, buying the equity stake - and you'll hear that government intends to pay for its share. There has not been any indication of how it intends to pay for the share. Buying in occurs all the time. It's a straight-up business transaction and it needn't be limited formally to five percent, 10% or any specific level.

It's just plain odd that government would insist on any specific amount in every project. On that level, government's demand looks like the sort of stuff one gets from developing countries where oil and gas is a political issue, a nationalist issue. It isn't about how the state-owned oil and gas company can get into the industry, make cash and then return the benefit of that cash to the owner in just the same way that a private sector company returns profit to its shareholders.

One way follows the Norwegian approach. The other way is the Venezuelan one.

Resolving that confusion would likely do more to re-start the Hebron talks than any supposed back channel discussions between Ed Martin and his former colleagues at Petro-Canada.

Maybe the answer will be in the energy plan.

Then again, as the energy plan becomes more of a political document than a business one, maybe it won't.

-srbp-

Apropos of a diversion

When a government delegation travels abroad, it will surely spend money.

But when an opposition party raises a question on travel spending, it should do some homework to get the goods.

Like say in the 1980s.

Collecting information requests on travel and discovering cabinet ministers billing visits to German strip clubs.

The recent kerfuffle about the ground transportation costs for a provincial government excursion to Ireland wound up falling flat as the government simply released the invoice covering the van and the limos.

What appeared to be $24,000 turns out to be about $10,000. The amount may seem large but under the circumstances it isn't really excessive.

Still, the whole thing seems to warrant a limerick: a silly rendition of the issue that occupied so much of the Premier's attention and that of the opposition at a time when other matters should have been foremost on their minds.

So, for the nonsense of taxi rentals when the hydro bill and the energy bill quietly slip through the House, here's a little nonsense rhyme:

While on a wee trip to the Isle
to develop the Irish biz file,
they couldn't ride burros
so for five thousand Euros
the Taoiseach and his pals rode in style.

-srbp-

Apropos of nothing in particular

According to Healy Willan, there are three kinds of limericks:

- Limericks for women and children;

- Limericks for the clergy; and,

- Limericks.

Limericks have always been a favourite of your humble e-scribbler. They allow for a certain verbal ingenuity to fit a humorous and ribald comment within a confining structure. Fitting the most meaning into the smallest space is a challenge.

If memory serves, Craig Welsh once wrote a column in the old Express lambasting the city council for appointing a poet laureate. He received an e-scribbled original limerick on the subject and true to his name never bothered to reply.

All of this is merely an introduction to a simple limerick that serves to point the uselessness of some people's use of figures to support an argument. It's funny too, and for those of gentle disposition, definitely in Willan's third category of the five-lined poem.

There once was a young man named Paul,
Who had a hexagonal ball.
The sum of its weight,
plus his penis, times eight,
was two thirds of three fifths of fuck all.

-srbp-