Skinner-ma-rinky-dink opinions from two cabinet ministers not worth heeding

Brian Peckford irritates some cabinet ministers.

"I really think that we've really dropped the ball on the whole fishery issue in Newfoundland. I really, really do," he said in a recent interview.

"I think we have not, as a province, argued relentlessly and weekly pursued a fisheries strategy which would allow us to have ... an Atlantic Accord on the fishery.

"Because what we did on the Atlantic Accord was we put the jurisdiction away, even though we lost in court. We got it back through the back door."

Peckford's crime is voicing an opinion, according to finance minister Tom Marshall and Kevin O'Brien, the fellow heading up the oxymoronicaly-named department of government services. The two ministers called VOCM's morning talk show to express their disapproval of the fellow who, as both took pains to note, doesn't live here any more.

Said Marshall: "Well that's exactly, and, you know, to live out there [in British Columbia] and then come in here and tell us we're doing it all wrong is a bit much."

Oh deary.

A bit much for a fellow who served as premier through a very difficult decade to dare offer an observation not merely on the performance of one administration but of the lot of us and the crowds we've elected.

Go read Peckford's comments, linked above, and then read Marshall's observations, transcribed in their entirety below.

"We seem to have one mindset when it relates to the offshore and a ... less-than-stringent approach to all the other areas - even those that are under our jurisdiction."

Peckford is hardly telling tales from school. One need hardly look very hard to see this double-standard applied. No subsidies for the oil industry - supposedly - and a heaping of something called 'equity' for the provincial government. By contrast, the forest industry gets at least $30 million in subsidies of one kind or another and when a mill closes and another shuts down a machine, the whole affair warrants scarcely a whimper from the most combative premier since...well...Brian Peckford, compared to the unholy tirade unleashed on oil companies.

Over in the fishery, meanwhile, the current provincial government enthusiastically facilitates the destruction of the only vertically integrated, internationally competitive company in the lot. Somewhere in there, the bits and pieces are sold off to a consortium that includes Icelanders, another lot is sold back to the Brits and the Nova Scotians walk off with the marketing arm and brands it took years to build.

All of these are resources, as most scarcely need reminding and yet oil is treated as some sort of sacred possession by the current administration. The fishery and forestry? Not really quite as sacred.

For his part, Tom Marshall tried to argue against Peckford on other matters. Marshall failed, of course, since most of what he said was utter nonsense. Like the bit about offshore revenues, the stuff which apparently the provincial government wasn't as fixated on as Peckford suggested:

You know, I really don't know. I mean there was, there's been two stories here. One came out of the, one was in The Telegram, I think, on the weekend. It talked about, you know, the Atlantic Accord and how everything is flowed out of the Atlantic Accord. And the Atlantic Accord that was negotiated back then was certainly an important document. I mean it did, it did share the management. Even though the federal government was determined by the courts to have jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas, it said that Newfoundland would be, Newfoundland and Labrador would be the principal beneficiary. But it wasn't working. It wasn't working as it was. We weren't seeing the benefits because we were losing them under the equalization formula. Whatever we were getting on the oil and gas we were losing under the equalization formula. So what Premier Williams did in '05 in the Atlantic Accord in '05, I mean that was the key document that made the difference because what he accomplished was that for every dollar we were losing on the oil and gas we got an offset payment from the Department of Natural Resources in Ottawa. We got this offset payment that made us whole. And as a result of what Premier Williams did in '05, the Atlantic Accord '05, you know, this year we're showing 305 million, which is allowing us to forecast a surplus of 261 billion, I'm sorry, 261 million and to p ay down some debt and that's what's made the difference. I mean Premier Williams has made the real difference here because we weren't getting rich before under the first part of the Atlantic Accord, but that's not to say that it wasn't, you know, a great document.

Under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, Tom Marshall and his colleagues get to set provincial government revenues from the offshore and collect every nickel of them. They keep every nickel of them as well. $16 billion worth of nickels from Hebron alone, as Marshall's colleague has claimed, and not a single one of those nickels, nor the pennies either, has ever been taken by any other government.

Not a one.

Anyone who claims otherwise is telling fibs.

The 2005 deal delivered the princely sum of $2.0 billion in a cash advance. The deal expires when the province ceases to qualify for Equalization and, as regular readers of Bond Papers will know, the advance will not be drawn down completely when the deal expires.

The entire basis of the provincial government's current fumbling in the oil industry comes from powers contained not in the 2005 deal but in the 1985 Atlantic Accord. When the 2005 deal is a moldering memory, the 1985 agreement will continue to deliver, as it has delivered since it was signed.

All that Brian Peckford has done in a series of interviews with local media is offer his views - based on experience - on issues related to resource management. He has a right to speak his mind and only the most churlish of churls would question his inherent right in a democracy to speak.

But Peckford is no ordinary voice. His voice drips of the experience of hard knocks and whether or not one supported him at the time or agrees with him now, he has every right to speak his mind. he earned the right and he should be heeded. One must not slavishly accept his every syllable, as some - like Marshall and O'Brien - must do for their master, but there are other legitimate perspectives than the one currently typed out as talking points from the Eighth Floor's blackberries.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that Marshall and O'Brien are hurling missiles at Peckford merely for speaking out or merely at their master's behest. What Peckford has hit on, with respect to the fishery, for example, is a deep-seated problem within local politics. While politicians have known for some time what must be done in the fishery, it is very difficult to get them to act. There is no stomach in the current administration as there has been no stomach in many administrations for taking the necessary measures to turn the fishery into an economically and environmentally sustainable part of the local economy.

It hurts to have that pointed out, apparently.

Otherwise Marshall and O'Brien would not have received their blackberry marching orders and thus ordered, skinnered themselves on to the open line shows to offer a rinky dink attack on a fellow most Progressive Conservatives in the province should be venerating. [Perhaps they do and that bothers some of the current crowd, too. But that is another story.]

Every thinking person in the province would do well to consider Peckford's advice.

It is the voice of experience and, as we should all know by now, experience counts.

Talking points thumbed out of someone's blackberry - likely from a junket to Rio - don't.

-srbp-

RANDY SIMMS: We are going to go now and say a very good morning here to the Finance Minister and Chairmen, President of the Treasury Board, Tom Marshall. Good morning.

TOM MARSHALL: Good morning Randy.

RANDY SIMMS: How are you doing?

TOM MARSHALL: I'm not too bad. I'm here in Corner Brook and I was just reading The Western Star today and I say former Premier's, Brian Peckford's remarks.

RANDY SIMMS: And your hair stood on end.

TOM MARSHALL: Well, what's left of it did. The, you know, the comment I read, I mean it's mainly about the fishery and I'll leave my colleague, Tom Rideout, and those with more, know more about the fisheries that I certainly do to comment on that aspect of it, but my difficulty is with the comments that, where Peckford said it's a mistake for the province to focus its efforts on the blossoming offshore oil and gas industry at the expense of everything else. And he goes on to say that we, I don't know who he's referring to as we, seem to have a one mindset when it relates to the offshore and a less astringent approach to all the other areas, even those that are under our own jurisdiction. Now, Randy, you know, every time I've been on your show and your colleagues' shows, and I've been going around the province given these, you know, talking about the budget and the main point, you know, the one thing that we're doing as a government is clearly set out in the budget and it's set out in the speech from the throne, and that's a recognition that the non-renewable resources are going to be gone day, that they're finite. One day they're going to be gone and that we've got to take advantage of this window of opportunity to transition our economy into a more diversified economy that, you know, that relies on our renewable resources. The whole energy plan talks about, you know, taking advantage of the non- renewable energy resources we have now to make sure that we have renewable energy resources for the future. And for someone to come in and say that we're only focused on the offshore, clearly has no understanding of what this government has been doing and what the very essence of this government is.

RANDY SIMMS: But, really, there is an impression out there, Minister. You know, as I said to your colleague, Mr. O'Brien, earlier today, there is an impression out there, right or wrong, and it could be equally wrong as it is right, that this government does not focus, I'm going to call it, on the older more stayed industrial realities in the province. We seem to be caught up in the sexiness of oil and gas. Now, and that impression, I think, is out there in the market, isn't it?

TOM MARSHALL: Well, you know, if you're going to say that, I mean I don't know what, you know, what the media focuses on. You know, they don't focus on everything that government does, but I mean the whole reality of our budget and our speeches from the throne and the, you know, the thrust of what this government is doing is recognizing that, look, we've only got a window here and we have to diversify our economy because those non-renewable resources are going to be gone. So we've talked about, number one, we got to pay down the debt. Now previous governments left, you know, the people of this province today saddled with a massive debt of over, almost, just under $12 billion. So we have to take advantage of the surpluses that we have to try to address that while we can. We're also lowering taxes to try to make the province more competitive. I mean to attract investment, to attract people that are going to create jobs, you have to have a competitive tax structure and we did that in the last budget. We're also focusing on not only investments in our traditional industries like the forestry, and we pumped a lot of money into forestry, you know that, there's over $30 million went to aid the forestry industry in this province, investments in aquaculture on the south coast, but we're also focusing on the knowledge economy. We're making major investments now in research and development.

RANDY SIMMS: Ok, so why do you think with all of this going on and he being aware of this as, he being Brian Peckford , being as aware of this as anybody, why would Brian Peckford at this point in his life and the life of this province and government want to come out and be this critical?

TOM MARSHALL: That you'll, I have no idea. You'll have to ask him that.

RANDY SIMMS: Well speculate. Why do you think?

TOM MARSHALL: You know, I really don't know. I mean there was, there's been two stories here. One came out of the, one was in The Telegram, I think, on the weekend. It talked about, you know, the Atlantic Accord and how everything is flowed out of the Atlantic Accord. And the Atlantic Accord that was negotiated back then was certainly an important document. I mean it did, it did share the management. Even though the federal government was determined by the courts to have jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas, it said that Newfoundland would be, Newfoundland and Labrador would be the principal beneficiary. But it wasn't working. It wasn't working as it was. We weren't seeing the benefits because we were losing them under the equalization formula. Whatever we were getting on the oil and gas we were losing under the equalization formula. So what Premier Williams did in '05 in the Atlantic Accord in '05, I mean that was the key document that made the difference because what he accomplished was that for every dollar we were losing on the oil and gas we got an offset payment from the Department of Natural Resources in Ottawa. We got this offset payment that made us whole. And as a result of what Premier Williams did in '05, the Atlantic Accord '05, you know, this year we're showing 305 million, which is allowing us to forecast a surplus of 261 billion, I'm sorry, 261 million and to p ay down some debt and that's what's made the difference. I mean Premier Williams has made the real difference here because we weren't getting rich before under the first part of the Atlantic Accord, but that's not to say that it wasn't, you know, a great document.

RANDY SIMMS: What, it's the basis on which everything else flowed, but, you know, is it, I'm going to speculate a little bit here, is it possible that Brian Peckford is throwing a little criticism at the provincial government because of his recent appointment by the feds?

TOM MARSHALL: Look, it could be, but Newfoundland and Labrador is making tremendous headway under the Newfoundland government and to say we're only focused on oil and gas, well now that it's not going to be there forever and that's why we're doing the things that we're doing under the Premier's leadership.

RANDY SIMMS: But you. . .

TOM MARSHALL: And for him to say that we're focusing exclusively on oil and gas would be the same as saying that when he was office he focused exclusively on growing cucumbers, and we all know that's not true. But it's an asinine comment to make and he has to be held to account for it.

RANDY SIMMS: And so, obviously, you're critical of it. I guess all members of the government are critical of it because, like I said, I heard from your colleague, Kevin O'Brien, already this morning on this matter. You know, but again, as I say to you, and I think it's, you know, it might be an unfair comment, I accept, but, nonetheless, there's truth in the feeling, in the statement that there's a feeling in the community at large that this is a government preoccupied with oil and gas and not spending enough time and effort on traditional industries like fishery. I think that that's a feeling in the community. It might be totally unfair though, Minister, I accept that it might be an unfair feeling.

TOM MARSHALL: I strongly. . .

RANDY SIMMS: And I know you're going to argue that point.

TOM MARSHALL: I would strongly disagree with that.

RANDY SIMMS: Yeah, but I don't know whether Peckford, you know, who is Peckford sitting in Vancouver these days to tell us one way or the other what it is?

TOM MARSHALL: Well that's exactly, and, you know, to live out there and then come in here and tell us we're doing it all wrong is a bit much. And now in fairness to him, you know, I mean sometimes there's a quote in the paper and maybe that's not what he said, but based on what he said as quoted I talk umbrage of the comment and I think he's wrong. And, you know, not focusing on the fishery, I mean I come from a district where the fishery is not a major industry, as you know, and , you know, I can tell you that from the time that I spend at the Cabinet table, I mean fishery dominates the discussion at our Cabinet table and there's no doubt or question about that. The forestry is taking up a lot of our time.

RANDY SIMMS: Well, you know. . .

TOM MARSHALL: But also more importantly, which we're focusing new areas, we're trying to take advantage of, you know, research and development and things we did in aquaculture on the south coast, you know, things that we're doing here in Corner Brook with the Centre of Environmental Excellence, with the new position, I mean open up the paper and you see the new positions going here into Corner Brook in R & D under the, you know, Institute of Biodiversity and the Centre of Environmental Excellence. There's about five or six new positions here and these are jobs based on the knowledge economy, not based on the old natural resource economy.

RANDY SIMMS: Ok, let me ask you this while I got you. All right, I know that there's a financial report coming down, what, at the end of this week?

TOM MARSHALL: Well it, you know, the Premier will be back and the report, I'll discuss it with my Cabinet colleagues and then they'll, will determine whether it's going to, when we come out publicly and announce it. RANDY SIMMS: I understood that it was going to happen this week.

TOM MARSHALL: Well, you know, I've learned in government that when I'm told it's going to happen on a certain day I don't believe it until I'm out there actually saying, ok.

RANDY SIMMS: Ok, 261 million, you're low balling it, aren't you?

TOM MARSHALL: Well I certainly didn't low ball it. I, you know, I said, you know, you always hear the criticism of governments because they go out with these low numbers and then when the numbers actually come out they say, oh, look, we did so much better. I didn't want to do that. I want to try to be as accurate as we can. But it's extremely difficult, of course, because, you know, the oil prices jump all over the place and I mean who would have thought that oil prices have gone, would go to where they've gone today. You know, we rely on Pure Energy Corporation out of New York. They're very highly regarded and very respected and they told us the average would be, you know, when we were doing our budget, they told us the average price for the year would be about $58.60. Now we get quarterly updates for them. We also get two custom reports a year from them and, of course, their suggestions are going up, but at the time we did the budget that's what they told us. Also, production numbers we don't control and also who knew that that dollar was going to go the way it is because every time the dollar goes up a cent our revenues are negatively impacted. But it certainly doesn't offset the benefits because of the higher oil prices.

RANDY SIMMS: You, as Minister of Finance, do you want to see, and I know the central bank is looking at taking a run at the dollar to try and bring it down to a more reasonable level, which would mean a drop in interests rates, are you taking a look at that? Are you chairing them on and do you want to see that happen?

TOM MARSHALL: Well, you know, quite frankly, I mean monetary policy is left to the Bank of Canada and, you know, they don't consult with me. They're an independent organization that determines monetary policy.

RANDY SIMMS: I know, but on the outside looking in thinking that every, that every penny, that every buck is another, you know, few million.

TO M MARSHALL: Yeah, but it works the other way. . .

RANDY SIMMS: It works the other way for us as well, every penny up costs. . .

TOM MARSHALL: Yeah, but I mean I do have major concern for the manufacturing sector, you know, especially the forestry sector here in this province. I mean in Ontario they've lost, what, 150,000 jobs.

RANDY SIMMS: I guess that's where I'm trying to go, Minister. I'm trying to get inside your head here a little bit to say, you know, all of this issue about fisheries and about forestry and about all of these other concentrations, the reality of it is we need a lower dollar to do that and that's going to have to some degree, is it not, at the expense of oil and gas revenues?

TOM MARSHALL: Yes it, yes, you know, I mean I would certainly a dollar that is fixed or pegged in relation to the US dollar to try to keep our dollar lower than the US dollar because of the fact that we are an economy that relies heavily on our exports. But that's something that, you know, that the Cabinet would have to deal with all together. I'm expressing my own view here.

RANDY SIMMS: Sure, sure, absolutely, absolutely. Well, Minister, thank you for this, this morning.

TOM MARSHALL: Randy, thank you. Good talking to you.

RANDY SIMMS: Good to talk with you again, as always.

TOM MARSHALL: Thank you. Bye.

RANDY SIMMS: Take care. Bye, bye. Minister Tom Marshall; he's Minister of Finance, he's President of Treasury Board and he's not that happy with former Premier Brian Peckford over his comments on the weekend and in the paper today.

Security breach at public health lab

Officials in Newfoundland and Labrador are investigating a security breach involving the province's

Public Health Laboratory.

On Friday, justice minister Jerome Kennedy and health minister Ross Wiseman told reporters that an unnamed consultant working with the lab received a call from an individual claiming to be a security specialist. The caller said he had patient information that was on a computer at the lab consultant's home. As cbc.ca/nl reported:

The data, including lab test results for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis along with patient names and health numbers, was stored on a government desktop computer, said Health Minister Ross Wiseman.

The computer was unplugged and taken to the home of a consultant working for the Provincial Public Health Laboratory, something Wiseman said should never have happened.

The lab's website describes its functions more broadly;

The Public Health Laboratory(PHL) provides routine, specialized and reference laboratory services in clinical and public health microbiology to all hospitals, clinics and other health related agencies in the province. These services are offered only through authorized health care professionals.

Bacteriological water quality testing service is provided to private individuals, communities, municipalities, private and public agencies, etc.

With a mandate, role, and functions at the provincial level, the PHL has been able to keep up with technological developments and maintain the state-of-the-art microbiological laboratory services, procedures and facilities.

The PHL has also been active in undertaking a wide variety of research and special projects in medical microbiology and infectious diseases epidemiology and initiatives in relation to existing and emerging public health issues. The PHL publishes periodically articles and abstracts pertaining to the above.

While the lab consultant appears to have been fired, there is no indication of other action.  The incident would appear to involve a breakdown of security practices at the lab that allowed a computer to be removed from the lab in the first place, let alone how it could be operated from an unsecured Internet connection. The incident calls into question both the security policies and procedures as well as way in which highly sensitive data is stored. A consultant needing to work from home could easily have been given external access to data through secure log-in procedures, including frequently changed passwords and data encryption.

Kennedy told reporters on Friday that "We don't now the extent of the breach, we just know a breach has occurred."  However,

Kennedy claimed the incident appears to "be an isolated situation," and that no files were lost from the province's wider computer network.

There is no explanation for Kennedy's assurance given that he had acknowledged not knowing the extent of the security breach. Other security-related information may have also been stored on the computer used by the consultant.

Curiously, a unnamed private security consultant is being retained by the province to investigate the incident alongside the provincial police force.  There is no indication the provincial officials considered using other police sources, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or data security and computer security experts with the Communications Security Establishment. Both federal agencies routinely secure information at least as sensitive as the patient information compromised by the security failure revealed on Friday.

This local security failure comes in the wake of news that security of 25 million records in the United Kingdom was compromised by the theft of compact disks containing unencrypted data. technology security consultants describe  government security for many types of data as being extremely lax.

-srbp-

A breath of fresh air

December 4-5,2007.

Toronto.

The Canadian Institute's conference on social media.

For those outside Toronto, it would be a pricey affair, since the conference registration is nearly $2,000 not counting HST, travel and all the assorted things that go with it.

But take a look at the agenda and speakers and you'll likely agree it is a leading edge session for public relations professionals and well worth the energy and expense involved in getting there.

Here are descriptions of just two sessions:

Targeting Bloggers as Influential Media to Get Your Story Out

Susan Bloch-Nevitte, Executive Director, Public Affairs
Art Gallery of Ontario

Antonietta Mirabelli
Manager, Communications
Art Gallery of Ontario

The Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) last year launched a blogger outreach campaign to start a conversation with the public about the Frank Gehry: Art + Architecture exhibition. The alternative media coverage generated by blogs resulted in a very positive impact on the exhibition’s promotion. For the first time in the AGO’s history, the Web became a critical vehicle in building awareness, influencing public opinion and driving attendance. Learn how social media are a key component of the AGO’s communication and
marketing channels and how the AGO plans to optimize this network of bloggers going forward.

• Determine if you should be aiming your story to make the front page of the Globe and Mail or Google

• Find out how to research bloggers and determine who should be on your media list

• Learn how to build relationships with this targeted group

• Capitalize on the additional coverage of blogging that traditional media do not provide

• Benefit from the ability of media bloggers to cover events and product launches within minutes

• Understand the power shift from traditional media to networked blogger media

Fifteen Megs of Fame: How to Manage Your Brand in an Era of Consumer Control
Michael Seaton
Director, Digital Marketing
Scotiabank

Brands are now and forever outside ivory tower control –and there is no turning back. As social media, consumer generated content and digital distribution gain in popularity, everyone can readily achieve their ‘Fifteen Megs of Fame.’ But how can you achieve that? How do you manage your brand in today’s digital world where consumers are creators? Hear how one of Canada’s top banks developed a long-term
digital strategy that consumers have embraced and learn the tips and tricks that will help you develop your own strategy, whether you’re in the financial industry or not.

Radical stuff?  Not at all, at least in many parts of the world.  There's also an interest sidebar to the growth in social media that might surprise many in the PR business and even those outside.  Just as the advent of e-mail brought a renewed emphasis on writing skills, so too has social media brought to the fore once again the basic principles of effective public relations.

Like pitching a story, one of the components of media relations. This issue gets batted around on any number of public relations blogs out there and it all seems to come back to the simple principles that should be guiding relations with conventional media. What the PR blogs seem to have turned up is a lot of bad practices that are likely being applied to other media with equally disastrous results.

The difference between blogs and conventional media is that bloggers might be inclined to express their opinion openly on the blog about the fumbled approach. Notice the conditional word:  "might". Responsible bloggers, i.e. the ones with the target audience a PR professional or a marketer might want to reach, would be no more likely to have a free poke at a clumsy pitcher than a print or electronic media editor.

In this little corner of the new media, the experience has been, well, there is no experience. No phone calls, no pitches of any kind.  One lone news release that was forwarded after the date it was issued. Now that seems to conform to the general pattern in Newfoundland and Labrador in which social media have been completely ignored by both PR practitioners and marketers as possible tools in their own arsenal or as possible media to reach core audiences.

If you can forgive a little shameless self-promotion, look at it this way: Bond Papers averages 18,000 page loads and 11,500 readers. The daily readers include government officials, financial analysts, lawyers, people in the energy industry, educators and basically a core group of relatively affluent and influential people both within Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. 

Reporters and editors read Bond Papers, too. Anyone who reads Bond regularly will know that posts here will turn up in conventional media fairly regularly. Part of the attraction for some people is being slightly ahead of the curve on some items, but that's another issue. Basically, after nearly three years, Bond Papers is a medium that reaches audiences individually and collectively, that would normally attract some attention from PR people or marketers. 

Bond Papers isn't a blog focusing on mothers - as in one post linked above - nor is it focused on a technical issue like the latest digital cameras. It's easy to see a connection between the blog and the marketing possibilities in those cases. But still, it would take no more energy to research those blogs than to find out about Bond or any other blog in the province to see if there is a possible fit. 

This post came, inadvertently, out of a conversation between your humble e-scribbler and an old hand at the PR game who has  forgotten more about PR than most of us will ever know;  that's not a cliche in this case. This guy likely inspired that remark in the first place. The local Leo was excited about the conference and passed the brochure along since he reads Bond Papers regularly. He keeps abreast of issues in the business even though he's been retired for a while and it seemed a good time to remind him that so much of what PR people do today is exactly what he has been doing his entire career.

The new media wind up reinforcing the basic lessons of the past, with a new twist for a new age. The new media wound up breathing some fresh air into some skills some people have forgotten.

And at the same time, it led your e-scribbler to wonder once again about the difference between the local market and those elsewhere.

Maybe there's something to the observation that the only obvious reference made to new media at a recent local conference was made in a keynote speech by the guy who publishes the province's largest circulation daily newspaper.

-srbp-

Leaving out crucial facts damages cred and rep

One of the things that undermines any marketing or public relations effort is the gap between claim or statement on the one hand and fact on the other.

It's called a credibility gap and when it comes to the provincial government's triffids brand cum "brand signature", the credibility gap keeps opening wider.  The business ministry issued a "news" release on Wednesday claiming that "[t]he brand signature of Newfoundland and Labrador is fast gaining international recognition."

The basis for the claim is that the "animated television spot featuring the brand logo captured a prestigious Silver London International Statue in television at the world-renowned London International Advertising Awards November 12 and also earned a finalist award in the animation category."

Okay.

Bravo to the creative crew at Target Marketing.

But the rest of the release is just puffery, rehashing the entire brand signature/brand logo mythology that's been spewing from every government orifice since the $1.1 million plus farce was unveiled last year.

The London International Awards recognize excellence in various aspects of advertising and design. It's a big deal for any company to be a finalist, let alone win a silver or gold award as the best in the category. The creativity involved in the project had to stand up against some stiff competition and to be sure, anyone familiar with target's projects over the years will recognize that the pitcher plant logo thingy is by no means even close to the best work the company has done.

But at no point did the logo receive international recognition of the type the provincial government claimed.

Check it out for yourself.

Target won an award for a specific aspect of a specific component of the project.

That's nowhere the same as saying the "brand signature... is fast gaining international recognition,"  since that implies the logo itself won recognition.

The video created for the launch - the one with the wailing banshee voice - garnered an award in the Television/Cinema category for original music with lyrics.

That's it.

It also finished as a finalist in the cel animation section of the same category.

Congratulations, Target.

And a giant raspberry to a release from a government department that first of all isn't "news" of any sort, and second of all, tries to claim credit that properly belongs to the creative talent at Target. A new minister and a few other changes and the department responsible still hasn't learned from the mistakes of the launch.

-srbp-

A good start, the City Hall version

The City of St. John's is short on its budget for next year.

$6.0 million short.

So councilors are considering axing funding for community groups and skimping on New Year's celebrations.

Here's a simpler idea that would save at least $3.0 million a year:

Sell the Mile One sinkhole.

-srbp-

Wow, Peter Whittle

Liz couldn't have scripted a better comment for CBC's Morning Show talk back line.

-srbp-

The old fat poll goose

18 happy-happy joy-joy news releases from the provincial government on Thursday, triple the number issued each of the previous two days.

Among the "news":

1.  An announcement that the province has finally completed a set of guidelines for health care on how to respond to a pandemic.  No, it actually says more than "Treat it."

Among the floaters and other fairly obvious revelations from this bit of "news" is this gem is this quote from Faith Stratton: "These guidelines will prove tremendously valuable for our regional medical officers of health and front-line health care managers".  The province's chief medical office is right. The guidelines will be useful.

But.

The real proof of the pudding of pandemic preparedness comes not in having lovely lists of things to do and how to do them.  It comes from having people in place to perform with the bits and pieces of equipment they need.

Any chance they can have a newser on that substantive issue?

2.  A raft of ACOA and province joint announcements.  Those look suspiciously like the feds trying to continue the campaign they started last week to actually take credit for stuff they do.  Then again, it is poll goosing time and maybe ACOA has a few questions in Don Mills' quarterly.

We know the provincial government does.

That's why they goose the polls.

And why Don Mills loves to talk up the stunning success of his client.

-srbp-

Military oil demand

From National Public Radio, an interesting article on oil consumption by the United States armed forces.

Note the reference to a Hercules being able to fly from the US to St. John's. It's no accident they chose that as a reference point.

St. John's is a favourite military refueling stop on the way across the Atlantic.

-srbp-

Hibernia at 10

The Hibernia offshore oil field produced its first oil 10 years ago this week.

The project - regarded as a gamble at the time - was never expected to achieve payout owing to its high cost and the low price of oil.  However, it will hit that milestone within the next four years.

With almost double the amount of recoverable oil first estimated to be in the field, the provincial treasury's share of the revenues will jump dramatically just as it did on the lower-cost Terra Nova project and as it will at the White Rose field. That high revenue will continue for the better part of a decade - unless even more oil is found.

It is easy to forget history, even recent history, just as the past four years of super-heated political rhetoric have shown.  Politicians, academics and journalists have all displayed an appalling ignorance of Hibernia and the rest of the offshore. Information is deliberately distorted, such as in the provincial figures cited by Canadian press in the link above. Those figures deliberately omit projected revenues flowing after payout.

Far from being the give-away some have simplistically claimed, Hibernia was a gamble by the provincial and federal governments and the oil companies on the first project in what has proven to be a solid and lucrative oil industry. Had the provincial and federal governments not provided a variety of financial breaks through taxation changes and federal loan guarantees, it is doubtful the project would have ever been started in the economic climate at the time. When oil plummeted to US$8.00 a barrel in 1992, Gulf Canada pulled out of the project.  Some of the Gulf shares were taken up by other operators but ultimately it was the federal investment and an 8.5% share that kept the project alive.

The gamble paid off for the operators and for the provincial and federal governments. The gamble is paying off each day with the millions in revenues flowing into provincial coffers from the three existing offshore projects.  When Hebron starts flowing the lion's share of the revenues from that project - royalties as well as other provincial revenues - will come from the government's generic royalty regime. 

That regime evolved from the Hibernia model negotiated first under Brian Peckford and concluded under the Clyde Wells [photo: left] administration. Wells' Liberals defeated the Progressive Conservatives under Tom Rideout [Photo: right]. Hibernia had been an issue in the election .

Seventeen years after the Hibernia deal was signed, it's interesting to go back to media reports at the time, like one from CBC television. There was optimism and there were words of caution from economist Wade Locke. Wells himself uttered both, as well, although he was criticised at the time for cautioning people that offshore oil would not produce the thousands of jobs some expected to be available in place of other industries like the fishery.

On the 10th anniversary of Hibernia first oil, it's worthwhile to consider how far the province has come economically as a direct result of decisions taken almost two decades ago. It's also worthwhile to consider how far we have regressed in other terms.

-srbp-

All in favour of extras?

Some Honourable members:  Aye!

No surprise the miniscule and ineffective Liberal Party caucus in the House of Assembly likes the idea of Yvonne Jones as leader.

As Leader of the Official Opposition, Jones herself will collect $52,297 on top of her salary as a member of the House.

Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons will collect an extra $26,246 for taking that job and Roland Butler, the deputy house leader (in a caucus of three mind you) will earn $17,919.

Since the chair of the public accounts committee is an opposition member, someone is entitled to another 413,123 for that job.

And if by some bizarre amount of rationalization, the Liberals appoint a party whip and caucus chair, each of those positions comes with $13,123 in extra pay.

That is, unless the House management committee steps in and changes are introduced to the Green integrity legislation.

Contrary minded?

[dead silence]

-srbp-

Doomed

You read it here yesterday.

It was cemented at a hastily called party executive meeting Monday night.

-srbp-

Sell the pig

Mile One could be profitable.

It can't be profitable in the hands of St. John's City Council.

This year's deficit will be over $2.0 million.  That's a $600,000 shortfall plus the increased operating subsidy from Council.

There's only one sensible solution:  sell Mile One stadium.

-srbp-

Reid to go; Jones to lead party?

Gerry Reid will announce he is leaving politics today.  That's the most likely announcement he'll make.

In the meantime, the Yvonne Jones will take the job as leader of the party.

She'll also be a candidate for the leadership at the next annual general meeting in October, 2008, but for the time being Jones will claim she's just thinking about it.

Then, like party president Danny Dumaresque is already reportedly doing, Jones will quietly assemble her team and her supporters. It gives the party insiders an unfair advantage over all other comers.  Heavens knows the party doesn't need either Jones or Dumaresque at the helm, let alone after letting them have the chance to rig the process in order to get the job.

Here's the thing:

Dumaresque should already be punted as party president.  The fact he's considering a run at the leader's job is just one more excuse beyond the dozens of reasons why he shouldn't be party president. He won't resign. So put the question to him about the leadership.  If Dumaresque cannot categorically state he won't run, it's up to the party executive to fire him. On the spot.  No questions asked.

Ditto Jones. 

Either she commits to stay out of the leadership race or she doesn't take the leaders job.

The Old Hand Shuffle is one of the things that got the party into this mess in the first place. More of the same will only guarantee the political hole Jones and her friends are in will get deeper.

-srbp-

Getting our fair share, the Nevisian view

From a 2006 commentary in The Leeward Times, St. Kitts and Nevis, the following observations about a development by Newfound Group in the tiny Caribbean nation.

The election mentioned in the paragraph did take place and resulted in a new administration. The local government and the developers entered into a new agreement which reduced Newfound's tax holiday from 30 years to 20 years, returned some 172 acres of land to the local government and reportedly included a commitment by Newfound to establish a trades school specializing in tourism-related courses.

We now hear that the government has entered into an agreement to sell some 600 acres of Nevis’ best land to Newfound Group Ltd. The plan of Newfound Group, according to Newfound at the ceremony held in their honour on September 18, 2005, is to have a 150-room hotel and some 400 villas on not less than one acre of land. These villas will be for US1Mmillion. Why did government not do the reverse and make them have 400 hotel rooms and 150 villas? Hotel rooms generate more employment and revenue than villas. In St. Kitts the Newfound Group is building a hotel on 40 acres of land, which would have more hotel rooms than in Nevis where they will have 600 acres. Imagine in St. Kitts they got 540 acres less yet they are building more hotel rooms. It is obvious that the St. Kitts Government is way smarter than the Nevis Government. Why did Government allow these people to buy so much of public land? Couldn’t they only sell them 300 acres and leave the other 300 for another potential hotel development? Why is it that the Government made this deal without any public consultation? Is this deal truly in the best interests of the people of Nevis? Minister Guishard, at the same ceremony on September 18, 2005 boldly proclaimed that there is now NO MORE BEACHFRONT PROPERTY IN NEVIS LEFT FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT on the best side of Nevis, i.e., the Caribbean Sea. Is this what we really want? Why have we put all our eggs in one basket? Does the government realise that by selling villas for US$1M they are creating a Nevis that will be on sale to the VERY RICH and VERY FAMOUS as NO Nevisian can afford to buy any of those villas? Nevis is 36 square miles. Does the Government realise that it has sold more than one square mile of the 36 that Nevis has to some foreign developers for them to turn the island into a place almost exclusively for foreigners? Why is it that the Government was in so much of a rush to enter into an agreement with these people? Is it because an election is looming that they hurriedly decided to sign the deal so that they could say that after 14 years they have finally brought some sort of meaningful foreign investment?

It must be interesting for Newfound's Newfoundland officials to be on the receiving end of this sort of criticism or commentary.

Will this story ever be covered by The Independent?

-srbp-

Newfound NV unable to secure US$21 million loan

Newfound NV announced on November 8 that it has been unable to secure US$21 million in working capital for the company's Newfoundland operation at Humber Valley.

Newfound will now attempt to raise five million pounds sterling through a new issue of shares to existing directors "at a significant discount to market price".

Newfound reported in late September that it was "in the process of finalising" the financing for it's Humber Valley Resort. The company also reported a pretax US$7.4 million loss in the first half of 2007 compared to a US$1.8 million profit the previous year. Newfound's current trading information may be found at several spots including google financial reports.

None of these news releases is contained in the publicly accessible "press room" portion of the company website. They may be located in the "investor relations" section, however, a prominent legal warning requires a viewer to confirm that they do not reside in one of several jurisdictions - including Canada - before proceeding to other pages. Oddly, the warning page is posted through flash animation and cannot be copied. Likewise, the navigation links blocked the page path and thereby preventing posting a link to even the page containing the warning.

According to Thomson Financial, Newfound's September 26 statement indicated the company was also seeking financing of US$30 million for its St. Kitts and Nevis development. In May 2006, Newfound purchased land in St. Kitts and Nevis for the development of a resort to include a 150-room hotel, 400 "upscale" villas and an 18-hole golf course. Reported cost was US$21 million.

In the photo at right, Newfound corporate vice president and attorney Derrick White is shown presenting a cheque for US$10 million to Premier Vance Amory as part of the land purchase.

Two years ago, St. Kitts and Nevis prime minister Dr. Denzil Douglas told carribeannetnews.com:

“Even in Frigate Bay, which is now virtually built out, the Newfound Group out of Canada, in conjunction with National Bank, TDC and Rams, is pursuing a major hotel and condominium project; and the Frigate Bay Development Corporation is in the process of constructing a very impressive villa and commercial development project that will significantly enhance the tourism-related amenities in Potato Bay and the surrounding areas,” said Prime Minister Douglas. [Emphasis added]

The project was renegotiated earlier this year:

According to Parry, the initial agreement between the Developers and the former CCM Administration was renegotiated to reflect a reduction of 10 years tax holiday from the initial 30 year period under the old contract to 20 in line with the regular arrangements of that nature here.

The new agreement also reflected the recovery of over 172 acres of land in addition to the historical sights (which had not been mentioned in the previous proposal), for the people of Nevis in exchange for a reduction of the purchase price from $21 million to $19 million.

“What this means is that as the value of these lands increase and improves in value and there are capital gains, we (Nevis) would benefit to the point where we will end up having millions of dollars for the continuing development of Nevis.

“I wish to make this point as well, we (Nevisians) were told that the cost of the lands was $10 million but when you are building, the cost of the loan to cover the 10 million you are really paying $18 million and we would have only benefited to the tune of $3million. So now we are talking about millions of dollars because of this deal that the Nevis Island Government will have for future development of the island,” he said.

The project is now reported to commence construction in 2008, but had been originally touted as beginning in January 2006 with estimated completion in March 2007.

[h/t to Gary Kelly and crazyaboutnewfoundland.com]

-srbp-

Top o' the Pile: Gary Kelly

One of the better blogs around is written by Gary Kelly; Gary offers sharp writing on diverse topics backed by research and accompanied by links.

Regular Bond Papers readers will recognized the links labeled Top o' the Pile.  That's where Gary belongs and that's where he is now.

In a post last week, Gary discussed an issue that arose over his use of a photograph from the Western Star. The Corner Brook daily took exception to Gary's uncredited use of one of their images, which Gary freely acknowledges was the case.  He also linked to the original story, so, as Gary notes, he wasn't stealing their bandwidth. Gary took down the photo.

While I technically understand the position of the Western Star in asking me to take the photo down, I have to question the we vs. us mentality.

You know what really must frighten the Western Star? I took the photo down four minutes after receiving their email. How long would it take them to do that? How long does it take to print a retraction?

You know what else must frighten the Western Star? If you do a Google search for Corner Brook City Hall - this blog comes up third on the list. I have no fixed costs compared to the local newspaper. That could be the subject of an entire blog all by itself.

Honestly, Gary might find that not to be the issue so much as the uncredited use of the Star's intellectual property. Gary cites some statistics on blog traffic and the value of blog links. He might be right but there might be a way of coming to an agreement with the Star's editorial board that would work for both sides.

Using photographs is an issue that all bloggers come across at some point. Over the past two and a half years, Bond has has taken to giving a photo credit unless the photo comes from the anonymous pile of stuff that is just untraceable.  Yes, as some have noted, Bond has used commercial shots, like say the Simpsons, but more often than not, photos come from Canadian Press, the CBC or the Telegram.

Most Bond posts these days are composed on Windows Live Writer and that piece of software has been a godsend.  The picture handling feature allows for watermarks to be included and that's where the credit goes, as in this shot by Jonathan Hayward of Canadian Press. Adding credit in this way doesn't detract from the image and it makes damned sure everyone knows where it came from. 

In one of the most popular photos at Bond - voted by reader calls and e-mails - the origin of the shot is actually contained in the lower right on the original.  Yep.  It's from the Mother Corp, so there's no additional credit listed.

CBC has a fairly extensive policy on the use of its online materials and, as with the Star in all likelihood, the Corp will defend its copyright. Any time any copyright holder has exerted his or her rights, Bond has responded accordingly. In some cases, pictures have been removed.  In others, the copyright holder has given express permission based on certain conditions being met. It isn't always a matter of money changing hands - sometimes it is sufficient that credit be given to the creator of the intellectual property.

Blog writers should understand that simple concept since they generate intellectual property of their own. While it's done for free and made readily available through the Internet, people shouldn't be claiming ideas, words or phrases contained on blogs without some measure of credit.

More often than not, Bond has been able to operate successfully using photographs and other images based on the understanding that this is not a competitor of the originator.  In other words, a blog like Bond Papers isn't a news outlet like the CBC or the Telly and it isn't a commercial enterprise.

Maybe that makes a difference.

Maybe the Star will take a different view.  It might only take an e-mail from Gary back to the managing editor proposing a straightforward arrangement.  If Gary can demonstrate through his traffic statistics the value of his links, then the Star might relent. Editors and producers aren't usually stunned. In fact, Gary will likely find that most of them are interested in working out a problem to the benefit of all concerned.  After all, rather than competing with news organizations, blogs can add to the mix of opinion and commentary and sometimes serve as leads to stories. The whole thing can work for all concerned.  it just has to start with an appreciation by one for the other.

-srbp-

Reinforcements

From Oh!, What a lovely war, a poignant commentary that combines a popular soldier's ditty from the Great War with one of the best known lines of poetry from the same war.

Remembrance

1. Attack, Siegfried Sassoon

At dawn the ridge emerges massed and dun

In the wild purple of the glow'ring sun,

Smouldering through spouts of drifting smoke that shroud

The menacing scarred slope; and, one by one,

Tanks creep and topple forward to the wire.

The barrage roars and lifts. Then, clumsily bowed

With bombs and guns and shovels and battle-gear,

Men jostle and climb to meet the bristling fire.

Lines of grey, muttering faces, masked with fear,

They leave their trenches, going over the top,

While time ticks blank and busy on their wrists,

And hope, with furtive eyes and grappling fists,

Flounders in mud. O Jesus, make it stop!

 

2.  Escape, Robert Graves

(August 6, 1916.—Officer previously reported died of
wounds, now reported wounded: Graves, Captain R.,
Royal Welch Fusiliers.)

... But I was dead, an hour or more.
I woke when I'd already passed the door
That Cerberus guards, and half-way down the road
To Lethe, as an old Greek signpost showed.
Above me, on my stretcher swinging by,
I saw new stars in the subterrene sky:
A Cross, a Rose in bloom, a Cage with bars,
And a barbed Arrow feathered in fine stars.
I felt the vapours of forgetfulness
Float in my nostrils. Oh, may Heaven bless
Dear Lady Proserpine, who saw me wake,
And, stooping over me, for Henna's sake
Cleared my poor buzzing head and sent me back
Breathless, with leaping heart along the track.
After me roared and clattered angry hosts
Of demons, heroes, and policeman-ghosts.
"Life! life! I can't be dead! I won't be dead!
Damned if I'll die for any one!" I said....
Cerberus stands and grins above me now,
Wearing three heads—lion, and lynx, and sow.
"Quick, a revolver! But my Webley's gone,
Stolen!... No bombs ... no knife....
The crowd swarms on,
Bellows, hurls stones.... Not even a honeyed sop ...
Nothing.... Good Cerberus!... Good dog!... but stop!
Stay!... A great luminous thought ... I do believe
There's still some morphia that I bought on leave."
Then swiftly Cerberus' wide mouths I cram
With army biscuit smeared with ration jam;

And sleep lurks in the luscious plum and apple.
He crunches, swallows, stiffens, seems to grapple
With the all-powerful poppy ... then a snore,
A crash; the beast blocks up the corridor
With monstrous hairy carcase, red and dun—
Too late! for I've sped through.
O Life! O Sun!

3. Infantry, near Nijmegan, Holland, Alex Colville (Canadian War Museum collection)

4. Military mom at home

Suddenly uncocky

Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't seem quite as smug this Saturday as say he has on any day over the past two weeks.

There's a new affidavit in the old Mulroney-Airbus scandal and this time it mentions Harper. There's a letter to harper from Karlheinz Schrieber, the man at the centre of the allegations.

All this has the prime Minister appointing an independent review of the allegations, essentially something far short of the public inquiry needed but still far from Harper's insistence that it would be dangerous to investigate allegations involving a former administration or prime minister.

Volte-face, the Globe calls it pretentiously.

Most of us would say about-face, or if you are from Newfoundland and Labrador, you'd know the political flip-flops all too well from watching Harper's provincialist doppelganger.

Such is its magnitude that even the National Post couldn't ignore the change-in-direction story, although the coverage has a noticeably different tone to the Globe work.

Catch video of the Prime Minister's news conference at ctv.ca.

Note one really interesting thing toward the end of harper's remarks in English:  Harper says that Mulroney never spoke to him "on behalf of" Schreiber nor presented documents from Schreiber.  he didn't deny in his own statement that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had never discussed the Schreiber allegations and the entire affair with the current prime minister.

In a carefully crafted statement that said the same thing in French as in English, those particularly carefully chosen words might turn out to the the pivot on which the whole affair turns.

Expect the federal Conservatives to back off their election provocation pretty quickly.

-srbp-

A national gallery belongs in the national capital

Canada's toddler government wants to ship the National Portrait Gallery to a permanent home in one of nine cities across Canada.

These cities have a relatively large population, which will provide an important local visitor base; are easily accessible with effective transportation networks; and have the potential to attract both domestic and international visitorship.

Ottawa meets all those requirements and it has one other significant advantage:  it's the freakin' capital of Canada, where most human beings around the world and certainly most Canadians would expect to find a national asset like the portrait gallery located.

As it is Canadians have in front of them a fine start to one of the usual rows that occur when the national government is reduced to yet another source of pork to be argued over by parochial/provincialist interests.

Quebec nationalists will make a pitch and will likely get it since two of the sites chosen are in Quebec.  It won't hurt that the anal retentive first minister's office needs seats in Quebec and is currently hurting politically in that province.

Newfoundland nationalists, led by Danny Williams and his own afternoon VOCM radio version of Lord Ha Ha, will see the exclusion of Newfoundland from the list of potential cities as yet further evidence of the failures of Confederation. 

Don't be surprised if there's a pitch made to have the gallery located in Corner Brook or a sudden provincial government initiative  - introduced as having been under consideration for many months - to create a national portrait gallery "of our own" on a "got-it-alone basis. "

That will definitely be located in Corner Brook, unless AbitibiBowater decides to shut the Grand Falls mill.

-srbp-

Excited about excrement

The penchant for pushing "good news" in this the last polling period for government's official pollster has reached new highs.

or is it lows?

Depths, anyone?

Approval of a new sewerage lift system for the community of Heart's Delight-Islington warranted a news release from the municipal affairs department in among the veritable core dump of "news" from the government's division of poll goosing. 

While this is no doubt of great interest to the people of the lovely Trinity Bay community, it hardly seems necessary to make such a large issue of this that it involves not only flatulent comments by the minister responsible for scheisse-shifting set-ups but flowery verbiage from his cabinet colleague and the member for the area.

Said "news" included comments by municipal affairs minister Dave Denine linking "strong, sustainable rural and regional economies" with things like the installation of a new merde-motivation machine. One can imagine the endless promotional possibilities the business department can make of this development.

Local member Charlene Johnson praised her colleague for approving the project and added that the new excreta elevator will ensure "maximize safe and reliable service for the residents of Heart’s Delight-Islington...".

Reliable turd trucking is certainly something we would all wish for the lovely people of Heart's Delight-Islington.

And, in most circumstances, few would argue against ensuring that drek-disposal was maximized.

But safe?

It makes one wonder what lurks in the 'loos in Johnson's neck of the woods and whence comes the toilet-borne terrors.

It seems especially ill-chosen a word considering that the provincial government's communications division's evacuations  - like this one  - lay about stinking up the joint, in seemingly increasing numbers.

-srbp-

Poll goosing explained

Skinner's words: update

Offal News posted an audio recording of human resources minister Shawn Skinner's profuse apology and backtracking exercise discussed earlier at both Offal News and Bond Papers.

Give it a listen.

You can really hear the magnitude of the reaction not from Skinner on his own, but likely from Skinner's boss or The Boss' staff.

"There are some people who've indicated to me," says Skinner, " that they felt that was the spin that was put it." The "spin" to use Skinner's words would be the suggestion that he wasn't really supportive of Danny Williams' ABC, anti-Harper campaign.

Skinner indicates that he apologized to the Premier, although an apology seems odd if there really wasn't anything that he said in the beginning that he ought to apologise for. On the same day Danny's only outside ally in the War on Harper went down to defeat at the hands of a Harper ally, there just wasn't any way Danny Williams wanted to spend any time suggesting that - despite the obvious comments - he had at least one minister prepared to say publicly that he was interested in getting on with the job and leaving the loafer-pissing to someone else. Skinner's not alone in the caucus or the cabinet. He's just the one with the cajones to say so publicly, even if inadvertently.

After all, Skinner's reason for calling Open Line this morning - supposedly on his own initiative - was to explain that what some people might attribute to him was not what he meant.

Why apologize for something you didn't say?

Supposedly didn't say.

You can follow the click to Offal or just watch the video below.

-srbp-

In his own words: Shawn Skinner on federal-provincial relations

Jonathan Crowe: But I mean, your boss is saying "Anybody But Conservative" in the next election. That's gotta be difficult when you meet Minister Hearn out in the lobby and shake hands.

Hon. Shawn Skinner: Not for me, it isn't. My boss can vote for who he wishes. He can mark his 'X' where he wishes to mark it. From my perspective, I have a job to do. I'm elected by the people of St. John's Centre. I'm in cabinet representing the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have a job to do. And I'm going to do that to the best of my ability.

If and when there is a federal election, we all as individual citizens can make up our own minds what we want to do. I'm here today as a provincial minister and I'm carrying out my duties as a provincial minister.

These words are causing Skinner such problems that he apparently felt the need - or more likely was ordered - to call Randy Simms just now and explain that he was completely behind his Leader in the anti-Harper campaign.

And Randy bought Skinner's explanation.

Problem solved.

Not at all.

First of all, Simms seems rather quick to accept one side of a story these days even if the other side is equally plausible and neither side has been proven correct by an independent review. Think fundraising, accountants and a shoe that has yet to drop on that set of ledger books.

Second, Skinner's comments are pretty obviously out of step with Danny Williams' plan to fight against the federal Conservatives. One would have to be willfully blind to miss the sentence "my boss can vote for who he wishes," followed right away by the clear statement that meanwhile I, Shawn Skinner, am elected by the people of my district to represent them.

Skinner's been known to make some ill-advised remarks, but it's pretty hard to imagine in this instance that he didn't mean what he said or that he was taken "out of context". bankrupting the province was obviously out of context and Simms and other news media jumped all over that one.

Here, though, we have another matter. It's highly likely - as in, bet the farm on it - that there is some disagreement within the current administration with the ongoing war with Ottawa.

That disagreement on Williams' policy is reflected in Skinner's remarks. It's blatantly obvious.

Cabinet ministers represent the people of the province and need to have a working relationship with whichever administration is in power in the federal government. Most don't have that right now and the only way to fix it is to get Danny to settle the blood feud.

The problem for local Tories is all the worse given that most of them are good friends with their Conservative counterparts and have been working the same campaigns and same backrooms for years. They certainly wouldn't want to campaign against Tom Osborne, for example, or Jack Byrne should those fellows actually take a run for federal politics. Given the internal Tory fractures, it would very hard for Danny Williams to deploy a cohesive political force behind any Liberal or New Democrat candidate. Williams might be able to force Shawn Skinner to tug the forelock and apologise to Williams publicly because Shawn likes the cabinet job he holds.

But would Shawn be prepared to pull a Scott Simms and go knocking doors for the New Democrat in St. John's South?

This schism within the local Tories is apparent enough that the federal Conservatives are working to exploit it. Loyola Hearn and his federal friends are nowhere near as politically stunned as Lorraine, Yvonne and the other Danny. Case on point: the letters on disaster compensation. Don't think they came from the provincial side of the racket. There are other, less obvious signs, but the signs are there that the Connies are trying to wedge open those cracks in the Danny Williams team just a wee bit wider than they are.

And Shawn?

Well, he just said what other local Tories are saying behind closed doors and in small groups, just like some have started to explore leadership options for the time only a few short months from now when we will be in a post-Danny Dannyland.

The next few months are going to be very interesting.

-srbp-

Negotiating tactic

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro chairman Dean MacDonald tells an Ontario energy association meeting that when it comes to the Lower Churchill development "[w]hen you look at what the impediments are in front of us [to transmit power across Quebec to Ontario], we really have no alternative" than to build a power line through the Maritimes and ship power into the United States.

Meanwhile, Premier Danny Williams tells local reporters that, contrary to the implication of MacDonald's comments, Hydro hasn't abandoned the East-West sale potential.

On the face of it, this speech looks like a negotiating ploy by Dean. Tell the Ontarians we have power but can't get it across Quebec to you. Therefore, pressure Ottawa to intervene. In fact, the Globe story makes that pretty clear:

He urged Ontario energy executives and government officials to pressure Ottawa to intervene in the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, which are "rolling around in the mud" over the issues of access to markets and transmission systems.

Newfoundland has filed a submission with Quebec regulatory officials to require Hydro-Québec to deliver Lower Churchill power to markets through its transmission system, but it's a long process, Mr. MacDonald said. "With the lack of a connection between the provinces east-west ... we'll follow the path of least resistance, which is south," he said.

Then again, Dean's remarks also fit with comments he's made in the past and echoed by the Premier. Cost isn't an issue with the route through the Maritimes, according to both Williams and MacDonald; "if it costs us an extra billion to go north-south, we'll be the masters of our own destiny."

There's no conflict between Williams and MacDonald. They are both consistently singing the same song and it would perfectly in character for both men to use a speech like this to try and elicit some political intervention in the case.

There is a problem with their approach, however.

MacDonald was speaking to a sophisticated audience that can crunch the real numbers on the Maritimes route. These people know the idea of the alternate route costing "an extra billion" lowballs the real number, lowballs the overall cost and therefore doesn't even come close to explaining how the power can get to an American market at a competitive price. it's an historic problem and one that might only be solved - as has been suggested - by selling the power at or even below cost in the initial stages.

These Ontario energy players also know that MacDonald's team has so far only been able to turn up only one exploratory memorandum of understanding with one theoretical, potential customer and even that was for only 200 megawatts.

They likely think the whole posture MacDonald is taking is a big bluff.

How can you tell?

MacDonald said so: "I think a lot of people thought we were bluffing. We're not...".

When you have to state categorically that you aren't bluffing, that's a pretty big clue you are spinning a tale in which even you lack confidence.

Why not just promise to hold your breath until you turn blue?

It would be about as convincing and about as effective.

-srbp-

Hey, Steve! Message for ya!

Photographers sometimes capture images that they didn't see, but which turn up in the process of sorting shots after a shoot.

Like this one, taken during the recent campaign. Nope, it hasn't been photoshopped.

This is the original image as the premier adjusted his glasses during a speech.

Did he mean to do it?

Well, he meant to adjust his spectacles, but many of us use the middle finger to move our eyeglasses upward on the bridge of our nose.

Beyond that, there's no way of knowing if Danny wanted to send Steve a message.

Doesn't really matter.

It's still funny.

Danny Williams.

Middle finger salute.

And low and behold, a rather glum and sour expression.

-srbp-

Whither the fishery?

In the Wednesday Globe, Derek Butler, executive director of the Association of Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador, offers some frank insights into the state of the province's fishery and on the way ahead.

The fishery remains of great value. Newfoundland & Labrador‘s industry represents 25 per cent of landed value of seafood in Canada. The country's seafood exports totaled $4.1-billion, of which Newfoundland & Labrador's share was $798.2-million. Heady figures indeed. So where's the problem?

After the collapse of the ground fish and pelagics fisheries, programs were implemented to reduce the number of participants in the industry, to make it more viable for those remaining. Yet we have not done that. For too many years now we have struggled to qualify workers (those in the know will heave a collective sigh) and dissipate the wealth in the industry. Our intentions were good. Keep people working and share the wealth, but to such a degree, that few people could truly make a go of it.

The reason we are having a crisis is because we are expecting the fishery to carry 30-plus crab plants, and a dozen or more shrimp plants, and tens of dozens of ground fish and pelagics plants. We must break the cycle of false hope by adopting a rationalization program and putting in place funding to help those affected. At some point, government and the people in affected communities must be protected from the delusion that 10 weeks' work is enough.

...

Industry – harvesters and processors – both know that we must adapt to face the new realities of a more competitive China, higher fuel prices and the stronger dollar. Instead, we have gone about things as of old, and expected a different result. That's, as the saying goes, the definition of insanity. That challenge includes requiring a fresh look at the price setting mechanisms in the industry, unique in the world (Joey Smallwood's last piece of legislation in 1972). We have a collective bargaining structure for what is essentially a business to business relationship. We negotiate minimum prices around a table, and then go out on wharves around the province to conduct a second set of ‘free-market' negotiations and auctioneering precisely because the prices negotiated formally are minimums, and the overcapacity leads to irrational economics. This renders the collective bargaining process obviously redundant.

Are there bright spots out there? Yes, if one takes hope from the government-led renewal initiative last year (though of merit, it was not all industry had hoped for). The resource remains strong, and the industry is tackling new challenges like eco-labeling with the pending Marine Stewardship Council certification for northern shrimp, showing our coldwater shrimp comes from a sustainable, well-managed fishery.

But the same can't be said for the economic viability of the industry itself, in either harvesting or processing. It may be that the challenges of industry renewal are truly intractable political problems. Fair enough, but if it's confession time, no one is on their knees - except in terms of the economics.

-srbp-

Another resounding victory...

1. In the cause for electoral reform or political reform or some kind of reform: another riding taken by a party already in dictatorship territory, with 38% of the vote.

2. For incompetence: Proof the current executive of the party - and especially the president - need a vacation.

Well, more like a retirement, actually, but a bit more permanent.

3. Blindness: New Democrats. A wake-up call that there is no "labour" vote. Re-think your approach to politics

-srbp-

Emergency confuddles

Someone released a bunch of letters between the provincial and federal governments about emergency response funding.

From a media standpoint, yesterday belonged to the feds:

The province argues Ottawa has not made good on outstanding claims for flooding in Stephenville in 2005 and a storm surge in February 2006. The province asked in August for an advance on damages caused by Tropical Storm Chantal.

But federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, in letters to the province obtained by CBC News, said that the ball is in the province's court, and that the federal government has not received the appropriate paperwork.

Newly minted municipal affairs minister Dave Denine responded today with a news release.

There's a brave attempt to blame the federal government, but the essence of the release is contained in the lede, namely the provincial government is having problems collecting because it is having problems, "most of which relate to difficulties associated with requirements under federal accounting and audit processes."

There's nothing surprising in that, nor in the subsequent paragraph in which Denine says that information is submitted, further information is requested by the feds and that - quite obviously - slows the process. Anyone who has dealt with the federal government, especially in the wake of Gomery, will know that federal financial controls are pretty stringent. That may come as a bit of a culture shock to people used to dealing with - ooooh, maybe the House of Assembly - but the federal system is the kind of accounting and audit system one would expect from a competent administration looking after other people's, i.e. public, money.

At that point, though, Denine's release goes a bit off the rails:

"Federal representatives have made misleading statements to the media in stating that they have made advancements of $21 million in recent years. In fact, these payments date back to events between 1973 and the present," said Minister Denine. "We are also concerned about statements made by federal officials that advance federal payments can be provided to the province when, in reality, the federal program does not provide for any payments, advance or otherwise, until work has been completed and documentation is submitted which, in some cases, can take years."

That comes right after he acknowledges this:

In relation to events since 2000, the province has received $7.1 million in interim payments from the Federal Government through the DFAA program, including $2.3 million for Storm Surge 2000, $2.6 million for Tropical Storm Gabrielle 2001, $1.0 million for Badger Flood 2003, and $1.2 million for West Coast Flood 2003. [Italics added]

That's basically what the feds claimed in their letters. "interim". "advance". Potato, potato.

After trying to accuse the federal officials of making misleading statements, Denine gets back to the core of the issue: the provincial government has been having some consistent problems in getting the paperwork filled out properly. And yes, to its credit, this administration has put in place a new emergency response organization within government that takes emergency services out of the basement and gives it the prominence it deserves.

And, unfortunately for those who really want to understand emergency response, Denine leaves the most important point to the end: emergency response is a provincial responsibility. The provincial government policies should provide compensation and it is the provincial government which is reimbursed for its costs.

The people should not be inconvenienced, if they are at all.

Has anyone bothered ask if the province hasn't been compensating people until it receives federal cash?

-srbp-

Lest we forget

An e-mail this morning drew my attention to the use of the poppy, which, until this morning, was prominently displayed at the top of the right hand navigation bar at Bond Papers for more than a week.

As it drew closer to November 11, I went looking for an appropriate image to use and found, largely by accident, a very attractive rendering of the poppy.  Turns out it was actually the Royal Canadian Legion's official version.

Perfect, so it seemed.  I also looked for a link to the Legion's Poppy Fund but couldn't find one;  there was plenty of background on the poppy and remembrance but nothing that offered an opportunity to contribute to the fund and thereby support the legion's work on behalf of veterans.

The e-mail linked to a post which ultimately linked back to a controversy from 2005 about the use of the poppy by Pierre Bourque on his site. Copyright and trademark are serious issues so if the Royal Canadian Legion is actively defending its rights, Bond Papers will respect that. The poppy is gone.

But here's the thing.

I scoured the Legion website trying to find links, images that were available for use or even a specific e-mail address for the Legion's Dominion Command communications section.

Nada.

Zip.

Rien.

Compare that to the Royal British Legion site. There are numerous contacts for poppy images, corporate relations and the Poppy Appeal.

In place of the poppy, you'll find at the right an image for the Veteran's Affairs Remembrance Week.  Veterans' Affairs Canada not only has a page with good links and useful information, VAC actually makes versions of its banner available in varying sizes for just such uses as the one here at Bond Papers.  On top of that VAC supplies html code - that's right they actually make it easy for people to take the images and reproduce them, complete with embedded links back to the VAC website.

The week leading up to Remembrance Day is a time of respect and remembrance. That was the intention of using the poppy and that remains the intention.  Out of respect to the Legion, its members and their rights, the poppy is gone. The VAC banner is a fitting alternative.

If the Legion had provided any useful contact information beyond the standard "info@" junkmail address, I might have sought permission.  Frankly, since a better address isn't available and since the Legion hasn't gone through the effort of offering any simple code or an appropriate portion of their website to link to, I took it that they really weren't interested in the contact in the first place.  That's my assumption and mine alone, but when people don't make it easy for anyone to contact them, that usually signals disinterest.

The Legion might want to rethink their approach.

-srbp-

Power, politics and change

People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people.

'Tis that time of the year once more, dear friends, when the political origins of an ancient commemoration once more slips a wee bit more from the popular view. This is a shame since in the events marked by bonfires in many parts of the Commonwealth we may find a timely inspiration.

The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt at violent political change and the book and movie from which the opening quote is taken contained its share of violence. Yet, violence is not as sure a means of effecting political change as knowledge and words.

Discovery of the Plot set back the cause of Roman Catholic emancipation in Britain for some two centuries, yet experts will equally argue that had the plot succeeded in killing the King and the Protestant members of parliament, it may well have led to a period of even greater repression of Roman Catholicism throughout the United Kingdom.

Compare that experience with events in India before 1947 or in the United States when the power of non-violence coupled with information produced far more dramatic and positive social and political changes.

The truth is that governments in the past century of human civilization do fear their people. They fear not so much the potential for violent revolution, although that has occurred. Rather if we look to Pakistan of just the past few days, we see the actions of a government declaring martial law because it feared the prospect of a change in government administration through legal, i.e. peaceful means. The pretext for martial law is a particular decision of the country's Supreme Court, but the struggle between the courts and General Pervez Musharraf go back many months. The rule of law has been frustrating the General's plans and, in some respects, it may only have been a matter of time before Musharraf or another member of the armed forces that has ruled the country for too many years seized power.

Closer to home we may also see evidence of a government that fears its people. The Prime Minister recently ruled out the prospect of an inquiry into allegations against one of his predecessors, not because the allegations have already been reviewed, but because such an inquiry would be "dangerous".

Yet neither the Prime Minister nor his predecessor found the prospect of public inquiries into other matters to be "politically driven", or in the case of Paul Martin sufficiently dangerous to his own political fortunes to serve as an excuse for not appointing an investigation.

The Prime Minister, we would contend might be afraid of the implications such an inquiry might have for his own administration. He is almost certainly afraid of undermining his own politically driven use of past misdeeds.

Closer to home, we find another government and another first minister seemingly afraid of the people. The struggle in this instance is waged with words that are effectively stripped of any real meaning. The legislature is kept closed while the evidence makes plain that the excuses offered by the cabinet are nonsense.

People are warned against demanding increased public spending on one or another cause they consider good because of "the debt." Never mind that the debt has increased and that public spending under the current administration has kept pace with the flow of petro-dollars; the spending of course, is on things which the government considers important. People should scarcely need reminding that this same administration has refused to tell the people what they will actually be charging developers for the right to develop public natural resources and fought for the longest time to prevent an inquiry into spending on fibreoptic cables. These are actions, we are reminded of an open, accountable and transparent government.

Therein lies the clearest example of how governments show their fear of the people who they would rule. Culture and history are malleable and the very meaning of common words may be altered to the point where even reasonable people cannot grasp the inherent contradictions in what they claim.

I like the fact that our current premier seems intent on appealing to the strengths and skills of the people of this place. I like the fact that his government beefed up the rules for MHAs in the wake of the constituency-allowance spending scandal, based on Chief Justice Derek Green’s recommendations.

or from the earlier column:

He preaches that the solution lies not with him, but with us.

How "he" alone accomplishes this we do not know, especially when the political program is designed to increase government control over resources rather than creating an environment in which enterprising individuals may flourish. How "he" should be credited with introducing those rules when, as anyone may well see, "he" allowed the inappropriate spending - the allowances not the alleged criminal activity - to flourish until discovery of the latter revealed the former; let us not forget either that implementing those rules was delayed, as the columnist's own paper reported, while people were led to believe something else. The "solution" - no problem is defined - cannot rest with "us" when the entire premise of the administration is founded on "him" being in charge; "us" should dutifully follow and offer only positive suggestions in support of whatever is decided by "him" and "his" ministers.

Words can have no meaning in a world where they are changed at whim, where information is withheld from the public and where, as it turns out, even editors have let slip the mooring lines of fact.

I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous.

Another writer called it Newspeak, but in other works, George Orwell demonstrated his clear appreciation of how language may be perverted to obscure meaning and thereby frustrate public understanding. In some countries, governments show their fear of people with violence. In others, they show fear by doing violence to language and history.

Both fears are rooted in the understanding that power rests ultimately the individuals within a society. Yet in any democracy worthy of the name, there is no legitimate reason for fear nor for the response it seems to engender from the governors toward the governed.

In Pakistan, the country has taken a step backward from democracy and only time will tell how the Pakistani people will respond.

In Canada, we may continue to work for change and to exercise our power as citizens in a democracy in the country as a whole or within the province. We must reject the debasement of language and history.

True power, after all, does not come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from the exercise of basic freedoms, despite what some governors may ponder.

As individuals in a free society, we should remember that true power comes from the mind.

-srbp-

Why the ABC thing might just turn out to be a farce or a ruse.

The Star, via nottawa.

The Conservative victory in 2006 was a function of a strong New Democratic performance.

Someone could reasonably conclude that an intervention that pushes votes to the New Democrats in this province, or which splits the non-Conservative vote would actually help the federal Conservatives secure the seats they have and maybe pick up a few more.

maybe that's what ABC is all about anyway. A political phoney war? maybe.

But definitely the kind of intervention that might help Stephen Harper rather than hurt the federal Conservatives.

-srbp-

Don't show us your tits: the media coverage

Cheryl Cruz's sorry experience at Universal Studios Florida has turned into a bit of a media storm for the entertainment giant.

Local Orlando news has picked it up, including wftv.com which is running a poll on the question of public breastfeeding.

There's even been some chatter on an Internet discussion group.

One employee makes a mistake.

A media controversy ensures; let's see how big the controversy gets.

-srbp-

Unfashionably frank, closer to home

Craig Westcott, publisher editor and just about everything at the Business Post is now blogging.

The Public Ledger

-srbp-

Unfashionably frank

Until his death last week at age 92, Paul Tibbetts never expressed any regret, remorse or indeed any emotional reaction at all to what became the defining event in his life as far as most human beings were concerned.

Paul Tibbets was the pilot of Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare.

National Public Radio's website contains some of the most straightforward accounts of Tibbet's life and it includes some links to related stories. There are plenty of other commentaries out there, including a simple one by Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

Tibbetts was unfashionable in his views on the atomic bombs, but the man who died in relative obscurity was consistently frank in his views. They remained the same at his death as they were when he was handed the job of getting ready for the mission in 1944:

"I thought to myself, 'Gee, if we can be successful, we're going to prove to the Japanese the futility in continuing to fight because we can use those weapons on them. They're not going to stand up to this thing. After I saw what I saw I was more convinced that they're gonna quit. That's the only way I could do it,'" he told Morning Edition.

-srbp-

Woodrow packs it in

John Woodrow has quit as the Liberal candidate in the deferred central Newfoundland election.

He didn't do it for the right reasons; he did so claiming as vocm.com put it that "he did not feel he had the support of the party executive or caucus."

The Advertiser has a more detailed version of the story:

Mr. Woodrow’s decision to withdraw from the race was also made following comments by provincial Liberal Party president Danny Dumaresque in the most recent edition of the weekly provincial newspaper, The Independent.

In the news story in question, Mr. Dumaresque stated, “Basically the people of the province have already cast their opinion and undoubtedly we would love to win it (the seat), but I don’t see it as a must-win at all as far as importance to the party is concerned.”

Dumaresque should be the next to go.

The result of the last election - which Dumaresque uses as an excuse in the central fight - rests in some measure on the head of the president. That to one side, even, Dumaresque should give up as party president since he signed endorsed Woodrow's candidacy without checking on the guy's history.

Instead of packing it in, Dumaresque seems to be quietly soliciting support for a run at the party leader's job. In light of the Woodrow mess, Dumaresque should have a very hard time convincing anyone he's the right guy to lead the party into the 2011 general election, that is, unless he plans to promise four more years on the opposition benches.

-srbp-

Business Shorts

1.  South Coast Partners LP concludes takeover of Oceanex.

2. Cornerstone adds new director.

3. Vulcan Minerals Inc. has been advised that NWest Energy Inc. is being acquired on a share-for-share basis by Trilogy Metals Inc., a public company.

-srbp-

CSC boss likes government focus on volunteer/not-for-profit sector

Penelope Rowe, president of the Community Services Council, told CBC that a new provincial government ministry aimed at the volunteer and not-for-profit sector is a good thing.

Well, of course.

"By working collectively with government, we can try to lay out a framework that looks at the issues across a variety of organizations," Rowe said.

The CSC news release is effusive in its praise for the new initiative, identifying the appointment of a particular individual as minister as a key aspect:

“Naming The Honourable Tom Hedderson, Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector is a major step in recognizing the importance of this sector to quality of life in communities across the province,” said Penelope Rowe...

Rowe singled out specific initiatives from the progressive Conservative platform, namely:

• formalize a policy and program framework to strengthen and support the community-based sector and to enhance the development of social economy enterprises, especially in rural regions, as means of improving services, providing additional employment
• recognize and celebrate the work of community volunteers
• through discussions with the Community Services Council and other community organizations in the volunteer sector, produce a scope of work document to set the terms for an initiative to strengthen the relationship between the government and the volunteer sector, to improve the grants process, and to identify opportunities for cooperation and collaboration.

Odd that Rowe stopped there in the list.  The next one may give some idea as to why the CSC is quite so tickled with the new initiative for volunteers and not-for-profits:

• increase funding for the Community Services Council

But Rowe, who is obviously fairly tight with the current administration, didn't seem to feel any need to either raise a question about or even mention the next item listed in the Tory platform:

• continue to implement the recommendations of the task force on the not-for-profit sector

If Rowe knows anything about the task force, she sure wasn't letting that slip either.  If Rowe doesn't have some kind of inside knowledge on this task force, she ought to be questioning what it is and what the report says.

As Bond Papers noted during the recent election campaign, there is absolutely no public record of such a task force even being created let alone issuing a report which is already being implemented.  

Maybe someone will asked Hedderson or Rowe about the apparently secret task force or consider going to someone other than Rowe for comment on this initiative. The CSC isn't the only volunteer/not-for-profit in the province and CSC is by no means an umbrella organization.

The volunteer sector is important, but when you head the only group in the province singled out in a party campaign document for extra cash from public coffers, your endorsement would be  - at the very least - taken as a given.

-srbp-