Nova Scotia would get Churchill Falls power for free #nlpoli

If you’ve been following the ongoing Muskrat Falls saga, you will recall that energy analyst Tom Adams raised some questions a couple of months ago about whether or not Muskrat Falls could actually produce the power Nalcor and the provincial government claimed.

The problem basically came down to this: 

• January through to March is when Muskrat Falls needs to produce the most power.
• That’s when Holyrood would be cranking at full tilt to meet demand on the island for lights and heat in the winter months.
• At the same time, the Nova Scotians will need to get their guaranteed block.
• Upstream, Churchill Falls will be cranking at full tilt to feed Quebec under the 1969 contract and the 1998 Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract
• But the water flows in those three months are the lowest for the year.
• And at that point, Muskrat Falls would have a problem generating much more electricity than Holyrood did, despite the fact that Muskrat is – on paper – considerably larger.

Nalcor’s official line is that the water management agreement imposed by the public utilities board gives Nalcor access to the Churchill Falls reservoir. 

With production at Muskrat Falls completely integrated with Churchill Falls, this means that during May and June Muskrat Falls will be producing at full output, and the resulting production not required on the island will be displacing production at Churchill Falls. This energy will be drawn down when rivers flows are lower, and during peak winter periods when electricity demand is higher on the island.

Problem solved.

Yeah, well not really, as you will see in a little bit.

The Ides of March, 2012 #nlpoli

Twitter is a wonderful thing except that sometimes you can’t use the whole of a great quote.

The following is a larger bit of one quote that turned up in a minor flurry on the Ides of March.  It was hardly a Shakespeare smack down but it was fun for a moment.

The quote below is part of a speech from Julius Caesar in which Cassius – he of the lean and hungry look – talks to Brutus about fate and destiny and the power that individuals have to change the course of events.

Here’s a bit more of it:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

- srbp -

To Encourage the Others #nlpoli

Lots of people look to leaders in a crisis to see what lessons they can learn.

Well, Kathy Dunderdale is special.

She is an excellent  example for any leader – political or not – who wants to know how not to handle a major financial problem.

The Telegram editorial on Wednesday does an excellent job of summarising the convoluted, contradictory and confused way Kathy Dunderdale has talked about job losses and budget cuts in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Think about Kathy Dunderdale’s comments in a slightly different way and you can get a sense of the magnitude of her problems.  Instead of lay-offs, imagine she was announcing another life-altering decision. You can summarise her statements this way:  we will have to kill some people, maybe.  If we do kill them, there won’t be a lot of bodies, so they should all relax until we figure out how many. And even if we do wind up killing a few people they all knew they would only be here temporarily anyway so this is pretty much what they should have expected anyway.  It’s in their contract.

An exaggeration to be sure, but for the thousands of people in this province across the province, that’s not far off the chilling effect Dunderdale’s words have had. 

The provincial government budget covers about 20% or more of the provincial labour force.  That’s a heck of a lot more than 2100 people who Dunderdale has said are going to be randomly thrown out of work – possibly – in a few weeks time.

All those people have families, mortgages and other bills and all sorts of plans they’ve been making on the expectation they’ll have a job in a few weeks time.

All of them know that when any Premier starts talking about layoffs, program reviews and spending cuts, they aren’t likely to be just limited to this year and a couple of people.  Things must be bad. Lots of them have been through it before. 

And even if things don’t turn out as badly as those public servants might fear, prudence will likely dictate what experience might not.  They are going to change their plans for the next year or so.  New home?  New car?  Renovations?  Trip? Maybe not.  Those who get laid off will have to cut their spending, find a new job and start again.  And those who don’t will scale back just to be on the safe side.

That’s the practical economic impact Kathy Dunderdale will have on tens of thousands of people across the province.

Then there’s the impact on her bottom line.  Provincial sales tax is the second largest source of money for the provincial government, after oil royalties.  We already know oil royalties will drop this year.  Now factor in a drop in sales taxes due to the Dunderdale-induced chill. 

Drop sales tax revenue by 10%  - for argument’s sake - and you have about the same amount of money the Premier says she wants to save, that is, less than $100 million.  It would actually be around $82 million.

So the Premier and her colleagues cut $82 million from the budget – theoretically – with their job cuts.  And in addition they have induced another $82 million revenue loss as a result of the chill in the economy.  Dunderdale’s cocked-up communications have effectively She’s actually doubled the effect of her cut.

At this point, though, we don’t know how much the provincial government will chop.  Anything more than a small handful of jobs lost, coupled with reassurance that those few are all, and the Premier can guarantee the lost revenue and the economic contraction will be much larger. 

Now factor in cuts to federal spending and a loss of federal jobs that will come on March 29. Incidentally, that’s the real reason the provincial government is delayed until April.  All this talk of internal reviews and such is just fluff and nonsense. 

The provincial government will introduce its budget likely around the end of the first week of April.  They are waiting  - and the only thing they are waiting for – is to see what the feds do.  Provincial finance officials likely have some ideas of what will come.  They should have gotten them from their federal counterparts and their colleagues in other provinces. That’s what happens every year. 

The provincial officials have contingency budgets with adjustments here and there in the figures, based on what the feds do.  They can make any last minute adjustments and get the provincial budget out quite quickly afterward. For the most part, the whole thing is done.

The cuts Kathy Dunderdale is talking about may appear to be new to the Telegram editorialist’s reckoning but they aren’t. Dunderdale and her cabinet have apparently settled on them some time ago. How big the cuts will be may depend on the federal budget. 

What the telly-editorialist and others might wonder about more profitably, though, is how a government with billions in cash laying about is thinking about laying off a single solitary employee based on the size of the hand-outs the provincial government will get from Ottawa.

Now that is something to marvel at.

- srbp -

Government hiring process revealed #nlpoli

From your humble e-scribbler’s e-mail this week came a copy of what is purported by an anonymous e-mail to be a sooper sekrit document.

It appears to be the rules set down for hiring people in temporary jobs with the provincial government.

- srbp -

It’s all about export, eh #nlpoli

On Tuesday, natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy told the House of Assembly:

Essentially, what Muskrat Falls does, it allows 40 per cent of the power for the Island to meet the Island needs, 20 per cent for the export - 170 megawatts which allows us to then gain access to the markets in the United States, in the Maritimes, but also to develop other hydro and wind sources on the Island, and 40 per cent of the power for Labrador.

Of course there are no chances of exporting the extremely expensive electricity from Muskrat Falls into any other province, let alone export it and make money.

But hey, let’s humour Jerome! for a bit.

Don’t forget to notice the part that is about the link to Nova Scotia:

170 megawatts which allows us to then gain access to the markets in the United States, in the Maritimes, but also to develop other hydro and wind sources on the Island

Export.

That goes with Jerome’s comments over the past few months about all the revenue that will come from Muskrat Falls.

So what did Jerome say on Wednesday, a mere 24 hours later?

… we see the Maritime Link as a great opportunity to gain a billion-dollar asset for our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, an asset that will continue to produce revenue, which opens up the ability to move power when needed, Mr. Speaker, to the Maritime Provinces, but also it allows us to bring power back…

There’s that revenue thing again, even though Nalcor has no customers for any Muskrat Falls power outside this province.  Basically, if they can’t force people to pay for Muskrat Falls, no one will.

But look at the words at the end.

…it allows us to bring power back…

The energy warehouse will be importing electricity now, according to Jerome Kennedy.  All those people who will be making money from Muskrat falls – if you believe Jerome – will also be able to live the dream he has and buy electricity from somewhere else.

Why would our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren do that if  - according to the provincial Tories - we have more than we need and want to export it all forever and a day especially after 2041 when we “repatriate” Churchill Falls?

Sometimes you really get the sense that Jerome and his friends just make stuff up as they go.

- srbp -

If the people are silent… #nlpoli

…if the people are silent, you call them content;  if they protest, you say that they are given to disorder; and in the one case as in the other, they can look to you for nothing…

William Ewart Gladstone,  (29 December 1809 - 19 May 1898) was a British politician who served as Prime Minister four times (1868-1874, 1880-1885, 1886 and 1892-1894).  Gladstone was a notable political reformer, known for his populist speeches. 

- srbp -

Unions oppose energy conservation device #nlpoli

Unions representing Hydro-Quebec employees are oppose to a plan to install so-called smart meters in Quebec homes.  According to the Montreal Gazette:

One week before the Régie de l’énergie is to begin hearings on the controversial venture, the Syndicate des employés de techniques professionnels et de bureau d’Hydro-Québec denounced the move at a media conference.

The union has submitted an economic analysis of the project to the energy board that contends Hydro-Québec would lose $104 million over 20 years, while the new network would wipe out about 1,000 direct and indirect jobs.

 

- srbp -

When you suddenly become the enemy… #nlpoli

For those of us in Newfoundland and Labrador who  - from the outset - opposed the political style that settled on this province after 2003, it’s been a fascinating exercise to watch others suddenly take up the same issues.

Danny Williams’ Conservatives imported the style and applied it ruthlessly to anyone the Old Man felt was not sufficiently compliant with his wishes.

The pattern of behaviour is very well documented.

Until lately the province’s New Democrats and the labour unions that back them enjoyed a very special relationship with the Conservatives.  Generally, they backed the Tories on major projects and issues.  They could find lots of common ground on all sorts of issues.

And as for things like free speech, well, those things were nothing to get bothered about.

Well, those days are gone.

Federation of labour president Lana Payne isn’t signing provincial Tory praises any more now that the Tories have turned on her friends.

And so it is that Lana wrote in her Telegram column this past Saturday that the “divisive smear politics” from other places “has found its way” to this province.

It is disheartening.  No good can come from this.

Well,  of course, it was disheartening.

No good did come of it.

What was most truly disheartening in this province after 2003, though, was the way that people and organizations you would expect to fight for basic rights and for progressive causes couldn’t be bothered to do so as long as the Tories kept the public purse strings loose.  

Maybe Lana could write a column about that some time.  If she did, then maybe she might have an ounce of credibility in her sudden love of fundamental rights and freedoms.

- srbp -

Discussion is healthy, indeed #nlpoli

From the Telegram a former chief of staff in the Premier’s Office puts it as eloquently as only he could:

If public discussion, questions and debate on any issue should be dropped because “the people who have the political and corporate power to make it happen want it to happen,”  then logically there should be no talk of improving search and rescue operations, fisheries mismanagement, deficiencies in health care, industrial safety, workers’ rights, robocalls or any government or corporate action.

Indeed, why would we need public opinion vehicles like letters to the editor and open-line shows?

Why indeed?

Edsel Bonnell gives the answer:

It may be a tiresome process to some, especially those who deal with it every day in government and media, but it’s the price we pay for democracy. The pragmatic alternative is unacceptable.

Amen, brother. 

Amen.

- srbp -

Lay-offs, Noseworthy and other things the Premier talked about #nlpoli

Listen closely and you can hear the beep-beep-beep of the garbage truck of government comms as it backs up on the idea of laying off public sectors workers as a result of government’s “review” of programs and spending.

Premier Kathy Dunderdale scrummed [link to CBC’s raw video]outside the House of Assembly on Monday and CBC’s David Cochrane - the guy who on Friday got her to accept the premise that she might lay people – led off the questioning.  He repeated comments by public sector union boss Carol Furlong.

Notice that Dunderdale doesn’t talk about layoffs in her first answer except to start out by saying that people need to relax.  That isn’t a direct retraction of her comments from Friday, but take a look at the rest of it and you can see where she is going.

Dunderdale claimed that she has said time and again that this is about “good fiscal management” and nothing more.  Of course, the truth is that Dunderdale said a great many things, some of them contradictory.  Her comment to the media is one of her stock approaches whenever she frigs up.  Dunderdale claims she has said the correct thing all along, with the clear implication the rest of us are just not grasping her brilliance.  For one of the earliest examples see Dunderdale and the Joan Cleary mess in December 2006.

Dunderdale also said that government needs to “constantly” review programs to make sure they are efficient and effective.  Then she  referred to some unspecified programs in Joan Burke’s department that are upwards of two or three decades old.

Fair enough.

Except that the government got into its current mess because they didn’t review anything ever.  Instead, they just piled on the hiring and piled on the spending with no goals.  They had no idea where things were going. 

To give you a sense of out far out-to-lunch Dunderdale and her colleagues took things, consider this table from a post back in September 2010.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends more per person to deliver programs than any other government in Canada, bar none.

In fact, Kathy Dunderdale and her colleagues in cabinet spend more than $3,000 per person more than Alberta does.  That’s not good.  That’s how grossly inefficient and ineffective they are.

The reason is simple.  As with anything in life, if you have no idea where you want to go, you can never tell when you get there or if you get there. So it is that a government that has more money coming through the doors than any of its predecessors has to talk about cuts to spending and layoffs.

In the scrum, Dunderdale said that might be related to the people administering the programs but that permanent employees are safe.

Cochrane comes at the layoffs issue again and this time Dunderdale doesn’t duck.  She accepts the potential there might be layoffs. She emphasises that the review is not about what she terms “gutting” the public service   She puts the review down to effective management of the public service itself. 

Of course, that rings hollow in light of the facts of the matter.

Dunderdale swings to the old line about permanent employees being protected.  Then she adds a twist:

… and others can be redeployed

By 2:53 of the scrum though, Dunderdale is back to acknowledging that cabinet has a number of potential cuts in mind.  She goes on about how “temporary” means only around for a short time.

By 3:36 in the scrum Dunderdale says she “is not going to lie” about it.  Who said anything about lies?

Cochrane then comes back at her to ask what the number is.

So having successfully cooled everyone’s jets in the first couple of minutes, Dunderdale then says she and her cabinet colleagues are considering lay-offs for 800 employees or, “far less than” 800.

And at that point, with a suck of air, someone else takes up the questioning.

Time into the scrum:  four minutes.

And in those four minutes, Kathy Dunderdale has changed directions in her messaging twice in completely contradictory directions.

She started by backing the truck up.

And then by four minutes she is in forward gear again and driving right over the same issue she tried to back off of a couple of minutes earlier.

Dunderdale gets a respite from the layoffs for a second as she answers a question about John Noseworthy and his pork-barrel job.  Dunderdale does what Joan Burke didn’t do in the House.  Dunderdale ties the hire with Noseworthy’s supposed unique skill set.

Then Cochrane goes back to the lay-offs.

“We will look at all of the temporary employees,” said Dunderdale, “the same way we will look at all of the permanent employees.”  Of course since permanent employees aren’t being looked at,l this sounds very confused and confusing.  And indeed it is.

But there’s that beep-beep-beep again.

However, by 6:00 minutes into the scrum, Dunderdale has said that there will be lay-offs but  that the number will be less than 800.

Look at Dunderdale’s face at this point in the scrum as she gets another question about Noseworthy.  She’s clearly pissed off. She doesn’t know anybody better qualified to do the job, Dunderdale insists.  That is actually part of the problem, of course:  hiring people with connections as opposed to qualifications. 

In response to another question, Dunderdale does the pre-emptive denial, saying that no one made any promises to Noseworthy when he decided to run in the last election.  She puts responsibility for Noseworthy’s job on Joan Burke, saying that Burke brought the name to Dunderdale.

At that point, the scrum switches to other topics.  It’s a wonder everyone wasn’t dizzy what with all the shifts of position.  Expect more shifting to come. 

- srbp -

Kremlinology 39: What Burke didn’t say #nlpoli

In defending the $140,000 –a-year patronage job she gave to former Tory candidate John Noseworthy, advanced skills minister Joan Burke told the House of Assembly:

Mr. Speaker, no one can argue that Mr. Noseworthy has a unique set of skills.

Indeed no one can make such an argument.

Former auditor general John Noseworthy doesn’t have any special skills at least, in this case.

He is an accountant with lots of experience as a provincial auditor.  In that role, he has been known to make a few serious fumbles.

Everything that Burke said her department needed to help the department sort itself out could be had from a great many people out there.  Some would be former provincial public servants here or from other provinces.  Some would be former federal public servants and some would come from the private sector. What’s more, all of those people would know more about the core mandate of Burke’s department than than John Noseworthy.

Joan Burke is right.

No one can argue Noseworthy has a unique skill set.

He doesn’t.

And to her credit, at no point in her response to questions in the House did Burke actually say he did. 

Looks like someone foisted the guy on Burke and she got stuck trying to defend someone else’s pork-barrel decision.

The clue is in what Joan didn’t say.

- srbp -

Government cash give-aways #nlpoli

CBC’s Rob Antle has updated work done over the past couple of years on government give-aways to private sector businesses in the name of economic development:

The Newfoundland and Labrador government has funnelled more than $20 million into grants, loans and the direct costs of business-attraction initiatives that have provided a net benefit of fewer than 100 new jobs — a quarter of them seasonal.

Faithful readers will notice some familiar names in the story and the associated documents posted with the online version of it.

Kodiak got $8 million to expand its operations at Harbour Grace.  They laid off workers instead.That isn’t the only example of that sort of thing happening.

Then, there’s Dynamic Air Shelters,which has more government cash in it than many Crown corporations

None of this is surprising since Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada where the private sector prefers to be publicly funded.

It’s another way in which the provincial economy has grown increasingly fragile over the past eight years.

- srbp -

Poll Math #nlpoli

Just for the heck of it, here’s the most recent CRA marketing poll adjusted to take out the misleading way CRA reports its clients poll numbers.

Here are the Conservative Party voter choice results from the fall of 2010 when Kathy Dunderdale took over the Tory leadership until the most recent poll in February.

The solid blue line is the percentage of respondents who picked Conservative.  It’s the real percentage, not the share of “decideds”.

The light blue dashed line is the actual percentage of eligible votes the Tories got in 2003 and 2007.  Yes, friends, 43% of those eligible to vote picked Tory.

The bottom line is the share of eligible votes the Dunderdale Tories got last October.  If you can’t quite pick it out, the number is 32%. It’s the lowest share of eligible vote any Tory government received and won re-election to government.  The previous record low was 33% in 1975

So while there’s nothing in these numbers that would send the Tories into a panic, the fact is that the Tories don’t have the kind of overwhelming electoral support that would allow them to do things like…say… slash public spending without risking a pretty significant turn around in popular support. 

Keep that in mind over the next few weeks.

You see while the Tories might be 20 points ahead of their nearest rival according to CRA, that really means that only an 11 percentage point swing puts the Tories in second place, behind the New Democrats.  Even a five point swing to the NDP would send shock waves through provincial politics.

Heck, if the Tories drop down in the public polling to numbers below 50% in the misleading way CRA reports them and you’d see people raise their eyebrows.

Slow down government spending to any great degree, chill economy with talk of lay-offs or – to be really daring – actually lay people off and you can bet there’ll be a change in the polling numbers.

It’s important to keep these things in perspective.

- srbp -

Dundernomics 101: Public Sector Employment Numbers #nlpoli

In an interview with CBC’s David Cochrane, Premier Kathy Dunderdale said that the public service has grown by more than 2,100 jobs in the past eight years and that total employment in the public service is about 9,000.

Well, not exactly.  That depends on what you consider to be public sector and “public service”.

As labradore noted last July, the entire public service sector in this province – federal, provincial, municipal and Crown corporations accounts for was more than that.

The growth in public sector employment alone 11,500 between 2006 and 2011.

If you look at figures for 2010, the totals are way more than what the Premier talked about:

In the first quarter of 2010, approximately 53,780 people in Newfoundland and Labrador worked in some portion of the provincial public sector: 11,550 in the provincial civil service, 20,400 in public health-care and social services establishments, 10,900 at Memorial University and the public colleges, and 10,930 employed by the various public school boards.*

Even if we allow that the Premier defined “public service” pretty narrowly in 2012,  you can see that in early 2010 there were 2,500 more people working in the public service,  that is, just working directly for the provincial government than the Premier currently claims work for government in total.

And yes, that is way more than the 2,100 jobs the Premier claims she and her colleagues added – in total – since 2003.

Confused?

Well, obviously the Premier is.

And if she doesn’t understand what is going on now and what has gone on in the recent past – stuff she actually lived through and decided already – then it is going to be very hard for her to understand whatever the current review comes up with.

Confusion about the basics also explains why the Premier could claim that 3% of what she herself has called almost $8.0 billion in public sector spending is about $100 million.

Three percent would be $240 million.

Two percent would be $160 million.

One point two five percent (that is 1.25%) comes out to $100 million.  And for anyone who is still unsure, 1.25% is closer to one percent than it is to two percent.

All those jobs come at a price.  Here’s another pretty chart from labradore to give you a sense of what those payroll costs are:

The figures are for early 2011 and the total bill hits about $2.65 billion.

None of that is about whether the jobs are needed or not, whether the people do good work, what the impact of any cuts would be or anything else related to it. 

This is just to establish so everyone can plainly see that what the Premier said everywhere last week on several occasions and what is actually going on are two completely different things.

To her credit, the Premier acknowledged in one interview that she had frigged up her explanations of things last week.

But that was before she told David Cochrane that temporary employees could be getting the heave-ho in order to meet her  targets.

That likely isn’t correct either, by the way.

So as we start the week, expect that the most common noise you will hear will be the gigantic garbage truck of government communications beep-beep-beeping as it backs up  - yet again - and tries to move forward  - yet again - again without turning the same information into road kill for the third or fourth time in the past seven days.

– srbp -

The truth is an absolute defence #nlpoli

Seems that the goings-on in the provincial legislature are weighing heavy on many brows at the end of the first week the place is back in session since this time last year.

Telegram editor Russell Wangersky has a column on it as does Bob Wakeham in the Saturday paper.

Wangersky writes about the way the House was recently.

Part of the blame is the failure of not reining in these Type-A bad boys and bad girls soon enough; I know that criticizing past Speakers of the House is frowned upon in the parliamentary system, but when Speakers are either too lax or too one-sided in dealing with abuses of House procedure, you can guarantee that frustration will build and tempers will boil.

Let’s be clear:  Harvey Hodder and Roger Fitzgerald were both incompetent and nakedly biased during their time as Speaker of the legislature.

In the ordinary course of things, in a properly functioning House, that is a contempt and one could be expected to be dragged in front of the members to answer for it.

But as with all defamation claims, the truth is an absolute defence.  That’s why your humble e-scribbler had no problem in writing and publicising the comment repeatedly.

Both were picked, one might readily surmise because they were biased and would comply with the wishes of the root cause of the problem in the House.

The current Speaker is another hand-picked one; Tommy Osborne was told to stand aside.  But we have yet to see him rule on a major issue.  Let’s give Ross Wiseman the chance to break the recent pattern and restore some dignity to the tattered Speaker’s robes.

Wangersky identifies the source of the problem as well:  it starts at the top..

But what neither he nor Wakeham get to is why the government uses the tactics they do or why the opposition members individually or collective engage in the buffoonery.

That’s where the real problem lies.

And suggesting that the party leaders need to sit their members down and give them a stern talking to?

Well, that just misses the point entirely. You have to get at the cause.  The goons and the buffoons – whether in the House or on Twitter or in the comments sections online– are just a symptom.

Still, the very fact that people are talking about the legislature and how it needs to improve is good.

That’s certainly a radical change from recent years.

- srbp -

CNLOPB announces 2012 call for bids on offshore parcels #nlpoli

From the offshore regulatory board:

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) announced today the details of a Call for Bids in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area. Call for Bids NL12-01 (Area "C" – Laurentian Sub-basin) will consist of six parcels, which comprise 1,589,738 hectares.

Interested parties will have until 4:00 p.m. on November 1, 2012 to submit sealed bids for parcels offered in Call for Bids NL12-01. The sole criterion for selecting winning bids will be the total amount of money the bidder commits to spend on exploration of the respective parcel during Period I (the first period of a nine-year licence). The
minimum bid for each parcel offered is $1,000,000.

The C-NLOPB hereby wishes to inform prospective bidders for parcels NL12-01-01, NL12-01-02 and NL12-01-04 (these parcels are adjacent to the French Exclusive Zone around the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon,
France) that it has been advised by the Government of Canada that on May 17, 2005, the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic signed the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the
Government of the French Republic relating to the Exploration and Exploitation of Transboundary Hydrocarbon Fields (the Agreement). 

The Agreement provides a framework for the conservation and management of hydrocarbon resources in fields straddling the maritime boundary between the two countries.  The Agreement will enter into force on the date on which the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic have informed each other that all necessary internal requirements have been fulfilled. While France has ratified the Agreement, Canada is putting in place the domestic arrangements to allow it to proceed with its ratification process.

As a result, the Government of Canada has advised the C-NLOPB that if the Agreement enters into force prior to or during the term of a licence covering any of the above parcels, this necessarily will result in the application of additional terms and conditions for those parcels,
through legislation, regulations, amendments to licences or otherwise, in order to ensure compliance with the Agreement.

The C-NLOPB recommends to prospective bidders that they consult the text of the Agreement, which is available from the C-NLOPB upon request to information@cnlopb.nl.ca.

This Call for Bids contains provisions for rentals during the term of an exploration licence and during the term of any resulting significant discovery licence. This Call for Bids contains a sample exploration licence which incorporates a sample significant discovery licence.

These areas have been previously assessed to identify any mitigative measures that may be required in relation to exploration activity on these parcels.

Subject to Ministerial approval, successful bidders will be issued an exploration licence for a term of nine years; however, during Period I a well must be spudded to validate the licence for the full nine-year term.

Notification of any changes made to this Call for Bids will be posted to the C-NLOPB's website.

For a complete copy of the text of the Call for Bids, visit the C-NLOPB website at www.cnlopb.nl.ca.

- srbp -

* paragraphing changed for online legibility.  SRBP added two links related to the Canada-France agreement on transboundary hydrocarbon resources

Kremlinology 38: what they left out #nlpoli

In a news release from the federal natural resources minister that heralded the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is energy, they didn’t mention the Lower Churchill once.

- srbp -

Enough of the Political Day-Care #nlpoli

In some respects, it is a threat that would strike fear only into the hearts of Danny Williams’ Tories:

If this problem is not resolved today, you can expect me to absolutely vilify your minister on Monday morning on Open Line.

No broken limbs.

No financial ruin.

A call to Open Line.

That was enough for the ruling Tories to save the voice message containing the threat and to reveal it to the world as a question of privilege in the House of Assembly at the end of the first week  the legislature has been open since last spring.

The government house leader spoke of intimidation and threats and fear.  In a scrum with the media after , Joan Burke – to whom the threat was directed in early February – appeared shaken.  Premier Kathy Dunderdale, she of the haughty condescension and the cheap put down had a few words of derision for the Liberals and their bad words. The only thing the Tories didn’t do in all their melodramatic glory was stage a collective back-of-wrist-to-forehead swoon.

All wonderful play-acting on the part of the Tories. Former parole officer Joan Burke showed her unease with all the credibility  of Rob Ford after a visit from Mary Walsh in her Princess Warrior costume one morning.

All that was vintage Danny,too.  The aged drama queen  could hurl any sorts of petty, vicious. mean-spirited and contemptible invective at anyone any time.  Yet, a whisper of derision aimed vaguely in his direction would bring on the screams of self-righteous indignation.  The bully one minute, the victim the next in the fashion of the chickenshit hockey goon who specialises in taking the dive for the ref whenever someone stands up to him.

Playing acting, hysterics,  and, of course, the finest vintage hypocrisy on the planet.

Classic Danny-era politics.

But that really isn't the story here.

The story is that elected provincial politics remains the domain of the childish and immature eight years after the mean widdle kid and his allies took it there.

Danny made the House safe for buffoonery, contempt, accusation, insult and intimidation.  Jerome, Darin, Paul and Steve showed how well they learned their lessons with their performance on Twitter a couple of weeks ago. On Thursday, the whole gang on the government side joined in.

This week, though, the Tories proved the old saying that in politics you don’t have to be good, you just have to be better than the alternatives.

For their part, the New Democrats display in the House this week was less about childishness than inexperience combined with basic incompetence.  This is a caucus that has a long way to go and a lot to learn before they could ever be considered a political threat to anyone except themselves.

As for the Liberals, they confirmed this week that these are likely the last Liberals anyone will see sitting in a legislature in this province, at least with enough of them to occupy the official opposition benches.    A couple of them might survive the next election but the Liberal Party is more an historical artifact than a viable political force.

To make clear how politically inept they are, consider Jim Bennett’s asinine phone call.  Anyone who watched the Liberals in action this week would hardly be surprised by it. In making the call, Bennett showed he has no judgment. In defending the call as the enthusiastic defence of a constituent, Bennett shows he has no genuine understanding of just how ridiculous his behaviour was.

Yvonne Jones’ performance as opposition House leader on Thursday was equally cringe-worthy.  In her embarrassing defence of Jim Bennett, she showed no signs of understanding parliamentary procedure despite having sat in the House for the past 16 years.  During Question Period the rest of the week, she displayed little knowledge of anything else. How bad was Jones?  She made John Hickey look good.

The root of the problem for the Liberals remains the same as it has been for years:  no one is in charge. Generally, neither the leader, no one in the caucus, the senior caucus staff nor the party leadership has any idea of where to go or what to do to get there. They operate as a loose association of individuals lacking either a common purpose or the common sense to work together.

Dwight Ball is clearly the leader in name only.  His own performance over the past few months and in the House so far could be generously described as grossly ineffective. The only good thing for Ball is that he won’t face any challengers should he decide he wants to lead the party permanently.  The party is in such desperate shape that no one in his or her right mind would waste energy trying to bring the party back from the political dead.

For the rest of us, though, this week has been nothing more but a reminder that the provincial legislature and the provincial government have become little more than a very expensive day-care. 

That is not merely an uncomfortable thought.

It’s unacceptable.

- srbp -

How much is that Muskrat in the window? #nlpoli

So without much effort, the cost of Muskrat Falls, also known as the island infeed project, has gone from $6.2 billion to $8.9 billion.

That’s without factoring in labour costs.

Alberta is already starting to see skyrocketing costs and worker shortages:

Two years ago, the Alberta government forecast a shortage of 77,000 workers over the coming decade. Since then, that estimate has grown by nearly 50 per cent, to about 114,000 workers.

The Petroleum Human Resources Council says nearly 40,000 new workers will be needed in the energy sector by 2020 just to replace those who retire, plus 90,000 additional oilpatch workers.

No one has given any idea of what labour shortages are going to do to the Muskrat’s costs.

The only thing you can be sure of is that whatever estimates they’ve got now won’t come close to the real cost, if they go ahead with it in the likely labour climate.

- srbp -

They who lived by the bullshit… #nlpoli

Regular readers of these e-scribbles will know that the quarterly Corporate Research Associates poll is cause for nothing if not a fair bit of derision.

They aren’t polls anyone should use to judge anything serious.  They are just a marketing device for CRA.

Nonetheless and despite seven years of solid evidence they are crap, the local media eat them up.  The local pols put great stock in them too.

Anyway, those who lived by the bullshit are now getting sliced up by it.  CBC, in particular, is pushing hard at the idea that Kathy Dunderdale’s numbers have taken some sort of meaningful drop in the most recent CRA marketing exercise.

“Premier’s popularity drops” says the headline. Down 16 percentage points since this time last year.  Sounds bad, except that the CRA poll numbers went from 64% in February 2011 to 51% three months later.  Since then, Dunderdale’s popularity numbers have basically hovered around there ever since.

So what’s the big deal?

There isn’t one.

Just like there hasn’t been a really big deal about these things for a long while.

But if you do want to notice something interesting, follow the link that CBC’s David Cochrane tweeted and look at the CRA poll from June 2004.  Danny Williams’ popularity was at 39%, just five points above Roger Grimes.

That’s when the last round of public sector restraint and “program review” came to a quiet end without any results. Danny, Kathy and the rest of cabinet ran from sound fiscal management like scalded cats. They started a spending spree that created the fiscal mess the current Premier likes to talk about but without any sign she actually will do anything about it.

And, dear readers, if Danny Williams didn’t have the balls to be fiscally responsible because it made him unpopular, you can understand why Kathy Dunderdale isn’t planning to change the government’s unsustainable spending either.

She will just talk about it.

- srbp -

Shooting fish in a barrel #nlpoli

Okay.

So with the Premier babbling about cuts or not cuts, you could guess where the opposition parties would go during their second Question Period.

Yeah, well guess again.

Because something so obvious as a Premier who has no idea what she is talking about would seem like such an obvious, easy target that the opposition decided to go one better and show how clued out they are instead.

Liberal opposition leader Dwight Ball led off with a question about Muskrat Falls.

I would be remiss if I did not ask the Premier to allow a full debate and a free vote in this House.

If  - by some miracle – the Liberals actually had a policy on the scheme in the first place, having a debate and free vote on it might possibly make sense.

But since ball and his crowd don’t know whether they are punched or bored, further exposing their weakness with a debate is just plain dumb.

To make matters worse, his question is lamely worded.  it lacks forcefulness.  He should have just begged her pretty please with sugar on top and called her “Mommy” for good measure.

Remember that thing about demonstrating to the public that the opposition could be entrusted with government.  yeah, well Ball’s question raised doubts about his ability to be leader of the official opposition.

So Kathy gave him the wish to go down in history. There’ll be lots of time to debate, sez the Prem.

No kidding about the history thing. That’s what he said:

I think it would be nice for all of us to know where each and every one of us stood in history.

Then Ball switched to a lame question on natural gas that natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy knocked out of the park with ease.  to complete his self-immolation, Ball asked about pricing for electricity.

At no point did Ball give any indication he had a clue about the project at all.

But the Liberals weren’t done with that embarrassing opening.

Just to complete the show, they turned it over to Yvonne Jones.  Now just to give you context, Jones is campaigning hard to be the next federal member for Labrador.  All Yvonne sees is Labrador.  If it isn’t about Labrador she doesn’t give a crap about it.

So Jones wanted to know why the surplus power from Muskrat falls wouldn’t be available for projects in Labrador.

Of course it would, sez Kennedy.  And he’s right.  The Tories have said from the beginning that they wouldn’t be using 40% of the power.

Had Jones taken her head out of whatever bodily orifice she’s been storing it in, she’d also know that Muskrat Falls power is too expensive to sell anywhere else. This has been obvious for a year or more.  She’d also know that there are serious questions about whether the dam would be able to supply its minimum in the middle of winter, let alone have any to feed to industrial projects in Labrador.

Rather than try running on some of the numerous, well known weaknesses of the project, Jones decided to invent some slight against Labrador so she can fool someone into believing she is fighting for them.

Kennedy had no trouble telling her that when those projects came along he’d be happy to sell them the extra electricity from the wonderful, glorious project at Muskrat Falls.

Then  Randy Edmunds got up and tossed a set up question to Kathy Dunderdale about search and rescue and Burton Winters’ tragic death and the evil federal government that was somehow responsible for it. Having already successfully taken control of that issue, Dunderdale was suitable sad and pledged to do everything she could to make things right.

Edmunds then switched to the bullshit issue of all bullshit issues – Merv Wiseman’s workplace – and again Dunderdale put on her indignant crusader hat.  Which team is randy playing for again?  Not once but twice, he set Dunderdale up better than a Tory backbencher sucking for a promotion.

Andrew Parsons did ask a decent set of questions about skin surgery and got equally decent answers.

That was the semi-sensible interlude.

Jim Bennett then asked about a sooper sekrit agreement about the Marystown fish plant that supposedly involves the province, OCI and a company that no longer exists.

Fish minister Darin King talked about something else.

There endeth the Liberals.

Not to be outdone, NDP leader Lorraine Michael  decided to join in the fun.  To her credit, she did ask about Dunderdale’s budget comments.

But rather than point out the obvious confusion they Premier has, Michael asked a question fed to her by people who haven’t been paying attention:

What are government’s intentions with regard to potential loss of positions in the public service sector?

Dunderdale already said there won’t be layoffs and if any jobs do go it would only be through attrition.

Dunderdale didn’t waste time.  She just recited the basic ideas was a review of things to make sure it all worked properly.  Proper, responsible and all sorts of other good things,m Dunderdale said, even though she was in cabinet the whole while things got into a mess.

Michael went back to the same question again.

So Dunderdale noted that the NDP had talked about a one percent cut in their platform.  Dunderdale’s cut is only about the same amount and – in case you forgot – won’t involve any job losses.

having successfully set herself on fire with that one, Michael decided to go down the same blind alley the Liberals did.  She wanted to know about electricity prices and Muskrat Falls.  Jerome Kennedy recited the same, tired  - and inaccurate - numbers he’s used all along. 

The key thing for the government though, is that they twice got to allay public concerns about the costs of Muskrat Falls courtesy if incompetent questions from the opposition parties.

Noob NDP backbencher Geri Rogers then asked about housing.

Good topic.

She could have hammered away at the housing crisis in western Labrador caused as much by government incompetence at the provincial and municipal level as anything else.

That would make too much sense.

So Geri asked:

Mr. Speaker, when will this government create a housing division within government to deal with the critical need for affordable housing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as other provinces have done for their people?

That would be Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, an agency Rogers seems to have never heard about.

The minister responsible for that agency muffed the answer by talking about how much government had spent on housing.

Then Rogers recited all the initiatives from the housing corporation herself.  Had she not read her first question?  Or her follow on before she asked the first one?

The minister went back to the stats again, so Rogers countered with a question to the Premier.  Rogers wanted the Premier to organize a standing committee of the legislature to study housing.

And once the minister smacked that one out the window,  time expired.

On Day Two of the legislature, both opposition parties displayed a consistent and stunning display of the most fundamental incompetence anyone could imagine.

And for the government, as troubled as they are, Question Period was like shooting fish in a barrel.

It’s easy when the fish jump up and wrap their maws around the muzzle like that.

- srbp -

Studies on mortality questioned #nlpoli

Studies that claim exercise reduces the risk of mortality can’t be true since the risk of mortality is absolute.

You can delay death, but it, like taxes and a Ryan Cleary climb-down, is inevitable.

You can read more on the original commentary on mortality research – with more links - in  The Monkey Cage.

No folks, Ryan Cleary’s penchant for stuffing his foot down his throat is not an international phenomenon yet. That was just a local colour addition by your humble e-scribbler.

- srbp -

Checking Jerome’s Numbers #nlpoli

In the House of Assembly on Tuesday, natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy said:

The Muskrat Falls Generating Station will cost $2.9 billion and the Labrador-Island Link will cost $2.1 billion. That is $5 billion, Mr. Speaker. Into that, there is built in 15 per cent contingency and escalation costs.

Before you go any further, understand that those numbers are not correct at all.

Jerome admitted that in the very next sentence when he said:

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the overruns and the final numbers, we will have them from Nalcor shortly.

And even that is not strictly true.  No one will have the “final” Muskrat falls numbers until the project is done and all the receipts are in.  What the minister was talking about is merely the latest estimated final numbers.

We won’t even chuckle at the idea inherent in Jerome’s first comments that the actual cost of the dam and line to the island could be less than $5.0 billion because it supposedly includes a mere 15% cost over-run contingency.

Let’s take the total for the dam and the line as $5.0 billion and say right away that they are wrong.

And we know the numbers are wrong  - i.e. out of date - because the minister said so.

We also know the numbers are wrong because Manitoba Hydro International did a recalculation. They put the cost for the dam and the line and all the other associated bits at $6.6 billion using both Nalcor’s method of calculating the costs and the one used by MHI.  This cost includes the extra thermal generation that the Muskrat Falls project includes, as well as fuel costs (oil) for all that thermal generation.

So right off the bat we have taken that $5.0 billion and added to it another $1.6 billion.

Jerome’s comments came in response to a question from Liberal leader Dwight Ball about interest costs.  According to Ball, Nalcor added those costs in response to a question that was part of the public utilities board process.

The interest costs were $1.1 billion.

Add that on and you have $7.7 billion.

Now you can add the line to Nova Scotia for a total of $8.9 billion.

Just so that you can follow the numbers for Muskrat Falls (Island Infeed), here they are in a table:

	Original Estimate	Updated	Comments
Dam and infeed	$5.0 billion	$ 6.6 billion	Updated uses MHI’s cumulative present worth analysis
Thermal and Fuel	Not included	Included above
Nova Scotia	$1.2 billion	$1.2 billion	Untested original estimate
Interest costs	Not included	$1.1 billion	From PUB-Nalcor
Total	$6.2 billion	$8.9 billion

 

- srbp -

Dundernomics 101: The Cleary Factor #nlpoli

The gang at CBC shouldn’t feel sheepish.

They might have been the ones who pushed it most aggressively but  they weren’t the only news outlet that started talking up budget cuts and restraint based on what Premier Kathy Dunderdale told them.

Here’s part of what the Premier said to CBC’s Debbie Cooper:

“We're looking at a three-per-cent reduction right across government,…”

The Telly picked up a similar idea:

“It’s time to rein in our spending on infrastructure particularly,”

The Premier even repeated the same basic comments in the House on Tuesday afternoon before she scrummed with news media:

We have asked all our departments to look for at least 3 per cent in reductions, and yes, there are exemptions

All CBC did was take the Premier at her word, just like they recently took the word of a federal member of parliament about his view of his own pension.

They also – quite logically – concluded that the Premier was looking at cuts of more than $200 million. That would be three percent of the $7.5 billion or so in last year’s provincial budget.

Turns out when it comes to what they say, Ryan Cleary and Kathy Dunderdale are the same person.

On Tuesday, Kathy Dunderdale said the amount to be cut would be less than $100 million and that most of the big areas of government spending – health care and education, justice, and social assistance – were all “ring-fenced” and so they’d be immune from any cuts.

Now on a budget of $7.5 or $8.0 billion,  you can get $100 million in “savings” just by how you round your numbers.  That’s because you are looking at something like a cut of one to one and a half percent. 

Not three percent.

But half that or maybe less again

And just to make sure you can’t miss the point, note that Dunderdale herself flippantly dismissed the amount to be saved.  On Tuesday, she told reporters that maybe officials might go to six conferences instead of 10.

You just can’t reconcile what Kathy Dunderdale told Debbie Cooper and what Dunderdale said 24 hours later unless you come to one conclusion: Dunderdale simply didn’t know what she was talking about on Monday.

- srbp -

He said. She said. “Expenditure review” edition #nlpoli

Starve reporters for real news and you can apparently make them believe anything.

That seems to be the case with the idea that Kathy Dunderdale’s Tories plan to actually cut public spending in the province in the coming fiscal year.

Unprecedented surpluses sitting in the bank. 

Forecasts for continued high revenues.

And now we are supposed to believe that the same people who could not control their own spending addiction, the same gang that created the current financial mess in the provincial government are now going to cut spending.

Right.

Here’s what Monday’s throne speech said:

Each department will undertake a structured review of departmental functions to identify opportunities to do things better. These reviews will be complemented by cross-departmental studies and ongoing reviews of the province’s Regional Health Authorities. The objective is to ensure all the Government’s personnel and resources are focused first and foremost on delivering high-priority services and achieving high-priority goals. This process will identify not only the current best practices for service delivery but also innovative approaches to deliver services more effectively.

“Review”.

“Focused”.

“More effectively”.

And if you don’t see those as being vague words, try this:

The objective is to ensure all the Government’s personnel and resources are focused first and foremost on delivering high-priority services and achieving high-priority goals.

One of the hallmarks of effective communication is saying what you want to say in clear language:  “we will walk five feet and then sit down.”

So read those Dunderwords and then compare it to these words from another Premier’s speech and see which one you would believe:

One of my first decisions was to reduce the size of cabinet by more than twenty five per cent. What’s more, in time we will attempt to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly to better reflect a province the size of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Many perks have been either reduced or eliminated, starting with the Premier’s office where the two government owned vehicles previously assigned to the Premier have been eliminated. We have significantly curtailed discretionary expenditures and non-essential out of province travel for elected members and senior officials.

We also cut 44 political positions that existed under the previous administration and converted many other positions from political appointments to public service appointments.

These staffing decisions have saved taxpayers more than one and a half million dollars. We believe that a strengthened public service will ensure that individuals are being hired on their merits as opposed to who they know in government.

In addition to the decisions we have already taken, all departments have been asked to bring forward expenditure reduction proposals which can be implemented in the short term to make an early start towards our new fiscal goals. I can assure you that everything is under review, from cell phones to government vehicles.

As well, we have deferred all non-essential capital expenditure items.

Short term spending reductions, however, will not be sufficient to address the size of the deficit problem. On a go-forward basis, we will implement our election blueprint commitment to review every government program and eliminate any that are considered ineffective and inefficient. This commitment will be delivered through a comprehensive program review exercise.

We will use criteria to evaluate programs, similar to those now being employed by the federal government as they attempt to free up funds for their priority programs. These criteria will include the public interest, efficiency, affordability, value for money, and the role of government. The review will also look at overhead and capital costs in government.

This comprehensive review will use the expertise of the civil service, and we will also use external resources to consider the systems and structural issues from a purely independent perspective. We must ensure that the changes we make to government are the best and most efficient changes possible. The results of this review will be forwarded to cabinet for action.

No shortage of “do” words” there, words with plain meanings:

• cut
• reduce
• eliminate

That was Danny Williams in January 2004.

The cuts, such as they were, lasted until the first polls showed his crew were very unpopular.

Just like Brian Tobin in 1996, curiously enough.

Program review lasted until the polls started dropping.

By the end of 2006, Williams’ conservative finance minister was gone, replaced by a fellow who never met a buck he wouldn’t spend especially if it belonged to the public.

Then the spending spree started for real.

And that program review?

It quietly vanished never to be heard from again.

Rather than cuts to the public sector, the province witnessed unprecedented growth and unprecedented rates of growth in public spending, across the board everywhere. 

And rather than cut jobs, the current Tories are the government that brought you the world in which 25% of the labour force draws a public paycheque.

So if Danny Williams couldn’t cut anything even after saying it in plain language, what makes anyone think that Kathy Dunderdale and the rest of her crew are even saying “cuts” let alone thinking about doing them?

Give your head a shake if you do.

- srbp -

New partners and new supplicants #nlpoli

After the throne speech, the leaders of the opposition parties get to have their say in the legislature.

Just as the throne speech sets the government’s agenda, so too can the replies set the agenda for the opposition parties. They could be committed to biting at the government’s heels and demonstrating, as one former opposition leader put it, that the public could toss out the incumbents and trust the Opposition with the government at the next election.

Liberal leader Dwight Ball, the official opposition leader, offered a few “thoughts as we collectively work together to secure a brighter future.”

The rest of his speech covered health spending,  search and rescue and a handful of other topics all of which fit with the government’s agenda very neatly.  Any differences – on things like the fishery, for example -  were more cosmetic than substantive.

So with Ball basically pledging to be a partner for the ruling Tories, what of the New Democrats and Lorraine Michael?

Well, Lorraine talked as though she didn’t have a caucus.  There were plenty of references to what Lorraine had said before.  There are a great many “I”s in the NDP team.

But most telling of all, was Lorraine’s reversion to her old approach, of the supplicant going to authority to beg favours:

What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is very, very basic.

What they are “asking” for.  Not what they are working for.  Not what they will push for and not what they will do when they form the government.

No, as they did during the election, the NDP want to ask for things from those in power.

So with the Tories pledging to stay the course,  they can count on a new partnership with the Liberals as the NDP come on bended knee to ask for something or other.

Anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador will have to look somewhere other than the House of Assembly if they want new ideas. 

As for those clamouring for democratic reform, they could put a dozen new committees in the House.  Since none of the elected members seem to have any idea what they should be doing with them, democratic reform will have to come from somewhere else as well.

- srbp -

New Energy? Same Old Stuff #nlpoli

After more than a year in office and the better part of six months after the last election, the Dunderdale Tories delivered their second throne speech opening a new session of the province’s legislature.

For a bunch that are supposedly anxious to break with the past, they spent a lot of time talking about how much things haven’t changed.

Get beyond the very long-winded introductory material that took every back to the middle of the 19th century, you will find a paragraph that includes a series of sentences that all began with “This is the Government that…”.

At the end, they are talking about a set of routine changes to the public tender act and the access to information law.  The latter is now two years overdue, having started in March 2010.

The speech then made an interesting reference to how the current administration spends public money.  At least one reporter heralded this bit as proof the Dunderdale Tories are serious about fiscal restraint and getting spending under control.

Yeah, well, that isn’t what’s in the speech.

The speech talks about “a long-term, multi-year approach”.  Then it talks about how the government is “determined to achieve efficiencies” and  “to maximize the value of every public dollar spent”.

Not exactly anything concrete in that.

Then they repeat the commitment we’ve already heard:

Improving Newfoundland and Labrador’s debt position even more in the next 10 years to achieve the same per-capita debt as the Canadian average is a goal the province can reach through discipline in spending and the allocation of a significant portion of surpluses to debt reduction…

Sounds marvellous, doesn’t it?  No doubt someone could easily be fooled if they didn’t read the paragraph before that.  That’s where the government pledged they would stay the fiscal course:

to ensure we continue to live within our fiscal means.

Continue?  They haven’t been living within the public’s means as it is, so continuing would not be good at all.
And that debt thingy is a bit of old Tory verbal bullshit.  This is the government that like to claim they’ve reduced the public debt.  This is the government that included the claim about debt reduction in the throne speech:

Already, it has reduced the province’s burden of debt by more than a third from a high of $12 billion to an estimated $7.7 billion at March 31.

Problem is that the claim just isn’t true. 

It’s false.

A total crock of crap.

The gross public debt – the bit that determines the annual burden of servicing the debt – is more than $12 billion.  What the speech refers to is net debt, an accountant's calculation of assets and liabilities. 

This is the government that took every surplus and simply socked the money in the bank.
 
This is the government that put a tag on it to spend on the Muskrat Falls dam.

And that’s all they’ve done.

Take it altogether and you have words in the speech that might fool some people into believing it means spending control in the future.

But since this is the government that hasn’t been able to control its spending since at least 2005, this is the government that merely pledged to deliver more of the same.

Then they pledged to spend money on health care.  There’s a novel idea.

Then there’s a mention of a three year old change to child protection laws that is only just now finishing up.
Then there’s a reference to more of the same education and employment subsidy programs that have been in place for years as well as more spending on K-12 education.

When you get beyond that bit, the speech mentions a new poverty reduction strategy, as if the current one is finished.

There’s a reference to economic diversification but no sense of what the current administration understands that to mean actual changes to current policy.  On the contrary,  while so many parts of the province have grown more dependent on government spending, the throne speech uses exactly that – the references to Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville - as examples of how the government intends to move in the future.

And after all that there’s the obligatory recital of the Muskrat Falls project.

Nowhere in the throne speech is there a single significant new idea of any kind.

- srbp -

…fairness and balance for all the people of our province… #nlpoli

Excerpts from remarks by Clyde Wells, Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Assembly, in reply to the Speech from the Throne, March 10, 1988:

…We will vigorously oppose that which should be opposed.  We will criticize that which should be criticized.  We will examine and question everything.  It is our duty and our function.

Finally, we will approve the worthy and the proper.

Above all, we will discharge that great responsibility that all oppositions in the British parliamentary system have:  to make sure that government fully and completely accounts to the electorate for the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds, for the use of taxation authority, and for the management of the public affairs of this province, and we will not waver in our duty to ensure that they fully discharge the total responsibility with which they have been entrusted when they were given the awesome powers of being a government.

They are awesome powers but they are not theirs.  They are only holding them in trust for due exercise for the benefit of the people of this province and we will not waver in discharging our responsibility to make sure that the government does just that.

In doing so…we will act honourably.  We will neither unduly impede nor will we unduly facilitate, which, from an Opposition point of view, is worse than unduly impeding, … [If] you  unduly facilitate and you fail to fully and properly discharge your responsibility to be fully critical of the government and examine in detail what they are doing, you allow the government to do anything it wishes, the government deteriorates in quality …We will do so with respect for the function and responsibility of the government, we will acknowledge their good intentions, but we will expect similar acknowledgement and respect from government in return.

…the ultimate purpose of Opposition actions ought not to be to get them on the government side of the House.  As well as achieving that, our purpose is to ensure the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to bring about a situation where the able are working productively and the unable are cared for and are included in the activities of the life of this province, where the old can feel secure and comfortable and the young are preparing for and are optimistic and have a reason to be optimistic about their future, where everybody is participating, where everybody has equal opportunity.

We will be taking steps to ensure that there is fairness and balance, always fairness and balance for all people of this province in all governmental actions and in all governmental expenditures wherever they live, without regard to the political stripe of their MHA…

- srbp -

Sound Advice #nlpoli

Some people don’t like John Furlong’s ideas.

Here’s his latest one – on the fishery, again – but it is equally applicable to just about everything in the province these days:

Let's talk about every single issue that needs to be talked about and let's stop living in the problem and start living in the solution.

Sensible, rational ideas.

But just watch how fast people start screaming that Furlong should be strung up.

- srbp -

Can we believe anything he says? #nlpoli

Climb-down Cleary is at it again.

Not surprisingly, Noob Bloc NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary is furiously sucking back his latest effort to tell it like it is.

First, it was seals.

Take a position in 2008.

Repeat the position.

Then abandon it.

Now, it’s pensions.

Apparently, he really doesn’t think his pension should be larger, as he said, plain as day on Friday.

"Would I deserve a pension of $28,000 after six years? Probably not … It should be more than that," the St. John’s South-Mount Pearl MP.

You can hear the whole interview from CBC in their first story on Cleary’s latest cockup.  [Audio file]

A couple of days later and Ryan is claiming his opinion on Friday was not his opinion at all.

His opinion is now something completely different:

MPs deserve fair compensation, but should we qualify for a pension after just 6 years in office?

In my opinion, the answer is no.

And we can all rest easy because, for Cleary,

My focus is not on my pension, but on everyone else’s.

Now there’s something you can find comfort in. After all, it’s not like Ryan doesn’t have a distressing habit of saying one thing one minute and then something entirely different a minute later.

Your humble e-scribbler was dead wrong when this guy won his seat.  Ryan Cleary the politician is an accident that couldn’t wait to happen, over and over and over again.

- srbp -

Our plastic history, utter contempt version #nlpoli

On Friday, the Telegram’s Brian Jones takes issue with fisheries minister Darin King:

Fisheries Minister Darin King’s tantrum this week against the Fish, Food and Allied Workers’ (FFAW) union is the latest example of this government’s extremely bad behaviour.

Jones warns of the dangers of contradicting the current administration:

These days, suggesting differently will entail not only a public lashing by the minister in charge, but a pulling of government funding.

What’s particularly fascinating is that Jones’ column treats King’s comments and the implications of them as if they had not been the way the Conservatives have ruled the province since 2003.

All that has happened is that Williams’ pigheadedness (and that isn’t entirely a criticism) and short temper has been replaced with an utter and thorough contempt.

Yes, Brian, Danny never continually displayed utter and thorough contempt for anyone  who disagreed with him, for the provincial legislature, for free speech, openness, transparency and accountability, other people’s accomplishments, the facts…you get the idea.

Darin is punitive, vindictive, callously petty, or authoritarian according to Jones.

Danny was just pigheaded.

Potato, potato..

- srbp -

$#*! politicians say, pensions edition #nlpoli #cdnpoli

If you could get Noob Bloc-NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he’s worth, you could wipe out the Greek national debt instantly.

- srbp -

Electricity prices round-up #nlpoli

In Quebec, Arcelor Mittal mines is looking to hang onto its industrial discount electricity rate of 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour even though the company didn’t delivered on its commitment to build a second pellet plant in the province.

The Parti Quebecois wants to make sure that the company processes as much of the ore it mines in Quebec rather than take it out of the province with a minimum of processing.

For those who may have missed it, this is where Churchill Falls electricity goes:  discount electricity inside Quebec for residential and industrial consumers.

Ontario Power Generation will spend $600 million to have a consortium including SNC Lavalin refurbish Ontario’s nuclear generating stations.

In addition, the province has more than 2,000 MW of electricity from wind power either in production or in development.

- srbp -

Countering Nalcor Negativity #nlpoli

In a speech to the St. John’s board of trade this week, Nalcor chief executive Ed Martin dissed natural gas as a possible alternative to his expensive Muskrat Falls scheme.

According to the Telegram’s Wednesday edition – not online  - Martin told the business audience that a 2001 study said there wasn’t enough demand on the island to justify a pipeline.

Sort of. 

The 2001 study was premised on gas as a commercial development.  As such, the study anticipated that any development would be by one of the existing oil companies.  

They never considered that the provincial government would have cash enough to build a plant on its own, obtain the gas to develop it and charge the domestic market for whatever gas they used.

That’s basically what Nalcor is doing with Muskrat Falls.  At a cost of 21 cents per kilowatt hour, Muskrat Falls isn’t economically feasible.  The local market simply couldn’t take a new source of electricity that had a wholesale cost for electricity twice the existing retail cost of electricity in the market. The only way they can make Muskrat Falls work at all is through a complex series of deals and arrangements among interrelated companies that are all part of Nalcor and the provincial government.

So if Ed Martin wanted to be straight with his audience, he would have to compare apples to apples.  And on that basis, natural gas is a lot cheaper than Muskrat Falls.

Plus, if Martin had wanted to give a full explanation using past studies, he’d have noted a 2005 study that put a price tag on development.  Take the two together and you get a different picture from the one Martin  - selectively – painted.

Second, according to the Telly, Martin told the audience that the oil companies had first dibs on the gas and they were re-injecting it to help oil production.

Again, Martin knows that he only gave his audience a fraction of the full story.  White Rose has gas available today.  They aren’t using it all to produce oil.

But here’s the really important part:  it’s our gas.  The provincial government can claim any quantity of gas it wants for payment of royalty in-kind. 

Martin concluded, as the Telly reports, by insisting he and the gang at Nalcor weren’t dissing gas because they wanted to build a dam.  They were pushing the dam because it was the right decision.

Two things come readily to mind.  First of all, if that was so, Martin wouldn’t have to say it.  The fact he has to insist that Nalcor isn’t biased suggests that he and his company and the other Muskrat Falls proponents have an enormous credibility problem.

And, second of all, they have a credibility problem because none of the project’s proponents can present a simple, concise and truthful account of why Muskrat Falls is better than the alternatives.  Ed Martin’s presentation - with the same omissions and selective use of information we’ve seen from people like Wade Locke  - couldn’t have made that any plainer.

After all, Ed Martin’s lengthy speech about natural gas isn’t what his vice president told the joint environmental review panel.  As SRBP noted last year that “Nalcor dismissed natural gas as ‘purely hypothetical’ since the major oil companies have not identified a ‘viable business case’ (p. 20).  Nalcor hadn’t considered natural gas at all.

They didn’t study it.

All this other stuff that Martin told the board of trade about natural gas? Well Nalcor  started saying that only after people like your humble e-scribbler started pointing out that natural gas actually was viable and cheaper than the big dam in Labrador.

- srbp -

The Old Boys (and Girls) Club #nlpoli

The always provocative and informative labradore posted a chart on Wednesday showing the number of days the House of Assembly sat in each session since Confederation.

The information to make up the chart came from the legislative library,  the group of people who provide information and research for the members of the legislature.

That period marked by the black band is the period in which the House typically sat for the greatest number of days. It runs from 1972 to 1996.  For the 22 years before that and for the 16 years after that period, the legislature hasn’t sat more than 60 days a year.

There’s more.  Since 1996 or so, the House has also sat for fewer days per week when it is in session.  The members decided that they didn’t want to have a session on Friday mornings as the rules used to require.  They decided to cancel the Friday sitting and add an hour to three of the other four days.  Same number of hours, they explained, so there was no loss to the amount of time.

They just left out a couple of details.  One of the biggest ones is that they chopped off a Question Period on Friday morning.  That meant that the opposition parties had one fewer chance during the week to grill the government party.  It also meant that House lost a day on which to debate legislation.  While they theoretically had the same number of hours in total, the members actually cut off the amount of effective time they had for discussion.

They made a few other changes as well.  Once upon a time, not so very long ago, members of the legislature would ask for information from government departments.  They got them through something called Questions on the Order Paper.  Departments were obliged to deliver the information, free of charge, and without much – if any – deletions or omissions.

The idea behind that was that the members of the legislature had an inherent right to inquire into what the government was doing with public money and how they were doing it. The legislature is supposed to be about more than a place for rackets and speeches. It’s supposed to be a place where the members found out stuff.

After all, the legislature is not the government.  It is the place where the government goes to get permission to do things with the people’s money.  They get the permission from the men and women the people elected to keep an eye on things. That’s the idea at the heart of democracy based on popular sovereignty.  Power  - the right to make decisions - comes from the people.

In any event, all that’s as maybe.  In the late 1990s, the government and opposition cut a deal among themselves.  Instead of asking questions on the order paper, the opposition agreed to submit access to information requests, which they would pay for out of the money they got to run the House.  The government could then censor the documents as if the members of the House had no right to information other than what the ordinary punters could get.

Everyone had less work to do, the government could keep more information from the public and – don’t forget – they all agreed to give themselves extra cash to hand out in their districts as they saw fit and without receipt.

No one objected.

Not a one.

No one did anything to change any of it until 2006 and even then, the only reason they changed was because some of them got caught breaking the law.  Even then the only thing that changed out of the convenient deal was the slush fund.  All the other parts stayed in place. 

It’s that sort of general understanding among the political parties - the back-room agreements among da b’ys - that helped create the current state of the House of Assembly.

What will be interesting to see in the new session that starts on Monday is whether the sort of easy relationship among the members will carry on.

- srbp -