This story from CTV highlights the need for Canadians to get a serious grip on their need for an air force aerobatic team.
They are flying aircraft so old that they out to be in a museum.
Accident rates appear to be quite high and I can assure you that it is not the result of the highly demanding and difficult flying the Snowbirds do.
It's time for DND to make a simple decision:
1. Replace the Snowbird's decrepit Tutor aircraft with something modern.
0r
2. Pull them from the sky and direct the cash somewhere else.
- Maybe some operationally needed equipment like heavy lift helicopters or some helicopter gunships.
Lives are at stake here and there's no point in losing them so people can get a cheap thrill on the ground.
25 August 2005
24 August 2005
Pat Robertson: stooge
Funny how when prominent people say really stupid things, the first line of defense is always to blame the media for misquoting them.
In the case of American televangelist, erstwhile Republican presidential candidate and typical fruitcake, he was quoted accurately by Associated Press and everyone else who has listened to his comments on Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Here's the CNN story, which includes a link to the video of Robertson.
Robertson thinks that Chavez is such a threat to American interest that the American government should "take him [Chavez] out." Both the words themselves and the context in which they are made make it clear that Robertson is talking about assassination.
Now here's the funky thing about Robertson's comments: there isn't a shred of evidence that Chavez is doing anything vaguely like planning to export "communism" and "Islamic terrorism".
Nope. The only thing Chavez has been doing is supporting Castro and thereby extending Venezuelan influence in a little country that people like Robertson think is their personal property. In other words, it's an old fashioned power issue with people like Robertson misleading people right and right. (Robertson could never do anything left and right.)
The other thing that Robertson is likely looking at is Venezuela's large oil stocks. With people across the United States paying high prices for gasoline, it's pretty easy for a demagogue like Robertson to find a scapegoat in Chavez.
Irony in all this is that only a short while ago, the supposed Christian Robertson was advocating dropping a nuclear bomb in the middle of Washington and at the same time claiming that the Quran advocated violence.
Apparently Robertson never heard of the part of the Bible that maps out a set of simple rules to live by.
They are called the 10 Commandments.
Robertson might want to check out the one prohibiting murder and killing.
In the case of American televangelist, erstwhile Republican presidential candidate and typical fruitcake, he was quoted accurately by Associated Press and everyone else who has listened to his comments on Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Here's the CNN story, which includes a link to the video of Robertson.
Robertson thinks that Chavez is such a threat to American interest that the American government should "take him [Chavez] out." Both the words themselves and the context in which they are made make it clear that Robertson is talking about assassination.
Now here's the funky thing about Robertson's comments: there isn't a shred of evidence that Chavez is doing anything vaguely like planning to export "communism" and "Islamic terrorism".
Nope. The only thing Chavez has been doing is supporting Castro and thereby extending Venezuelan influence in a little country that people like Robertson think is their personal property. In other words, it's an old fashioned power issue with people like Robertson misleading people right and right. (Robertson could never do anything left and right.)
The other thing that Robertson is likely looking at is Venezuela's large oil stocks. With people across the United States paying high prices for gasoline, it's pretty easy for a demagogue like Robertson to find a scapegoat in Chavez.
Irony in all this is that only a short while ago, the supposed Christian Robertson was advocating dropping a nuclear bomb in the middle of Washington and at the same time claiming that the Quran advocated violence.
Apparently Robertson never heard of the part of the Bible that maps out a set of simple rules to live by.
They are called the 10 Commandments.
Robertson might want to check out the one prohibiting murder and killing.
Brian who?
Yet another poll, by SES Research, this time into possible successors to Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.
Notice that Brian Tobin, long rumoured to be plotting his comeback as saviour of the nation to replace Paul Martin has dropped completely from Canadian radar screens. In fact, if you look closely at the SES results fewer than five people out of 1, 000 possibly mentioned his name when asked to name a favoured successor to the current Prime Minister.
Now if only people like me would stop talking about Tobin and if people like Lisa Moore would stop featuring the guy Belinda's Dad canned in her movies (solely as a marketing ploy), maybe the Tobinator would disappear altogether. It was pretty bad when media took to giving That Guy way too much airtime to repeat his one cheesy, lame Frank Moores story when the former premier passed away recently.
I'll promise I'll stop mentioning That Guy by name.
But just to be on the safe side, I have a cross, some wooden stakes, a string of raw garlic, silver bullets, and a 55 gallon drum of Holy Water with a high pressure hose attached, in the basement.
Just in case.
Here's the text of the SES release:
Our national survey completed Monday August 8, 2005 shows that Frank McKenna is the top choice to succeed Prime Minister Martin while Peter MacKay edges out former Ontario Premier Mike Harrier as the choice to succeed Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
"On the Liberal side, Frank McKenna has a noticeable lead among Canadians and among committed Liberal voters. He leads in every region except in Ontario, where polling shows former NDP Ontario Premier Bob Rae leads McKenna by a margin of three points."
"On the Conservative side, Peter MacKay is the top choice among committed Tory voters (30%). The field tightens with MacKay (17%) and Mike Harris (15%) in a statistical tie with Bernard Lord trailing closely (13%).
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, MoE ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Potential Martin Successors (N=1,000, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
Question: Regardless of how you vote, who would be your choice to succeed Paul Martin as Liberal leader? (READ AND ROTATE) Former federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, Harvard Professor Michael Ignatieff, Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, Former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae or is there someone else?
Frank McKenna 23% (Liberal voters 28%)
Bob Rae 11% (Liberal voters 11%)
John Manley 11% (Liberal voters 13%)
Martin Cauchon 4% (Liberal voters 4%)
Michael Ignatieff 4% (Liberal voters 4%)
Other* 4% (Liberal voters 4%)
Undecided 43% (Liberal voters 37%)
* Note: fewer than five responses
Potential Harper Successors (N=1,000, MoE ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
Regardless of how you vote, who would be your choice to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative Leader? (READ AND ROTATE) Quebec Premier Jean Charest, Former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay, Conservative MP Jim Prentice, or is there someone else?
Peter MacKay 17% (Conservative voters 30%)
Mike Harris 15% (Conservative voters 21%)
Bernard Lord 13% (Conservative voters 12%)
Jean Charest 9% (Conservative voters 6%)
Jim Prentice 3% (Conservative voters 5%)
Other* 2% (Conservative voters 2%)
Undecided 41% (Conservative voters 25%)
* Note: fewer than five responses
Notice that Brian Tobin, long rumoured to be plotting his comeback as saviour of the nation to replace Paul Martin has dropped completely from Canadian radar screens. In fact, if you look closely at the SES results fewer than five people out of 1, 000 possibly mentioned his name when asked to name a favoured successor to the current Prime Minister.
Now if only people like me would stop talking about Tobin and if people like Lisa Moore would stop featuring the guy Belinda's Dad canned in her movies (solely as a marketing ploy), maybe the Tobinator would disappear altogether. It was pretty bad when media took to giving That Guy way too much airtime to repeat his one cheesy, lame Frank Moores story when the former premier passed away recently.
I'll promise I'll stop mentioning That Guy by name.
But just to be on the safe side, I have a cross, some wooden stakes, a string of raw garlic, silver bullets, and a 55 gallon drum of Holy Water with a high pressure hose attached, in the basement.
Just in case.
Here's the text of the SES release:
Our national survey completed Monday August 8, 2005 shows that Frank McKenna is the top choice to succeed Prime Minister Martin while Peter MacKay edges out former Ontario Premier Mike Harrier as the choice to succeed Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
"On the Liberal side, Frank McKenna has a noticeable lead among Canadians and among committed Liberal voters. He leads in every region except in Ontario, where polling shows former NDP Ontario Premier Bob Rae leads McKenna by a margin of three points."
"On the Conservative side, Peter MacKay is the top choice among committed Tory voters (30%). The field tightens with MacKay (17%) and Mike Harris (15%) in a statistical tie with Bernard Lord trailing closely (13%).
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, MoE ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Potential Martin Successors (N=1,000, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
Question: Regardless of how you vote, who would be your choice to succeed Paul Martin as Liberal leader? (READ AND ROTATE) Former federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, Harvard Professor Michael Ignatieff, Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, Former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae or is there someone else?
Frank McKenna 23% (Liberal voters 28%)
Bob Rae 11% (Liberal voters 11%)
John Manley 11% (Liberal voters 13%)
Martin Cauchon 4% (Liberal voters 4%)
Michael Ignatieff 4% (Liberal voters 4%)
Other* 4% (Liberal voters 4%)
Undecided 43% (Liberal voters 37%)
* Note: fewer than five responses
Potential Harper Successors (N=1,000, MoE ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
Regardless of how you vote, who would be your choice to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative Leader? (READ AND ROTATE) Quebec Premier Jean Charest, Former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay, Conservative MP Jim Prentice, or is there someone else?
Peter MacKay 17% (Conservative voters 30%)
Mike Harris 15% (Conservative voters 21%)
Bernard Lord 13% (Conservative voters 12%)
Jean Charest 9% (Conservative voters 6%)
Jim Prentice 3% (Conservative voters 5%)
Other* 2% (Conservative voters 2%)
Undecided 41% (Conservative voters 25%)
* Note: fewer than five responses
SES-Sun media poll - Harper and Martin
Following is the ext of a release by SES Research on public attitudes toward the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Given the results of other opinion polls which show Prime Minister Paul Martin with a significant lead over Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, take note of the SES results showing that about half of respondents couldn't name something they'd like to change about Harper. That doesn't mean they like him as he is; it means they couldn't settle on what they would change about him. At the very least it means they haven't really thought about Harper enough to form a strong opinion.
In politics, when you are loved or hated at least the voters have a feeling about you. In politics as in love, indifference is the kiss of death.
"Our national survey completed Monday August 8, 2005 shows that a plurality of Canadians with an opinion want Prime Minister Paul Martin to be more transparent/accountable/honest (15.5%). When Canadians were asked what they would change about Stephen Harper, the
number one formed opinion was that everything should be changed (8.7%).
'Polling indicates that there is still some residual image drag resulting from the advertising scandal for Prime Minister Paul Martin.'
'Compared to Paul Martin, not as many Canadians have formed opinions of what they would change about Stephen Harper. One of two (51%) Canadians could not form an opinion of changes to Harper compared to 38% for Paul Martin.'
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, Margin of Error = ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Paul Martin (N=1,000, MoE - ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
If there were one thing that you could change, if anything, about Prime Minister Paul Martin, what would it be? [Unprompted]
Be more transparent/accountable/honest - 15.5%
Be more aggressive/decisive/get a backbone - 7.8%
Change policy positions - 7.3%
Change everything/new leader - 5.1%
Be more down to earth/listen to Canadians - 4.7%
Change his attitude/be less arrogant - 3.0%
Too close to Bush/stand up to Americans - 2.4%
Too close to big business/CSL loopholes - 2.3%
Change nothing - 2.1%
Other (Answers with less than 2%) - 11.4%
Unsure - 11.5%
No Answer - 26.9%
Stephen Harper (N=1,000, MoE - ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
If there were one thing that you could change, if anything, about Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, what would it be? [Unprompted]
Change everything/new leader - 8.7%
Be more open-minded - 5.8%
Have more personality/better image - 5.3%
Change policy positions - 4.7%
Be less conservative/religious - 4.0%
Be more honest/have more integrity - 2.3%
Change his attitude/be less arrogant - 2.0%
Be more charismatic/inspire Canadians - 2.0%
Other (Answers with less than 2%) - 14.4%
Unsure - 18.4%
No Answer - 32.4%
Given the results of other opinion polls which show Prime Minister Paul Martin with a significant lead over Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, take note of the SES results showing that about half of respondents couldn't name something they'd like to change about Harper. That doesn't mean they like him as he is; it means they couldn't settle on what they would change about him. At the very least it means they haven't really thought about Harper enough to form a strong opinion.
In politics, when you are loved or hated at least the voters have a feeling about you. In politics as in love, indifference is the kiss of death.
"Our national survey completed Monday August 8, 2005 shows that a plurality of Canadians with an opinion want Prime Minister Paul Martin to be more transparent/accountable/honest (15.5%). When Canadians were asked what they would change about Stephen Harper, the
number one formed opinion was that everything should be changed (8.7%).
'Polling indicates that there is still some residual image drag resulting from the advertising scandal for Prime Minister Paul Martin.'
'Compared to Paul Martin, not as many Canadians have formed opinions of what they would change about Stephen Harper. One of two (51%) Canadians could not form an opinion of changes to Harper compared to 38% for Paul Martin.'
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, Margin of Error = ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Paul Martin (N=1,000, MoE - ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
If there were one thing that you could change, if anything, about Prime Minister Paul Martin, what would it be? [Unprompted]
Be more transparent/accountable/honest - 15.5%
Be more aggressive/decisive/get a backbone - 7.8%
Change policy positions - 7.3%
Change everything/new leader - 5.1%
Be more down to earth/listen to Canadians - 4.7%
Change his attitude/be less arrogant - 3.0%
Too close to Bush/stand up to Americans - 2.4%
Too close to big business/CSL loopholes - 2.3%
Change nothing - 2.1%
Other (Answers with less than 2%) - 11.4%
Unsure - 11.5%
No Answer - 26.9%
Stephen Harper (N=1,000, MoE - ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20).
If there were one thing that you could change, if anything, about Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, what would it be? [Unprompted]
Change everything/new leader - 8.7%
Be more open-minded - 5.8%
Have more personality/better image - 5.3%
Change policy positions - 4.7%
Be less conservative/religious - 4.0%
Be more honest/have more integrity - 2.3%
Change his attitude/be less arrogant - 2.0%
Be more charismatic/inspire Canadians - 2.0%
Other (Answers with less than 2%) - 14.4%
Unsure - 18.4%
No Answer - 32.4%
23 August 2005
Vote-by-mail fraud risk in St. John's municipal contest
St. John's city council recently endorsed an all-mail ballot system for the upcoming municipal election.
The system is supposed to increase participation rates and is reputedly popular with voters. City officials claim that in a survey they conducted over 91% of respondents were satisfied with the process. A case study completed by Canada Post praises the system for increasing voter response at a lower cost than traditional elections.
Here's the quirky thing no one seems to have noticed.
In a conventional election, a voter must present himself or herself at a polling station, obtain a ballot and cast a vote in secret. Should someone attempt to vote in place of the registered voter, simply producing identification can demonstrate a fraud has occurred. That alone is sufficient to deter that type of criminal activity voting.
If a voter is likely to be absent on the usual polling day, there are several processes available, all of which preserve the integrity of the ballot's chain of custody and maintain its secrecy.
Some other jurisdictions across North America have moved to mail-in ballots or the so-called vote-by-mail system. Oregon ran the entire 2004 federal general election by vote-by-mail.
In that state, officials verified the votes cast by comparing a specimen signature of the registered voter to the signature included with the ballot envelope.
St. John's has no such system of specimen signatures. Nor do they have an alternative means of assuring that the vote received from a registered voter was actually cast by that person or a duly authorized proxy.
Therefore, there is no way of knowing that a ballot from any voter was actually cast by that voter.
The system assumes the ballot is valid and therefore the system is open to a variety of frauds.
The next council should review the entire process of municipal elections.
The system is supposed to increase participation rates and is reputedly popular with voters. City officials claim that in a survey they conducted over 91% of respondents were satisfied with the process. A case study completed by Canada Post praises the system for increasing voter response at a lower cost than traditional elections.
Here's the quirky thing no one seems to have noticed.
In a conventional election, a voter must present himself or herself at a polling station, obtain a ballot and cast a vote in secret. Should someone attempt to vote in place of the registered voter, simply producing identification can demonstrate a fraud has occurred. That alone is sufficient to deter that type of criminal activity voting.
If a voter is likely to be absent on the usual polling day, there are several processes available, all of which preserve the integrity of the ballot's chain of custody and maintain its secrecy.
Some other jurisdictions across North America have moved to mail-in ballots or the so-called vote-by-mail system. Oregon ran the entire 2004 federal general election by vote-by-mail.
In that state, officials verified the votes cast by comparing a specimen signature of the registered voter to the signature included with the ballot envelope.
St. John's has no such system of specimen signatures. Nor do they have an alternative means of assuring that the vote received from a registered voter was actually cast by that person or a duly authorized proxy.
Therefore, there is no way of knowing that a ballot from any voter was actually cast by that voter.
The system assumes the ballot is valid and therefore the system is open to a variety of frauds.
The next council should review the entire process of municipal elections.
22 August 2005
End the gas pricing charade!
George Murphy is a St. John's taxi driver. He calls the radio call-in shows regularly to give his update and analysis of gas price trends.
He's usually spot on.
He does it for free.
Meanwhile in Grand Falls-Windsor, there is a small office with a staff of about half-a-dozen doing the same job Murphy does.
That's right. They merely analyse gas and home-heating prices and then approve the increases.
They don't lower prices. They don't affect prices at all.
All David Toms and his crowd do is tell us that prices are going up.
Their salaries come from the gas retailers, by law.
Gasoline prices jumped by almost nine cents in St. John's today, a full week after they jumped everywhere else. When gas prices drop everywhere else, we will still be paying higher than-necessary prices. That's to make up for the delay in jacking the prices up. In this VOCM story, Commissar Toms says he thinks gasoline is overpriced. It isn't, Dave, ole man. But it will be when you leave it high after prices everywhere else have dropped.
Checking the provincial government's website this morning at around 8:30, I couldn't find a news release from Toms' outfit. He was ducking media calls on Friday, calls that were prompted by George Murphy's predictions. When the release does go up, I'll post link so you can see the pricing trend (slow increases, slow decreases) that the petroleum price-fixing charade office actually includes in its own releases.
What it boils down to is this:
1. The provincial petroleum office provides no service of value that cannot be obtained more competently and in a much more timely way by someone in the private sector. We'd be better off closing down the GFW charade, passing the hat and giving George Murphy a new computer.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that prices here are lower than they would be without the "regulation" charade. Doc O'Keefe, the guy who built his public name on this gas price crap, claims gas would be higher if it wasn't for the gas price crowd.
I say crap and challenge Doc to prove his claim.
The fact is Doc can't prove his claim.
Doc can't do a lot of other things, as his term on council already shows; but that's another post as O'Keefe appears poised to take on the deputy mayor's job by acclamation.
He's usually spot on.
He does it for free.
Meanwhile in Grand Falls-Windsor, there is a small office with a staff of about half-a-dozen doing the same job Murphy does.
That's right. They merely analyse gas and home-heating prices and then approve the increases.
They don't lower prices. They don't affect prices at all.
All David Toms and his crowd do is tell us that prices are going up.
Their salaries come from the gas retailers, by law.
Gasoline prices jumped by almost nine cents in St. John's today, a full week after they jumped everywhere else. When gas prices drop everywhere else, we will still be paying higher than-necessary prices. That's to make up for the delay in jacking the prices up. In this VOCM story, Commissar Toms says he thinks gasoline is overpriced. It isn't, Dave, ole man. But it will be when you leave it high after prices everywhere else have dropped.
Checking the provincial government's website this morning at around 8:30, I couldn't find a news release from Toms' outfit. He was ducking media calls on Friday, calls that were prompted by George Murphy's predictions. When the release does go up, I'll post link so you can see the pricing trend (slow increases, slow decreases) that the petroleum price-fixing charade office actually includes in its own releases.
What it boils down to is this:
1. The provincial petroleum office provides no service of value that cannot be obtained more competently and in a much more timely way by someone in the private sector. We'd be better off closing down the GFW charade, passing the hat and giving George Murphy a new computer.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that prices here are lower than they would be without the "regulation" charade. Doc O'Keefe, the guy who built his public name on this gas price crap, claims gas would be higher if it wasn't for the gas price crowd.
I say crap and challenge Doc to prove his claim.
The fact is Doc can't prove his claim.
Doc can't do a lot of other things, as his term on council already shows; but that's another post as O'Keefe appears poised to take on the deputy mayor's job by acclamation.
Baker digs hole deeper - for herself
There were those who thought St. John's lawyer Averrill Baker would this week deal with accusations her columns on fisheries management have been short of facts.
They were disappointed if they thought she might actually develop an argument, based on accurate information, that went beyond trafficking in the preconceptions of the people who read her columns and then hold them up as proof that their views were correct all along.
This sort of intellectual incest may be satisfying to some, but in the court of public opinion, as in the court of law, the convincing argument is the one which is founded on fact and the law. Baker may be winning her case in the open line jury trial, but each week, her columns are assessed by the appeals division on a totally different basis. It is there where she is losing.
In the end, all Baker did this week is take some advice from her father and continue to flail away at the federal fisheries department with more innuendo.
The best defence is a good offense, supposedly.
The problem with that old saw is that when it comes to this sort of stuff, the effectiveness of the offense depends very much on the credibility of the attacker. Baker can persuade those who know very little of the facts, but anyone taking a deeper look finds her argument increasingly unpersuasive.
The fact is that Baker junior's credibility has taken a few serious hits in recent weeks through her columns.
Her latest column adds to the damage.
At the end of it, Baker writes:
"Any lawyer who has taken international law in the past 15 years will tell you that any coastal state signatory to the Law of the Sea can apply to the UN under article 76 to extend jurisdiction over the ocean floor out to 350 miles and prevent all dragging of the soil and subsoil on the ocean floor.
"Russia did it in the year 2000 and twenty other countries - most of them NAFO members - have applied to the United Nations to do so. Some are doing so to stop, and in other cases to regulate, the foreign fleets dragging the ocean floor outside 200 miles.
"Instead of advocating the same for Canada, the three major political parties have all bought into a concept unknown to law called "Custodial Management". They advocate that foreign nations be allowed to continue dragging the bottom as long as they abide by fishing quotas. Perhaps 30 years ago it would have made some sense, but under international law today it amounts to a cop-out.
"The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently claimed publicly - – I am told in response to my last column - that these 16 foreign nations are not really catching very much fish.
"If 60 large foreign factory freezer trawlers (some are 350 feet long) are not catching fish, then what in heavens name are they doing out there dragging the bottom of the ocean back and forth on our continental shelf? Did they lose something overboard?
"Are they operating gambling casinos at sea? Are they a part of an oceanic cruise line? Are the Russians dragging for Red October? Or would the Minister of Fisheries have us believe they all have a contract from Walt Disney to try to find Nemo?"
Let's take a look at some of this stuff, since it forms the core of Baker's latest attack on the fisheries department.
1. Under Section 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a signatory can lay claim to sub-seabed minerals where the continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical mile xclusive economic zone.
Here's a link to UNCLOS; go check it out for yourself.
At no point, does this section give a coastal state claiming such rights to the sub-seabed any right to interfere with activities related to the water-column. That's fishing, ladies and gentlemen, and as much as Ms. Baker can rail about the effect of dragging on the seabed, the treaty separates the seabed mineral resources from the wildlife in the watercolumn and on the seabed.
It doesn't take a single course at law school to read plain English and present it clearly and accurately. Nor does one have to agree with the UNCLOS; Canada's actions can only take place within the scope and context of international law.
Baker's contention is, to put it bluntly, WRONG, yet again when she suggests that Canada could lay claim to the whole continental shelf beyond 200 miles and thereby end foreign fishing.
Oh yes and while countries have applied, as Baker points out, she doesn't tell us if any country has actually been granted rights beyond 200 miles for managing fisheries.
2. B aker would never tell you this but here it ibecauseue it is accurate: Canada is already building the case for extending its claim to the sub-seabed minerals on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. The feds have up to eight years after ratifying the treaty to make the claim, which means they have until 2011 to complete it.
3. Canada couldn't lay legal claim to the shelf beyond 200 miles before 2003 because Canada didn'ratifyfy the treaty until then. Notice how the facts of the matter here differ widely from the interpretation Baker applies. The position taken by the federal government isn't a cop-out, as Baker claims; it reflects the reality of the international legal regime governing the fisheries.
4. The last bit of Baker's column - the bit about casinos and Finding Nemo - is curious if for no other reason than it sounds an awful lot like the kind of sarcasm usually voiced by her father; I note this because in the past few weeks I have heard one too many people speculating that Senator Dad has been ghost-writing the columns for his daughter. To my mind that doesn't really matter since Senator Baker or lawyer Baker can be equally wrong, as a matter of facts.
This last section of the column is curious because it takes a potshot at the federal minister without - at any point - providing a single shred of factual information to back up either the claims made in this column or the claims made in previous columns by Les Bakers audaces.
What a reasonable reader is left with is merely more of the entertaining writing of a St. John's lawyer.
Entertaining, yes but ultimately unconvincing.
It ignores fact.
It ignores the law.
It presents instead a series of unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.
No matter how many times Baker repeats her arguments, they do not gain accuracy or credibility with the repetition.
Except among people who were already convinced of what Baker claims.
The problem for Baker is that those people are already in the minority, something that isn't likely to change.
The other problem for Baker is that the more she makes outrageous claims lacking in any substance, the more she generates a backlash against her argument.
They were disappointed if they thought she might actually develop an argument, based on accurate information, that went beyond trafficking in the preconceptions of the people who read her columns and then hold them up as proof that their views were correct all along.
This sort of intellectual incest may be satisfying to some, but in the court of public opinion, as in the court of law, the convincing argument is the one which is founded on fact and the law. Baker may be winning her case in the open line jury trial, but each week, her columns are assessed by the appeals division on a totally different basis. It is there where she is losing.
In the end, all Baker did this week is take some advice from her father and continue to flail away at the federal fisheries department with more innuendo.
The best defence is a good offense, supposedly.
The problem with that old saw is that when it comes to this sort of stuff, the effectiveness of the offense depends very much on the credibility of the attacker. Baker can persuade those who know very little of the facts, but anyone taking a deeper look finds her argument increasingly unpersuasive.
The fact is that Baker junior's credibility has taken a few serious hits in recent weeks through her columns.
Her latest column adds to the damage.
At the end of it, Baker writes:
"Any lawyer who has taken international law in the past 15 years will tell you that any coastal state signatory to the Law of the Sea can apply to the UN under article 76 to extend jurisdiction over the ocean floor out to 350 miles and prevent all dragging of the soil and subsoil on the ocean floor.
"Russia did it in the year 2000 and twenty other countries - most of them NAFO members - have applied to the United Nations to do so. Some are doing so to stop, and in other cases to regulate, the foreign fleets dragging the ocean floor outside 200 miles.
"Instead of advocating the same for Canada, the three major political parties have all bought into a concept unknown to law called "Custodial Management". They advocate that foreign nations be allowed to continue dragging the bottom as long as they abide by fishing quotas. Perhaps 30 years ago it would have made some sense, but under international law today it amounts to a cop-out.
"The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently claimed publicly - – I am told in response to my last column - that these 16 foreign nations are not really catching very much fish.
"If 60 large foreign factory freezer trawlers (some are 350 feet long) are not catching fish, then what in heavens name are they doing out there dragging the bottom of the ocean back and forth on our continental shelf? Did they lose something overboard?
"Are they operating gambling casinos at sea? Are they a part of an oceanic cruise line? Are the Russians dragging for Red October? Or would the Minister of Fisheries have us believe they all have a contract from Walt Disney to try to find Nemo?"
Let's take a look at some of this stuff, since it forms the core of Baker's latest attack on the fisheries department.
1. Under Section 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a signatory can lay claim to sub-seabed minerals where the continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical mile xclusive economic zone.
Here's a link to UNCLOS; go check it out for yourself.
At no point, does this section give a coastal state claiming such rights to the sub-seabed any right to interfere with activities related to the water-column. That's fishing, ladies and gentlemen, and as much as Ms. Baker can rail about the effect of dragging on the seabed, the treaty separates the seabed mineral resources from the wildlife in the watercolumn and on the seabed.
It doesn't take a single course at law school to read plain English and present it clearly and accurately. Nor does one have to agree with the UNCLOS; Canada's actions can only take place within the scope and context of international law.
Baker's contention is, to put it bluntly, WRONG, yet again when she suggests that Canada could lay claim to the whole continental shelf beyond 200 miles and thereby end foreign fishing.
Oh yes and while countries have applied, as Baker points out, she doesn't tell us if any country has actually been granted rights beyond 200 miles for managing fisheries.
2. B aker would never tell you this but here it ibecauseue it is accurate: Canada is already building the case for extending its claim to the sub-seabed minerals on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. The feds have up to eight years after ratifying the treaty to make the claim, which means they have until 2011 to complete it.
3. Canada couldn't lay legal claim to the shelf beyond 200 miles before 2003 because Canada didn'ratifyfy the treaty until then. Notice how the facts of the matter here differ widely from the interpretation Baker applies. The position taken by the federal government isn't a cop-out, as Baker claims; it reflects the reality of the international legal regime governing the fisheries.
4. The last bit of Baker's column - the bit about casinos and Finding Nemo - is curious if for no other reason than it sounds an awful lot like the kind of sarcasm usually voiced by her father; I note this because in the past few weeks I have heard one too many people speculating that Senator Dad has been ghost-writing the columns for his daughter. To my mind that doesn't really matter since Senator Baker or lawyer Baker can be equally wrong, as a matter of facts.
This last section of the column is curious because it takes a potshot at the federal minister without - at any point - providing a single shred of factual information to back up either the claims made in this column or the claims made in previous columns by Les Bakers audaces.
What a reasonable reader is left with is merely more of the entertaining writing of a St. John's lawyer.
Entertaining, yes but ultimately unconvincing.
It ignores fact.
It ignores the law.
It presents instead a series of unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.
No matter how many times Baker repeats her arguments, they do not gain accuracy or credibility with the repetition.
Except among people who were already convinced of what Baker claims.
The problem for Baker is that those people are already in the minority, something that isn't likely to change.
The other problem for Baker is that the more she makes outrageous claims lacking in any substance, the more she generates a backlash against her argument.
19 August 2005
Expensive hospitality for Efford - or was it comms advice? [Updated]
[Update: While the folks at federal natural resources didn't spend very much time on the Bond papers when it might have helped, they suddenly are spending a whole bunch of time checking the site out. That is since I posted about the more than $80,000 paid to a St. John's communications company for something it did related to the offshore talks.
Seems the busy little gnomes at NRCAN changed the category under which they paid almost $60, 000 recently to First Contact. It went from being charged out to "hospitality" to the NRCAN category for professionals services not otherwise contracted. When you click the link below, note that the numbers for the two categories are not even vaguely close. Someone made a conscious decision to reclassify the expenditure but only after the Bond Papers pointed to the questionable contract.
Of course, that change in accounting practices doesn't explain why a company got paid to organize federal supporters to attend the February 14 ceremony when legions of Liberals volunteered their time [not a penny in pay] to do exactly the same thing.
Anyway, read on and enjoy]
Thanks to the federal proactive disclosure policy, the Bond Papers can now report that St. John's-based First Contact Communications received $58, 287.70 for work completed between October 29, 2004 and February 18, 2005, apparently related to the offshore discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The contract was let on June 21, 2005 as reported here on the NRCAN website.
This is in addition to $22, 500 paid to the same company for work done between late January and late February 2005, also related to the offshore deal. Check here and scroll to the post "Federal Accord communications support costs" to see the previous Bond Papers post.
Note the curious things about these two contracts:
1. The earlier payment was made by the federal finance department under expenditure category 422 (professional services otherwise not contracted). Here's the link to that department's proactive disclosure report on the contract.
2. The new payment is by John Efford's own natural resources department. The contract date is in June 2005 but it covers work done in the last fiscal year which ended 31 Mar 2005.
3. The new amount is listed as having come from expenditure category 0822 (Hospitality).
4. The two payments overlap in time between January and February 2005. There is no information on the proactive disclosure website that the two contracts are related nor is there any indication in the disclosure report as to what the contracted work actually was.
First Contact was doing work for the feds on the offshore deal that included organizing people to attend the signing ceremony In February 2005.
There were also a raft of federal Liberal volunteers involved doing the same thing although they certainly didn't work for First Contact. They never received a penny for their efforts.
The total amount of the two contracts is $80, 787.70.
While I haven't contacted either federal department or First Contact on this, the time periods involved correspond to work the company was doing for Efford on the offshore talks.
All that makes some sense.
It just seems odd that a communications company would be paid for hospitality services, by a contract let four months after the work was completed.
Seems the busy little gnomes at NRCAN changed the category under which they paid almost $60, 000 recently to First Contact. It went from being charged out to "hospitality" to the NRCAN category for professionals services not otherwise contracted. When you click the link below, note that the numbers for the two categories are not even vaguely close. Someone made a conscious decision to reclassify the expenditure but only after the Bond Papers pointed to the questionable contract.
Of course, that change in accounting practices doesn't explain why a company got paid to organize federal supporters to attend the February 14 ceremony when legions of Liberals volunteered their time [not a penny in pay] to do exactly the same thing.
Anyway, read on and enjoy]
Thanks to the federal proactive disclosure policy, the Bond Papers can now report that St. John's-based First Contact Communications received $58, 287.70 for work completed between October 29, 2004 and February 18, 2005, apparently related to the offshore discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The contract was let on June 21, 2005 as reported here on the NRCAN website.
This is in addition to $22, 500 paid to the same company for work done between late January and late February 2005, also related to the offshore deal. Check here and scroll to the post "Federal Accord communications support costs" to see the previous Bond Papers post.
Note the curious things about these two contracts:
1. The earlier payment was made by the federal finance department under expenditure category 422 (professional services otherwise not contracted). Here's the link to that department's proactive disclosure report on the contract.
2. The new payment is by John Efford's own natural resources department. The contract date is in June 2005 but it covers work done in the last fiscal year which ended 31 Mar 2005.
3. The new amount is listed as having come from expenditure category 0822 (Hospitality).
4. The two payments overlap in time between January and February 2005. There is no information on the proactive disclosure website that the two contracts are related nor is there any indication in the disclosure report as to what the contracted work actually was.
First Contact was doing work for the feds on the offshore deal that included organizing people to attend the signing ceremony In February 2005.
There were also a raft of federal Liberal volunteers involved doing the same thing although they certainly didn't work for First Contact. They never received a penny for their efforts.
The total amount of the two contracts is $80, 787.70.
While I haven't contacted either federal department or First Contact on this, the time periods involved correspond to work the company was doing for Efford on the offshore talks.
All that makes some sense.
It just seems odd that a communications company would be paid for hospitality services, by a contract let four months after the work was completed.
18 August 2005
A truly Canadian policy on gas prices
Surely this is the End Time.
Federal Conservative leader Stephen Harper, some provincial premiers and, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ersatz Opposition Leader Gerry Reid are all calling for the same thing:
lower taxes on gasoline.
If the Book of Revelation missed this alignment of political forces maybe there is a Nostradamus quatrain that foretells the time when a bunch of guys all come up with the same unsound policy suggestion at the same time all to do nothing but gain a few points in a public opinion poll.
The only - and I emphasize only - reason anyone is suggesting lowering taxes on gasoline is in response to public outcries about recent price increases. It is as shallow a political motive as we have seen in this country for advancing an idea since a handful of people convinced Allan Rock that if I have a gun in my house my wife was infinitely more likely to get shot if we had a minor disagreement. If that wasn't convincing enough, they told us that we could use a gun registry to fight gang violence in Toronto. Neither Rock nor any of the Illogical Brigade can be seen these days in the Jane/Finch corridor explaining why their claims haven't proven correct.
Just because people cry out for something doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Sometimes people manage to convince politicians of ideas that lack merit. Here we have a case where politicians themselves are coming up bonehead notions.
Apparently, not one of these politicians notices that the price increases are a direct result of international concerns about oil supplies that will likely drop as concerns are allayed. No one notices that high prices for gasoline may actually lead consumers to make smart choices about their consumption for a change. That would be good for the environment, among other things.
No one seems to notice that the millions of dollars the federal government will transfer to the nation's cities come from gasoline taxes.
In the world of public policy there are only a handful of good reasons to drop a tax or eliminate it.
- Cut it or eliminate if the tax is hindering business growth.
- Cut a tax or eliminate it if doing so would stimulate a flagging economy.
- Cut a tax or eliminate a tax that is harming the poor and those on fixed incomes.
Since neither of the first two apply in this case, politicians tell us that cutting the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels will help seniors and others on limited incomes.
But will it?
Of course not.
Nor will cutting gasoline taxes reduce the overall cost of living, thereby helping the poor.
The only people deriving a benefit from lower gas prices would be those powering their SUVs. Odds are Grandma doesn't drive an SUV . If she does, she damn well isn't trying to live on Old Age Security (OAS) and therefore doesn't need public assistance.
If any government wanted to help the poor and those on fixed incomes, it should simply implement a new basic living allowance that would transfer cash directly into their hands, just as with OAS. Every province could fund such a program out of the gasoline taxes from the gas-suckers in the SUVs.
Give some federal assistance and a few minutes of brain power and we might just revamp the social assistance and old age security system in the country to an affordable means of providing guaranteed minimum incomes. Such an idea was proposed by the Wells administration in Newfoundland in 1992 and soundly rejected by the Chretien government. Wells' idea was a typically Canadian solution of helping those in need; in these days of swelling federal coffers, it might be time to have another look at the idea.
In place of such bold thinking, we have the most bland of political cries, the kind of stuff dreamed up by the marketers and pitchmen who inhabit some political offices these days: it polled well, therefore it must be good.
When a Liberal like Gerry Reid or any New Democrat finds himself in agreement with Stephen Harper, that should be a clue he is on the wrong track.
That no one else in the country is talking about such an eminently simple, feasible and worthwhile an idea suggests we could all use a kick in our wallets, our backsides or wherever else we keep our brains and compassion these days.
Federal Conservative leader Stephen Harper, some provincial premiers and, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ersatz Opposition Leader Gerry Reid are all calling for the same thing:
lower taxes on gasoline.
If the Book of Revelation missed this alignment of political forces maybe there is a Nostradamus quatrain that foretells the time when a bunch of guys all come up with the same unsound policy suggestion at the same time all to do nothing but gain a few points in a public opinion poll.
The only - and I emphasize only - reason anyone is suggesting lowering taxes on gasoline is in response to public outcries about recent price increases. It is as shallow a political motive as we have seen in this country for advancing an idea since a handful of people convinced Allan Rock that if I have a gun in my house my wife was infinitely more likely to get shot if we had a minor disagreement. If that wasn't convincing enough, they told us that we could use a gun registry to fight gang violence in Toronto. Neither Rock nor any of the Illogical Brigade can be seen these days in the Jane/Finch corridor explaining why their claims haven't proven correct.
Just because people cry out for something doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Sometimes people manage to convince politicians of ideas that lack merit. Here we have a case where politicians themselves are coming up bonehead notions.
Apparently, not one of these politicians notices that the price increases are a direct result of international concerns about oil supplies that will likely drop as concerns are allayed. No one notices that high prices for gasoline may actually lead consumers to make smart choices about their consumption for a change. That would be good for the environment, among other things.
No one seems to notice that the millions of dollars the federal government will transfer to the nation's cities come from gasoline taxes.
In the world of public policy there are only a handful of good reasons to drop a tax or eliminate it.
- Cut it or eliminate if the tax is hindering business growth.
- Cut a tax or eliminate it if doing so would stimulate a flagging economy.
- Cut a tax or eliminate a tax that is harming the poor and those on fixed incomes.
Since neither of the first two apply in this case, politicians tell us that cutting the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels will help seniors and others on limited incomes.
But will it?
Of course not.
Nor will cutting gasoline taxes reduce the overall cost of living, thereby helping the poor.
The only people deriving a benefit from lower gas prices would be those powering their SUVs. Odds are Grandma doesn't drive an SUV . If she does, she damn well isn't trying to live on Old Age Security (OAS) and therefore doesn't need public assistance.
If any government wanted to help the poor and those on fixed incomes, it should simply implement a new basic living allowance that would transfer cash directly into their hands, just as with OAS. Every province could fund such a program out of the gasoline taxes from the gas-suckers in the SUVs.
Give some federal assistance and a few minutes of brain power and we might just revamp the social assistance and old age security system in the country to an affordable means of providing guaranteed minimum incomes. Such an idea was proposed by the Wells administration in Newfoundland in 1992 and soundly rejected by the Chretien government. Wells' idea was a typically Canadian solution of helping those in need; in these days of swelling federal coffers, it might be time to have another look at the idea.
In place of such bold thinking, we have the most bland of political cries, the kind of stuff dreamed up by the marketers and pitchmen who inhabit some political offices these days: it polled well, therefore it must be good.
When a Liberal like Gerry Reid or any New Democrat finds himself in agreement with Stephen Harper, that should be a clue he is on the wrong track.
That no one else in the country is talking about such an eminently simple, feasible and worthwhile an idea suggests we could all use a kick in our wallets, our backsides or wherever else we keep our brains and compassion these days.
17 August 2005
Lono at Large!
Simon Lono is declaring his candidacy for St. John's city council today at noon on the steps of city hall.
As shop-worn as that might be elsewhere, around here it is a novelty. Most candidates announce by sending out a news release and calling open line.
This one is going to be a campaign and will quickly establish Lono as the candidate to unseat an incumbent. That's almost unheard of in St. John's city politics - councillors usually have life appointments - and that's one of things Lono is out to change.
Smart, experienced, young and he's got some concrete ideas.
Here's his website: check it out.
And when the ballot hits your mailbox, send it back with the X next to Lono, Simon.
As shop-worn as that might be elsewhere, around here it is a novelty. Most candidates announce by sending out a news release and calling open line.
This one is going to be a campaign and will quickly establish Lono as the candidate to unseat an incumbent. That's almost unheard of in St. John's city politics - councillors usually have life appointments - and that's one of things Lono is out to change.
Smart, experienced, young and he's got some concrete ideas.
Here's his website: check it out.
And when the ballot hits your mailbox, send it back with the X next to Lono, Simon.
16 August 2005
Libs up, Connies down: SES
Here's the text of a news release from SES Research, the same guys who provided the highly accurate polling for CPAC during the last federal election.
"The big Liberal gains were in Quebec where they increased their support from 21% to 34% while the Conservatives have dropped from 11% to 4%."
"Polling clearly shows that Stephen Harper's image is in a free fall. In the past 90 days the percentage of Canadians who believe he would make the best Prime Minister has dropped from 27% to 14%. Jack Layton has mathematically placed second, the first time in SES Best PM tracking."
"The other dramatic move has been the number of Canadians who chose "none of the above" as their best PM. This has more than doubled from 8% to 19%. This is truly our summer of discontent. Paul Martin still rates as the first choice of Canadians at 31%, 16 points ahead of his nearest rival."
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, (MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Canada - Ballot (Change from Previous Quarter, N= 865 Decided voters, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
LIB - 39% (+3)
CP - 25% (-5)
NDP -19% (+1)
BQ - 13% (+1)
GP - 5% (+1)
*14% were undecided (+2)
Best PM (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Martin - 31% (-1)
Layton - 15% (0)
Harper - 14% (-13)
Duceppe - 8% (+2)
None - 19% (+11)
Undecided - 13% (+4)
Government Performance (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Very good - 6% (0)
Somewhat good - 21% (+4)
Average - 39% (+8)
Somewhat poor - 17% (-1)
Very poor - 16% (-9)
Unsure - 2% (-1)
"The big Liberal gains were in Quebec where they increased their support from 21% to 34% while the Conservatives have dropped from 11% to 4%."
"Polling clearly shows that Stephen Harper's image is in a free fall. In the past 90 days the percentage of Canadians who believe he would make the best Prime Minister has dropped from 27% to 14%. Jack Layton has mathematically placed second, the first time in SES Best PM tracking."
"The other dramatic move has been the number of Canadians who chose "none of the above" as their best PM. This has more than doubled from 8% to 19%. This is truly our summer of discontent. Paul Martin still rates as the first choice of Canadians at 31%, 16 points ahead of his nearest rival."
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, (MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Canada - Ballot (Change from Previous Quarter, N= 865 Decided voters, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
LIB - 39% (+3)
CP - 25% (-5)
NDP -19% (+1)
BQ - 13% (+1)
GP - 5% (+1)
*14% were undecided (+2)
Best PM (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Martin - 31% (-1)
Layton - 15% (0)
Harper - 14% (-13)
Duceppe - 8% (+2)
None - 19% (+11)
Undecided - 13% (+4)
Government Performance (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Very good - 6% (0)
Somewhat good - 21% (+4)
Average - 39% (+8)
Somewhat poor - 17% (-1)
Very poor - 16% (-9)
Unsure - 2% (-1)
A good public relations case study
For those who like to take lessons from other people's cock ups, there's a great story in the Monday Globe on how CN handled the train derailment in ALberta.
Find the story here.
Find the story here.
Taylor late on shrimp
Provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor issued a news release on Monday calling on the federal government to step up efforts to find a solution to the high tariff on imported shrimp imposed by the European Union.
He claimed the tariff may cause an early closure to this year's shrimp fishery, thereby putting almost 4, 000 local shrimp workers out of business.
Here are a few things Trevor missed:
1. Try getting in the game, Trevor. Over a year ago, well before the federal election, Siobhan Coady helped bring federal international trade minister Jim Peterson here to meet local business leaders. Coady, who operates a fish harvesting business, arranged a meeting for local shrimp exporters with Peterson. He's been working on the problem ever since.
Had the province been as concerned about the problem then, we might have made greater progress.
Other people have been working on this, Trev, old man. Welcome to the game - a day late and dollar short.
2. Some companies have already adapted. At least one local exporting company has incorporated a subsidiary inside the European Union that imports Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp and avoids the tariff.
Maybe that is something others could explore. Blaming the feds is an easy dodge.
3. Rein in the loonies first, Trev.One of the biggest things Taylor could do for the fishery on this issue is rein in the crowd in his own party locally and federally and all the crowd on the call-in shows who rub their hands with glee at the prospect of forcing the European Union out of fishing on the Grand Banks at gunpoint if necessary. Some of those countries have prosecuted since before white people settled in Newfoundland and Labrador and wouldn't take any more kindly to that kind of talk than we would if the tables were turned.
Rein in the looney fringe, Trev, my son and maybe just maybe, the Europeans would be more willing to listen to what we have to say.
No matter how hard you try, Trevor, this monkey just can't be tossed off your back.
Deal with that issue first and maybe your release won't sound like a hollow piece of political tripe.
4. Do shrimp buyers have the crabs? Taylor complains about weak American markets for shrimp. Maybe the crab fiasco - miserable quality that all but closed the American market to local crab - has spilled over.
This is all really too bad because Taylor is actually one of the better provincial cabinet ministers who Danny Williams actually lets handle the department he heads.
He claimed the tariff may cause an early closure to this year's shrimp fishery, thereby putting almost 4, 000 local shrimp workers out of business.
Here are a few things Trevor missed:
1. Try getting in the game, Trevor. Over a year ago, well before the federal election, Siobhan Coady helped bring federal international trade minister Jim Peterson here to meet local business leaders. Coady, who operates a fish harvesting business, arranged a meeting for local shrimp exporters with Peterson. He's been working on the problem ever since.
Had the province been as concerned about the problem then, we might have made greater progress.
Other people have been working on this, Trev, old man. Welcome to the game - a day late and dollar short.
2. Some companies have already adapted. At least one local exporting company has incorporated a subsidiary inside the European Union that imports Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp and avoids the tariff.
Maybe that is something others could explore. Blaming the feds is an easy dodge.
3. Rein in the loonies first, Trev.One of the biggest things Taylor could do for the fishery on this issue is rein in the crowd in his own party locally and federally and all the crowd on the call-in shows who rub their hands with glee at the prospect of forcing the European Union out of fishing on the Grand Banks at gunpoint if necessary. Some of those countries have prosecuted since before white people settled in Newfoundland and Labrador and wouldn't take any more kindly to that kind of talk than we would if the tables were turned.
Rein in the looney fringe, Trev, my son and maybe just maybe, the Europeans would be more willing to listen to what we have to say.
No matter how hard you try, Trevor, this monkey just can't be tossed off your back.
Deal with that issue first and maybe your release won't sound like a hollow piece of political tripe.
4. Do shrimp buyers have the crabs? Taylor complains about weak American markets for shrimp. Maybe the crab fiasco - miserable quality that all but closed the American market to local crab - has spilled over.
This is all really too bad because Taylor is actually one of the better provincial cabinet ministers who Danny Williams actually lets handle the department he heads.
15 August 2005
The gas price regulation fraud continues
For anyone wanting to understand petroleum pricing, here's the link to Dennis Browne's 1998 study for the provincial government. Dennis sensibly recommended against wasting time on thinking we can "regulate" gasoline and home heating fuel prices.
That's the more sophisticated version of an earlier posting here in which I called the petroleum pricing system a charade and fraud. That posting elicited a couple of e-mail's to me from David Toms, the acting petroleum pricing commissar.
Well, at the risk of yet another one, let's be absolutely clear:
The increase in petroleum prices today and the ones likely to come before the end of the week demonstrate that petroleum regulation in the province produces no positive benefit for consumers. Gasoline may well rise by upwards of 5 cents per litre in price, based on the factors anyone with a brain can figure out - the cost of oil is up. On the back end, when oil prices go down, Mr. Toms will be slow in lowering prices, thereby guaranteeing we will have paid just as much for gasoline as we would if Mr. Toms and his staff went back to what they were doing before they got their sinecures in Grand Falls.
Petroleum "regulation" is a waste of time.
Mr. Toms comments in this VOCM story and quoted in the on-air version this morning are simply nonsense - no one needs time to adjust to high prices. This comment sounds a lot like Mr. Toms desperately is trying to justify his existence in the face of overwhelming proof of what critics of the regulation charade said all along:
The office in Grand Falls is doing nothing, can do nothing and will do nothing to benefit consumers.
Let's shut down the waste of money.
That's the more sophisticated version of an earlier posting here in which I called the petroleum pricing system a charade and fraud. That posting elicited a couple of e-mail's to me from David Toms, the acting petroleum pricing commissar.
Well, at the risk of yet another one, let's be absolutely clear:
The increase in petroleum prices today and the ones likely to come before the end of the week demonstrate that petroleum regulation in the province produces no positive benefit for consumers. Gasoline may well rise by upwards of 5 cents per litre in price, based on the factors anyone with a brain can figure out - the cost of oil is up. On the back end, when oil prices go down, Mr. Toms will be slow in lowering prices, thereby guaranteeing we will have paid just as much for gasoline as we would if Mr. Toms and his staff went back to what they were doing before they got their sinecures in Grand Falls.
Petroleum "regulation" is a waste of time.
Mr. Toms comments in this VOCM story and quoted in the on-air version this morning are simply nonsense - no one needs time to adjust to high prices. This comment sounds a lot like Mr. Toms desperately is trying to justify his existence in the face of overwhelming proof of what critics of the regulation charade said all along:
The office in Grand Falls is doing nothing, can do nothing and will do nothing to benefit consumers.
Let's shut down the waste of money.
Walken for President 2008
Now this is a candidate I could get excited about!
Actor Christopher Walken is known for his portrayals of strong characters, some of them having possible mental imbalances.
Apparently, he wants to be president and someone set up a website to promote his candidacy.
Perhaps as president, he can find a use for some of his more memorable quotes, like say this one he tossed out as the lead mercenary, Shannon, in The Dogs of War: "In my jungle, you'd be just another asshole."
or maybe a couple from Batman Returns, in which he played Max Schrek, the guy behind Oswald Cobblepot's run at the mayor's seat:
"Power surplus? Bruce, shame on you. No such thing. One can never have too much power. If my life has a meaning, that's demeaning."
"Let me guess... trust fund goody-goody? "
or from The King of New York (1990):
"From now on, nothing goes down unless I'm involved. No blackjack no dope deals, no nothing. A nickel bag gets sold in the park, I want in. You guys got fat while everybody starved on the street. Now it's my turn."
"I never killed anybody who didn't deserve it."
This candidacy might have greater potential than Ahhnuld "It's not a Toomuh" Schwarzenegger.
Actor Christopher Walken is known for his portrayals of strong characters, some of them having possible mental imbalances.
Apparently, he wants to be president and someone set up a website to promote his candidacy.
Perhaps as president, he can find a use for some of his more memorable quotes, like say this one he tossed out as the lead mercenary, Shannon, in The Dogs of War: "In my jungle, you'd be just another asshole."
or maybe a couple from Batman Returns, in which he played Max Schrek, the guy behind Oswald Cobblepot's run at the mayor's seat:
"Power surplus? Bruce, shame on you. No such thing. One can never have too much power. If my life has a meaning, that's demeaning."
"Let me guess... trust fund goody-goody? "
or from The King of New York (1990):
"From now on, nothing goes down unless I'm involved. No blackjack no dope deals, no nothing. A nickel bag gets sold in the park, I want in. You guys got fat while everybody starved on the street. Now it's my turn."
"I never killed anybody who didn't deserve it."
This candidacy might have greater potential than Ahhnuld "It's not a Toomuh" Schwarzenegger.
12 August 2005
Blog Break/Fish Proposal Coming
Yesterday was an inadvertent day off blogging in the middle of the week.
Between work and work and well, work there was no way to get anything posted. On top of everything else, I got a call yesterday to do a national CBC Radio commentary. That was an interesting experience: fast turn-around and then a late evening in the studio to put it to bed.
Maureen Anonsen (who produces the commentaries from across the country from here) was a relentless editor and a demanding producer, showing her years of experience both in what she changed and how she rewrote stuff, not to mention the finesse with which she coaxed a decent "read" out of me.
She had to stay later to file the damn thing. Heaven knows when she got out of the office.
In the meantime, I have been working quietly on a fisheries piece that should hopefully raise a few eyebrows. It will propose a new fishery with recommendations on management and economic organization.
You won't be able to fold it out and snap it into place; the thing will need to be discussed.
With any luck though, there will be enough in it to capture people's attention and make them go: "You know that just might work."
and once again, trust me, I am NOT holding my breath.
The goal is to get that piece posted on Monday morning. After that, we'll just take the posts as they come.
Between work and work and well, work there was no way to get anything posted. On top of everything else, I got a call yesterday to do a national CBC Radio commentary. That was an interesting experience: fast turn-around and then a late evening in the studio to put it to bed.
Maureen Anonsen (who produces the commentaries from across the country from here) was a relentless editor and a demanding producer, showing her years of experience both in what she changed and how she rewrote stuff, not to mention the finesse with which she coaxed a decent "read" out of me.
She had to stay later to file the damn thing. Heaven knows when she got out of the office.
In the meantime, I have been working quietly on a fisheries piece that should hopefully raise a few eyebrows. It will propose a new fishery with recommendations on management and economic organization.
You won't be able to fold it out and snap it into place; the thing will need to be discussed.
With any luck though, there will be enough in it to capture people's attention and make them go: "You know that just might work."
and once again, trust me, I am NOT holding my breath.
The goal is to get that piece posted on Monday morning. After that, we'll just take the posts as they come.
Thistle sleep walks through local crisis
If this VOCM report is accurate, then one can only conclude that Anna Thistle does not have a single clue as to the issues involved in the current discussions between Abitibi Consolidated and the provincial government.
Thistle's instance on trying to force ACI to keep everything operating is sheer nonsense and shows that while she represents a paper-making district, she is in desperate need of a crash course in current global paper-making issues.
Ok. I'll cut Thistle some slack. She is the provincial member for the district AND she doesn't have to make the hard decisions because she sits in Opposition.
Opps, let's uncut it: she used to be a cabinet minister and said the same things when she sat around the table on the 11th floor of the Confed Building.
Thistle's instance on trying to force ACI to keep everything operating is sheer nonsense and shows that while she represents a paper-making district, she is in desperate need of a crash course in current global paper-making issues.
Ok. I'll cut Thistle some slack. She is the provincial member for the district AND she doesn't have to make the hard decisions because she sits in Opposition.
Opps, let's uncut it: she used to be a cabinet minister and said the same things when she sat around the table on the 11th floor of the Confed Building.
10 August 2005
Cooking up numbers
St. John's lawyer Averill (A.J.) Baker owns quite a reputation among some readers of the weekly newspapers in the province, thanks in largest part to her bi-weekly column.
She's especially popular among the proponents of the Damn-Fool fishery, the crowd that talk about a supposedly God- given right to keep jigging a fish regardless of how few fish there are to jig. This is the same crowd that pass around Baker's columns and then call Randy or Bill or Lynda pointing to Baker as proof of what they have been fighting all along. That's all that Baker does, by the by: she tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.
In the past week, A.J.'s column claimed that foreigners can take 5, 900 tonnes of cod while the locals here in Newfoundland and Labrador can't get a single fish. That's what she wrote.
Then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] took issue with what she printed, and for the past few days, the call-in crowd have been lambasting DFO and standing behind their favourite writer.
People are sticking behind Baker since she has nothing to gain from her claims.
Fair enough.
They are attacking DFO for spreading false information.
That's not fair enough. In fact it is almost laughable since Baker got her information from the same place the Bond Papers did: DFO and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO].
The difference between DFO and Baker is that what DFO has put on the table are not the total possible by-catches of cod, which definitely total 5, 900 tonnes. DFO has been talking about actual landings and those are far less than the maximums allowed. DFO has been drawing a more accurate picture of what is actually happening to cod stocks, as best as anyone can figure it out.
The obvious value of this is that when you look back to the late 1980s and early 1990s you could see the looming cod collapse not from the total allowable catches set by John Crosbie but from the actual landings which declined steadily year after year. If the goal is really to bring back the cod as a commercial fish stock, we should be very cautious about fishing the stock at all.
The major problem with Baker's column is that she is fueling just the opposite political pressure. It isn't the first time Baker has disregarded the important details. She has a track record in her column of publishing things that are only sort of vaguely accurate. She sometimes gives bits of information rather than the whole schmeer. In other instances, she gives ludicrous interpretations, such as claiming that Canada breached its obligation to disclose relevant facts during the Terms of Union negotiations when it failed to tell the Newfoundlanders about something that wouldn't occur for another 30 years and that wasn't even thought of when the Terms of Union were signed.
Yeah. She did that: hang the Canadians for not being clairvoyant.
Anyway, aside from the stuff that DFO has already challenged, they should have made much more of information DFO provided to the Bond Papers in answer to a simple set of questions.
They should have pointed to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests landed 15, 000 tonnes of cod last year.
Baker claimed we couldn't catch a single fish.
But let her have the 5, 900 tonnes of cod for the foreigners. It is still half of what the locals caught themselves.
Just remember, though, that the total biomass of cod is estimated at a mere 170, 000 tonnes.
That means the total cod catch last year was more than 12% of the total amount of fish the very best guess claims is out there.
Take that tack and you completely refocus the discussion to what is best to help restore cod stocks.
That's what the talk should be about.
And almost best of all, everything else would then be seen for what it is:
cooking up numbers.
She's especially popular among the proponents of the Damn-Fool fishery, the crowd that talk about a supposedly God- given right to keep jigging a fish regardless of how few fish there are to jig. This is the same crowd that pass around Baker's columns and then call Randy or Bill or Lynda pointing to Baker as proof of what they have been fighting all along. That's all that Baker does, by the by: she tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.
In the past week, A.J.'s column claimed that foreigners can take 5, 900 tonnes of cod while the locals here in Newfoundland and Labrador can't get a single fish. That's what she wrote.
Then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] took issue with what she printed, and for the past few days, the call-in crowd have been lambasting DFO and standing behind their favourite writer.
People are sticking behind Baker since she has nothing to gain from her claims.
Fair enough.
They are attacking DFO for spreading false information.
That's not fair enough. In fact it is almost laughable since Baker got her information from the same place the Bond Papers did: DFO and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO].
The difference between DFO and Baker is that what DFO has put on the table are not the total possible by-catches of cod, which definitely total 5, 900 tonnes. DFO has been talking about actual landings and those are far less than the maximums allowed. DFO has been drawing a more accurate picture of what is actually happening to cod stocks, as best as anyone can figure it out.
The obvious value of this is that when you look back to the late 1980s and early 1990s you could see the looming cod collapse not from the total allowable catches set by John Crosbie but from the actual landings which declined steadily year after year. If the goal is really to bring back the cod as a commercial fish stock, we should be very cautious about fishing the stock at all.
The major problem with Baker's column is that she is fueling just the opposite political pressure. It isn't the first time Baker has disregarded the important details. She has a track record in her column of publishing things that are only sort of vaguely accurate. She sometimes gives bits of information rather than the whole schmeer. In other instances, she gives ludicrous interpretations, such as claiming that Canada breached its obligation to disclose relevant facts during the Terms of Union negotiations when it failed to tell the Newfoundlanders about something that wouldn't occur for another 30 years and that wasn't even thought of when the Terms of Union were signed.
Yeah. She did that: hang the Canadians for not being clairvoyant.
Anyway, aside from the stuff that DFO has already challenged, they should have made much more of information DFO provided to the Bond Papers in answer to a simple set of questions.
They should have pointed to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests landed 15, 000 tonnes of cod last year.
Baker claimed we couldn't catch a single fish.
But let her have the 5, 900 tonnes of cod for the foreigners. It is still half of what the locals caught themselves.
Just remember, though, that the total biomass of cod is estimated at a mere 170, 000 tonnes.
That means the total cod catch last year was more than 12% of the total amount of fish the very best guess claims is out there.
Take that tack and you completely refocus the discussion to what is best to help restore cod stocks.
That's what the talk should be about.
And almost best of all, everything else would then be seen for what it is:
cooking up numbers.
09 August 2005
The Danny Legacy Option for the Lower Churchill
As noted in the Bond Papers on Friday, the Premier held a news conference on Monday to update the province on the process to develop the Lower Churchill.
The government news release listed three comprehensive proposals to build the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating stations plus associated transmission facilities. These will now move to the second phase of the process, namely a feasibility study.
The three proposals are:
1. The Hydro Quebec/Ontario Energy Financing Company/SNC Lavalin proposal. One of the few proposals made public, this joint venture contained an option in which the joint venture would lease the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls sites for 50 years and a second in which Ontario and Hydro-Quebec would negotiate an agreement under which Ontario would purchase energy and Newfoundland and Labrador would finance construction.
This was widely held as being the likely strong proposal. The partners have extensive experience in the energy business, more than enough experience in the construction of large hydro-electric projects and the ability to raise all the capital needed to build the project.
This project also included construction of improved transmission capacity between Ontario and Quebec.
The guaranteed, long-term purchase of power by both Ontario and Quebec would make it easy for the province to raise any capital to build the project under the second option.
Construction would begin in late 2006 with first power transmitted by 2011.
2. TransCanada Corporation. Nothing is known publicly of this proposal. The company operates several hydroelectric and other generating systems in the central part of the continent. The largest is a little more than 18% of the Lower Churchill's combined generating capacity.
Call this one a long shot.
3. Tshiaskueshish Group. This is a consortium comprising Macquarie North America, Ltd., Innu Development Limited Partnership, Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Innu Kiewit Constructors.
Again, nothing is known about this proposal. The companies have considerable experience in large construction projects. Beyond that, there is nothing available publicly.
Given the the Innu component of this proposal and the stated need in the original call for proposals for aboriginal involvement, this might be a proposal that had a leg-up as a result. The Innu Kiewit website is a little out of date since it notes that Voisey's Bay construction has been delayed.
Then there is the stealth option, one that Premier Danny Williams included on his own.
That's the one which would see the provincial government and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro build the whole Lower Churchill project by themselves. For want of a better name call it the PWG Caribou Company proposal.
There are several reasons the Premier is likely to give when this option is selected.
1. The PWG Caribou Company meets all the proposal call requirements:
- It cuts out the middle man thereby maximizing the cash return to the provincial government and Hydro.
- It allows the government to deal with the Innu land claim directly, as it would have to do anyway.
- It gives the provincial government total control over the local benefits.
2. The province can afford it. The proposal call listed the estimated cost of the project as being CDN$3.3 billion. With the $2.0 billion from the federal government, the province can almost pay off the whole thing by itself. Borrowing would be limited and with the right power purchase agreement, the remaining capital can be raised at reasonable costs. The various financing options allow the provincial government to find novel ways of finding money for the project.
3. We would develop our resources for ourselves. The Pink, White and Green Caribou Company is the ultimate expression of the "local power" wave the Premier created with his offshore revenue deal. The strongest argument he will offer for doing it ourselves is that we will have total control over everything and that every aspect of the project possible will be done locally.
Just remember that the whole thing hinges on the power purchase agreement or having steady markets in which to sell the power.
As for the rest of it, expect the province will do exactly as the Premier said today: Give first priority to the PWG Caribou option.
I'd expect he has already decided what to do with the offshore cash. He keeps telling us but no one wants to accept it. The rest of the process is all for show, or at least serves only to give the Premier the chance to pick over the very best ideas from a whole bunch of other proposals so he can then do the whole thing himself.
It's Danny Legacy Option.
I can hear the speech now:
"It is our water. It is our falls. It will be developed for our benefit. By our engineers and our architects and run by our Hydro company and our government with our oil revenue."
There's an old black-and-white film from the Upper Churchill the Premier can use to help get the speaking notes together.
It's the one we will see announced very shortly, with construction well underway by the time the Premier seeks re-election.
The government news release listed three comprehensive proposals to build the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating stations plus associated transmission facilities. These will now move to the second phase of the process, namely a feasibility study.
The three proposals are:
1. The Hydro Quebec/Ontario Energy Financing Company/SNC Lavalin proposal. One of the few proposals made public, this joint venture contained an option in which the joint venture would lease the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls sites for 50 years and a second in which Ontario and Hydro-Quebec would negotiate an agreement under which Ontario would purchase energy and Newfoundland and Labrador would finance construction.
This was widely held as being the likely strong proposal. The partners have extensive experience in the energy business, more than enough experience in the construction of large hydro-electric projects and the ability to raise all the capital needed to build the project.
This project also included construction of improved transmission capacity between Ontario and Quebec.
The guaranteed, long-term purchase of power by both Ontario and Quebec would make it easy for the province to raise any capital to build the project under the second option.
Construction would begin in late 2006 with first power transmitted by 2011.
2. TransCanada Corporation. Nothing is known publicly of this proposal. The company operates several hydroelectric and other generating systems in the central part of the continent. The largest is a little more than 18% of the Lower Churchill's combined generating capacity.
Call this one a long shot.
3. Tshiaskueshish Group. This is a consortium comprising Macquarie North America, Ltd., Innu Development Limited Partnership, Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Innu Kiewit Constructors.
Again, nothing is known about this proposal. The companies have considerable experience in large construction projects. Beyond that, there is nothing available publicly.
Given the the Innu component of this proposal and the stated need in the original call for proposals for aboriginal involvement, this might be a proposal that had a leg-up as a result. The Innu Kiewit website is a little out of date since it notes that Voisey's Bay construction has been delayed.
Then there is the stealth option, one that Premier Danny Williams included on his own.
That's the one which would see the provincial government and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro build the whole Lower Churchill project by themselves. For want of a better name call it the PWG Caribou Company proposal.
There are several reasons the Premier is likely to give when this option is selected.
1. The PWG Caribou Company meets all the proposal call requirements:
- It cuts out the middle man thereby maximizing the cash return to the provincial government and Hydro.
- It allows the government to deal with the Innu land claim directly, as it would have to do anyway.
- It gives the provincial government total control over the local benefits.
2. The province can afford it. The proposal call listed the estimated cost of the project as being CDN$3.3 billion. With the $2.0 billion from the federal government, the province can almost pay off the whole thing by itself. Borrowing would be limited and with the right power purchase agreement, the remaining capital can be raised at reasonable costs. The various financing options allow the provincial government to find novel ways of finding money for the project.
3. We would develop our resources for ourselves. The Pink, White and Green Caribou Company is the ultimate expression of the "local power" wave the Premier created with his offshore revenue deal. The strongest argument he will offer for doing it ourselves is that we will have total control over everything and that every aspect of the project possible will be done locally.
Just remember that the whole thing hinges on the power purchase agreement or having steady markets in which to sell the power.
As for the rest of it, expect the province will do exactly as the Premier said today: Give first priority to the PWG Caribou option.
I'd expect he has already decided what to do with the offshore cash. He keeps telling us but no one wants to accept it. The rest of the process is all for show, or at least serves only to give the Premier the chance to pick over the very best ideas from a whole bunch of other proposals so he can then do the whole thing himself.
It's Danny Legacy Option.
I can hear the speech now:
"It is our water. It is our falls. It will be developed for our benefit. By our engineers and our architects and run by our Hydro company and our government with our oil revenue."
There's an old black-and-white film from the Upper Churchill the Premier can use to help get the speaking notes together.
It's the one we will see announced very shortly, with construction well underway by the time the Premier seeks re-election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)