From Wednesday's Throne Speech, the Williams administration announced that it will shortly release something called Innovation Newfoundland and Labrador: A Blueprint for Prosperity.
This is a much-welcome and long-overdue initiative.
The central premise of the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)was the need to diverse the provincial economy and to build on our collective strengths. The SEP has lasted as government policy to the present day because it represents a genuinely strategic approach to long-range economic development.
The new Williams document will fit nicely within the overall framework of the SEP's economic diversification by focusing on areas where entrepreneurs in this province have already shown their ability to compete successfully around the globe. The new plan will apparently focus on marine-related technology, health sciences and information technology.
Interestingly enough all the examples cited in today's Throne Speech have developed since 1992, several with assistance from the programs developed under the SEP. Missing from the list was Northern Radar which continues to develop a commercially viable offshore surveillance radar system out of a concept that was originally intended to detect surface ocean currents.
This innovation policy is something to look at more closely once it is released.
22 March 2006
A Throne Speech by Gold-Member
Following are some choice excerpts from the latest provincial Throne Speech, delivered today:
1. Public masturbation should be illegal:
Count the number of times where the speech mentions the recent Olympic gold-medal win by Brad Gushue's curling rink. One would almost think Brad or someone else on the team had once dated a member of the Williams clan.
1. Public masturbation should be illegal:
My First Minister is to be commended for taking the lead in fighting relentlessly for fairness in the allocation of offshore revenues and returning home in triumph many arduous months later with a monumental new agreement on the Atlantic Accord. Newfoundland and Labrador is today celebrating the black-gold victory that has provided to our province a fairer share of the return on the oil and gas that saturates the caverns of our continental shelf. My First Minister has also been successful in bringing home new agreements to strengthen our health care sector, the equalization program and our province'’s Aboriginal communities and in many other initiatives that have made Newfoundland and Labrador stronger than it was. [Emphasis added]2. Then there's piggybacking on someone else's glory:
Count the number of times where the speech mentions the recent Olympic gold-medal win by Brad Gushue's curling rink. One would almost think Brad or someone else on the team had once dated a member of the Williams clan.
Nowhere has this new attitude manifested itself with more fire than on the icy rinks of Pinerolo, where our province'’s Olympians have spun granite rocks into gold. The passion that lived there at the Torino Games was born and nurtured right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in that international arena, it burned with searing intensity in the gold medal performances of Brad Gushue, Mark Nichols, Russ Howard, Jamie Korab and Mike Adam. Newfoundland and Labrador salutes the first Newfoundland and Labrador based team to stand atop the Winter Olympics podium. These are the torchbearers of a new generation of heroes whose sights are now set on Vancouver and Beijing and a thousand other arenas of endeavour: athletic, academic, artistic, technological, commercial. Newfoundland and Labrador is not intimidated by any competition because we are confident in our capacity to shine like gold among the very best.
My Government entered office in 2003 facing challenges of Olympic proportions:...
...Newfoundland and Labrador is today celebrating the black-gold victory...(Translation: Celebrate Danny and last year's new federal cash transfer deal)
No Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were more enthused and inspired by our curling team'’s Olympic performance than the young people who cheered on their heroes from homes and arenas in communities throughout our province....
...The bold new attitude that is driving our citizens and My Government to take on Olympic-size challenges with confidence can also enable individuals to face personal challenges and achieve personal triumphs....
...Success may not come without an Olympic-size effort, but when we really understand what we are truly capable of achieving and helping others to achieve, we no longer see that effort as an exercise in futility. We see clearly the possibility of victory. We catch a vision of triumph. We glimpse the glitter of the gold, and we know the dream that drives us is worth the effort....
Murphy starts gas and oil blog
George Murphy, the local guy who has gained quite a reputation for tracking and predicting retail gasoline prices has stared his own blog.
You can find it at gasandoil.blogspot.com, or by clicking here.
Hopefully he'll start posting his price analyses there and a wider audience can benefit from his considerable analytical abilities.
You can find it at gasandoil.blogspot.com, or by clicking here.
Hopefully he'll start posting his price analyses there and a wider audience can benefit from his considerable analytical abilities.
21 March 2006
Was Rideout asleep in the wheelhouse?
Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries minister Tom Rideout told a crowd of Fishery Products International (FPI) workers protesting at the company's headquarters today that FPI will be charged with violations under the province's Fish Inspection Act.
Rideout said the company shipped fish out of the province for processing last year, in violation of the law. The province gave FPI permission in 2004 to ship small yellowtail flounder to China, but today he appeared to say that any shipments in 2005 were illegal.
Left: Provincial fisheries minister Tom Rideout addresses a crowd of FPI workers during a protest at the company's St. John's headquarters. Rideout proves some people shouldn't wear toques. [Photo: vocm.com]
Rideout started an audit of fish exports in February this year during discussions with FPI over the company's plans to get out of its current financial troubles. At the time, Rideout told CBC News that FPI did have permission to ship upwards of one million pounds.
At the very least Fish Inspection Act requires that processors submit annual reports to the provincial fisheries department, so Rideout's claim that FPI violated its license raises a number of questions:
1. Did FPI submit the annual reports as required by the Act?
2. Did the fisheries department conduct any inspections of FPI facilities or its records during the past two years to ensure the company was complying with provincial laws?
3. In lieu of or in addition to inspections, did the provincial government require FPI to submit reports on a more frequent basis than annually - for example, quarterly - on the amount of fish it was shipping outside Newfoundland and Labrador for processing?
As much as Rideout may claim that he is getting tough with FPI, there is a good possibility that Rideout's department missed something. The provincial fisheries department is responsible for overseeing the province's processing sector. It's hard to imagine how FPI could ship fish illegally in 2005, as Rideout now seems to be claiming, or that it exceeded its allowable exports by over four million pounds, as others are reporting today, unless the provincial fisheries officials - including Rideout and his predecessor Trevor Taylor - were asleep in the wheelhouse.
Rideout said the company shipped fish out of the province for processing last year, in violation of the law. The province gave FPI permission in 2004 to ship small yellowtail flounder to China, but today he appeared to say that any shipments in 2005 were illegal.
"Not only did they ship... but they shipped, and they shipped, and they broke the law," Rideout told the crowd.
"Today they're under investigation and they'll be charged. We're not going to put up with it...they'll be charged like anybody else who breaks the law and they will pay the price."
Left: Provincial fisheries minister Tom Rideout addresses a crowd of FPI workers during a protest at the company's St. John's headquarters. Rideout proves some people shouldn't wear toques. [Photo: vocm.com]Rideout started an audit of fish exports in February this year during discussions with FPI over the company's plans to get out of its current financial troubles. At the time, Rideout told CBC News that FPI did have permission to ship upwards of one million pounds.
At the very least Fish Inspection Act requires that processors submit annual reports to the provincial fisheries department, so Rideout's claim that FPI violated its license raises a number of questions:
1. Did FPI submit the annual reports as required by the Act?
2. Did the fisheries department conduct any inspections of FPI facilities or its records during the past two years to ensure the company was complying with provincial laws?
3. In lieu of or in addition to inspections, did the provincial government require FPI to submit reports on a more frequent basis than annually - for example, quarterly - on the amount of fish it was shipping outside Newfoundland and Labrador for processing?
As much as Rideout may claim that he is getting tough with FPI, there is a good possibility that Rideout's department missed something. The provincial fisheries department is responsible for overseeing the province's processing sector. It's hard to imagine how FPI could ship fish illegally in 2005, as Rideout now seems to be claiming, or that it exceeded its allowable exports by over four million pounds, as others are reporting today, unless the provincial fisheries officials - including Rideout and his predecessor Trevor Taylor - were asleep in the wheelhouse.
The other March madness, or, the Bow Wow Parliament returns
Today, marks the start of the other March Madness.
The House of Assembly re-opens today to allow the government to jam through an interim supply bill to hold them over until the main budget motion can pass next month. Tomorrow, the Lieutenant Governor will read the Throne Speech, presumably one as miserable as the last insult to our collective comprehension of the English language. Then next week there will be the budget speech, although pretty much the whole thing has already been announced in one news conference or another by the Premier.
In itself, that little piece of news - a planned, one day supply bill debate - is a sign of both the decline of the House of Assembly and the Premier's attitude to it. Danny Williams' contempt for the legislature is well known and displayed almost every day, particularly the last few weeks as he sets about announcing budget measures for the next fiscal year that normally would never be breathed in public before the finance minister reads his budget speech...in the legislature.
The silence of the Opposition on this interim supply process merely adds to the decline of the legislature as part of our democracy. Supply is the fundamental measure the legislature can grant a government. Without money the government cannot function. Since everything in government involves spending money, a supply bill allows for the full discussion of every action government is taking. It is the chance to hold the government accountable.
But it is hard to care about parliamentary democracy - about the proper examination by the voters' representatives of government measures - when the current administration goes about insulting the members almost daily and those members sit dumb.
Just cast back to last spring when fishermen, angry over a government measure, took control of the legislature day after day and not a single member of the House of Assembly from the incompetent Mr. Speaker to the most ordinary of ordinary members voiced a single word of objection. One could easily imagine a member of the legislature saying that the protests didn't matter since there was nothing much to do in the House anyway.
We are set for just the same tawdry display this year.
We have had a taste of it already in the actions of newbie Liberal leader Jim Bennett. So unconcerned is Bennett for the legislature that he feels he can seek election in a year and half's time without having once set foot on its floor while the Mace sat in its cradle. What difference is there between Bennett and the current Premier who joked to a national audience, shortly after taking election, that if he had his way the legislature would be abolished?1
Before now, none of his predecessors - not a single Prime Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador - back to Philip Francis Little would have dared make such a contemptuous remark. The only Opposition leaders to have sat outside the legislature were those who could not get a seat in it, either by losing elections or, as in the case of some, because the incumbent administration dared not call the necessary by-election.
The only significant difference in this year's March Madness is that it won't be crab fishermen taking the House on their backs. Instead, starting today, we may well see disgruntled Fishery Products International employees disrupting the House day after day after day. That is a purely cosmetic difference. Underneath it all will be a decline of our democracy and with it our province.
The loss here is not merely one of process or of symbols.
Rather the loss to be felt is one of genuine accountability.
It is a long-established democratic principle that the government cannot undertake any measure without the approval of the elected delegates of the people of our province.
Magna Carta.
Charles 1 and The Civil War.
The Boston Tea Party.
All are part of our democratic heritage and all had to do - on some level - with holding the government responsible to its citizens not only on voting day but each and every day. The premier and his cabinet must answer questions. They must explain themselves publicly and, for any measure, the government must have the approval of the elected representatives of the people they presume to govern.
When the House is not in session the government has a duty to present its program for review. We have seen the growth in sham announcements or the repeat announcements from government in the last 10 years. All the while, substantive issues such as our offshore oil and gas policy or, in the upcoming budget, our long range financial plans will slip by the wayside.
In their place, we will be consumed day-in and day-out with such pressing questions as whether or not the latest gaggle of the disgruntled will force the closure of the legislature or whether the Premier will tear down the flags over his latest irk.
How ironic that at a time when half a world away so many of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are risking their lives, working with local citizens to build a democracy, so many at home ignore the relentless slip of our own democracy into little more than a sham.
How ironic too that when this place was first granted self government - in 1832 - the very notion was ridiculed as the Bow Wow Parliament in the infamous cartoon, at left.
When others mock us, we grow angry.
Yet, when we mock ourselves - as surely we will beginning again today - we seem unable to see the insult, although the self-inflicted wound is more grievous.
As Mr. Speaker found in the cartoon, the Bows have it, indeed.
---------------------
1 Danny Williams,Macleans:
The House of Assembly re-opens today to allow the government to jam through an interim supply bill to hold them over until the main budget motion can pass next month. Tomorrow, the Lieutenant Governor will read the Throne Speech, presumably one as miserable as the last insult to our collective comprehension of the English language. Then next week there will be the budget speech, although pretty much the whole thing has already been announced in one news conference or another by the Premier.
In itself, that little piece of news - a planned, one day supply bill debate - is a sign of both the decline of the House of Assembly and the Premier's attitude to it. Danny Williams' contempt for the legislature is well known and displayed almost every day, particularly the last few weeks as he sets about announcing budget measures for the next fiscal year that normally would never be breathed in public before the finance minister reads his budget speech...in the legislature.
The silence of the Opposition on this interim supply process merely adds to the decline of the legislature as part of our democracy. Supply is the fundamental measure the legislature can grant a government. Without money the government cannot function. Since everything in government involves spending money, a supply bill allows for the full discussion of every action government is taking. It is the chance to hold the government accountable.
But it is hard to care about parliamentary democracy - about the proper examination by the voters' representatives of government measures - when the current administration goes about insulting the members almost daily and those members sit dumb.
Just cast back to last spring when fishermen, angry over a government measure, took control of the legislature day after day and not a single member of the House of Assembly from the incompetent Mr. Speaker to the most ordinary of ordinary members voiced a single word of objection. One could easily imagine a member of the legislature saying that the protests didn't matter since there was nothing much to do in the House anyway.
We are set for just the same tawdry display this year.
We have had a taste of it already in the actions of newbie Liberal leader Jim Bennett. So unconcerned is Bennett for the legislature that he feels he can seek election in a year and half's time without having once set foot on its floor while the Mace sat in its cradle. What difference is there between Bennett and the current Premier who joked to a national audience, shortly after taking election, that if he had his way the legislature would be abolished?1
Before now, none of his predecessors - not a single Prime Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador - back to Philip Francis Little would have dared make such a contemptuous remark. The only Opposition leaders to have sat outside the legislature were those who could not get a seat in it, either by losing elections or, as in the case of some, because the incumbent administration dared not call the necessary by-election.
The only significant difference in this year's March Madness is that it won't be crab fishermen taking the House on their backs. Instead, starting today, we may well see disgruntled Fishery Products International employees disrupting the House day after day after day. That is a purely cosmetic difference. Underneath it all will be a decline of our democracy and with it our province.
The loss here is not merely one of process or of symbols.
Rather the loss to be felt is one of genuine accountability.
It is a long-established democratic principle that the government cannot undertake any measure without the approval of the elected delegates of the people of our province.
Magna Carta.
Charles 1 and The Civil War.
The Boston Tea Party.
All are part of our democratic heritage and all had to do - on some level - with holding the government responsible to its citizens not only on voting day but each and every day. The premier and his cabinet must answer questions. They must explain themselves publicly and, for any measure, the government must have the approval of the elected representatives of the people they presume to govern.
When the House is not in session the government has a duty to present its program for review. We have seen the growth in sham announcements or the repeat announcements from government in the last 10 years. All the while, substantive issues such as our offshore oil and gas policy or, in the upcoming budget, our long range financial plans will slip by the wayside.
In their place, we will be consumed day-in and day-out with such pressing questions as whether or not the latest gaggle of the disgruntled will force the closure of the legislature or whether the Premier will tear down the flags over his latest irk.
How ironic that at a time when half a world away so many of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are risking their lives, working with local citizens to build a democracy, so many at home ignore the relentless slip of our own democracy into little more than a sham.
How ironic too that when this place was first granted self government - in 1832 - the very notion was ridiculed as the Bow Wow Parliament in the infamous cartoon, at left.When others mock us, we grow angry.
Yet, when we mock ourselves - as surely we will beginning again today - we seem unable to see the insult, although the self-inflicted wound is more grievous.
As Mr. Speaker found in the cartoon, the Bows have it, indeed.
---------------------
1 Danny Williams,Macleans:
Have you called your first session of the House of Assembly?
I'm not going to call. We're not going to bring the House back ever again! It's just a personal preference. [Laughs.] No, it's going to be probably the second week of March. I have to say, I found in opposition there were times I shook my head and said, "You know, this could be so much more productive." I find there's a lot of wasted time in the House where people get up to talk just for the sake of talking. I'd like to find ways to make it more efficient, more productive, so we can go ahead and get the work done.[Emphasis added]
20 March 2006
Incoming!
From strategypage.com, this amateur video of American soldiers in Afghanistan during a mortar attack by insurgents.
The rounds are relatively few in number and the first couple are well wide of the target which is the American compound. After a few incoming rounds, the Americans start shelling a nearby hillside.
Fair warning: There is some foul language in the video. Portions are out of focus.
But just listen for the whistling of the incoming rounds.
The rounds are relatively few in number and the first couple are well wide of the target which is the American compound. After a few incoming rounds, the Americans start shelling a nearby hillside.
Fair warning: There is some foul language in the video. Portions are out of focus.
But just listen for the whistling of the incoming rounds.
A bloody war or a sickly season
Traditionally, naval officers used to offer a toast for a bloody war or a sickly season, either of which would kill off their fellows and speed the chances for promotion.
Well, St. John's city council and the St. John's International Airport Authority aren't quite that blood-thirsty, but you have to wonder how they might possibly increase military aircraft traffic through St. John's by some 300 aircraft per year. They are considering adding more ramp and taxi-way space to the airport and, presumably some sort of promotional work.
They call this military tourism, a phrase they likely picked up from the Baghdad Visitor and Convention Bureau.
Allied military aircraft that can't refuel in the air use St. John's on their way to and from Europe. If they aren't heading back and forth, there's no reason to drop in here.
The single biggest reason for recent increases in traffic at the airport has been the war in central Asia and Iraq.
So...
The only way to increase military tourism - the phrase smacks of fundamental ignorance - would be to have the Americans become more deeply involved in military operations in the Middle East.
Now there's a good idea.
I can't wait to see the marketing plan for this latest bright idea from city council.
Left: United States Air Forces crew pose in front of their C-130 Hercules on the ramp at St. John's. [Photo: Paul Daly]
Well, St. John's city council and the St. John's International Airport Authority aren't quite that blood-thirsty, but you have to wonder how they might possibly increase military aircraft traffic through St. John's by some 300 aircraft per year. They are considering adding more ramp and taxi-way space to the airport and, presumably some sort of promotional work.
They call this military tourism, a phrase they likely picked up from the Baghdad Visitor and Convention Bureau.
Allied military aircraft that can't refuel in the air use St. John's on their way to and from Europe. If they aren't heading back and forth, there's no reason to drop in here.
The single biggest reason for recent increases in traffic at the airport has been the war in central Asia and Iraq.
So...
The only way to increase military tourism - the phrase smacks of fundamental ignorance - would be to have the Americans become more deeply involved in military operations in the Middle East.
Now there's a good idea.
I can't wait to see the marketing plan for this latest bright idea from city council.
Left: United States Air Forces crew pose in front of their C-130 Hercules on the ramp at St. John's. [Photo: Paul Daly]
19 March 2006
CBC shifts views on "embedding"
Stephen Puddicombe just got back from spending six weeks with the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as an embedded journalist.
As the BBC describes the practice embedding means that "reporters eat and sleep alongside soldiers and, thanks to recent advances in technology, bring live reports of firefights and artillery onslaughts into our living rooms."
Jeff Gilhooley from CBC radio St. John's Morning Show interviewed Stephen about his experiences last Friday. You can find the interview here.
[http://www.cbc.ca/thestjohnsmorningshow/
media/20060317puddicombe_embedded.ram]
The link requires RealPlayer.
Biggest news: Puddicombe's attitudes have changed to being embedded, just as the CBC's views on the subject seem to have changed.
One of the first things Stephen says is that he initially rejected the offer to go to Kandahar, based on the attitude toward embedding that CBC News displayed during the Iraq invasion three years ago.
At the time CBC refused any opportunity to embed with coalition forces claiming that they would lose their ability to report independently. There were plenty of suggestions that embedding was just a Pentagon tactic to control the media or influence coverage in a subversive fashion:
Workman described his approach versus embedding this way comparing embedding to a report he had filed on an Iraqi who was upset with the war:
It's interesting to see that in 2004, CBC's editor chief Tony Burman said the decision against embedding in Iraq was practical, not philosophical. Compare that to Paul Workman's report, linked above, in which Workman states that the decision against embedding with American or British troops was both practically and philosophically based.
There is some evidence that Workman's view was correct. CBC television had a number of incidents in which stories were deliberately skewed against Americans through dubious editing practices. One of the more egregious examples was using footage of a dramatic fire on an American M-109 howitzer - with soldiers running for cover - with a story on depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and their supposed horrific impacts on Iraqi civilians. M-109s don't fire depleted uranium and the soldiers. In that piece, CBC even contradicted its own detailed story on the same issue from only a couple of years earlier, lending weight to Iraqi claims that had previously been dispelled.
Puddicombe is now convinced of the value of embedding. As he told Gilhooley, "being there and getting to know the men and women that were serving and going out on patrols and what have you really changed your perspective on being embedded. It's a first hand access we otherwise wouldn't have had."
That's what embedding is supposed to do. There's nothing sinister about it. And, as Puddicombe and others have found, reporters get access to stories they otherwise would never have come across. In Iraq, CNN could reporter live from the field as an on-scene American army chemical weapons unit inspected a farm suspected of being a chemical weapons cache. The magic of the report came when the detachment commander provided his assessment live, before having submitted the formal report through his chain of command: this was a farm and the chemicals were typical agricultural fertilizers and pesticides.
In my own relatively limited experience with embedding, reporters got access to information and episodes simply by being there. The subsequent reports were thorough and accurate, even if some sensitive information was deleted for admittedly legitimate reasons.
Those reading, watching and listening to the reports also got more detailed reporting than they would have otherwise had.
Will they be fooled by it?
Likely not. News consumers are increasingly a sophisticated lot that can smell spin - bullshit - for what it is.
What they do have is more information on which to base their own judgments.
When it comes to the deployment of Canadian troops in any part of the world - including Kandahar - an informed public is a good thing.
As the BBC describes the practice embedding means that "reporters eat and sleep alongside soldiers and, thanks to recent advances in technology, bring live reports of firefights and artillery onslaughts into our living rooms."
Jeff Gilhooley from CBC radio St. John's Morning Show interviewed Stephen about his experiences last Friday. You can find the interview here.
[http://www.cbc.ca/thestjohnsmorningshow/
media/20060317puddicombe_embedded.ram]
The link requires RealPlayer.
Biggest news: Puddicombe's attitudes have changed to being embedded, just as the CBC's views on the subject seem to have changed.
One of the first things Stephen says is that he initially rejected the offer to go to Kandahar, based on the attitude toward embedding that CBC News displayed during the Iraq invasion three years ago.
At the time CBC refused any opportunity to embed with coalition forces claiming that they would lose their ability to report independently. There were plenty of suggestions that embedding was just a Pentagon tactic to control the media or influence coverage in a subversive fashion:
They call it embedding. It would be disingenuous to suggest this is all because the Pentagon has been struck with First-Amendment fever. Rather, it's a savvy PR campaign to win the hearts and minds of the nation with stories of fresh-faced troops in historic victories.Paul Workman, CBC television's workman international correspondent, spent a great deal of his time three years ago reporting as an "independent" journalist on his inability to gain access to areas of the battle zone. "We approached the Mutlaa Road check point for the third time in 24 hours...". Sadly, his comments on that incident are no longer linked from the cbc.ca site, although the link page is still active. His National story is available here.
Workman described his approach versus embedding this way comparing embedding to a report he had filed on an Iraqi who was upset with the war:
You're not getting interviews like that from embedded reporters. You're more likely to see a glorified view of American power and morality, in a war much of the world considers unnecessary, unjustified or plain wrong, and is being covered at every crossroads, at every captured bridge, by a press corps that's sleeping with the winner."Puddicombe's comments are startling in contrast, and sign of a change in CBC attitudes since deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Peter Mansbridge's first trip to Kabul prompted the National Post to cover the change in embedding policy.
It's interesting to see that in 2004, CBC's editor chief Tony Burman said the decision against embedding in Iraq was practical, not philosophical. Compare that to Paul Workman's report, linked above, in which Workman states that the decision against embedding with American or British troops was both practically and philosophically based.
There is some evidence that Workman's view was correct. CBC television had a number of incidents in which stories were deliberately skewed against Americans through dubious editing practices. One of the more egregious examples was using footage of a dramatic fire on an American M-109 howitzer - with soldiers running for cover - with a story on depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and their supposed horrific impacts on Iraqi civilians. M-109s don't fire depleted uranium and the soldiers. In that piece, CBC even contradicted its own detailed story on the same issue from only a couple of years earlier, lending weight to Iraqi claims that had previously been dispelled.
Puddicombe is now convinced of the value of embedding. As he told Gilhooley, "being there and getting to know the men and women that were serving and going out on patrols and what have you really changed your perspective on being embedded. It's a first hand access we otherwise wouldn't have had."
That's what embedding is supposed to do. There's nothing sinister about it. And, as Puddicombe and others have found, reporters get access to stories they otherwise would never have come across. In Iraq, CNN could reporter live from the field as an on-scene American army chemical weapons unit inspected a farm suspected of being a chemical weapons cache. The magic of the report came when the detachment commander provided his assessment live, before having submitted the formal report through his chain of command: this was a farm and the chemicals were typical agricultural fertilizers and pesticides.
In my own relatively limited experience with embedding, reporters got access to information and episodes simply by being there. The subsequent reports were thorough and accurate, even if some sensitive information was deleted for admittedly legitimate reasons.
Those reading, watching and listening to the reports also got more detailed reporting than they would have otherwise had.
Will they be fooled by it?
Likely not. News consumers are increasingly a sophisticated lot that can smell spin - bullshit - for what it is.
What they do have is more information on which to base their own judgments.
When it comes to the deployment of Canadian troops in any part of the world - including Kandahar - an informed public is a good thing.
18 March 2006
Emergency!
Premier Danny Williams announced on Friday that the province will be spending about $5.0 million next fiscal year to improve the province's ability to respond to emergencies.
Aside from the new bodies in health and wildlife, there will be three new people hired in the province's emergency measures organization, including a new fire protection officer, a new financial assistance co-ordinator and a new emergency management officer.
A new deputy minister position was also created some time ago specifically responsible for emergency response planning.
All this is very good news, especially in light of the Titan missile fiasco last year or the September 11 thing. The provincial government's inability to process intelligence and respond appropriately was painfully obvious in both incidents. The technical term for the situation on those occasions was TARFU.
Let's see how things improve.
Two things to note, however:
1. There is no sign the provincial government has created an ability to assess information coming to it and make appropriate decisions. Information co-ordination - i.e. intelligence gathering and analysis - is a key element of the emergency response puzzle.
Otherwise, as in the Titan fiasco, we wind up with GIGO: garbage in, garbage out, which inevitably leads back to TARFU.
Or, as in the 9/11 thing we wind up watching people pull things out of the nearest available bodily orifice.
The technical term for this is SNAFU, which is not what you want by any means, either.
2. There is no communications/public information/public relations position anywhere in the mix. If we have learned anything in emergency response in North America over the past decade, it would be that emergency communications is a crucial element in the overall success of the mission.
Unless this gets fixed sooner rather than later, the whole emergency response will be FUBAR no matter how many public health nurses there are, doses of bird flu vaccine sitting in storage or how many new financial assistance co-ordinators are busily co-ordinating financial assistance for the new emergency management officer and the new fire protection officer.
There needs to be a dedicated emergency communications co-ordinator, with staff and the appropriate resources to help get everyother jurisdiction in the province sorted out.
Psst. there's federal money available to help pay for this, by the way.
Aside from the new bodies in health and wildlife, there will be three new people hired in the province's emergency measures organization, including a new fire protection officer, a new financial assistance co-ordinator and a new emergency management officer.
A new deputy minister position was also created some time ago specifically responsible for emergency response planning.
All this is very good news, especially in light of the Titan missile fiasco last year or the September 11 thing. The provincial government's inability to process intelligence and respond appropriately was painfully obvious in both incidents. The technical term for the situation on those occasions was TARFU.
Let's see how things improve.
Two things to note, however:
1. There is no sign the provincial government has created an ability to assess information coming to it and make appropriate decisions. Information co-ordination - i.e. intelligence gathering and analysis - is a key element of the emergency response puzzle.
Otherwise, as in the Titan fiasco, we wind up with GIGO: garbage in, garbage out, which inevitably leads back to TARFU.
Or, as in the 9/11 thing we wind up watching people pull things out of the nearest available bodily orifice.
The technical term for this is SNAFU, which is not what you want by any means, either.
2. There is no communications/public information/public relations position anywhere in the mix. If we have learned anything in emergency response in North America over the past decade, it would be that emergency communications is a crucial element in the overall success of the mission.
Unless this gets fixed sooner rather than later, the whole emergency response will be FUBAR no matter how many public health nurses there are, doses of bird flu vaccine sitting in storage or how many new financial assistance co-ordinators are busily co-ordinating financial assistance for the new emergency management officer and the new fire protection officer.
There needs to be a dedicated emergency communications co-ordinator, with staff and the appropriate resources to help get everyother jurisdiction in the province sorted out.
Psst. there's federal money available to help pay for this, by the way.
If the gag fits
From the Saturday Telegram editorial on the Prime Minister's gag order:
Left: the latest Harper cabinet fashion accessory.
The Telly-torialist makes some solid observations, not the least of which is the bit that comes after the section just quoted above. The Telly points out that by gagging cabinet ministers now and cutting access to the media, the Harper Conservatives are running a strong risk of alienating a group of people they will need later to help spread their own messages.
True enough. But the Telly's advice may be a case of casting pearls.
The Conservatives dislike and distrust the media. Their efforts to control messaging reflect the sort of actions that go with their established attitude. Moreover, they also go with the anal-retentive attitude Stephen Harper displayed as Leader Opp and the one he has shown in spades since taking office: he will not speak to media at all unless the encounter is highly controlled and the interview is a softball affair.
More importantly though, the sort of centralized control the prime minister's office is imposing is doomed to failure. The federal government is simply too big to have every communication vetted by Harper's staff. Having seen gag orders in action, like the one imposed in National Defence in the mid-1990s, I can tell you they simply don't work.
As the Globe notes in its Saturday edition, public relations experts and those with experience of political comms know that gag orders like this simply can't work in the real world.
In the short term, though, the gag order also sends a powerfully negative message about the Harper government. Gagging your own team tells the world that you are not in control, that you are afraid. If Stephen Harper and his ministers can't deal with a few scraggly reporters, how in the name of heavens will they cope with the real challenges every prime minister will face?
There aren't enough carefully stage-managed photo-ops in Afghanistan to undo the image of a shit-baked1 government.
--------------------------
1 shit-baked: adj. scared shitless
Conspicuously missing in that list of five issues [being emphasized by the Harper administration] are pretty much any local issue that might have influenced votes for Conservative candidates in this province.
To those who trumpeted Loyola Hearn as a fresh approach - and some in the media went so far as to claim Hearn was the only approach - during the last federal election, this news must come as something of a surprise and perhaps a disappointment, as well.
The idea was that, with a new minister and a new government, concerns affecting this province, like custodial management, would take the fore. That hope seems sadly misguided now - but not unexpectedly so.
Reporters dealing with the new fisheries minister - when they can get him to do an interview - say he's different now. Cautious isn't strong enough to describe his approach.
Hearn has already come under fire from those who note that his pre-election belief in the necessity of custodial management - and the uselessness of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) - has tempered to the point that he now seems to be echoing past ministers of fisheries about reforming NAFO, not scrapping it. It's a disappointing turn of events, to say the least. [Emphasis added]
There are legitimate reasons for a new prime minister to lower the cone of silence over his minister: rookie ministers make rookie mistakes, and you need look no further than last weekend'’s crossed wires over the Conservatives' plan for the Atlantic Accord money and equalization to realize that.
Left: the latest Harper cabinet fashion accessory.
The Telly-torialist makes some solid observations, not the least of which is the bit that comes after the section just quoted above. The Telly points out that by gagging cabinet ministers now and cutting access to the media, the Harper Conservatives are running a strong risk of alienating a group of people they will need later to help spread their own messages.
True enough. But the Telly's advice may be a case of casting pearls.
The Conservatives dislike and distrust the media. Their efforts to control messaging reflect the sort of actions that go with their established attitude. Moreover, they also go with the anal-retentive attitude Stephen Harper displayed as Leader Opp and the one he has shown in spades since taking office: he will not speak to media at all unless the encounter is highly controlled and the interview is a softball affair.
More importantly though, the sort of centralized control the prime minister's office is imposing is doomed to failure. The federal government is simply too big to have every communication vetted by Harper's staff. Having seen gag orders in action, like the one imposed in National Defence in the mid-1990s, I can tell you they simply don't work.
As the Globe notes in its Saturday edition, public relations experts and those with experience of political comms know that gag orders like this simply can't work in the real world.
Patrick Gossage, a former press secretary to prime minister Pierre Trudeau who coaches politicians on media relations, said the new government's strategy is simply unworkable.Delays - politically deadly delays - will occur in a business that is time sensitive. In the end, the Harper government will experience more political problems as a direct consequence of the gag order than the order could ever hope to solve.
"Every PMO in the history of PMOs since Trudeau's PMO at least have made attempts to control the message centrally, usually without success," he said. "We tried to do it for a little while. It didn't work.... They're in a way, dysfunctional, because it makes the team look like it's not a team."
In the short term, though, the gag order also sends a powerfully negative message about the Harper government. Gagging your own team tells the world that you are not in control, that you are afraid. If Stephen Harper and his ministers can't deal with a few scraggly reporters, how in the name of heavens will they cope with the real challenges every prime minister will face?
There aren't enough carefully stage-managed photo-ops in Afghanistan to undo the image of a shit-baked1 government.
--------------------------
1 shit-baked: adj. scared shitless
17 March 2006
Honouring things Irish
On this St. Patrick's day, take some time to visit pauldaly.net.Admire the work of an expatriate Irishmen who had the good sense and good taste to marry a gorgeous woman from Newfoundland and settle his arse in St. John's.
Paul Daly is a photographer of exceptional ability.
He has an eye, as they say, as can be seen from these samples of his work.
Paddy-whacking
It's St. Patrick's Day.
Again.
The day when the popular image of a proud, noble and ancient culture is reduced to the drunken ramblings of Irish-wannabe wankers (including the legions of ex-pats) who take a break from the green pilsner only long enough to torture everyone within earshot with another round of Danny Boy that sounds more like someone beating a cat in a bag with a shillelagh.
It's the day when everyone thinks it's fine to be a paddy.
To put this into terms the locals might appreciate, consider having a day in which every knob on the planet feels obliged to adopt an appalling accent, trace their dubious ancestry to the same couple of first cousins who once settled in Hibb's Hole, and who slobber over all who will listen about the joys of being...a newfie.
Now I am neither Irish nor a wannabe, but it always struck me that, if I were Irish, I would fervently hope that St. Patrick's Day might be something that eventually people might grow tired of.
But they don't.
And perhaps the Irish still in Ireland are smart enough to use St. Patrick's Day as a clever way to lure the rest of the world into the orbit of the Great Celtic Global Conspiracy.
And so to that extent, good on 'em.
For those who want to experience Ireland - the real one - here's a link to the Irish tourism outfit (tourismireland.com), along with samples of their awesome television spots aimed at North Americans.
Forget the green pilsner or lager; try the elixir of life, Guinness.
Tackle a little James Joyce.
Heck, find out about the edgy comedy of the late Dermot Morgan and wonder why Newfoundland and Labrador never produced that kind of in-your-face political satire Dermot cranked out on Scrap Saturday. It's not like we don't have enough fodder right in front of our faces to replicate the CJ/PJ thing.
In other words, celebrate everything genuinely Irish on this, St. Patrick's Day.
Again.
The day when the popular image of a proud, noble and ancient culture is reduced to the drunken ramblings of Irish-wannabe wankers (including the legions of ex-pats) who take a break from the green pilsner only long enough to torture everyone within earshot with another round of Danny Boy that sounds more like someone beating a cat in a bag with a shillelagh.
It's the day when everyone thinks it's fine to be a paddy.
To put this into terms the locals might appreciate, consider having a day in which every knob on the planet feels obliged to adopt an appalling accent, trace their dubious ancestry to the same couple of first cousins who once settled in Hibb's Hole, and who slobber over all who will listen about the joys of being...a newfie.
Now I am neither Irish nor a wannabe, but it always struck me that, if I were Irish, I would fervently hope that St. Patrick's Day might be something that eventually people might grow tired of.
But they don't.
And perhaps the Irish still in Ireland are smart enough to use St. Patrick's Day as a clever way to lure the rest of the world into the orbit of the Great Celtic Global Conspiracy.
And so to that extent, good on 'em.
For those who want to experience Ireland - the real one - here's a link to the Irish tourism outfit (tourismireland.com), along with samples of their awesome television spots aimed at North Americans.
Forget the green pilsner or lager; try the elixir of life, Guinness.
Tackle a little James Joyce.
Heck, find out about the edgy comedy of the late Dermot Morgan and wonder why Newfoundland and Labrador never produced that kind of in-your-face political satire Dermot cranked out on Scrap Saturday. It's not like we don't have enough fodder right in front of our faces to replicate the CJ/PJ thing.
In other words, celebrate everything genuinely Irish on this, St. Patrick's Day.
16 March 2006
Rumpole and the Old Boy Net, Newfoundland and Labrador version
What would Horace think?
No point in being Premier if you can't put your brother and former law partners in silk.
The Queen's Counsel (Q.C.) list was announced today.
Among the lawyers now entitled to wear silk:
* Tommy Williams, the Premier's brother and a partner at O'Dea Earle, proud sponsors of the Rogers Cable program Out of the Fog, which has another strong connection to the Premier;
* Steve Marshall, the Premier's former law partner and the guy who navigated the assault case involving Danny's son through the court of public opinion;
* Glenda Best, another partner at Danny's old chambers;
* Stephanie Newell, a partner at Danny's brother's chambers;
* Tom Fraize, a long-time Conservative operative;
* Brian Murphy, a former law partner of the current Minister of Justice, Tom Marshall; and,
* Valerie Marshall, whose father is Bill Marshall, former Tory cabinet minister under Frank Moores and Brian Peckford, retired justice of the Supreme Court Trials Division and the guy who served on Danny's transition team. He's also the fellow who gave us the term "rack of Confederation".
The other Q.C. is Edward Cardwell, a Crown prosecutor, who has no apparent political connections despite being the namesake of the British secretary of war who abolished the practice of purchasing commissions in the British army (1870).
Under the Queen's Counsel Act, the appointments are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council - that is, the cabinet - on recommendation of the Minister of Justice. The Minister is required to consult with the Legal Appointments Board, a body appointed by cabinet.
The Q.C. Act does not contain any basis for making the appointments, such as merit or exceptional contribution to the practice of law, noting only that someone is "right" to be appointed as being "learned in the law".
In other jurisdictions, the appellation Queen's Counsel recognizes exceptional merit and contribution to the legal profession. Unfortunately, no one can make a clear determination of the merit of any of the local Q.C. appointments since the news release announcing them contained only the sketchiest of biographies.
In jurisdictions still making Q.C. appointments, the practice has come under review from time to time. Quebec stopped the practice of making such appointments in 1976 and Ontario did likewise in 1985. In Manitoba, Queen's Counsel have been replaced by Senior Counsel, an appointment made entirely by the Law Society of Manitoba. This is similar to the practice now followed in Australia, where in at least one jurisdiction there are clear definitions of the criteria for designation as Senior Counsel.
Now while there should be no doubt that all the new silks in today's announcement
are fine individuals and lawyers, this list draws to attention the extent to which a title which should be an honour may at the very least appear to be tainted by personal and/or political connections to the people making the appointments. It is astonishing that fully seven of the eight appointments have obvious connections to the Premier, the Minister of Justice or the political party to which they belong.
To put this in perspective, the 2004 list contained some individuals like Glen Roebothan, who is the Premier's former law partner. However, out of the 10 lawyers who took silk, there is a much greater diversity in the appointments both in terms of the type of practice represented or even the firms involved.
Similarly, in 2005, while another of the Premier's former law partners took silk, the list is diverse in the firms involved and in the areas of the province from which the Q.C.s come.
Two of the appointments, namely Jerome Kennedy and Randy Piercy are eminent barristers with impressive records in the criminal courts. Few could question the appropriateness of those two appointments, in particular.
It's time to change the practice of appointing Queen's Counsel in Newfoundland and Labrador. Take it out of the hands of the Premier and cabinet and give the responsibility to lawyers themselves and judges, as done in Australia and Manitoba. Then the honour can be the deserved recognition of one's peers.
Publicly recognizing exceptional performance is one mark of a society that encourages the pursuit of excellence.
Sadly, it appears the Q.C. list, like the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador may be headed back to the days when what you got depended on who you knew.
15 March 2006
Loyola Regan strikes again
Federal fish minister Loyola Hearn announced today that the total allowable catch for harp seals this year will be the same as it has been for most of the past 13 years.
So far, Mr. Hearn hasn't made a decision that his predecessor Geoff Regan didn't make already for him.
But Hearn is still a newbie and there's time for him to change some federal policies.
Like say the one on NAFO, the international organization that sets fisheries quotas in the northwest Atlantic.
Here's what Loyola had to say a couple of weeks ago when he announced Canada would be developing an new international fisheries management approach. Work on the approach began in 1999.
Lampoon Post in mid February, shortly after the noob minister was sworn in:
Maybe that's like custodial management, Hearn's pre-election hobby horse. Hearn has gone from wanting to take control unilaterally of waters outside Canada's 200 mile economic zone to supporting the same policy his predecessor was following.
[h/t to an e-mail correspondent for Hearn's new name. Blarney the Green Dinosaur was getting shopworn.]
So far, Mr. Hearn hasn't made a decision that his predecessor Geoff Regan didn't make already for him.
But Hearn is still a newbie and there's time for him to change some federal policies.
Like say the one on NAFO, the international organization that sets fisheries quotas in the northwest Atlantic.
Here's what Loyola had to say a couple of weeks ago when he announced Canada would be developing an new international fisheries management approach. Work on the approach began in 1999.
"Arriving at this model with a member state of the European Union provides the opportunity for the international community to show its commitment to results;" stated Minister Hearn. "I hope it will lead to an acceleration of the NAFO reforms we're already seeking."[Emphasis added]Now the really freaky thing about that last line on reforming NAFO is not what Minister Hearn told John Ivison of the National
Numerous parliamentary committees have complained over the years that the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, which is meant to enforce fishing quotas, is toothless and in urgent need of reform. However, Mr. Hearn said it is too late to reform NAFO, and Canada has to take on its responsibilities with the backing of other nations that oppose overfishing. [Emphasis added]What happened in the matter of a couple of weeks for Hearn to go from claiming NAFO was beyond reform to wanting to reform NAFO?
Maybe that's like custodial management, Hearn's pre-election hobby horse. Hearn has gone from wanting to take control unilaterally of waters outside Canada's 200 mile economic zone to supporting the same policy his predecessor was following.
[h/t to an e-mail correspondent for Hearn's new name. Blarney the Green Dinosaur was getting shopworn.]
Ed Byrne on PetroNewf and the equity position
Atlantic Business Magazine has a great oil and gas supplement in the current issue, including an interview with provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne.
Check out the Byrne interview at atlanticbusinessmagazine.com, but here are a couple of excerpts.
On PetroNewf, that is having Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro get into oil and gas:
On the equity position in Hebron Premier Danny Williams is apparently making a condition of any development agreement for the last offshore oil field:
Check out the Byrne interview at atlanticbusinessmagazine.com, but here are a couple of excerpts.
On PetroNewf, that is having Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro get into oil and gas:
Over the last year and a half we have moved Nnewfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Department of Natural Resources, particularly the Energy Division, to more of an integrated approach with each other, particularly on the bigger files and the big public policy issues. We'’ve moved Hydro towards an energy corporation that could potentially participate in the oil and gas play, both offshore and onshore.
...
ABM: Are you turning Hydro into an oil company?
MINISTER BYRNE: No, we'’ve talked about Hydro becoming more of an energy corporation that moves beyond what it has traditionally done in building dams and burning oil.
ABM: Like doing seismic work and drilling in the offshore?
MINISTER BYRNE: I'’m not sure that'’s where it'’s going. But certainly if there'’s a legitimate business opportunity that will provide a benefit to the province and revenues to Hydro, and thus to the province, we won'’t turn anything down. But all that is being assessed and we are at the ground floor of that right now.
On the equity position in Hebron Premier Danny Williams is apparently making a condition of any development agreement for the last offshore oil field:
ABM: Do you see Hydro taking an equity stake in Hebron?
MINISTER BYRNE: That'’s a public policy position we'’ve laid down that as a province we'’d like to have some equity stake in the emerging oil and gas industry, not unlike what'’s happened in Norway, not unlike what'’s happened in other jurisdictions in the world. Those are some of the things up for discussion right now.
...
From our point of view, equity is important from this perspective: it puts us at the table and helps us develop an intellectual capacity that doesn't necessarily exist within the provincial structure right now. It puts us in the seat as a legitimate bona fide partner in developments. It helps us gain further insight, expertise and knowledge into the oil and gas industry. It has worked successfully as a model in other jurisdictions and there'’s no reason to think it wouldn't here. Other jurisdictions are both equity partners and royalty partners. So while there is some legitimacy in saying that equity is represented by royalty, there are other benefits associated with being an equity partner.
14 March 2006
Stephen Harper au Quebec: The heart and cradle of Canada
Policy Options also has the full text of Stephen Harper's December 19 speech in Quebec.
Some excerpts:
Some excerpts:
Nous ne devons jamais oublier que le Canada a ete fonde a Quebec, par des francophones. Voila pourquoi je dis que le Quebec est le coeur du Canada, et que la langue francaise est un element indeniable de l'’identite de tous les Canadiens, meme si certains d'’entre nous ne le parlons pas aussi bien que nous le devrions.
...
Nous reconnaitrons l'’autonomie des provinces et les responsabilites culturelles et institutionnelles speciales du gouvernement du Quebec. Nous respecterons les competences federales et provinciales telles que definies dans la Constitution canadienne. Et nous elaborerons des mecanismes qui donneront aux provinces un plus grand role dans leurs propres champs de competence sur des questions internationales. Je sais, par exemple, que le gouvernement Charest aimerait un plus grand role pour le Quebec en ce qui concerne ces competences a l'’UNESCO. Selon le modele du Sommet de la francophonie, un nouveau gouvernement conservateur va inviter le Quebec a participer a l'’UNESCO!
Inside the mind of Stephen Harper
Check out the latest issue of Policy Options for a raft of good articles on the last election and other public policy stuff.
Then read the short interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On federal-provincial relations: The New Incrementalism
Then read the short interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On federal-provincial relations: The New Incrementalism
It's probably not useful for me to go back and revisit the discussions of 10 or 15 years ago and where we would be vis-a-vis that. I think the most important thing, and something I came to see clearly about three or four years ago after I became leader of the opposition, was that what the country really needed in dealing with federal-provincial matters, the federation in Quebec in particular, was to look forward rather than backward, stop worrying about who was right and wrong in Meech Lake and concern ourselves more with contemporary issues.On the fiscal imbalance: Let's talk
...
We'’re trying to make significant changes, but in a way that is step-by-step and achievable, and will actually happen.
I doubt I would go the full-fledged route of a Royal Commission. The first thing, hopefully in the very near future I'’m going to be sitting down with the provinces informally, to talk a little bit about their thoughts. We'’ve got a couple of reports pending, we'’ve got an equalization review that was set out by the previous government, and the provinces have their own report on the fiscal imbalance. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of a joint body go off and do some thinking on this before we go out into tough negotiations, but frankly, I'’d probably stop short of a full-fledged Royal Commission unless everyone thought that was a good idea.On Quebec: A New Option
Je dis depuis longtemps que les Quebecois veulent une option qui n'est pas la separation, qui n'est pas la corruption ou qui n'est pas un parti impuissant ou un parti du status quo et du centrisme. Et je dis aussi depuis longtemps que, - un moment donne, les Quebecois vont se decider a essayer quelque chose de different. Je ne savais pas exactement quand ils allaient se decider, mais evidement je suis tres heureux qu'’ils aient commence pendant la campagne electorale (RIRE). Je crois que notre resultat aurait meme ete meilleur si la campagne avait compte une semaine de plus.On Canada-United States relations:
My difficulty with the previous government was not simply that they had fights with the United States, but their fights with the United States did nothing to advance Canadian interests.On the Afghan commitment:
It is a very dangerous mission. But it is a commitment that Canada has made, a commitment to play a significant role for some time in Afghanistan. I think quite frankly, my sense is that the allied participation in Afghanistan is paying dividends, that we are making progress.
More seal crap
This article from the Toronto Star is by Rebecca Aldworth, who lived in Newfoundland and now works for the HSUS.
Her piece is appropriately titled "A betrayal of the facts".
For example, she subscribes to a goofball theory that by not killing seals, we can promote cod recovery. It's an interesting concept given that seals are a high level predator in the ocean food chain and prey, among other things on the cod and the stuff that cod would prey on...if there were lots of cod. In the article linked here, Aldworth refers to seals preying on creatures that prey on cod. Sadly, the link doesn't actually say anything about that.
What it does do is discuss the merits and demerits of the argument for a seal cull and its impact on cod populations.
Too bad no one is talking about culling seals to save cod anymore. The reason? The ocean ecosystem is to complex to make such a facile claim that culling cod will allow seals to recover. At the same time, there isn't much reason to believe Aldworth's claim that not killing seals would let cod recover. Cod, it would seem, are actually red herring in this whole fish and cod mess.
In The Star, Aldworth makes a big deal about the fact that 99% of seals killed offshore eastern Canada each year are:
But here's some relevant information, Bec didn't see fit to tell the readers of her article:
You read that correctly. Pups are weaned after a mere 12 days and then left by their mothers to fend for themselves. When the sealers reach the ice floes, the seals are in a transitional phase maturing into independent adult seals - they definitely aren't pups anymore, and that's what made Aldworth's little stunt with the McCartney's fundamentally misleading.
But forgetting all that, my favourite part of Becky's article was the bit where she mentioned Sir Paulie McCartney's license buy-back scheme.
An interesting concept.
Except that the buy-back would have to be federally funded.
Apparently Sir Paul must have been a little short on cash the week he was in Prince Edward island - thinking he was in Newfoundland.
Otherwise, wouldn't Sir Paulie's great big idea have more credibility if Paul took some of his spare change and endowed a fund, managed by a reputable Canadian agency to support just such a buy-back concept?
The problem with that idea?
Putting in place a workable, fully-funded scheme and ending the seal hunt isn't really what the annual March Madness is about for groups like HSUS.
Nope.
It's about raising cash for their own coffers.
It's actually more lucrative for Aldworth and HSUS to orchestrate a boycott they claim is taking hundreds of millions from the fishermen they want to quit sealing, and run expensive radio spots on local radio pressuring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rather than create a fund that would give fishermen a credible financial alternative to the activity HSUS opposes.
Aside from a few facts Aldworth neglected to include, the real betrayal in her article is not about facts.
It's a betrayal of integrity.
h/t to Mike and Dean's Cross border rant
Her piece is appropriately titled "A betrayal of the facts".
For example, she subscribes to a goofball theory that by not killing seals, we can promote cod recovery. It's an interesting concept given that seals are a high level predator in the ocean food chain and prey, among other things on the cod and the stuff that cod would prey on...if there were lots of cod. In the article linked here, Aldworth refers to seals preying on creatures that prey on cod. Sadly, the link doesn't actually say anything about that.
What it does do is discuss the merits and demerits of the argument for a seal cull and its impact on cod populations.
Too bad no one is talking about culling seals to save cod anymore. The reason? The ocean ecosystem is to complex to make such a facile claim that culling cod will allow seals to recover. At the same time, there isn't much reason to believe Aldworth's claim that not killing seals would let cod recover. Cod, it would seem, are actually red herring in this whole fish and cod mess.
In The Star, Aldworth makes a big deal about the fact that 99% of seals killed offshore eastern Canada each year are:
"just two months of age or less. Over the past five years, the majority of the seals killed have been younger than 1 month old. At the time of slaughter, many of these pups had yet to eat their first solid meal or take their first swim - hardly "adult" seals by anyone's standards."Ok.
But here's some relevant information, Bec didn't see fit to tell the readers of her article:
Newborn pups are about 85 cm long, weigh about 11 kg and are yellowish in colour. In about 3 days, the fur turns to a fluffy white from which the pups derive the name "whitecoats". Young harp seals rank among the fastest growing and most precocious of young mammals. They are nursed for about 12 days and then abandoned by their mothers. During this period they more than triple their weight on milk which contains up to 45% fat (compared to 4% for cow's milk). When weaned, pups weigh an average of 35 kg. More than half of this weight is fat in the form of blubber.Yep.
You read that correctly. Pups are weaned after a mere 12 days and then left by their mothers to fend for themselves. When the sealers reach the ice floes, the seals are in a transitional phase maturing into independent adult seals - they definitely aren't pups anymore, and that's what made Aldworth's little stunt with the McCartney's fundamentally misleading.
But forgetting all that, my favourite part of Becky's article was the bit where she mentioned Sir Paulie McCartney's license buy-back scheme.
An interesting concept.
Except that the buy-back would have to be federally funded.
Apparently Sir Paul must have been a little short on cash the week he was in Prince Edward island - thinking he was in Newfoundland.
Otherwise, wouldn't Sir Paulie's great big idea have more credibility if Paul took some of his spare change and endowed a fund, managed by a reputable Canadian agency to support just such a buy-back concept?
The problem with that idea?
Putting in place a workable, fully-funded scheme and ending the seal hunt isn't really what the annual March Madness is about for groups like HSUS.
Nope.
It's about raising cash for their own coffers.
It's actually more lucrative for Aldworth and HSUS to orchestrate a boycott they claim is taking hundreds of millions from the fishermen they want to quit sealing, and run expensive radio spots on local radio pressuring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rather than create a fund that would give fishermen a credible financial alternative to the activity HSUS opposes.
Aside from a few facts Aldworth neglected to include, the real betrayal in her article is not about facts.
It's a betrayal of integrity.
h/t to Mike and Dean's Cross border rant
13 March 2006
Bennett off base on Fishery Products International
Provincial Liberal leader Jim Bennett today called on the government to investigate Fishery Products International Limited (FPI) because:
Bennett alleges that a group of shareholders may have colluded to weaken FPI. "I want an independent investigation to determine if the new board is trying to dismantle the company so that their interests will be served by eliminating a competitor, while picking up the pieces of a valuable company at a fraction of their value."
There are a couple of problems with Bennett's claims.
First, while it is politically popular to allege that FPI is in financial trouble because of under-handed dealings, there simply is no evidence to support the claim. Problems with the income trust proposal have as much to do with the inordinate delay the provincial government took in approving the proposal than anything else. The other financial difficulties have to do with the state of the international fish business and some admittedly questionable decisions made by FPI management. However, there is no evidence of a plot to destroy the company and sell off its assets as Bennett alleges.
Second, there is nothing in the Fishery Products International Act that links the 15% ownership restriction with control of the company remaining within Newfoundland and Labrador. It is highly doubtful that any stock exchange would accept trade in FPI shares if ownership of those shares was restricted such such that shareholders had to reside within Newfoundland and Labrador.
Look at it this way: if there were only 100 shares, the FPI Act allows that no person can own more than 15 of the shares. It says nothing about the person owning those shares being resident in the province. For Bennett to have his way, there would have to be a further restriction in the FPI Act stating that shareholders not resident in Newfoundland and Labrador constitute less than 49% of the total number of shareholders. Good luck trying to find that provision in the FPI Act.
So with this second foray into the FPI business, Bennett is batting zero for two. His first call for the nationalization of FPI was a nonsense. His second call seems to be based on public rumour and misperception as well as a complete misreading of a simple statute.
But hey, if Bennett has any evidence to back up his outlandish claims, let him put it in public. Otherwise his interpretation about this law is likely to get the same simple dismissal his recent constitutional arguments got.
"One of the provisions of the FPI Act -– the 15 per cent rule -– was that control shouldn't leave this province," said Bennett.In a news release, Bennett claimed that restriction that no single shareholder could own more than 15% of the company's publicly traded shares "was supposed to ensure that interests of the company remained in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the best interests of our people."
"Clearly control has left this province because certain shareholders have gotten together and ousted the board and replaced the former president."
Bennett alleges that a group of shareholders may have colluded to weaken FPI. "I want an independent investigation to determine if the new board is trying to dismantle the company so that their interests will be served by eliminating a competitor, while picking up the pieces of a valuable company at a fraction of their value."
There are a couple of problems with Bennett's claims.
First, while it is politically popular to allege that FPI is in financial trouble because of under-handed dealings, there simply is no evidence to support the claim. Problems with the income trust proposal have as much to do with the inordinate delay the provincial government took in approving the proposal than anything else. The other financial difficulties have to do with the state of the international fish business and some admittedly questionable decisions made by FPI management. However, there is no evidence of a plot to destroy the company and sell off its assets as Bennett alleges.
Second, there is nothing in the Fishery Products International Act that links the 15% ownership restriction with control of the company remaining within Newfoundland and Labrador. It is highly doubtful that any stock exchange would accept trade in FPI shares if ownership of those shares was restricted such such that shareholders had to reside within Newfoundland and Labrador.
Look at it this way: if there were only 100 shares, the FPI Act allows that no person can own more than 15 of the shares. It says nothing about the person owning those shares being resident in the province. For Bennett to have his way, there would have to be a further restriction in the FPI Act stating that shareholders not resident in Newfoundland and Labrador constitute less than 49% of the total number of shareholders. Good luck trying to find that provision in the FPI Act.
So with this second foray into the FPI business, Bennett is batting zero for two. His first call for the nationalization of FPI was a nonsense. His second call seems to be based on public rumour and misperception as well as a complete misreading of a simple statute.
But hey, if Bennett has any evidence to back up his outlandish claims, let him put it in public. Otherwise his interpretation about this law is likely to get the same simple dismissal his recent constitutional arguments got.
Equalization cold war heats up
The coming battle between the federal government and the provinces over federal transfers and the battle among the provinces over federal-provincial finances started to heat up over the past couple of weeks.
The heat came from comments by federal intergovernmental affairs minister Michael Chong and federal finance minister Jim Flaherty that the offshore deals since in 2005 have wrecked Equalization, the major federal transfer to provincial governments.
Such is the sensitivity of the issue that last Friday, Flaherty issued a statement, reported in Saturday's Telegram, that
Equalization is a pretty simple concept: in order to make sure that provincial governments have similar levels of revenue with which to provide key services, the federal government transfers some of its revenues to each qualifying provincial government based on a formula.
As the Bond Papers put it in January 2005:
The offshore deals signed by the Mulroney administration with both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador contained sections that allowed both provinces to collect a special federal transfer based on growth in provincial government revenue from offshore oil and gas development. For a period of 12 years, both provinces could collect a declining payment called an Equalization offset that was designed to protect the provinces from dramatic declines in Equalization as offshore revenues grew.
Several administrations Newfoundland and Labrador sought to amend the offset provisions of the 1985 Atlantic Accord to extend the offset benefits over a greater period of time or, as in the case of the original Williams proposal in January 2004 to effectively hide all oil and gas revenue from Equalization in perpetuity.
Both in the original Accord discussions and for each subsequent federal administration, one of the major concerns was addressing demands from the two Atlantic provinces without undermining the basic principles on which Equalization operated. The solution in 1985 was the declining offsets, which were temporary.
In January 2005, the solution was to link the added offsets to Equalization entitlement: if a province no longer qualified for Equalization, then it also no longer qualified for the added offset. While Equalization can be spent by a provincial government on any public purpose, the Martin-Williams deal indirectly linked continued offsets to improve long-term economic benefits for the province, particularly to debt reduction.
At the root of the Chong and Flaherty comments are fundamental misunderstandings about the January 2005 offshore deals that have been prevalent since at least February 2005. In a perverse way, both supporters of the Williams-Martin deal and its detractors have the same fundamental misunderstanding of the deals.
But more importantly, both Chong and Flaherty reflect the sensitivity in Ottawa these days to Ontario's concerns about federal transfer payments to the provinces. Ontario has been campaigning for some time about the unfairness of the current system and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's comments last winter were just part of that.
Flaherty's speech last Thursday was in Whitby, just east of Toronto and he made it a point to remind people that he used to be the Ontario treasurer:
After all, both talk about hiding certain types of income from Equalization and serve, after a fashion, as a distortion of how provincial government income is calculated. The Harper proposals - which would remove all non-renewable resource revenues from the Equalization formula -
would see some provinces lose Equalization entitlements while others would benefit greatly.
But fundamentally, the Ontario concern would remain. Simply put, Ontario is concerned that the overall impact of federal transfer programs has created a situation where Ontario is being shortchanged. That's the point that, fundamentally, Flaherty was agreeing with when he sympathized with Ontario's supposed plight.
The Harper proposals adversely affect more provinces than Ontario, however. Any province which does not derive a significant chunk of its revenue from non-renewables would be at a disadvantage under the Harper changes. While some, like Saskatchewan, would benefit greatly, others, including Quebec would see a decline in their transfers.
In the end, it may well be the political costs of introducing the Harper changes that may scuttle them or at least delay their implementation. After all, changes to Equalization require unanimous consent of all provinces. With the Conservative guarantee that no province will be adversely affected by the changes, in order to move forward, Stephen Harper and his finance minister Jim Flaherty might have to put in place offset arrangements for almost half the provinces in the country.
Ultimately, that would make a mockery of the idea of keeping the fundamental Equalization program intact and treating all provinces equitably, while recognizing special circumstances. Those special circumstances were recognized in the offshore deals in 1985 and 2005 but they were limited to two provinces.
For Newfoundland and Labrador, there is little chance the offshore Equalization deals will be scuttled. No federal administration would repudiate a legitimate agreement between Ottawa and one or more of the provinces. However, all other things considered, no additional offsets will probably flow this year and for the next four or five years under the 2005 agreement since Newfoundland and Labrador will likely no longer qualify for Equalization.
That said, the looming federal-provincial fracas over Equalization could lead to some tense moments and an uncertain future for the province's share of federal transfers, in general.
Missing from the local discussion has been an understanding of what the provincial government is actually seeking. As noted at the Bond Papers a month ago, Danny Williams' proposal for Equalization reform fits with the way Equalization has operated for most of the past 40 years. It would also give full effect to the Atlantic Accord 1985 and its 2005 supplement. That is fundamentally at odds with the position supported by Loyola Sullivan - the Harper plan - which will take some time to negotiate and may never be put in place as currently proposed.
Add those considerations to the statements coming from federal minister Chong and Flaherty and one cannot say for certain how Ottawa proposes to address concerns from all provincial governments about federal transfers to the provinces.
Given Flaherty and Chong's evident distaste for the local offshore deals and their sympathy for Ontario's arguments, it also isn't clear how the new Harper administration will account for deals that have been blamed for destroying the Equalization program.
Danny Williams may well have to fight to keep the deals from being factored in to discussions on the so-called fiscal imbalance that will consider more than just Equalization.
The looming Equalization War, that has been in a sitzkreig stage since the election, is heating up.
The heat came from comments by federal intergovernmental affairs minister Michael Chong and federal finance minister Jim Flaherty that the offshore deals since in 2005 have wrecked Equalization, the major federal transfer to provincial governments.
Such is the sensitivity of the issue that last Friday, Flaherty issued a statement, reported in Saturday's Telegram, that
“"[m]edia reports suggest that the government is considering scrapping the offshore agreements reached last year with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador....
"“This is both factually incorrect and misleading. During a brief media availability today in Toronto, I made no mention of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador by name nor did I use the words oil and gas."”
The Equalization Top-Up
Equalization is a pretty simple concept: in order to make sure that provincial governments have similar levels of revenue with which to provide key services, the federal government transfers some of its revenues to each qualifying provincial government based on a formula.
As the Bond Papers put it in January 2005:
Basically, Equalization is like a wage top-up scheme for provinces. The federal government figures out a national average amount of revenue each province should get per person. Fall below the average and the province gets a cheque from Ottawa. Meet or exceed the average and you get nothing. No province pays into the program; the money comes from federal government revenues. As it stands right now, Alberta and Ontario make more than the national average and get no Equalization. Saskatchewan will join them in the "have" category, as some call it, within the next year. All the other provinces get some amount of Equalization. Quebec gets as much as all the others combined because the money is paid out based on population.
In 1957, when the program started provinces were topped-up to the average of the top three provinces. Alberta received Equalization until 1964, but once its income went above the average it didn't get a penny in Equalization. In 1967, the average was based on all 10 provinces and since 1982 it has been based on five selected.
The January 2005 Deals
The offshore deals signed by the Mulroney administration with both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador contained sections that allowed both provinces to collect a special federal transfer based on growth in provincial government revenue from offshore oil and gas development. For a period of 12 years, both provinces could collect a declining payment called an Equalization offset that was designed to protect the provinces from dramatic declines in Equalization as offshore revenues grew.
Several administrations Newfoundland and Labrador sought to amend the offset provisions of the 1985 Atlantic Accord to extend the offset benefits over a greater period of time or, as in the case of the original Williams proposal in January 2004 to effectively hide all oil and gas revenue from Equalization in perpetuity.
Both in the original Accord discussions and for each subsequent federal administration, one of the major concerns was addressing demands from the two Atlantic provinces without undermining the basic principles on which Equalization operated. The solution in 1985 was the declining offsets, which were temporary.
In January 2005, the solution was to link the added offsets to Equalization entitlement: if a province no longer qualified for Equalization, then it also no longer qualified for the added offset. While Equalization can be spent by a provincial government on any public purpose, the Martin-Williams deal indirectly linked continued offsets to improve long-term economic benefits for the province, particularly to debt reduction.
It's about Ontario
At the root of the Chong and Flaherty comments are fundamental misunderstandings about the January 2005 offshore deals that have been prevalent since at least February 2005. In a perverse way, both supporters of the Williams-Martin deal and its detractors have the same fundamental misunderstanding of the deals.
But more importantly, both Chong and Flaherty reflect the sensitivity in Ottawa these days to Ontario's concerns about federal transfer payments to the provinces. Ontario has been campaigning for some time about the unfairness of the current system and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's comments last winter were just part of that.
Flaherty's speech last Thursday was in Whitby, just east of Toronto and he made it a point to remind people that he used to be the Ontario treasurer:
"I acknowledge the spending pressures on the provinces. I was here," said Flaherty, who was Ontario's finance minister under former premier Mike Harris from 2001 to 2002. [Emphasis added]
Ontario concerns still there; plus Quebec and more
In that context, Ontario is no more inclined to accept the Stephen Harper proposal for Equalization changes than there were to accept the January 2005 offshore deals.After all, both talk about hiding certain types of income from Equalization and serve, after a fashion, as a distortion of how provincial government income is calculated. The Harper proposals - which would remove all non-renewable resource revenues from the Equalization formula -
would see some provinces lose Equalization entitlements while others would benefit greatly.
But fundamentally, the Ontario concern would remain. Simply put, Ontario is concerned that the overall impact of federal transfer programs has created a situation where Ontario is being shortchanged. That's the point that, fundamentally, Flaherty was agreeing with when he sympathized with Ontario's supposed plight.
The Harper proposals adversely affect more provinces than Ontario, however. Any province which does not derive a significant chunk of its revenue from non-renewables would be at a disadvantage under the Harper changes. While some, like Saskatchewan, would benefit greatly, others, including Quebec would see a decline in their transfers.
In the end, it may well be the political costs of introducing the Harper changes that may scuttle them or at least delay their implementation. After all, changes to Equalization require unanimous consent of all provinces. With the Conservative guarantee that no province will be adversely affected by the changes, in order to move forward, Stephen Harper and his finance minister Jim Flaherty might have to put in place offset arrangements for almost half the provinces in the country.
Ultimately, that would make a mockery of the idea of keeping the fundamental Equalization program intact and treating all provinces equitably, while recognizing special circumstances. Those special circumstances were recognized in the offshore deals in 1985 and 2005 but they were limited to two provinces.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Impact
For Newfoundland and Labrador, there is little chance the offshore Equalization deals will be scuttled. No federal administration would repudiate a legitimate agreement between Ottawa and one or more of the provinces. However, all other things considered, no additional offsets will probably flow this year and for the next four or five years under the 2005 agreement since Newfoundland and Labrador will likely no longer qualify for Equalization.
That said, the looming federal-provincial fracas over Equalization could lead to some tense moments and an uncertain future for the province's share of federal transfers, in general.
Missing from the local discussion has been an understanding of what the provincial government is actually seeking. As noted at the Bond Papers a month ago, Danny Williams' proposal for Equalization reform fits with the way Equalization has operated for most of the past 40 years. It would also give full effect to the Atlantic Accord 1985 and its 2005 supplement. That is fundamentally at odds with the position supported by Loyola Sullivan - the Harper plan - which will take some time to negotiate and may never be put in place as currently proposed.
Add those considerations to the statements coming from federal minister Chong and Flaherty and one cannot say for certain how Ottawa proposes to address concerns from all provincial governments about federal transfers to the provinces.
Given Flaherty and Chong's evident distaste for the local offshore deals and their sympathy for Ontario's arguments, it also isn't clear how the new Harper administration will account for deals that have been blamed for destroying the Equalization program.
Danny Williams may well have to fight to keep the deals from being factored in to discussions on the so-called fiscal imbalance that will consider more than just Equalization.
The looming Equalization War, that has been in a sitzkreig stage since the election, is heating up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)