Radio call-in shows are popular in Newfoundland and Labrador in a way that eclipses experience elsewhere in North America and, to a certain extent, defies understanding.
Unlike the conventional talk show format in Canada which they followed more than a decade ago, the three major shows in Newfoundland and Labrador do not feature guests anymore. Instead, callers discuss topics of their own choosing or pick up on topics suggested at the start of the program by the host.
Not so long ago, local talk radio on the commercial network featured everything from psychics to popular Irish music groups to people flogging their books. The whole thing was pure entertainment.
All that changed in 1996 with Brian Tobin. The new Premier started to call in to comment on major issues or to challenge his political opponents. Pretty soon he pushed his cabinet ministers onto the airwaves, followed by his backbenchers.
By the time Roger Grimes replaced Tobin, the government's focus on talk radio as its major communications effort was cemented. Cabinet ministers didn't just call to discuss major government announcements. Political staff were tasked to monitor the shows, organize political supporters to call and prepare talking points - prepared scripts with key messages that had to be used. Sometimes the results were unintentionally funny. On one day a group of planted callers all mentioned their support for Roger Grimes' vision for the province. After a few of these plants sprouted, one of the hosts asked a simple and obvious question: "What is Roger's vision?" They didn't have a reply; it wasn't in the script.
Today Open Line on the commercial network is a major part of provincial government communications. The Grimes approach with dedicated political staff has been expanded to include the government communications staff - the public servants. Equipped with cell phones and ready access to e-mails, government officials will now organize a response to critical callers almost immediately.
Not so very long ago, the sort of organized talk show effort mounted at public expense would only be used during political campaigns and then solely by the political parties. Today, carrying on the trend started with Brian Tobin, the Williams administration applies campaign communications techniques day in and day out.
The commercial talk shows have changed in response to the audience. Gone are the planned guests, the last gizmo pitchman and the Australian hypnotist. Where once there was one and then two programs there are three, occupying among them about eight hours of any day, everyday except Saturday.
The whole approach - government ministers calling talk shows - is so commonplace that while once a cabinet minister or the premier could call and get on the air right away, these days they are put on hold just like everyone else. And just like everyone else, they can wait there for three quarters of an hour or more for their turn to chat with the host.
Riffing on the call letters of the main commercial radio station - VOCM - one wag christened the whole thing voice of the cabinet minister where 20 years earlier the Open Line show host boasted it stood for voice of the common man.
On the surface, the situation looks egalitarian. Callers decide what gets talked about. The Premier of the province takes the time to call in and respond to this or that ordinary citizen or to explain the government's position on a major event without going through the filter of a reporter.
On the face of it, it looks like ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not just on the same level as their elected leaders, they appear to be able to drive government action. A complaint about a dangerous intersection on a highway in eastern Newfoundland can get an intergovernmental affairs minister away from his other work to express his concern about the situation and assure everyone that something is being done.
Look a little deeper and the perspective changes a bit.
Government political communications of this type are aimed at influencing the opinion environment. Callers are organized to say the same or very similar things to give the appearance that the government enjoys widespread support. It's a psychological thing; people tend to conform to what they perceive as the majority view. Just think about it this way: how many people could you find on October 23rd - one day after the last provincial general election - who would admit they voted for Roger Grimes?
Repetition isn't enough. What gets repeated is important as well. That's the message - the main idea, expressed in simple language, that you want people to remember. The most common message of the Williams administration - whether it is Abitibi, Exxon or Paul Martin is that mainlanders are trying to rip us off and Danny Williams is putting a stop to it. There are all sorts of variations on the theme, but it all boils down to the same point.
That isn't a very complex idea, so it is easy to grasp. Talk to someone about the inner workings of federal-provincial fiscal relations and the distribution of offshore oil and gas revenues and you'll watch people fall asleep. Tell them Ottawa is shagging us - yet again - and that Danny is defending us and you will see their eyes come to life.
There's another part of the core message: it fits not only with the instinctive pride of Newfoundlanders in their identity, the whole victim interpretation has been pounded so relentlessly by some politicians for so long that it has become part of the local popular culture. Just mention "Upper Churchill" and instinctively people know the code word for "give-away".
Anyone who has listened to Open Line shows over the long haul will recognize that philosophy - call it the "pimple on the arse" school of Newfoundland history. Think about it for a second and you'll see that some of the most persistent callers reinforce the same core message, time after time.
This is not to say there are not other messages on other issues, but even those are complimentary. The province was in a financial mess. Danny Williams fixed it. The province was lost and without pride. Now we have it back, thanks to Danny Williams.
That message of pride is not the sort of thing that springs fullformed from the lips of people most of us run into on a daily basis at the local grocery store, Wal-Mart or over a cup of Tim's; but it's the main part of this year's throne speech and, curiously enough, the observation of a caller on Easter Monday who backed the Premier on the Hebron issue solely because it is a matter of pride. Hebron hasn't been a big topic on any of the call-in shows but that caller claimed the issue just wouldn't go away.
One can get into a chicken and egg relationship here. But if one understands the extent to which government political communications since 1996 has been driven by public opinion polling and it becomes clear that the whole package is designed to align government with familiar - primarily emotional - responses and to reinforce those responses.
That isn't to say that other ideas don't come up with Randy, Bill or Linda. Of course, they do. But when it comes to issues in which government is very concerned, they are organized to use radio call-in shows as a major way of getting their point across.
Sometimes it seems like the only way. Telegram managing editor Russell Wangersky related a story to CBC television recently about trying to get a telephone interview with the Premier. According to the Premier's staff, The Boss wasn't available. Yet he managed to call every single radio talk show that same day.
There are advantages for government to this approach as well. In being interviewed by a reporter, there is the chance the reporter can come prepared with questions - sometimes hard questions - that expose subtle nuances or major aspects of an issue that doesn't fit the government agenda. on a radio call-in show the politicians get to say what they want. The host is unprepared and even a newsroom veteran like Randy Simms often has a limited background knowledge of a subject to be able to penetrate beyond the prepared talking points the Premier or any other politician wants to deliver.
With CBC radio or television, the Telegram or NTV, the politician's interview becomes just part of an overall story in which the reporter's perspective on the whole story doesn't follow the government point of view. VOCM's emphasis on spot news, as legitimate an approach as that is, makes it all the more open to manipulation. If a minister makes an announcement on the air with Bill Rowe and it is guaranteed to be repeated throughout the day and maybe into the next, virtually unedited.
It's true that other media can be managed in a similar way. In the 1999 general election, Brian Tobin set the time to announce the election to coincide with both supper hour news casts. He got more than 13 minutes of uninterrupted time to send his election messages to as wide an audience he could on as influential a medium as he could get.
But that was an election. Talk radio is six days a week.
Aside from the 2004 offshore revenue fight with Ottawa, one of the best recent examples of the power of talk radio and message management is the coincidental timing of the Costco seal capsules story and the collapse of the Hebron talks. The Telegram carried a story on Friday March 31 claiming that Costco has pulled seal oil capsules from its shelves in response to pressure from anti-sealing activists. Oddly enough, that story turned out to be wrong. Dead wrong and for the Telegram, it was strange for a story to appear without having been subjected to simple fact checking.
The story developed legs when Randy Simms introduced it as a topic for his program at 9:00 AM. So intense was the popular reaction that before close of business, the Premier's Office issued a news release expressing the provincial government's disappointment with the supposed Costco decision and committing to gain a meeting for the deputy premier with Costco management.
As we learned subsequently, the Premier knew at that point that the Hebron talks were in jeopardy if not dead altogether.
On Monday morning, the Hebron partners announced that they were shelving the project. The Premier and his energy minister scrummed with local media. There was no written statement. Nor did the Premier make a ministerial statement in the legislature that afternoon even though such a public comment would be considered almost mandatory considering the collapse of talks about a deal worth about $15 billion to the local treasury and economy.
Curiously enough, though, there were virtually no callers to local radio shows that afternoon or evening. Bill Rowe, host of the afternoon show Back Talk, didn't mention the Hebron story as a possible topic. In fact, and astonishingly, there was no mention of Hebron at all until 45 minutes into the show. Even then a lone caller mentioned his support for the Premier in passing before going on to talk about another topic.
Had the provincial government wanted to deploy its message troops to reinforce the Premier's blaming ExxonMobil for the fiasco, it would have done so as easily as it has on previous occasions. Instead, there was an almost deafening silence. Except for the handful of callers who criticized the odd caller raising questions about the deal's collapse, Hebron was almost invisible on the radio talk shows.
Costco's decision to remove seal oil capsules, on the other hand, was everywhere. No accident that the core messages on seals were about pride, tradition and fighting the anti-seal hunt protesters and their lies, as Danny Williams has done consistently since early March. Hebron, which raised potential questions about the Premier's approach and might stir widespread political opposition from the government's business supporters, was tamped down.
A great deal has changed in Newfoundland and Labrador talk radio over the past 10 years. It isn't simple entertainment. It isn't the electronic version of Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.
It also isn't a sinister plot aimed at mind control.
Rather it is perceived by some people responsible for government communications as being an effective vehicle for managing information flows, dominating the opinion environment and keeping public support for government as high as possible.
It is the epitome of what one wit referred to as Tobin's political philosophy: an announcement a week and a good poll.
But as Tobin himself set the trend, the package now includes regular calls to Bill, randy and Linda.
18 April 2006
Goin' off road
Clark: Despite all the little problems it's fun isn't it?Take a look at the Tuesday editorial in The Telegram - "Danny vs. Goliath" - and you'll see the province's major daily newspaper decide to take a trip off the information highway and head straight into the boonies on the Hebron fiasco.
Ellen Griswold: No. But with every new day there's fresh hope.
It's a bit like a scene from National Lampoon's Vacation, the first and funniest of the big studio movies written by the people who put together the popular counter-culture humour magazine of the 1970s and 1980s. Taking the family to Walley World in their brand new Family Truckster, patriarch Clark Griswold gets distracted and sends the car careening off the highway and into the Arizona desert.The target of the editorial is ExxonMobil, the largest company in the world, which the Telly-torialist notes is in disputes with countries around the world over oil resources. The countries? Venezuela, Indonesia and Russia. They add a little tidbit of information that Exxon's retiring chief executive officer will get a retirement package valued at US$398 million. The Telly tells us that in Canadian dollars that amount is half the cost of supplying medical service to the province. Then they segue to an article from yesterday's Globe and Mail which the Telly dismisses as being "laudatory" of the oil giant, Exxon.
As with the Telegram's weekend editorial, it's worth going back and taking a look at what the Globe actually printed on its pages. What's there is the corporate strategy that has made Exxon the biggest of big companies. What's there is a pretty good insight into how one of the players in the failed Hebron project looks at the world and it's from that insight that we can get a wholely different picture than the one the Telegram puts across the windscreen of our local Family Truckster."The disciplined approach to pursuing and selecting the most attractive investment opportunities continues to distinguish ExxonMobil," [outgoing Exxon CEO Rex] Tillerson told analysts in New York last month. "We are long-term driven, and we're patient. And we're not opportunity constrained."The focus is clearly on the most attractive investment opportunities - that means in simplest terms that Exxon is in business to make money and the current company leadership will look at global opportunities for the right place to invest its cash.
As much a penetrating insight into the flippin' obvious (PIFO) as those comments are, it's worth bearing in mind that Exxon is in business to deliver the maximum profit to its shareholders. Expect a hard bargain to be driven. Expect the company to want to make every project profitable in order to attract their capital. Expect them to at least ask for tax concessions - no one said Danny had to agree to them.
For another PIFO, take the reminder that capital is highly mobile these days. It isn't that companies write their own rules in the facile conclusion of the Telegram's editorialist. Rather, companies are doing what they do - make money - by putting their cash into the place where it gets the best return. And, as the Globe notes, there are more oil and gas development projects out there than ExxonMobil and the other oil companies can develop at one time. Competition is fierce.
And if there wasn't enough useful but obvious information in that small quote, remember that oil is a capital intense business. It takes deep pockets to find and develop oil, deep pockets the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador just doesn't have. They want our oil and we need their capital to develop our oil. Somewhere in there is a balance that works to the advantage of all. The same situation exists in places like Venezuela and while there is a hot dispute right now between its president and international oil companies, at some point that situation will change.
Flip down a bit further and one can see another relevant part of Exxon's strategy. Oil prices may be high now, but as in the 1980s that can change quickly.
"There is really no explanation for why oil trades where it does today at these prices," Mr. Tillerson said in a recent speech. "If you look to the long term, our view is that supply and demand fundamentals are going to return to levels that are reflective of prices that are more in line with historic prices than today."Oil prices are high today. But they are likely to be lower tomorrow. The provincial government would do well to bear that in mind both on the Hebron file and on its own financial planning. It's not like we haven't been laid low in the past as our grandiose dreams of perpetual high oil prices met the harsh reality of the marketplace.
As a result, Exxon is not opening the spigots to throw money at resource development.
Take all of the Globe's piece and one finds some food for serious thought, not the sort of apology for Big Oil the Telegram editorialist seems to think.
What's most interesting about the Telly editorial, though is not its sarcasm about Big Oil and the Big Money that goes with it.
Rather, it's curious that the Telegram's editorial matches perfectly with Danny Williams' talking points on the Hebron file, right down to the "Danny vs. Goliath" headline.
This issue is supposedly about the Premier taking on an external demon, full of cash, that is bent on milking poor victim Newfoundland and Labrador. "Who will fight for you?" as his old law firm slogan used to ask. Danny will.
The Telegram also picks up the Premier's line on Exxon's giant profits and the richness of its executive pay schemes, as if that really had anything to do with the Hebron deal. Sure it's something the Premier and his supporters have tossed out but that really isn't the point: even if Exxon had bent on equity - as the premier originally contended they had done - or dropped their request for a tax concession that is small against the size of the Hebron project, the company would still be able to fork over hundreds of millions in executive pay to the people who helped make the company as successful as it is.
What the Premier has been doing since the Hebron deal collapsed is spread a mixture of miniscule nuggets of information and much in the way of distraction. The goal is to avoid having to answer publicly the sorts of questions people like Telegram reporters might normally put to him - if he returned their calls. The goal is to dominate the domestic information landscape such that no one can or will question what happened on the Hebron file. The strategy works: The Telegram has even admonished us to support the Premier unquestioningly, to "dance with the one what brung us".
Why the Telegram editorialist decided to back the Premier early on - long before details of the failed deal became public - and continues to do so without question will have to remain a mystery.
All that can be said with some certainty is that on our collective trip to Walley World, the Telegram is happy as we leave the information highway and go off road.
At least Ellen was skeptical of Clark's driving skills once in a while.
17 April 2006
Harold Horwood, 1923-2006
Newfoundland and Labrador author Harold Horwood passed away today at his home in Nova Scotia.
Horwood was born in St. John's, November 2, 1923. A former union organizer, Horwood became involved in the Confederate movement in Newfoundland during the National Convention (1946-1948). He was elected to the House of Assembly in 1949 but left politics in 1952 to take up writing full time. He penned a column, "Political Notebook" in The Evening Telegram and later served as the paper's editor.
Horwood's first published novel, Tomorrow will be Sunday, is widely regarded as one of the best works of fiction by a local author. He was the author of at least 25 works of fiction and non-fiction. In 1989, Horwood wrote a biography former premier Joe Smallwood and later published a collection of poetry by Gregory Power, another former colleague of Horwood's in both the Confederate movement and the House of Assembly. A walk in the dream time: growing up in old St. John's (1997) was Horwood's memoir of his life growing up in Newfoundland's capitol during the 1930s and 1940s.
One of his last interviews was with Stephanie Porter. As always, Porter's article is fine writing in its own right, capturing the career and character of Horwood in old age.
Horwood was one of the founders of the Writers' Alliance of Canada and served as writer-in-residence at the universities of Western Ontario and Waterloo.
Horwood was born in St. John's, November 2, 1923. A former union organizer, Horwood became involved in the Confederate movement in Newfoundland during the National Convention (1946-1948). He was elected to the House of Assembly in 1949 but left politics in 1952 to take up writing full time. He penned a column, "Political Notebook" in The Evening Telegram and later served as the paper's editor.
Horwood's first published novel, Tomorrow will be Sunday, is widely regarded as one of the best works of fiction by a local author. He was the author of at least 25 works of fiction and non-fiction. In 1989, Horwood wrote a biography former premier Joe Smallwood and later published a collection of poetry by Gregory Power, another former colleague of Horwood's in both the Confederate movement and the House of Assembly. A walk in the dream time: growing up in old St. John's (1997) was Horwood's memoir of his life growing up in Newfoundland's capitol during the 1930s and 1940s.
One of his last interviews was with Stephanie Porter. As always, Porter's article is fine writing in its own right, capturing the career and character of Horwood in old age.
Horwood was one of the founders of the Writers' Alliance of Canada and served as writer-in-residence at the universities of Western Ontario and Waterloo.
Would harassment weigh against Wells' appointment to offshore board?
Despite a decision by the Steele panel and the subsequent agreement with it by the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to push St. John's mayor Andy Wells as the best candidate to take on the job of chairman of the board that regulates the offshore oil and gas industry in the province.
Consider too that Wells is known to resort to a variety of abusive behaviours, as detailed in a recent story in The Telegram. Wells is quoted as referring to councillor and former mayor Shannie Duff as an arrogant snob and "a stupid old woman." The latter comment was made in front of councillors, staff and a consultant hired by city council.
According to the Telegram story:
Under federal policy, harassment is defined as any
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador policy is similar. The 2001 Personal Harassment policy states, in part,:
Were Wells to have altered his behaviour in the past, this issue might not be so important a consideration. However, Wells' most recent outbursts are part of a pattern which has shown no signs of abating over a number of years.
The issue of Andy Wells' behaviour toward people he comes into contact with in the workplace is likely to have an adverse impact on whatever potential is left in his being appointed to the offshore regulatory board. Don't count on the federal government giving in to pressure from the provincial government on Andy Wells if they can reasonably expect administrative headaches to follow. The headlines in the Globe, the Citizen and the Post would not be pretty for a minority government.
If nothing else, were Wells to be appointed, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if there were a series of harassment complaints filed shortly afterward, that is if a host of offshore board staff didn't just hand in their resignations and take more lucrative jobs in the private sector.
Wells might be able to get away with abusive behaviour at City Hall.
In the rest of the world, his actions just wouldn't be tolerated.
Consider too that Wells is known to resort to a variety of abusive behaviours, as detailed in a recent story in The Telegram. Wells is quoted as referring to councillor and former mayor Shannie Duff as an arrogant snob and "a stupid old woman." The latter comment was made in front of councillors, staff and a consultant hired by city council.
According to the Telegram story:
Just in recent months, Wells has used words such as scoundrels, crooks, shameless, despicable, dumb, clowns, cowards and hypocrites to describe other members of council.The offshore board is a joint federal-provincial agency. Just for curiosity sake, take a trip over to the federal treasury board site dealing with harassment in the federal public service.
During a recent debate with Ward 4 Coun[cillor] Ron Ellsworth over city spending, Wells said the rookie councillor was "cracked."
Columnists and commentators have described Wells as abrasive, arrogant, bull-headed and overbearing, and his style of passionate debate often involves shouts and insults.
Under federal policy, harassment is defined as any
"conduct by an individual, that is directed at and offensive to another person or persons in the workplace, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprises any objectionable act, comment or display that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat. It includes harassment within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act."That pretty much covers Wells' behaviour noted above. As the federal policy states: "Harassment affects workplace and individual well-being and will not be tolerated."
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador policy is similar. The 2001 Personal Harassment policy states, in part,:
All employees of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are entitled to pursue their duties in a respectful workplace. It is crucial that everyone, regardless of role or position in the organization conduct themselves in a respectful manner in the workplace.Under those circumstances, it is difficult to understand why the Williams administration continues to promote Wells as the ideal candidate to take responsibility for a major federal-provincial organization when his established pattern of behaviour so clearly violates both federal and provincial policies to combat harassment in the workplace.
The Employer will strive to create and maintain a work environment free from harassment and discrimination by the Employer, an agent of the employer, or by other employees. No form of harassment will be tolerated by the Employer. Where harassment has been determined to have occurred, disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal will be taken.
The Employer will also encourage and provide a means through which employees can seek resolution to harassing and/or discriminatory behaviour.
Were Wells to have altered his behaviour in the past, this issue might not be so important a consideration. However, Wells' most recent outbursts are part of a pattern which has shown no signs of abating over a number of years.
The issue of Andy Wells' behaviour toward people he comes into contact with in the workplace is likely to have an adverse impact on whatever potential is left in his being appointed to the offshore regulatory board. Don't count on the federal government giving in to pressure from the provincial government on Andy Wells if they can reasonably expect administrative headaches to follow. The headlines in the Globe, the Citizen and the Post would not be pretty for a minority government.
If nothing else, were Wells to be appointed, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if there were a series of harassment complaints filed shortly afterward, that is if a host of offshore board staff didn't just hand in their resignations and take more lucrative jobs in the private sector.
Wells might be able to get away with abusive behaviour at City Hall.
In the rest of the world, his actions just wouldn't be tolerated.
She deserved it?
Buried in the Telegram story about Shannie Duff finally speaking out against the personal abuse she has suffered at the hands of Mayor Andy Wells are these comments from unidentified councillors:
But here's the thing: we now understand why Wells has been able to bully just about everyone in sight and get away with it time and time again for his entire time on council.
There are at least two councillors who either lack a functioning moral compass or lack the coglioni to be able to stand up to the reprehensible behaviour of our not-so-beloved mayor and help put a stop to it.
In what bizarre universe is "abuse" - either linguistic or physical - not considered harassment and something that should be stopped immediately, without further debate?
As for the other comment quoted above, one can only wonder in what dark place of the soul that councillor has been lurking for the past 30 years to say that, in effect, whatever abuse Shannie Duff has been suffering she somehow deserved it.
Wow.
That's like the cops a half century ago who would respond to a domestic dispute and likely then tell the battered woman that if she hadn't pissed her husband off he wouldn't have had to give her a black eye and throw her down the stairs.
"Honey, ya brought it on yourself. Now be a good girl and don't give him an excuse to slap you around."
If there is any right left in the world, we will see the start of a public outcry against Andy Wells and his Neanderthal behaviour toward others. Maybe, just maybe, we can put a stop to his appalling behaviour. While we are at, let's also sort out the two councillors quoted above.
The best solution in this instance would be for Wells and his two supporters quoted above to hand in their resignations.
At the very least, the pair should put their names behind their comments so voters can know who they are.
That's a naive wish, of course.
If either had a cojone between them - let alone an ounce of common sense - Wells would have been out of business a long while ago.
One councillor suggested Duff "sometimes brings it on herself," but added that Wells often crosses the line in his treatment of councillors.We have to take it that these two comments come from different councillors.
One councillor wouldn'’t go so far as to characterize Wells' behaviour as harassment, but said he is "abusive."
But here's the thing: we now understand why Wells has been able to bully just about everyone in sight and get away with it time and time again for his entire time on council.
There are at least two councillors who either lack a functioning moral compass or lack the coglioni to be able to stand up to the reprehensible behaviour of our not-so-beloved mayor and help put a stop to it.
In what bizarre universe is "abuse" - either linguistic or physical - not considered harassment and something that should be stopped immediately, without further debate?
As for the other comment quoted above, one can only wonder in what dark place of the soul that councillor has been lurking for the past 30 years to say that, in effect, whatever abuse Shannie Duff has been suffering she somehow deserved it.
Wow.
That's like the cops a half century ago who would respond to a domestic dispute and likely then tell the battered woman that if she hadn't pissed her husband off he wouldn't have had to give her a black eye and throw her down the stairs.
"Honey, ya brought it on yourself. Now be a good girl and don't give him an excuse to slap you around."
If there is any right left in the world, we will see the start of a public outcry against Andy Wells and his Neanderthal behaviour toward others. Maybe, just maybe, we can put a stop to his appalling behaviour. While we are at, let's also sort out the two councillors quoted above.
The best solution in this instance would be for Wells and his two supporters quoted above to hand in their resignations.
At the very least, the pair should put their names behind their comments so voters can know who they are.
That's a naive wish, of course.
If either had a cojone between them - let alone an ounce of common sense - Wells would have been out of business a long while ago.
Former cabinet minister dies tragically
vocm.com is reporting that former cabinet minister Rick Warford died over the weekend, apparently in a canoeing accident.
The bodies of Woodford and an unidentified woman companion were recovered from Birchy Lake yesterday. Autopsies are being performed to determine cause of death. The couple were reported overdue on Sunday afternoon and police began a search.
Woodford was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1985 as a Progressive Conservative. A former dairy farmer and sawmill operator in Cormack, Woodford was appointed minister of rural, agricultural and northern development in the short-lived administration of Tom Rideout.
Re-elected in 1989, 1993, 1996 and 1999, Woodford crossed the floor in 1996 to join Brian Tobin's Liberal administration. Woodford served as minister of works, services and transportation and later minister of forest resources and agriculture until 2003. He did not seek re-election in 2003.
The bodies of Woodford and an unidentified woman companion were recovered from Birchy Lake yesterday. Autopsies are being performed to determine cause of death. The couple were reported overdue on Sunday afternoon and police began a search.
Woodford was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1985 as a Progressive Conservative. A former dairy farmer and sawmill operator in Cormack, Woodford was appointed minister of rural, agricultural and northern development in the short-lived administration of Tom Rideout.
Re-elected in 1989, 1993, 1996 and 1999, Woodford crossed the floor in 1996 to join Brian Tobin's Liberal administration. Woodford served as minister of works, services and transportation and later minister of forest resources and agriculture until 2003. He did not seek re-election in 2003.
Avoiding ruts on the information highway
On April 8, Telegram managing editor Russell Wangersky warned that the Internet is a valuable tool but one for which we collectively need to develop a way of separating valuable information from the mounds of inaccurate or wrong information contained on its electronic pages.
This is not a new issue and to those who use the Internet regularly, the warning contained in Wangersky's column rears its head daily.
Of course, the Internet was originally called the information superhighway reflecting the speed with which information - good and bad - can be spread. Humans have always had an information pathway of some kind and in the last century the arrival of first radio and later television news created a true information highway that matched the growth of automobile highways across the developed world.
Sophisticated information users - people who look to print and electronic media for information - have always known they need to be careful of what they see. Not all information in all media is accurate; sometimes it is completely false. Those sophisticated travelers developed their own ways of figuring out which media could be relied upon to portray the world around us accurately while others, either through carelessness or conscious manipulation, were closer to fiction than not.
In Newfoundland and Labrador lately, we have been well served by professional news organizations on our own information highways. Even while some short-lived publications have often resembled a cow path that ended in the rubbish tip of myth, outfits like the Telegram continue to pump out both factual information and commentary that is reliable and provocative, as need be.
That's why it is so odd that the Telegram editorial on Saturday April 15 seems to have gotten stuck in a rut of misperception and delivered its readers straight into a virtual pothole that makes Dotties Potties or Andy's Canyons look small in comparison.
"Globe puts us in our place - again" argues against an editorial in the Globe and Mail from the previous Thursday. According to the Telegram
There was no suggestion anywhere in the Globe editorial that in negotiating Hebron, "Williams has gotten too uppity for his own good." That's the Telegram's interpretation and it seems to come from the rut of a mindset that has seen the Telegram backing the Premier wholeheartedly on this issue without actually knowing most of the details of the Hebron negotiation or even subjecting the Premier's comments to even the briefest of scrutiny.
What the Globe did note is that while Williams has a well-deserved reputation for fighting for what he believes in, including during his celebrated row with Paul Martin a year or so ago. But:
"Wanting a fair share of the province's resources is a laudable goal. It would be a shame to see that put at risk because the Premier doesn't know when to climb down off his horse."
Perhaps the Globe's point was a bit too subtle for the Telegram editorialist to pick up. Perhaps he or she was looking for yet another Crosbie-esque warning against hand-biting of the kind we saw in 1990. That rut led to a completely erroneous set of comments and an equally faulty conclusion.
Don't just accept what is written here or in the Telegram, by the way; read the Globe editorial for oneself in its entirety and see the clear warning that this time, Premier Williams rhetoric may be entirely the wrong approach.
If we are to take Premier Williams' comments at face value he is prepared to leave a project undeveloped for a prize - the equity stake - that contained limited management rights and a cash value of only about 10% of the total value of the Hebron development to the provincial treasury and the province's oil and gas industry.
At the same time, the Premier insists that he is not prepared to leave the project undeveloped and is busily exploring all sorts of options to force the project into development on his own terms. He is actively pursuing purchase of ExxonMobil's 38% interest in the project, for example, either by the other Hebron partners or by the provincial government itself. Williams hasn't talked about taking over the project entirely but his remarks can easily be seen as being as close to that conclusion as one might get. After all, in another context he continues to pursue the Lower Churchill and appears prepared to "go it alone" there as well on a project the construction costs for which could be double the cost of putting Hebron into production.
Stuck in its perceptual rut, the Telegram misses a few couple of important questions of public policy brought to light by the Hebron failure. For starters, we might ask to see the plan on which the Premier's goal of transforming the hydro corporation into an oil and gas company is based. He has talked about this idea consistently since taking office yet going on three years later there is not a single policy document in the public domain that outlines the goals as well as the costs and the risks. It is public money in play here and public resources. Surely we have a right to know what is up. If nothing else, we surely have a right to know exactly why it was so important for the premier to have an equity stake that he was prepared to turn his back on a project worth 10 times what his equity position would have yielded.
Second, we might ask if having the provincial government invest in the capital-intensive oil and gas business is actually the best way to spend scarce public dollars. Our public debt remains at around $10 billion. While the Premier has speculated in the Financial Post he might be able to borrow money at good interest rates, this surely involves a level of risk about which the public has a right to be informed and about which its approval should be sought.
If oil revenues from the existing projects dwindle in five or so years, as some are predicting, it may be folly to borrow further billions - even at favourable interest rates - to spend on exploration or the development of a complex and challenging project like Hebron. The potential rewards are great, but as the Globe pointed out and the Telegram ignored, the risks are high as well.
Oil companies drill wells - offshore Newfoundland at a cost of $100 million a shot - without a guarantee of finding anything, let alone find oil or gas in commercially viable quantities. Even when they do find oil, as at Hebron-Ben Nevis, the oil may be commercially unviable. Some may speak of the companies sitting on this field for the better part of a quarter century; what they seem too willing to ignore is that for much of that time, the complexity of the fields and the relatively low price for oil rendered the project commercially non-viable.
Oil prices are projected to rise today, as they were when Hebron was discovered, but as we saw two decades ago, markets can change downward as easily as upward. For a province like Newfoundland and Labrador, its own financial position may make such high stakes gambling as offshore exploration and development completely foolish.
The Globe pointed to the Come by Chance refinery as an example of a supposedly good idea that wound up being a disaster. Heralded as another economic saviour of the province, complete with extensive public guarantees, the refinery ended up as one of the most spectacular bankruptcies in Canadian history. The refinery may be operating today - as the Telegram notes - but it might just as easily wound up as scrap metal; more to the point though, a goodly chunk of the $10 billion we carry on our collective books today came from that earlier fiasco. Not all risks pay off with the reward expected.
There are plenty of ruts along the information highway. Sometimes they appear in the most unlikely of places, in this instance, the Telegram's editorial page. Fortunately, there are more sources of information these days than its pages alone. Information seekers can take a look; they might just see the signs along the highway warning of danger ahead even if another traveler has his windscreen obscured.
This is not a new issue and to those who use the Internet regularly, the warning contained in Wangersky's column rears its head daily.
Of course, the Internet was originally called the information superhighway reflecting the speed with which information - good and bad - can be spread. Humans have always had an information pathway of some kind and in the last century the arrival of first radio and later television news created a true information highway that matched the growth of automobile highways across the developed world.
Sophisticated information users - people who look to print and electronic media for information - have always known they need to be careful of what they see. Not all information in all media is accurate; sometimes it is completely false. Those sophisticated travelers developed their own ways of figuring out which media could be relied upon to portray the world around us accurately while others, either through carelessness or conscious manipulation, were closer to fiction than not.
In Newfoundland and Labrador lately, we have been well served by professional news organizations on our own information highways. Even while some short-lived publications have often resembled a cow path that ended in the rubbish tip of myth, outfits like the Telegram continue to pump out both factual information and commentary that is reliable and provocative, as need be.
That's why it is so odd that the Telegram editorial on Saturday April 15 seems to have gotten stuck in a rut of misperception and delivered its readers straight into a virtual pothole that makes Dotties Potties or Andy's Canyons look small in comparison.
"Globe puts us in our place - again" argues against an editorial in the Globe and Mail from the previous Thursday. According to the Telegram
[t]he overriding tone of almost all the criticism of Williams has taken the same general theme - that the premier who used a federal Liberal minority government to get a new resources deal is now just too big for his eastern britches.The Telegram concludes:
The argument, unfortunately, is that Williams has no right to refuse to knuckle under in negotiations, and that he has no right to suggest that businesses should not be allowed to hold onto a public resource indefinitely, just because they aren't getting the deal they want.
But the endless argument that the government of a weak province has no right to stand up for itself wears particularly thin, especially coming from centrist media in a province whose huge economy has always ridden roughshod over its poorer cousins.That isn't what the Globe was talking about.
"Why, this is not how we do business," the Globe seems to want to harrumph.
There was no suggestion anywhere in the Globe editorial that in negotiating Hebron, "Williams has gotten too uppity for his own good." That's the Telegram's interpretation and it seems to come from the rut of a mindset that has seen the Telegram backing the Premier wholeheartedly on this issue without actually knowing most of the details of the Hebron negotiation or even subjecting the Premier's comments to even the briefest of scrutiny.
What the Globe did note is that while Williams has a well-deserved reputation for fighting for what he believes in, including during his celebrated row with Paul Martin a year or so ago. But:
[h]aving ridden that particular horse to victory so many times before, Mr. Williams couldn't seem to resist saddling up and galloping into battle with the oil companies, too. ... The only problem, of course, is that Ottawa can't walk away from Newfoundland, while Chevron and its partners can, and apparently are.The Globe editorialist makes the valid observation that by ramping up the rhetoric about forcing companies to develop fields, by talking about finding various ways to take a company out of a legitimate negotiation with government for nothing more than bargaining forcefully, "a response like the one from Mr. Williams (or Mr. Chavez) is almost certain to push a project down the list [of projects to be developed], if not off it completely."
"Wanting a fair share of the province's resources is a laudable goal. It would be a shame to see that put at risk because the Premier doesn't know when to climb down off his horse."
Perhaps the Globe's point was a bit too subtle for the Telegram editorialist to pick up. Perhaps he or she was looking for yet another Crosbie-esque warning against hand-biting of the kind we saw in 1990. That rut led to a completely erroneous set of comments and an equally faulty conclusion.
Don't just accept what is written here or in the Telegram, by the way; read the Globe editorial for oneself in its entirety and see the clear warning that this time, Premier Williams rhetoric may be entirely the wrong approach.
If we are to take Premier Williams' comments at face value he is prepared to leave a project undeveloped for a prize - the equity stake - that contained limited management rights and a cash value of only about 10% of the total value of the Hebron development to the provincial treasury and the province's oil and gas industry.
At the same time, the Premier insists that he is not prepared to leave the project undeveloped and is busily exploring all sorts of options to force the project into development on his own terms. He is actively pursuing purchase of ExxonMobil's 38% interest in the project, for example, either by the other Hebron partners or by the provincial government itself. Williams hasn't talked about taking over the project entirely but his remarks can easily be seen as being as close to that conclusion as one might get. After all, in another context he continues to pursue the Lower Churchill and appears prepared to "go it alone" there as well on a project the construction costs for which could be double the cost of putting Hebron into production.
Stuck in its perceptual rut, the Telegram misses a few couple of important questions of public policy brought to light by the Hebron failure. For starters, we might ask to see the plan on which the Premier's goal of transforming the hydro corporation into an oil and gas company is based. He has talked about this idea consistently since taking office yet going on three years later there is not a single policy document in the public domain that outlines the goals as well as the costs and the risks. It is public money in play here and public resources. Surely we have a right to know what is up. If nothing else, we surely have a right to know exactly why it was so important for the premier to have an equity stake that he was prepared to turn his back on a project worth 10 times what his equity position would have yielded.
Second, we might ask if having the provincial government invest in the capital-intensive oil and gas business is actually the best way to spend scarce public dollars. Our public debt remains at around $10 billion. While the Premier has speculated in the Financial Post he might be able to borrow money at good interest rates, this surely involves a level of risk about which the public has a right to be informed and about which its approval should be sought.
If oil revenues from the existing projects dwindle in five or so years, as some are predicting, it may be folly to borrow further billions - even at favourable interest rates - to spend on exploration or the development of a complex and challenging project like Hebron. The potential rewards are great, but as the Globe pointed out and the Telegram ignored, the risks are high as well.
Oil companies drill wells - offshore Newfoundland at a cost of $100 million a shot - without a guarantee of finding anything, let alone find oil or gas in commercially viable quantities. Even when they do find oil, as at Hebron-Ben Nevis, the oil may be commercially unviable. Some may speak of the companies sitting on this field for the better part of a quarter century; what they seem too willing to ignore is that for much of that time, the complexity of the fields and the relatively low price for oil rendered the project commercially non-viable.
Oil prices are projected to rise today, as they were when Hebron was discovered, but as we saw two decades ago, markets can change downward as easily as upward. For a province like Newfoundland and Labrador, its own financial position may make such high stakes gambling as offshore exploration and development completely foolish.
The Globe pointed to the Come by Chance refinery as an example of a supposedly good idea that wound up being a disaster. Heralded as another economic saviour of the province, complete with extensive public guarantees, the refinery ended up as one of the most spectacular bankruptcies in Canadian history. The refinery may be operating today - as the Telegram notes - but it might just as easily wound up as scrap metal; more to the point though, a goodly chunk of the $10 billion we carry on our collective books today came from that earlier fiasco. Not all risks pay off with the reward expected.
There are plenty of ruts along the information highway. Sometimes they appear in the most unlikely of places, in this instance, the Telegram's editorial page. Fortunately, there are more sources of information these days than its pages alone. Information seekers can take a look; they might just see the signs along the highway warning of danger ahead even if another traveler has his windscreen obscured.
16 April 2006
Newfoundland and Labrador Reading List
For those who might wish to gain a better understanding of Newfoundland and Labrador, its history and people, following are some suggested readings.There is no particular order to the list and by no means is this first list an exhaustive compilation of basic books. It contains some 20th century history, particularly on the period up to and including confederation with Canada.
Added explanation: ***It would be easy to simply copy a list of every book out there and come up with 30 or more "recommendations". What follows is a list of readable works on specific topics that would give a reader unfamiliar with Newfoundland and Labrador a reliable overview of the place, its people and its history.
You will see the controversies, where they exist, but overall the histories cover the issue thoroughly and professionally. Check Responsible Government Leagues' list and you will find a great many books by anti-Confederates. Anyone wishing to delve into the anti-Confederate movement and its philosophy will be well-served by RGL's list. If one is looking for reliable accounts ,based on solid research, by someone without an axe to grind, then a book like Bren Walsh's More than a poor majority is not the way to go.
Similarly, John Crosbie's No holds barred is a heavily edited book that leaves out much of the detail and in its place substitutes precious little of substance. There is absolutely no discussion of the Atlantic Accord (1985), for example, and in the section on the Upper Churchill, Crosbie's comments are so sparse one would have difficulty appreciating the issues involved let alone his motivation in advocating the public purchase of a major load of debt. Throughout there are too many references to provincial politicians from Newfoundland and Labrador who, in Crosbie's opinion tried too often to "bite the hand that fed them".
Crosbie's book is more self-serving than most memoirs; it is therefore left off the list as is Brian Tobin's ultra-light weight All in good time. Tobin's ghost-written book contains little useful information. It also contains many fundamental errors; Tobin's researcher apparently could not figure out the correct name of people with whom Tobin worked closely. The book is also missing several important events. So bad were the omissions that when the book first appeared in time for the Christmas rush, CBC Radio held a contest for listeners to submit the titles of missing chapters. My entry was "Over the transom and under the door: a brown-envelope apprenticeship with Bill Rowe." Tens of thousands of copies wound up in the remainder bin at five bucks, except on the mainland where the same people that find Royal Canadian Air Farce "humourous" also found Tobin's error riddled cash grab "insightful".***
Over time, I will toss up some additions to this list.
Suggested additions are welcome, although not all will make it.
Newfoundland and Labrador Reading List
1. Peter Neary, Newfoundland in the North Atlantic World, 1929-1949.From the Indigo blurb:
Tackling an overlooked period of Newfoundland history, Peter Neary examines the Commission of Government in Newfoundland from 1934 to 1949. Summarizing major developments before 1929, Neary recounts the chaos leading to the end of responsible self-government and establishment of the British-appointed commission. He details and evaluates the commission's major policies during hard times in the 1930s, the war boom and post-war adjustment. Newfoundland in the North Atlantic World also evaluates the 1949 decision to join Canada in light of developments during the commission's rule.2. G.M. Story et al., editors, Dictionary of Newfoundland English.
3. Raymond Blake, Canadians at last: Canada integrates Newfoundland as a province.
From the publisher's blurb:
History provides some interesting case studies of what happens when trade barriers come down. Among them is the story told in this book of Newfoundland'Â’s integration into Canada in the aftermath of the province'Â’s 1948 referendum. Raymond B. Blake takes a refreshing approach to this episode in Canadian history, avoiding the old shibboleths of conspiracy and local nationalism, and instead making a down-to-earth study of economic and political events.
Canadians at Last explores the efforts of the many Canadians and Newfoundlanders who tried to make Confederation work. Blake argues that Canada wanted union, to remove any uncertainty in its dealings with Newfoundland over civil aviation, defence, and trade. Newfoundland opted for union largely because Canada'Â’s burgeoning social welfare system promised a more secure existence. Investigating the complex problems they encountered, Blake details changes in trade, fishing, and manufacturing and in the political process in Newfoundland. He also looks at the introduction and impact of social programs, and the terms of the US military presence there. Finally, he demonstrates that by 1957 Newfoundland'Â’s integration into Canada was essentially complete; it was being treated the same as the other provinces, subject to the terms of union.
By beginning with the 1949 Confederation rather than the activities leading up to it, and by thoroughly documenting areas of agreement, contention, and neglect, Blake writes a solid, contemporary history of Newfoundland'Â’s integration into Canada. Virtually the only complete academic treatment of this subject, Canadians at Last offers much basic information that so far has not been made available.
4. Gene Long, Suspended state. Long, a former New Democrat member of the provincial legislature examines the collapse of responsible government in 1933/34. This a short, accessible account of a subject which continues to be controversial over 60 years later. [Personal note: The cover photo (left) is a famous picture of the public riot at the Colonial Building in 1932. The man wearing the sousaphone at the centre front of the picture is one of my paternal great-grandfathers. Some of his sons, my great-uncles, also played in the Methodist Guards band which provided music at the riot.]5. James Hiller and Michael Harrington, editors, Newfoundland National Convention, 1946-1949. In two volumes, this consists of the debates and papers of the national convention that preceded the famous referenda on Newfoundland's political future.
6. David Facey-Crowther, Lieutenant Owen William Steele of the Newfoundland Regiment. Facey-Crowther, a professor of history at Memorial University has edited the diary of a young infantry officer killed at the Battle of the Somme, 1916. Steele was a member of the Newfoundland Regiment, later the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Dominion's military contribution to the allied war effort in the World War, 1914-1918.This volume includes an introductory essay by Facey-Crowther which places Steele's diary and letters in a wider context.
While the tragedy of the first day of the Somme offensive is widely known, the Great War produced lasting changes in Newfoundland society and politics which reverberate to this day.
7. Claire Hoy, Clyde Wells: a political biography. Until Wells' memoir appears, this remains the only concise book on Wells up to the early 1990s. It suffers from a number of shortcomings but remains a readable introduction to one of the more important political leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador's history. [Spare the e-mails. I am entitled to my bias on this one.] For those interested in the Meech Lake Accord, read Hoy along with Deborah Coyne's Roll of the dice.
8. J.D. [Doug] House. Against the tide: battling for economic renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador. House chaired an economic development commission under Brian Peckford and later headed the Economic Recovery Commission under Clyde Wells.
9. Philip Smith, Brinco: the story of Churchill Falls. More people should read this if for no other reason than to dispel the mythology which has grown up since the provincial government purchased the company in the early 1970s. It remains the only history of the Upper Churchill project to date. Undoubtedly someone will provide more of the story in due course.
----------------
Update I:
10. S.J.R. [Sid] Noel, Politics in Newfoundland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. An elderly survey of Newfoundland politics from earliest colonial times to 1971, but still useful.
11. Ingeborg Marshall. An history and ethnography of the Beothuck. The only reliable account of the history of the aboriginal inhabitants of the island of Newfoundland.
13 April 2006
Food for thought: the need for realism and statesmanship
Ever since it became self-governing in the mid-nineteeth century, political leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador has rotated between representatives of the dominant social class and populists who appeal directly to the "people" directly, with party labels meaning very little...
What Newfoundland and Labrador needs, however, is neither populist nor merchant. It needs a leader - or leadership if you include the whole of Cabinet [sic] - who can transcend both the exaggerated rhetoric of the populist and the restricted conservatism of the merchant. It needs men and women who exhibit statesmanship, by which I mean leadership that both transcends the interests of a single class and is grounded in a deep understanding of the issues, problems and potential rather than superficial rhetoric. [Italics in original]
J.D. [Doug] House, Against the tide: battling for economic renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), p. 239.
Doug House's account of his involvement in shaping government economic development policy in the period between 1986 and 1996 caused a stir in the local political community when it appeared toward the end of Brian Tobin's administration.
House had been appointed by the populist Brian Peckford to chair what emerged as a landmark economic policy task force the final report. It fell to Clyde Wells, whom House described as the epitome of the 'sensible' good government approach of the "official class leaders", to implement the task force report. As a testament to its soundness and to the sensibility of what House implemented as chair of the Wells' administrations' Economic Recovery Commission that Wells' 1992 Strategic Economic Plan remains the basis of government economic development policy through four subsequent administrations of two different political parties.
House's characterization of the alternating cycle of post-Confederation first ministers in Newfoundland and Labrador is both obvious and generally understood.
Danny Williams appointed House toa deputy minister position in his current administration.
The question for today is this: Does Danny Williams continue the alternating cycle of populist versus merchant or does he represent the statesmanship House proposed?
12 April 2006
Harper on Hebron: leave me out of it
Answering questions from reporters during a visit to St. John's, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said today he wanted to stay out of the Hebron fiasco, calling it a "commercial matter".
As for legislation to force development of a field, Harper said he would be studying the legal implications.
And the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) didn't insist on a separate newser for Williams so there'd be no pictures of Williams and Harper together talking about Hebron.
And the PMO didn't insist on talking on a plane where no reporters are in sight just to avoid having Harper and Williams give the obligatory joint "so how'd the meeting go?" newser afterward.
Pull the other one.
It's got bells on it.
As for legislation to force development of a field, Harper said he would be studying the legal implications.
"We've learned in the past, you know, it's best to keep a stable investment climate in the oil and gas business, and that's the general approach the government of Canada will take," Mr. Harper said.Canadian Press is reporting that Harper "panned" the idea of fallow field legislation. Harper pointed to possible impacts such legislation would have on Canada under the North American Free trade Agreement.
Williams, who had a separate news conference following Harper's, says he doesn't want to embroil the prime minister in the matter, despite saying the day before that he would ask Ottawa for the tools to expropriate idle fields.Uh huh. Harper's office never made a call.
And the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) didn't insist on a separate newser for Williams so there'd be no pictures of Williams and Harper together talking about Hebron.
And the PMO didn't insist on talking on a plane where no reporters are in sight just to avoid having Harper and Williams give the obligatory joint "so how'd the meeting go?" newser afterward.
Pull the other one.
It's got bells on it.
Hebron Fiasco Week 2: More answers, more questions
1. Elvis has definitely left the building. The Globe and Mail story on Wednesday makes it clear that Hebron is dead. The project office is being demobilised and staff reassigned to other duties.Chevron spokesman Mark Macleod told CBC television in St. John's it could reasonably take years to re-organize the Hebron team.
The same sentiments are in the Globe piece.
If that wasn't clear enough, check the Financial Post front page.
"I just wanted to make sure that everybody is clear that this thing is over," Mr.[James] Bates [, Hebron chief negotiator] said from St. John's, where he was hosting a goodbye luncheon for Chevron's departing Hebron team2. Did Chevron call to restart talks?Premier Danny Williams has said several times in the past few days that he has received a contact from the Hebron consortium's chief negotiator. The implication left is that the companies are trying to see if talks can be restarted.
However, in a scrum outside the House of Assembly Monday, Williams gave sufficient detail of the contacts to decipher what really happened.
The chief negotiator called on Sunday, April 2, according to Williams to clarify the issues the province was not willing to budge on - namely the two tax concessions Williams highlighted the next day as being something the government found unacceptable.
Williams told reporters he also received a call the following Wednesday for clarification of Williams' comments on the major issues that had led to the talks breaking down.
There is no reason to believe this represented anything other than what it is - contacts for gaining an accurate understanding of the provincial government's position. There is no reason to believe the companies were seeking to re-start talks, unless there had been a significant misunderstanding. Evidently there wasn't.
In short: Chevron called, but not to restart talks.
Elvis is in the car on the way home.
3. Dazed and confused. But here's the thing about the calls and the clarification: if everything had been written down clearly, there would normally be no need to double check media comments. When the companies reached their decision to suspend talks on the project they ought to have known exactly what the issues were. It's odd that they would find it necessary to call Williams to make sure they understood his comments to news media.
Williams has also stated on several occasions that there was confusion among the companies, that they were not bargaining in good faith and that they needed to sort out their position.
It seems like there was plenty of confusion to go around and the confusion was coming as much from Danny Williams as anyone else. All that tells anyone is that while finding fault and blame here is still not a useful exercise, there is plenty to be learned so the same mistakes don't get repeated again.
4. The best defence is a good offense. That said, much of what Danny Williams (Right/Photo: Peter Redman, National Post) was doing here is masking a provincial government weakness by claiming someone else was suffering from a problem that could just as easily be found in his own back yard.Danny Williams followed much the same negotiating approach with the Government of Canada in 2004. His position - what he was seeking - shifted dramatically over the course of discussions from January to October 2004. No detailed talks began, in fact, negotiations as most would understand the term, didn't start until November 2004. Then again, the two sides only really started talking once the federal government made it clear how far it was not prepared to go in meeting Williams' vaguely worded demands.
5. To expropriate or not to expropriate? Danny Williams started talking about taking ExxonMobil out of the Hebron project on the same day Chevron announced the project was shelved. He talked about buying out Exxon's share or bringing in legislation to do the same thing. Williams also talked about forcing development either using existing legislation or new rules if Exxon wouldn't sell. [Note: Following this link to bloomberg.com and the unedited interview attached to this story.]
There was no mistaking Williams' threat that if oil companies wouldn't accept government demands, Williams was prepared to find a legislative way to get what he wanted. As Williams told the Financial Post on 05 April:
And if you don't want to sell your interest, you are really leaving us no option than to seriously look at legislation or action to ensure that undeveloped discoveries proceed on a timely basis.On the same day Chevron announced Hebron was in mothballs, Exxon made it clear its shares were not up for sale. No surprise, therefore, that the oil industry focused on the remaining option and reacted badly to the thought of legislative action. Some news media have lately taken to calling this "expropriation". Business writers across North America compared Williams to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Williams has kept up the issue by answering questions about so-called "fallow field" legislation, or in the scrum linked above from this week, talking about sections of the federal Accord implementation act that might be used.
Did Williams threaten expropriation? Strictly speaking, he may not have said or meant that. However, Williams hasn't taken a single step to dispel that notion unequivocally. Instead, he has been talking about it openly.
6. Does Williams have the legal option of forcing development on Hebron? At the outset, let's make it clear; I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. But I can read plain English and I can talk to knowledgeable people in the oil and gas industry.
Under the sections of the federal Accord implementation act Williams cited recently - s.34 to s. 41 - it's pretty clear the sections refer to the offshore board ordering development and production in times of national emergency or when there is a shortage of feedstock for existing refineries in the country.
Under s. 79, the offshore board may order production, but that is expressly related to s. 31-41, namely the terms that refer to security of supply. Aside from that, before the board would issue such an order and largely to cover its own backside, the board would need written instruction from both orders of government before taking such a decision.
Beyond those circumstances, there are no current legislative regime in which companies can unequivocally be forced to develop a project.
There certainly isn't a clear regime whereby government or the offshore board could order development of a project like Hebron in the circumstances at hand. The companies are ready and willing to cut a deal, but not at any price. Any effort to force development under those circumstances would almost certainly bring expensive legal challenges. What's more, according to one international trade expert quoted by national media, expropriation would trigger provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Undoubtedly there is a lawyer out there who will give a contrary opinion, but while he or she will collect considerable billable hours, I wouldn't want to be the one arguing the case on a contingency basis. The chances of winning are remote.
Danny Williams has also talked about new legislation covering so-called fallow fields. There'll be more on that in an upcoming post.
7. It's not a retreat. Seriously. It's just a tactical redeployment.
Premier Danny Williams talked to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the failed Hebron talks today and the need for legislative changes to give Williams the power to order development in some cases. On Monday, it was a big issue.
But, in a scrum yesterday outside the legislature, Williams said that fallow field legislation and other efforts to expropriate ExxonMobil's share in the Hebron project were moved far down the agenda of the meeting.
Top of the list? Early retirement help for workers from Fishery Products International. That's an issue the government has struggled to avoid discussing since last December when FPI first briefed the Premier and fish minister Tom Rideout on the company's plans.
Williams talked about having to exhaust other options first, such as buying out the Exxon shares. That's a whole lot different from the message he was sending as recently as Monday.
It's amazing what changes come when there's a bad headline in the Globe's business section the day before you meet the Prime Minister.
Maybe someone from Harper's office made a phone call.
11 April 2006
New JAG - Newfoundlanders taking over National Defence
National Defence minister Gord O'Connor today announced the appointment of Ken Watkin as the new Judge Advocate General (JAG) for the Canadian Forces and Watkins promotion from colonel to brigadier-general.
Watkin is originally from Newfoundland and Labrador and was called to the bar of that province in 1981. Trained as an infantry officer, Watkin has considerable operational experience as a lawyer.
In the field of operational law, Colonel Watkin served on the J5 legal staff during the 1991 Gulf War and was the legal advisor to the 1993 military/civilian board of inquiry that investigated the Canadian Airborne Regiment battle group in Somalia.
In 1995, he was the legal advisor to the Canadian navy during the turbot dispute with Spain. He has served as a legal advisor to the Canadian contingent commander in IFOR and as a division legal advisor in SFOR [NATO missions in the former Jugoslavia]. Colonel Watkin has advised military commanders on a variety of domestic operations.
Prior to this appointment, Watkin was deputy judge advocate general for operations and for a time served as a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School. His paper on human rights norms in contemporary military operations was printed in the January 2004 number of the American Journal of International Law.
------------------------
Army Postscript:
If you are in the mess with Brigadier General Watkin, hope he rings the bell.
Otherwise, just celebrate Brigadier General Watkin's appointment by singing a chorus of this favourite tune of JAGs and barristers everywhere.
Justitia!
Watkin is originally from Newfoundland and Labrador and was called to the bar of that province in 1981. Trained as an infantry officer, Watkin has considerable operational experience as a lawyer.
In the field of operational law, Colonel Watkin served on the J5 legal staff during the 1991 Gulf War and was the legal advisor to the 1993 military/civilian board of inquiry that investigated the Canadian Airborne Regiment battle group in Somalia.
In 1995, he was the legal advisor to the Canadian navy during the turbot dispute with Spain. He has served as a legal advisor to the Canadian contingent commander in IFOR and as a division legal advisor in SFOR [NATO missions in the former Jugoslavia]. Colonel Watkin has advised military commanders on a variety of domestic operations.
Prior to this appointment, Watkin was deputy judge advocate general for operations and for a time served as a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School. His paper on human rights norms in contemporary military operations was printed in the January 2004 number of the American Journal of International Law.
------------------------
Army Postscript:
If you are in the mess with Brigadier General Watkin, hope he rings the bell.
Otherwise, just celebrate Brigadier General Watkin's appointment by singing a chorus of this favourite tune of JAGs and barristers everywhere.
Justitia!
Hebron Fiasco Week 2: Notes and numbers
1. I've got a gun... "Williams wants expropriation tools"If Danny Williams wants to attract greater investment in Newfoundland and Labrador, this headline from the front page of today's Globe and Mail business section is decidedly not the way to go.
Investors are already jittery about Newfoundland and Labrador in the wake of the Williams' administration's handling of investment files ranging from oil and gas to forestry to fishing. Knowing that Williams is looking for the legal tools to expropriate investor holdings will just confirm in their minds, rightly or wrongly, that while Williams might not be exactly like Hugo Chavez right now, he is headed in the same direction.
It's not that Williams is likely to get his wish mind you. The Globe story originated in Calgary, home of the Canadian oil industry and one of prime Minister Stephen Harper's bases of support. Harper won't look kindly on this latest of Williams' ideas anyway. Given that the expropriation threat is so blatantly linked to Williams' inability to sign a deal with the Hebron consortium, Harper will be doubly set against giving Danny Williams a loaded gun for him to use at his leisure.
For investors, though, the problem is that Williams went looking for a Chavez-like big stick in the first place.
2. Who owns the oil anyway? Lost in the entire Hebron fiasco and Danny Williams' threats and bluster is a simple reality: the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has no legislative jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas, except for the areas specifically assigned to the provincial government in the Atlantic Accord (1985).
Brian Peckford pushed the matter to the limit in the early 1980s despite having sound legal advice that he would lose any court cases. Peckford declined the opportunity to sign a deal with Ottawa, as Nova Scotia had done, preferring instead to go for the whole schmeer. Peckford's administration referred a question to the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. At the same time, the Government of Canada asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on a similar reference.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Ottawa had legislative jurisdiction over the offshore. The Supreme Court of Canada concurred, when the case was appealed to it. In the direct reference from the Government of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada reached the same conclusion.
Bottom line: Newfoundland and Labrador cannot unilaterally legislate fallow fields, expropriation or anything else of the sort in relation to offshore oil and gas. That right rests with the Government of Canada.
3. "I'm delighted we're getting that reaction [criticism] from the national press." Premier Danny Williams quoted in The Telegram, Sunday, 09 April 2006, page A1.
Of course, he's happy.
Delighted.
Tickled pink.
The more the mainlanders crap on him, the higher his stock rises in opinion polls and among the Bill Rowes, Sues and Moonmen of the local radio call-in shows.
Danny Williams' strategy isn't aimed at anything except maximizing his support - poll results and then election results - in Newfoundland and Labrador. What the mainlanders think is irrelevant, unless they suddenly started to ignore him.
Like Brian Peckford on whom much of Williams' offshore policy is modeled, Williams' blaming the province's problems and major setbacks on a foreign enemy is a deliberate government policy.
That's what makes Memorial University professor Chris Dunn's assessment of the offshore deal superficial and, ultimately, wrong. Dunn argued that waging war on Ottawa, as Williams did in the offshore revenue fight in 2004, was a popular piece of local political theatre.
Popular it may seem, but only Williams and Peckford use the "foreign wolf" card as a conscious act of policy. Other premiers - Smallwood, Moores, Wells and Tobin - did their fair share of fighting over issues. But people not from Newfoundland and Labrador were not always the scapegoats.
Those of us who lived through The Crazy Days in the early 1980s remember it all too well.
4. Danny can still claim victory in a Hebron deal. While there is every indication the Hebron deal is dead, Danny Williams can still pull off an Atlantic Accord-style victory thanks to the rising price of oil.
Williams January 2005 deal was essentially what had been negotiated in the fall of 2004, with some minor changes. The major difference was in the lump sum cash settlement Williams took. in October it was $1.4 billion; in January, it was $2.0 billion. Williams likes to toss those figures out as proof he didn't settle too soon. He hung on and got a "better" deal.
Well not really. The original quantum was based on a price per barrel of oil as it was at the time. The January lump sum was calculated using a higher price.
Danny walked away from a Hebron deal that was worth at least $8 to $10 billion in royalties and hundreds of millions if not billions of construction spending. The quoted value of the deal also didn't include provincial corporate taxes. Put that number in the billions as well over the life of the deal, even if the province had forgiven about $500 million in taxes during the construction phase of the Hebron project.
But that number on royalties was based on an assumed price for a barrel of oil and the province's royalty regime. That royalty regime gives the province a percentage of the price of a barrel of oil. Oil goes up; the province gets more cash.
Since Danny balked at the Hebron deal, oil prices have spiked upwards to around US$69.
Sign a deal today and he can claim "victory" even though there isn't any substantial change in the deal.
5. Stunned is... Anyone notice that it is only the supporters of the saviour of the moment who tell us how stunned - naive, stupid, foolish - we have collectively been in the past? Bill Rowe is the latest one to try this argument on over Hebron. One of his favourite callers chimed in yesterday telling us we were "weak".
It's an odd strategy that those who wish to boost our collective self-confidence spend all their time telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians how weak and stupid they are before launching into their prescription for fixing all the ills. This isn't a case of setting up a strawman to burn; it borders on psychological abuse.
But for some strange reason only those claiming to want to build Newfoundland and Labrador into some great paradise - of course following their specific prescription - spend so much time telling us, as Rowe put it, that we have had "habitually agreeable, lackadaisical ways."
What's next? Bill and Sue telling us all we are "dumb newfies"?
10 April 2006
Stunned is as....well...
From Bill Rowe's Telegram column, Saturday April 8, 2006, titled "Are we as stunned as we were?":
"Stunned", by the way, is Newfoundland English for "foolish, stupid, or naive."
Rowe next talks about the infamous Churchill Falls contract.
He tosses in the Sprung greenhouse.
Then he goes for a flourish about Hibernia, noting that we never bothered to ask for an equity position at the time. "Just a tad on the stunned side, perhaps."
Let's recall that Rowe was appointed to Joe Smallwood's cabinet in 1968 and held several portfolios until Smallwood was defeated in 1972. Just coincidentally, Churchill Falls, the Labrador linerboard mill and the Come by Chance refinery all passed through cabinet in the same time span.
Rowe was right there when what he now calls "stunned" decisions were made. He is not on record as having raised any objections. The former Rhodes scholar did not resign his seat in the legislature, let alone leave cabinet. If memory serves - and I stand to be corrected on this - Rowe went into cabinet just as John Crosbie and Clyde Wells left cabinet over financing of the Come by Chance oil refinery. So, it's not like Rowe didn't know at the time there was the odd question about the refinery deal that needed answering.
Hmmm.
This is the same Bill Rowe, by the way, who tried unsuccessfully to run for Brian Peckford's Progressive Conservative party in the 1980s. That was at the same time that Peckford was busily negotiating what Rowe now refers to as a stunned Hibernia deal.
Never mind, of course, that Rowe knows now, just as he knew at the time, that the Hibernia project was an extremely costly venture and the province lacked the financial resources to acquire an equity position. Since Peckford had foolishly pushed the ownership question to the limit, the province also lost the ability to gain an equity stake through legislation.
This is all stuff Rowe elected not to tell his readers as he builds a case to support Danny Williams rejection of a deal on Hebron.
Of course, we would be remiss if we did not note that Williams appointed Rowe for a brief period as Williams' personal representative in Ottawa. Both before he took the job and since he has returned, Rowe - the former lawyer and current radio call-in show host - has been a relentless booster for Danny Williams. Both Bill and Danny won the Rhodes scholarship for Newfoundland in the 1960s.
Given Rowe's consistent misrepresentations of Newfoundland history, even though he was directly involved in some of the decisions he now calls stunned, and his consistent omissions of relevant information on his own relationship with the events he misrepresents, one wonders what would qualify as being even more stunned for Rowe's audience:
Questioning Danny Williams' judgment and then making a sound decision based on evidence, or, listening to Bill Rowe's advice?
Then, we hooked up with a couple of other prize-winning buccaneers, John Shaheen and John C. Doyle and flung hundreds of millions of our dollars with both hands into a refinery and linerboard mill. The Come By Chance refinery alone became one of the biggest bankruptcies in the world till then. That, too, was pretty stunned.
"Stunned", by the way, is Newfoundland English for "foolish, stupid, or naive."
Rowe next talks about the infamous Churchill Falls contract.
He tosses in the Sprung greenhouse.
Then he goes for a flourish about Hibernia, noting that we never bothered to ask for an equity position at the time. "Just a tad on the stunned side, perhaps."
Let's recall that Rowe was appointed to Joe Smallwood's cabinet in 1968 and held several portfolios until Smallwood was defeated in 1972. Just coincidentally, Churchill Falls, the Labrador linerboard mill and the Come by Chance refinery all passed through cabinet in the same time span.
Rowe was right there when what he now calls "stunned" decisions were made. He is not on record as having raised any objections. The former Rhodes scholar did not resign his seat in the legislature, let alone leave cabinet. If memory serves - and I stand to be corrected on this - Rowe went into cabinet just as John Crosbie and Clyde Wells left cabinet over financing of the Come by Chance oil refinery. So, it's not like Rowe didn't know at the time there was the odd question about the refinery deal that needed answering.
Hmmm.
This is the same Bill Rowe, by the way, who tried unsuccessfully to run for Brian Peckford's Progressive Conservative party in the 1980s. That was at the same time that Peckford was busily negotiating what Rowe now refers to as a stunned Hibernia deal.
Never mind, of course, that Rowe knows now, just as he knew at the time, that the Hibernia project was an extremely costly venture and the province lacked the financial resources to acquire an equity position. Since Peckford had foolishly pushed the ownership question to the limit, the province also lost the ability to gain an equity stake through legislation.
This is all stuff Rowe elected not to tell his readers as he builds a case to support Danny Williams rejection of a deal on Hebron.
Of course, we would be remiss if we did not note that Williams appointed Rowe for a brief period as Williams' personal representative in Ottawa. Both before he took the job and since he has returned, Rowe - the former lawyer and current radio call-in show host - has been a relentless booster for Danny Williams. Both Bill and Danny won the Rhodes scholarship for Newfoundland in the 1960s.
Given Rowe's consistent misrepresentations of Newfoundland history, even though he was directly involved in some of the decisions he now calls stunned, and his consistent omissions of relevant information on his own relationship with the events he misrepresents, one wonders what would qualify as being even more stunned for Rowe's audience:
Questioning Danny Williams' judgment and then making a sound decision based on evidence, or, listening to Bill Rowe's advice?
Williams, Chavez and Putin
What's the difference between Danny Williams, Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin?
Not much if you ask some people.
But there are plenty of differences.
For one thing, Danny doesn't have an army, didn't come to power in a coup and wasn't once an agent for the intelligence services.
Sure Danny likes to talk about expropriating ExxonMobil's interest in oil and gas properties offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hugo Chavez doesn't talk about it.
He does it.
The same weekend that talks fell apart between Danny Williams and the consortium looking to develop the 700 million barrel heavy oil Hebron project offshore Newfoundland, Chavez seized control of two oil fields in Venezuela from companies that refused to give up their oil fields to the Venezuelan state-owned oil company.
Both Total SA and Eni have vowed to fight in court for compensation over the seizure, based on contracts signed in the 1990s giving the companies licenses to produce oil from the fields. Companies with smaller interests, such as Norway's Statoil, either sold their shares or complied with the Venezuelan demands. Statoil is owned 70% by the Government of Norway but operates as a company under the Norwegian equivalent of the Companies Act.
After months of wrangling, ExxonMobil sold its interests in some fields but continues to fight over larger projects such as a multi-billion oil sands project.
The ongoing dispute between Venezuela and the major oil companies adds upwards pressure to oil prices already reacting to instability in other areas of the world.
While Venezuela has been reportedly courting state-owned oil companies from Russia, Iran, and China, Williams has so far refrained from inviting new companies to develop the gas and oil reserves offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
For his part, Williams told The Telegram that he had written to ExxonMobil about selling its 38% stake in Hebron. company spokespeople had earlier in the week stated flatly that the company wasn't interested in selling its stake to Williams or any other party.
Not much if you ask some people.
But there are plenty of differences.
For one thing, Danny doesn't have an army, didn't come to power in a coup and wasn't once an agent for the intelligence services.
Sure Danny likes to talk about expropriating ExxonMobil's interest in oil and gas properties offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hugo Chavez doesn't talk about it.
He does it.
The same weekend that talks fell apart between Danny Williams and the consortium looking to develop the 700 million barrel heavy oil Hebron project offshore Newfoundland, Chavez seized control of two oil fields in Venezuela from companies that refused to give up their oil fields to the Venezuelan state-owned oil company.
Both Total SA and Eni have vowed to fight in court for compensation over the seizure, based on contracts signed in the 1990s giving the companies licenses to produce oil from the fields. Companies with smaller interests, such as Norway's Statoil, either sold their shares or complied with the Venezuelan demands. Statoil is owned 70% by the Government of Norway but operates as a company under the Norwegian equivalent of the Companies Act.
After months of wrangling, ExxonMobil sold its interests in some fields but continues to fight over larger projects such as a multi-billion oil sands project.
The ongoing dispute between Venezuela and the major oil companies adds upwards pressure to oil prices already reacting to instability in other areas of the world.
While Venezuela has been reportedly courting state-owned oil companies from Russia, Iran, and China, Williams has so far refrained from inviting new companies to develop the gas and oil reserves offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
For his part, Williams told The Telegram that he had written to ExxonMobil about selling its 38% stake in Hebron. company spokespeople had earlier in the week stated flatly that the company wasn't interested in selling its stake to Williams or any other party.
Current goes bi-weekly
Following is a news release issued today by the publisher of Current announcing the provocative tabloid will be going bi-weekly.
One of Current's more famous recent covers was the one at left featuring Andy Wells with a ballgag stuffed in his mouth. [Photo: Greg Locke/ballgag: Our Pleasure]
Current is distributed free of charge in the metro St. John's area. There are no plans to change that.
Current celebrates 7th anniversary with plans to publish bi-weekly.
The free monthly newspaper Current is pleased to announce that it is celebrating its 7th anniversary with plans to become a bi-weekly publication. Mark Smith, publisher and co-owner says, "Current has grown from its early days as a small, alternative newspaper to the point where today, the paper is widely-read and a consistently profitable part the St. John's media marketplace. Nationally, 'free' periodicals are one of the few growth areas in the newspaper business and Current is firmly established in that niche."
When Current was launched in 1999 it was a labour of love. Sometimes the paper made money and sometimes it didn't. Roger Bill, Current's editor and Smith's partner says, "Current is still a labour of love for the people who work on it, but newspapers are a business. We have gotten great support from our advertisers, our bottom line is solid, and we think Current's is strong enough to take the next step."
In addition to publishing every two weeks Current is also investing in an upgrade of its online presence at www.currentmag.ca. Greg Locke, a veteran photojournalist and original editor of the Sunday Independent newspaper, will become the Online Editor of the new, dynamic and interactive website. Locke says users of the online edition can expect, "daily news, commentary, local information, lively discussion and debate. "A dynamic online service not only allows for more timely coverage and delivery of information but gives a direct and immediate voice to the public."
Starting on Thursday, April 27 Current will begin publishing every two weeks. "The support from both readers and advertisers with the idea of increased frequency has been tremendous," says Smith.
Bond Papers New Look
Brighter.
Cleaner.
Hopefully easier on the eyeballs.
Cleaned up right nav strip.
Call it Spring Cleaning at the Bond Papers.
Now all I have to do is learn to write in a more concise way.
(Yesssss.
I got the feedback - all of you - on the stream-of-consciousness nature of some of the Hebron stuff. That's why Friday's main post was a synopsis of the week's activity.)
Keep the cards and letters coming.
Next potential upgrade: podcasting.
Cleaner.
Hopefully easier on the eyeballs.
Cleaned up right nav strip.
Call it Spring Cleaning at the Bond Papers.
Now all I have to do is learn to write in a more concise way.
(Yesssss.
I got the feedback - all of you - on the stream-of-consciousness nature of some of the Hebron stuff. That's why Friday's main post was a synopsis of the week's activity.)
Keep the cards and letters coming.
Next potential upgrade: podcasting.
Feds speak on offshore board appointment
Three days of coverage from The Telegram last week on the ongoing saga of Max Ruelokke.
You may recall he was picked to head up the board regulating oil and gas development offshore Newfoundland.
The provincial government is still pushing for St. John's Mayor Andy Wells. Originally, the province wanted Wells to be chairman and chief executive officer. When that didn't fly, they suggested the Nova Scotia approach, where their board is run by two people.
The part-time chair pulls in about 10K a year for her part-time efforts, although Andy Wells apparently believes the job pays almost as much as he currently sucks down for belittling people at City Hall.
Anyway, The Telly finally got a spokesman for federal natural resources minister Gary Lunn who said - after approval from the very highest of highest levels- that Ruelokke is in without Andy. We can say from the highest of high levels because the story has been all over town for weeks, right down to the response from the Prime Minister when he was briefed on the whole thing and the fact Ruelokke was supposed to start work the last week of March:
Provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne recently said: "It is our position that we would like to see the mayor involved in some capacity, particularly if the position was split, we'd like to see him as chair."
Byrne was not asked why the provincial government has not appointed Wells to the vacant provincial seat on the board giving Wells the ability to be "involved in some capacity." The provincial appointment has been available since before Danny Williams first spoke publicly about appointing Wells.
In the meantime, the ministerial co-ordination e-mail in effect in Ottawa doesn't seem to be working. Better known as the gag order, it required every cabinet minister in Stephen Harper's administration to have his or her public comments vetted by the Prime Minister's Office.
After Emma told the Telly what - wait for it - the Prime Minister had approved, federal fish minister Loyola Hearn was telling VOCM something different:
Maybe Loyola is just out of the loop on this one altogether.
After all, he apparently told VOCM legislation would be a possibility if the position at the offshore board were split into two jobs. Had he been in the know, Loyola would have known legislative change would be mandatory: that's the only way to vacate the decision made by the arbitration panel under the Atlantic Accord implementation acts.
You may recall he was picked to head up the board regulating oil and gas development offshore Newfoundland.
The provincial government is still pushing for St. John's Mayor Andy Wells. Originally, the province wanted Wells to be chairman and chief executive officer. When that didn't fly, they suggested the Nova Scotia approach, where their board is run by two people.
The part-time chair pulls in about 10K a year for her part-time efforts, although Andy Wells apparently believes the job pays almost as much as he currently sucks down for belittling people at City Hall.
Anyway, The Telly finally got a spokesman for federal natural resources minister Gary Lunn who said - after approval from the very highest of highest levels- that Ruelokke is in without Andy. We can say from the highest of high levels because the story has been all over town for weeks, right down to the response from the Prime Minister when he was briefed on the whole thing and the fact Ruelokke was supposed to start work the last week of March:
"There was an arbitration process that happened, the results of that process are final and binding and both levels of government are in a position where they will have to respect that," [Emma] Welford told The Telegram Friday.Overturning the decision made by the arbitration panel would require changes to federal legislation, a process that could take several months if not years. Premier Danny Williams has never explained why he is pushing Wells for the job.
Welford said Ruelokke's appointment will be made official "very,very soon."
"We wish him all the success in his new position," she added.
Provincial natural resources minister Ed Byrne recently said: "It is our position that we would like to see the mayor involved in some capacity, particularly if the position was split, we'd like to see him as chair."
Byrne was not asked why the provincial government has not appointed Wells to the vacant provincial seat on the board giving Wells the ability to be "involved in some capacity." The provincial appointment has been available since before Danny Williams first spoke publicly about appointing Wells.
In the meantime, the ministerial co-ordination e-mail in effect in Ottawa doesn't seem to be working. Better known as the gag order, it required every cabinet minister in Stephen Harper's administration to have his or her public comments vetted by the Prime Minister's Office.
After Emma told the Telly what - wait for it - the Prime Minister had approved, federal fish minister Loyola Hearn was telling VOCM something different:
Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn says he suspects an official announcement on the new chair for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board will be made sooner rather than later. Max Ruelokke is waiting to take on the post, having apparently been selected by an arbitration panel. Hearn says he would think with the conversations he's had on the matter, the announcement will come very soon. Hearn says a change in legislation to divide the position of CEO and chairman, is a possibility if the two governments agree on that.Loyola's comments are basically the same as what he said last week on this file, except for a decisions being made sooner rather than later. Looks like Loyola needs to read more memoranda or have his staff deliver better briefings.
Maybe Loyola is just out of the loop on this one altogether.
After all, he apparently told VOCM legislation would be a possibility if the position at the offshore board were split into two jobs. Had he been in the know, Loyola would have known legislative change would be mandatory: that's the only way to vacate the decision made by the arbitration panel under the Atlantic Accord implementation acts.
09 April 2006
Spindy 2: The Second Coming
Outlets for The Independent have a letter this week advising that the paper, under new management, will be returning to shelves next weekend at a cover price of a twoonie.
That's up fifty cents from the price when the paper died last weekend. Managing editor Ryan Cleary told CBC News that the paper had a circulation of 7, 000 when it folded but apparently gave no indication of whether that was 7,000 paid subscribers, 7,000 copies sold weekly or a combination of paid subscribers and sales at news stands. Subscribers paid a loonie to have the paper delivered each week.
Interesting to watch will be the advertising, which normally would pay all or most of the cost of printing a newspaper. In the late 1980s, Premier Brian Peckford withdrew all government advertising from the weekly Sunday Express in retaliation for its coverage of his administration's greenhouse folly. A similar policy was applied against the Daily News.
An increase in provincial government advertising might indicate the opposite policy being adopted toward The Independent.
In any event, the Spindy will be back next week, apparently.
That's up fifty cents from the price when the paper died last weekend. Managing editor Ryan Cleary told CBC News that the paper had a circulation of 7, 000 when it folded but apparently gave no indication of whether that was 7,000 paid subscribers, 7,000 copies sold weekly or a combination of paid subscribers and sales at news stands. Subscribers paid a loonie to have the paper delivered each week.
Interesting to watch will be the advertising, which normally would pay all or most of the cost of printing a newspaper. In the late 1980s, Premier Brian Peckford withdrew all government advertising from the weekly Sunday Express in retaliation for its coverage of his administration's greenhouse folly. A similar policy was applied against the Daily News.
An increase in provincial government advertising might indicate the opposite policy being adopted toward The Independent.
In any event, the Spindy will be back next week, apparently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)