In the current sitting of the House of Assembly, Bill No. 1 is an amendment to the Hydro Corporation Act which will set up the Crown-owned electricity company to tackle wind-power generation and get into the oil and gas business.
The amendment bill received first reading on March 22, 2006, right after the Throne Speech opening the new session of the legislature.
That is how important this bill was touted as being.
So far it hasn't proceeded to second reading. In the meantime, the budget bill has been passed along with an interim supply measure. Likewise, a raft of bills have gone to second reading since the House resumed sitting on Monday past after the Easter recess.
But still no Bill no. 1.
So what's the reason for the delay?
---------------------------------------------
Update: Perhaps the delay has to do with the failed Hebron deal. Perhaps the Hydro Act amendments were supposed to give effect to the equity position and since the deal collapsed there is nothing else to bring forward.
It is noticeable that government set the Hydro bill as its first piece of legislation, before the interim supply act carried from the old session that ended the day before the Throne Speech. It preceded the supply motion and any of a number of bills that might be considered weightier.
It is also noticeable that this week, a series of modest pieces of legislation have received first reading and been posted to the House of Assembly website under the heading "progress of bills". Since 22 March, and having already passed first reading, the Hydro bill is a secret.
so where is it?
05 May 2006
04 May 2006
Secret Nation was a documentary after all?
The following originally appeared in the Montreal Gazette (Sept 26, 1993) when the local film Secret Nation hit theatre screens across the country.
In light of the appointment yesterday of John Fitzgerald as Danny Williams' emissary to what some seem to consider Mordor, it might be interesting to revisit some of the publicity surrounding a movie that I mistook to be fiction.
This piece is also interesting because in an interview with The Telegram today, Fitzgerald was quick to downplay his well-known anti-Confederate views. Perhaps his views have changed with reflection over time; perhaps his comment to the Telly on his 1998 public talk on the second referendum before Confederation is couched in equivocal terms so as not to alarm the forces of darkness into whose lair he will soon penetrate:
"I said it was no more or less rigged or corrupt than any other Newfoundland election had been."
Uh huh.
His apparent view in 1993, albeit relayed second-hand, is highlighted below.
Incidentally, for the mainlanders reading this, Secret Nation is a work of fiction. It's a smashingly funny movie that should be released on DVD...if only someone would get around to it.
Read on and enjoy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Secret Nation is a conspiracy movie with a farcical twist
by John Griffin
Secret Nation is a film that asks a lot of hard questions and demands a lot of good answers.
The miracle of Michael Jones's controversial fiction feature about a McGill history student who returns home to Newfoundland to confront her past is that it's so enjoyable anyway.
The veteran St. John's film-maker and CODCO linchpin posits the persistent theory that Newfoundland was rooked out of its autonomous British dominion status and slung to Canada's stingy bosom by a rigged referendum in 1949.
It contends that confederation forces - in cahoots with a British government eager to be rid of a nation colony that had cost the mother country plenty during the economic rigor mortis of the Depression - cooked the vote in favor of annexation to Canada.
By today's standards, a voting margin so narrow that fully 48 per cent of the island nation rejected alliance, would have resulted in more debate, and more referendums, until a decisive majority could be established.
But on March 31, 1949, a highly questionable 4-per-cent spread was enough to snuff out a proud, distinctive country that had survived and thrived under the most arduous geopolitical conditions for 500 years.
The notion of a unique people under the cultural yoke of a larger majority played extremely well here in Quebec when Secret Nation screened during last year's World Film Festival.
It is safe to say Jones, the Newfoundland separatist, and Quebec nationalists locked in a love embrace.
Indeed, the film should have opened a commercial run at that time to capitalize on the barrage of media exposure that followed its tumultuous reception.
Canadian distribution being what it is however - which is to say, being what it isn't - Jones' distributor went fishbelly-up right after the festival, leaving the film in local theatrical limbo until last week, when it opened at Cinema Centre-Ville.
The happy coincidence of having a film about a referendum during an actual referendum might have netted Secret Nation pots of Canadian cash this time last year.
God! Anything to escape the terminally nod-inducing talk about constitutional reform, let alone something as smart, funny, tragic and scandalously juicy as Secret Nation.
Great art has legs, however, and conspiracy theories are forever. So Secret Nation feels as right now, during a no-name election campaign, as it did a year ago.
What's more, Jones has further hard evidence to back up the long- held Newfoundland contention that grievous injustice was done lo these 44 years ago.
"There's a general feeling in Newfoundland that there was a plot of some kind to railroad us into confederation and push us into the arms of Canada," said Jones over cold beverages and a chain of cigarettes in Old Montreal last week.
"It's always been in the air. Based on that, we did a certain amount of research, consulted with historians and that sort of thing before we made the film. "But it was only after the film was finished that I read a brilliant thesis by John Fitzgerald, a young historian in St. John's, that was very supportive of the conclusions of the film - even though the film was a piece of fiction. [Emphasis added]
"We had simplified a very complex time, and part of that fiction was the rigging of the vote itself.
"We made it clear that the vote had been rigged the very night of the vote."
According to Jones (and he's insistent on assuming full responsibility for his spin on events, in case of libel or history proving him wrong) Fitzgerald made it clear Jones and his screenwriter Edward Riche had willy-nilly touched all the elements of what he (Fitzgerald) believes to be an actual conspiracy. [Emphasis added]
"Furthermore, he says we were probably not that far off on the events of the actual night of the referendum. "He reports numerous election irregularities and reports that it's clear the Newfoundland confederates, with Canadian money, were totally in control of the referendum machine. "He says it's clear, by today's standards, that the whole referendum was a farce."
Plenty of that farcical spirit finds its way into Secret Nation.
This is, after all, a film with roots in the insidious CODCO comedy troupe, and its emotions torn between dyed-in-the-sea Newfoundland and the hip artistic generation that both loves home and leaves it.
The movie plays as a thoroughly contemporary piece, despite its historical content and a brilliant mix of archival footage, uncanny recreations, documented fact, domestic tragi-comic fracas, and the sweet unalloyed whimsy that is pure Newfoundland.
It's the kind of thing the Brits do so well in series they then sell to PBS.
CBC would be exhibiting nerve and intelligence to pick up on the trend and show Secret Nation in prime time this winter, when everyone can use a good conspiracy, and better entertainment.
In light of the appointment yesterday of John Fitzgerald as Danny Williams' emissary to what some seem to consider Mordor, it might be interesting to revisit some of the publicity surrounding a movie that I mistook to be fiction.
This piece is also interesting because in an interview with The Telegram today, Fitzgerald was quick to downplay his well-known anti-Confederate views. Perhaps his views have changed with reflection over time; perhaps his comment to the Telly on his 1998 public talk on the second referendum before Confederation is couched in equivocal terms so as not to alarm the forces of darkness into whose lair he will soon penetrate:
"I said it was no more or less rigged or corrupt than any other Newfoundland election had been."
Uh huh.
His apparent view in 1993, albeit relayed second-hand, is highlighted below.
Incidentally, for the mainlanders reading this, Secret Nation is a work of fiction. It's a smashingly funny movie that should be released on DVD...if only someone would get around to it.
Read on and enjoy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Secret Nation is a conspiracy movie with a farcical twist
by John Griffin
Secret Nation is a film that asks a lot of hard questions and demands a lot of good answers.
The miracle of Michael Jones's controversial fiction feature about a McGill history student who returns home to Newfoundland to confront her past is that it's so enjoyable anyway.
The veteran St. John's film-maker and CODCO linchpin posits the persistent theory that Newfoundland was rooked out of its autonomous British dominion status and slung to Canada's stingy bosom by a rigged referendum in 1949.
It contends that confederation forces - in cahoots with a British government eager to be rid of a nation colony that had cost the mother country plenty during the economic rigor mortis of the Depression - cooked the vote in favor of annexation to Canada.
By today's standards, a voting margin so narrow that fully 48 per cent of the island nation rejected alliance, would have resulted in more debate, and more referendums, until a decisive majority could be established.
But on March 31, 1949, a highly questionable 4-per-cent spread was enough to snuff out a proud, distinctive country that had survived and thrived under the most arduous geopolitical conditions for 500 years.
The notion of a unique people under the cultural yoke of a larger majority played extremely well here in Quebec when Secret Nation screened during last year's World Film Festival.
It is safe to say Jones, the Newfoundland separatist, and Quebec nationalists locked in a love embrace.
Indeed, the film should have opened a commercial run at that time to capitalize on the barrage of media exposure that followed its tumultuous reception.
Canadian distribution being what it is however - which is to say, being what it isn't - Jones' distributor went fishbelly-up right after the festival, leaving the film in local theatrical limbo until last week, when it opened at Cinema Centre-Ville.
The happy coincidence of having a film about a referendum during an actual referendum might have netted Secret Nation pots of Canadian cash this time last year.
God! Anything to escape the terminally nod-inducing talk about constitutional reform, let alone something as smart, funny, tragic and scandalously juicy as Secret Nation.
Great art has legs, however, and conspiracy theories are forever. So Secret Nation feels as right now, during a no-name election campaign, as it did a year ago.
What's more, Jones has further hard evidence to back up the long- held Newfoundland contention that grievous injustice was done lo these 44 years ago.
"There's a general feeling in Newfoundland that there was a plot of some kind to railroad us into confederation and push us into the arms of Canada," said Jones over cold beverages and a chain of cigarettes in Old Montreal last week.
"It's always been in the air. Based on that, we did a certain amount of research, consulted with historians and that sort of thing before we made the film. "But it was only after the film was finished that I read a brilliant thesis by John Fitzgerald, a young historian in St. John's, that was very supportive of the conclusions of the film - even though the film was a piece of fiction. [Emphasis added]
"We had simplified a very complex time, and part of that fiction was the rigging of the vote itself.
"We made it clear that the vote had been rigged the very night of the vote."
According to Jones (and he's insistent on assuming full responsibility for his spin on events, in case of libel or history proving him wrong) Fitzgerald made it clear Jones and his screenwriter Edward Riche had willy-nilly touched all the elements of what he (Fitzgerald) believes to be an actual conspiracy. [Emphasis added]
"Furthermore, he says we were probably not that far off on the events of the actual night of the referendum. "He reports numerous election irregularities and reports that it's clear the Newfoundland confederates, with Canadian money, were totally in control of the referendum machine. "He says it's clear, by today's standards, that the whole referendum was a farce."
Plenty of that farcical spirit finds its way into Secret Nation.
This is, after all, a film with roots in the insidious CODCO comedy troupe, and its emotions torn between dyed-in-the-sea Newfoundland and the hip artistic generation that both loves home and leaves it.
The movie plays as a thoroughly contemporary piece, despite its historical content and a brilliant mix of archival footage, uncanny recreations, documented fact, domestic tragi-comic fracas, and the sweet unalloyed whimsy that is pure Newfoundland.
It's the kind of thing the Brits do so well in series they then sell to PBS.
CBC would be exhibiting nerve and intelligence to pick up on the trend and show Secret Nation in prime time this winter, when everyone can use a good conspiracy, and better entertainment.
Houston offshore oil and gas show: No Danny. No Ed. No John either?
From the Halifax Chronicle-Herald comes the news that no Newfoundland and Labrador government officials were present for the international news conference promoting Canada's oil and gas industry to reporters attending the Houston Offshore Technology Conference (OTC).
Business reporter Judy Myrden writes:
Instead, Premier Danny Williams told the House of Assembly that intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer would lead the provincial delegation.
The news release on this seems to have vanished from the provincial government website.
Business reporter Judy Myrden writes:
American reporters following the oil and gas industry noticed [Nova Scotia energy minister Bill] Dooks was the only Canadian government official present at the international news conference on the country'’s resource potential.Apparently, the Premier couldn't go because he was busy with Fishery Products International. Ed Byrne, who is the government house leader, had to stay home to shepherd the budget bill through the legislature.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams and Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne were unable to attend due to "scheduling," and Newfoundland had no government representatives at the conference, which they usually attend.
One oil and gas reporter asked: "Do I understand your message - we're Nova Scotia, we're not that other place that doesn't like the oil and gas sector?" Mr. Dooks shifted awkwardly and said: "I'm here to speak about Nova Scotia. I really can'’t answer a lot of questions about Newfoundland. The Newfoundland industry will have to work out their own situation." Hosting the news conference was Jean-Michel Roy, consul general of Canada in Dallas, who gave a brief overview of Canada'’s potential, mentioning only Alberta. On his last slide, he mentioned the possibility of LNG terminals being built in Canada. Nor did he jump to the microphone to explain Newfoundland.
The Newfoundland booth at the huge trade show, which is part of the annual Offshore Technology Conference, was displaying an industry magazine with the cover of an old, rusty oil drum with oil coming out of a spout. The headline: NO DEAL! Hebron Project Going Down the Drain? The magazine dedicated its issue to the failure of the negotiations.
Instead, Premier Danny Williams told the House of Assembly that intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer would lead the provincial delegation.
The news release on this seems to have vanished from the provincial government website.
03 May 2006
Mr. Fitz goes to Ottawa
John FitzGerald will be replacing Bill Rowe as Danny Williams' personal plenipotentiary to Disneyland on the Rideau, affectionately known to some as Ottawa.
Aside from trips to the national archives once in a while, Fitz last spent time in Ottawa working on his doctoral thesis in history.
The subject you may ask?
In announcing the appointment, Premier Danny Williams referred to Fitz's "astute knowledge of federal-provincial constitutional issues." The giant bio attached to the news release doesn't really give any hint of the experience Fitz has which would lead the Premier to make such a pronouncement.
Perhaps the Premier is impressed by Fitz's knowledge of Renaissance Italian political theory.
So what did Dr. Fitz occupy his time with to earn the degree?
Perhaps some further digging will reveal more.
Anyway, in the meantime, congratulations to John FitzGerald. We at the Bond Papers wish him all the best in the new job.
Now where did I put my DVD copy of Secret Nation, again?
Aside from trips to the national archives once in a while, Fitz last spent time in Ottawa working on his doctoral thesis in history.
The subject you may ask?
In announcing the appointment, Premier Danny Williams referred to Fitz's "astute knowledge of federal-provincial constitutional issues." The giant bio attached to the news release doesn't really give any hint of the experience Fitz has which would lead the Premier to make such a pronouncement.
Perhaps the Premier is impressed by Fitz's knowledge of Renaissance Italian political theory.
So what did Dr. Fitz occupy his time with to earn the degree?
Conflict and Culture in Irish-Newfoundland Roman Catholicism, 1829-1850. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Ottawa. 1997.While this is no doubt the subject is a fine one worthy of academic inquiry, it is difficult to see anything in the new high commissioner's background that matches Danny Williams praise.
Perhaps some further digging will reveal more.
Anyway, in the meantime, congratulations to John FitzGerald. We at the Bond Papers wish him all the best in the new job.
Now where did I put my DVD copy of Secret Nation, again?
Harper's real view of the 2005 offshore deals
From the federal budget document Restoring fiscal balance in Canada: focusing on priorities :
Loyola Sullivan likes to assure us all that the provincial treasury will be protected by the proposed Harper changes to Equalization. Those changes have to happen first and we have to see what they will look like before anyone can make a judgment about whether the 2005 deal was worth $2.0 billion or whether it will be worth more.
The differences between Danny Williams' views and those of Loyola Sullivan were assessed in February 2006 by the Bond Papers.
Danny and Loyola are not on the same page.
Concerns Over Funding ArrangementsThe current federal administration makes it plain that the 2005 offshore deals were outside the normal pattern of federal transfers to provinces. There is no indication of how the federal government will address the anomaly caused by the deals, but there should be no mistake that it is on their radar screen.
Targeted to Address Specific Regional Needs
The confidence of Canadians in the overall fairness of federal programs has been undermined in recent years as the result of federal actions that were seen to be departing from the principle of comparable treatment of all Canadians and their provincial and territorial governments. In particular:
* The February 2005 agreements to provide Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal Equalization offset payments sought to address the severe fiscal challenges faced by those two provinces as a result of their high public debt, but were widely criticized as undermining the principles on which the Equalization program is based. ... [p.43]
Loyola Sullivan likes to assure us all that the provincial treasury will be protected by the proposed Harper changes to Equalization. Those changes have to happen first and we have to see what they will look like before anyone can make a judgment about whether the 2005 deal was worth $2.0 billion or whether it will be worth more.
The differences between Danny Williams' views and those of Loyola Sullivan were assessed in February 2006 by the Bond Papers.
Danny and Loyola are not on the same page.
Williams' oil and gas corporation: institutionalizing dependence (reprint)
The House of Assembly will soon turn to debating the only major piece of legislation on the current agenda: amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro act. In light of the imminent passage of that legislation and recent events during the Hebron fiasco, it is timely to reprint an article originally posted last October on Danny Williams' vision of a state-owned oil and gas company in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Note: The Antle story is no longer available online owing in large measure to the abysmal website maintained by The Telegram.
----------------------
When Danny Williams released his Blue Book, it appeared to contain a contradiction. Thanks to Rob Antle's story in yesterday's Telegram, the contradiction is now more apparent.
The first chapter of the Blue Book copied almost word for word the Wells' administration Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). The SEP aimed to correct two fundamental weaknesses in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, namely excessive dependence on a handful of major resource industries on the one hand and a shortage of local, accessible capital to support economic activity on the other. Since Confederation, the latter weakness had been addressed by federal transfer payments which had resulted in another form of dependence.
In some respects, these twin dependencies were historic issues. The pre-Confederation economy depended on the fishery, forestry and mining with the former being prominent. Local manufacturing was dependent as well, although before 1949, it relied on protectionist tariffs to keep Canadian manufactured goods out. Such was its level of dependence that within three months of Confederation, most of those manufacturing enterprises collapsed in the face of more robust and efficient business elsewhere.
The SEP identified entrepreneurship - the growth and development of the private sector - as the mechanism by which the Newfoundland and Labrador economy could be strengthened and the twin dependencies eliminated.
By contrast, the second chapter of William's Blue Book dusted off industrial development policies from the 1970s and 1980s with its focus on oil and gas as the means of generating cash for the provincial government. The Peckford administration viewed oil and gas as the sole means of financial salvation for both the Newfoundland government and for its society.
Peckford passed legislation to create the Petroleum Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, with its legislated share of each offshore development. Coupled with that, the legislation mandated that companies involved in the local offshore would be local companies. Through these legislated requirements the province would develop an oil industry that would ensure, in the words of both Peckford then and Williams now, that maximum benefits would flow locally from local resources.
The fundamental contradiction between these two approaches is that while the SEP is based on private sector entrepreneurship and increasing international trade for local products, the Peckford and now Williams approach is focused on state ownership of industry and on local markets.
A genuine contradiction would exist if the Blue Book embraced the philosophies underpinning the Wells and Peckford approaches. It does not. Rather, Williams appears to be focused on control as an end in and of itself. For example, take this phrase dealing with prospective hydro development: "I'’d like to see us own the lion'’s share of the Lower Churchill...". The provincial government already owns the "lion's share" and can claim rents from electricity as a matter of owning it.
What Williams is talking about here is owning and controlling the company which generates the electricity.
Consider as well, the rest of that section of Antle's story: natural gas should be brought ashore in Newfoundland and Labrador by pipeline so that "we have control of the pipeline so that it'’s not being compressed or liquefied and going in a God damn boat and going on down the coast somewhere."
In the absence of any demand for natural gas within the province or any demonstrable advantage to converting the province to gas, an entrepreneurial approach would support selling it to someone who wants it. Better to ship it to the United States in whatever way produces the best price than to spend money bringing it to a place that has no use for it. Revenue from that sale can support public services like health care. Privately owned local companies can own the ships that move the gas to market. Expertise in gas production and shipping, potentially using new technology, can give the local private sector a competitive advantage such that it can gain even more business around the globe than can be obtained purely within Newfoundland and Labrador.
A government dedicated to developing the private sector would create a climate in which local companies can exploit local resources thereby generating wealth. Government's share of that wealth through economic rents and other taxation would give sufficient revenue to deliver government programs and services.
In the Williams approach, the state - the provincial government - is merely a corporate entity with all the tools necessary to achieve local, i.e. provincial government, control.
The struggle for the Williams government is the struggle for control. He acknowledges that his supposed opponents are larger than government: "if you go up against Hydro Quebec, if you go up against Inco, if you go up against ExxonMobil, they'’re a lot bigger than our government is. That'’s the grim reality of all of this." His next comments identify the solution - build the hydro corporation such that it can "take on" the biggest out there.
The result of the Williams approach is difficult to predict. Certainly, in the short run, he may achieve considerable political success. He may be able to turn the energy corporation into a Mother Hen that will wrest a portion of economic developments for itself and then distribute these among local companies. The resulting jobs may carry with them votes.
In the medium- to long- term, though, the Williams approach cannot address the chronic, historic problems in the local economy. Over the past 25 years, Western economies have disposed of state-owned enterprises since they are notoriously unable to produce wealth as effectively and efficiently as the private sector. The ones that survive, such as Quebec's hydro corporation may be models for the Premier, but they are models from the past. They are models which are limited to very specific and primarily local activities. In short, they are expensive and ultimately wasteful of what in Newfoundland and Labrador are scarce cash resources.
The Williams Mother Hen approach - if that indeed is what emerges - will simply promote
dependence of local companies on state subsidies, either directly or indirectly.
The Premier's plan may not succeed simply because the hydro corporation is actually not the entity Premier Williams describes. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a government department in all but name and is almost the antithesis of a private sector corporation in which the board of directors would have the authority to run the company and set its own lines of business.
On the face of it this is obvious: the impetus to change hydro to an energy corporation did not come from its own board, complete with a business plan. It is entirely the plan of this particular administration. The board will not resist. The Premier alone holds the de facto power to appoint or remove directors and he has shown repeatedly his willingness to replace dissenters with his own personal retinue.
As such, the new energy corporation will likely be quickly recognized as an anomaly in the developed world and surely one which violates the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines for the governance of state-owned enterprises. Even if one leaves aside for the moment the nagging and very serious question of how the new energy corporation will find the cash to support the Premier's ambitions, one can readily see how companies such as Chevron may be very reluctant to enter into any arrangements that would see its long awaited return on investment siphoned off into a provincially owned company with no experience in oil and gas and no capital at risk. These companies are not Fishery Products International.
International companies may well become increasingly reluctant to invest in this province as the Williams' approach becomes better understood. International capital seeks stability and predictability as well as a fair and transparent regulatory regime. In the case of the offshore, it appears from the Premier's interview yesterday and his previous comments on the offshore board that he intends to change the rules as he sees fit, when he sees fit.
Premier Williams may succeed in creating some measure of the control that he finds satisfying personally. On another level, however, all he may succeed in doing is ensuring the chronic problems in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy continue into the future, at best unaltered and at worst supported by the very mechanisms of control which he is seeking.
In reforming the hydro corporation, he may well be using the elements of plans laid by previous administrations to cement in place the very circumstance they sought to change.
Note: The Antle story is no longer available online owing in large measure to the abysmal website maintained by The Telegram.
----------------------
When Danny Williams released his Blue Book, it appeared to contain a contradiction. Thanks to Rob Antle's story in yesterday's Telegram, the contradiction is now more apparent.
The first chapter of the Blue Book copied almost word for word the Wells' administration Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). The SEP aimed to correct two fundamental weaknesses in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, namely excessive dependence on a handful of major resource industries on the one hand and a shortage of local, accessible capital to support economic activity on the other. Since Confederation, the latter weakness had been addressed by federal transfer payments which had resulted in another form of dependence.
In some respects, these twin dependencies were historic issues. The pre-Confederation economy depended on the fishery, forestry and mining with the former being prominent. Local manufacturing was dependent as well, although before 1949, it relied on protectionist tariffs to keep Canadian manufactured goods out. Such was its level of dependence that within three months of Confederation, most of those manufacturing enterprises collapsed in the face of more robust and efficient business elsewhere.
The SEP identified entrepreneurship - the growth and development of the private sector - as the mechanism by which the Newfoundland and Labrador economy could be strengthened and the twin dependencies eliminated.
By contrast, the second chapter of William's Blue Book dusted off industrial development policies from the 1970s and 1980s with its focus on oil and gas as the means of generating cash for the provincial government. The Peckford administration viewed oil and gas as the sole means of financial salvation for both the Newfoundland government and for its society.
Peckford passed legislation to create the Petroleum Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, with its legislated share of each offshore development. Coupled with that, the legislation mandated that companies involved in the local offshore would be local companies. Through these legislated requirements the province would develop an oil industry that would ensure, in the words of both Peckford then and Williams now, that maximum benefits would flow locally from local resources.
The fundamental contradiction between these two approaches is that while the SEP is based on private sector entrepreneurship and increasing international trade for local products, the Peckford and now Williams approach is focused on state ownership of industry and on local markets.
A genuine contradiction would exist if the Blue Book embraced the philosophies underpinning the Wells and Peckford approaches. It does not. Rather, Williams appears to be focused on control as an end in and of itself. For example, take this phrase dealing with prospective hydro development: "I'’d like to see us own the lion'’s share of the Lower Churchill...". The provincial government already owns the "lion's share" and can claim rents from electricity as a matter of owning it.
What Williams is talking about here is owning and controlling the company which generates the electricity.
Consider as well, the rest of that section of Antle's story: natural gas should be brought ashore in Newfoundland and Labrador by pipeline so that "we have control of the pipeline so that it'’s not being compressed or liquefied and going in a God damn boat and going on down the coast somewhere."
In the absence of any demand for natural gas within the province or any demonstrable advantage to converting the province to gas, an entrepreneurial approach would support selling it to someone who wants it. Better to ship it to the United States in whatever way produces the best price than to spend money bringing it to a place that has no use for it. Revenue from that sale can support public services like health care. Privately owned local companies can own the ships that move the gas to market. Expertise in gas production and shipping, potentially using new technology, can give the local private sector a competitive advantage such that it can gain even more business around the globe than can be obtained purely within Newfoundland and Labrador.
A government dedicated to developing the private sector would create a climate in which local companies can exploit local resources thereby generating wealth. Government's share of that wealth through economic rents and other taxation would give sufficient revenue to deliver government programs and services.
In the Williams approach, the state - the provincial government - is merely a corporate entity with all the tools necessary to achieve local, i.e. provincial government, control.
The struggle for the Williams government is the struggle for control. He acknowledges that his supposed opponents are larger than government: "if you go up against Hydro Quebec, if you go up against Inco, if you go up against ExxonMobil, they'’re a lot bigger than our government is. That'’s the grim reality of all of this." His next comments identify the solution - build the hydro corporation such that it can "take on" the biggest out there.
The result of the Williams approach is difficult to predict. Certainly, in the short run, he may achieve considerable political success. He may be able to turn the energy corporation into a Mother Hen that will wrest a portion of economic developments for itself and then distribute these among local companies. The resulting jobs may carry with them votes.
In the medium- to long- term, though, the Williams approach cannot address the chronic, historic problems in the local economy. Over the past 25 years, Western economies have disposed of state-owned enterprises since they are notoriously unable to produce wealth as effectively and efficiently as the private sector. The ones that survive, such as Quebec's hydro corporation may be models for the Premier, but they are models from the past. They are models which are limited to very specific and primarily local activities. In short, they are expensive and ultimately wasteful of what in Newfoundland and Labrador are scarce cash resources.
The Williams Mother Hen approach - if that indeed is what emerges - will simply promote
dependence of local companies on state subsidies, either directly or indirectly.
The Premier's plan may not succeed simply because the hydro corporation is actually not the entity Premier Williams describes. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a government department in all but name and is almost the antithesis of a private sector corporation in which the board of directors would have the authority to run the company and set its own lines of business.
On the face of it this is obvious: the impetus to change hydro to an energy corporation did not come from its own board, complete with a business plan. It is entirely the plan of this particular administration. The board will not resist. The Premier alone holds the de facto power to appoint or remove directors and he has shown repeatedly his willingness to replace dissenters with his own personal retinue.
As such, the new energy corporation will likely be quickly recognized as an anomaly in the developed world and surely one which violates the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines for the governance of state-owned enterprises. Even if one leaves aside for the moment the nagging and very serious question of how the new energy corporation will find the cash to support the Premier's ambitions, one can readily see how companies such as Chevron may be very reluctant to enter into any arrangements that would see its long awaited return on investment siphoned off into a provincially owned company with no experience in oil and gas and no capital at risk. These companies are not Fishery Products International.
International companies may well become increasingly reluctant to invest in this province as the Williams' approach becomes better understood. International capital seeks stability and predictability as well as a fair and transparent regulatory regime. In the case of the offshore, it appears from the Premier's interview yesterday and his previous comments on the offshore board that he intends to change the rules as he sees fit, when he sees fit.
Premier Williams may succeed in creating some measure of the control that he finds satisfying personally. On another level, however, all he may succeed in doing is ensuring the chronic problems in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy continue into the future, at best unaltered and at worst supported by the very mechanisms of control which he is seeking.
In reforming the hydro corporation, he may well be using the elements of plans laid by previous administrations to cement in place the very circumstance they sought to change.
02 May 2006
Chavezism spreads: Bolivia nationalizes gas fields
Under a May Day decree, Bolivian president Evo Morales has seized control of at least one refinery in the South American country and ordered oil and gas companies operating in Bolivia to sell at least 51% interest in the each company in Bolivia.Soldiers seized some property and hung banners that read "Nationalized: property of Bolivians". [Photo: Agence France Press]
Government auditors will assess the value of the majority equity position.
As well under the decree, Bolivian state royalties on two of the largest fields will rise from 50% to 82% while the government will claim 60% royalties on the remaining fields.
During his speech announcing the decree, Morales said the newly nationalized oil and gas companies will provide jobs for indigenous people. Morales said: "This is the end of the looting of our natural resources by multinational oil companies."
Bolivia holds South America's second largest gas reserves. Morales swept to power in recent elections on a promise to "recover" natural resources for Bolivians.
Bolivia exports gas primarily to Brazil and Argentina.
High dollar affects us too
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is concerned that having the Canadian dollar trading at near par with the American dollar plus any measures taken by the Bank of Canada to curb inflation will hurt the Ontario economy. He singled out interest rate hikes by the Bank of Canada as being one of the counter-inflationary measures that will take its toll on the Ontario economy.
McGuinty is right.
But when was the last time anyone heard a representative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pointing out that a high dollar and counter-inflationary measures will hurt the provincial economy in Canada's eastern-most province?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Buehler?
Buehler?
No one has said a peep about it.
The high exchange rate for the Canadian dollar is one of the factors contributing to Fishery Products International's financial problems. It also affects the profitability of other fisheries and just about any of the goods and services our trading economy produces. In short, a high dollar hurts our economy.
The oil sector will dumps wads of cash into provincial coffers but other sectors of the economy like mining, forestry, and manufacturing will have to cope with the impacts of reduced exports and/or higher costs.
Of course, Dalton McGuinty is linking his concern about the dollar with his demand for greater transfers from Ottawa. But still, since Premier Danny Williams has skipped his trip to the offshore conference in Houston supposedly to deal with the fishery, he might actually start talking about the wider economic issues affecting that industry.
McGuinty is right.
But when was the last time anyone heard a representative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pointing out that a high dollar and counter-inflationary measures will hurt the provincial economy in Canada's eastern-most province?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Buehler?
Buehler?
No one has said a peep about it.
The high exchange rate for the Canadian dollar is one of the factors contributing to Fishery Products International's financial problems. It also affects the profitability of other fisheries and just about any of the goods and services our trading economy produces. In short, a high dollar hurts our economy.
The oil sector will dumps wads of cash into provincial coffers but other sectors of the economy like mining, forestry, and manufacturing will have to cope with the impacts of reduced exports and/or higher costs.
Of course, Dalton McGuinty is linking his concern about the dollar with his demand for greater transfers from Ottawa. But still, since Premier Danny Williams has skipped his trip to the offshore conference in Houston supposedly to deal with the fishery, he might actually start talking about the wider economic issues affecting that industry.
The rubbish tip of history
A self-congratulatory column in the Toronto Star this weekend by Independent editor in chief Ryan Cleary included some curious comments, among them the claim that Hydro Quebec made $2.0 billion in profit from the Upper Churchill last year compared to $34 million for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
"With that in mind," wrote Cleary, "The Independent took a strong Newfoundland and Labrador focus from the start. Most of our investigations delve into motherhood issues. From the 'negotiations' that led to the Terms of Union to the infamous upper Churchill contract - which saw Quebec rake in an estimated $2 billion in profit last year alone, compared to this province's $34-million take - most projects have a distinct local flavour."
According to Hydro Quebec's 2005 annual report, the company had a net income of $1.87 billion in 2005. That's analogous to profit, in that it is the money left over from revenues after all the bills are paid.
Perhaps, Quebec made more in profit than it actually made.
Unlikely.
But the financial statements also report an income from operations of $2.249 billion.
So if Cleary is right, then the Upper Churchill is responsible for 88% of Hydro Quebec's net income. That doesn't seem right since the Upper Churchill, as large as it is, doesn't constitute 88% of Hydro Quebec's generating capacity.
Something tells me Cleary's numbers are not correct.
But let's take it a step further; Cleary claims Newfoundland and Labrador earned $34 million from the Upper Churchill. The 2004 recall power purchase agreement with Quebec on a $130 megawatt block of power yields the province about $46 million each year over its five-year term. That isn't counting the revenues that flow from the sale of the rest of the Upper Churchill's 5, 800 megawatts of power to Quebec.
Clearly, something is missing in Cleary's numbers.
This doesn't mean the Upper Churchill contract is a fine and wonderful thing. Rather Cleary's column points yet again to the fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations that are the bedrock of so much discussions of the Upper Churchill contract. Since that contract is the fuel for so much political rhetoric about ending give-aways of our resources, it doesn't take long for fundamental errors - like Cleary's - to become the basis for public policy goals that are out of whack with what can be realistically achieved.
We wind up with a case of policy GIGO. Computer programmers will recognize that acronym: garbage in, garbage out.
"With that in mind", referred to the idea that Confederation was a giant con job, what I like to call the idea that the fiction yarn Secret Nation was actually a documentary:
The distinct local flavour Cleary mentioned, though, is that GIGO business and the mythology that goes with it.
It is a flavour we can do without.
That is, we can do without it unless we want to keep going back to the rubbish tip for another whiff or, God forbid, another taste of the myths that have hobbled Newfoundland and Labrador and its people for too long.
"With that in mind," wrote Cleary, "The Independent took a strong Newfoundland and Labrador focus from the start. Most of our investigations delve into motherhood issues. From the 'negotiations' that led to the Terms of Union to the infamous upper Churchill contract - which saw Quebec rake in an estimated $2 billion in profit last year alone, compared to this province's $34-million take - most projects have a distinct local flavour."
According to Hydro Quebec's 2005 annual report, the company had a net income of $1.87 billion in 2005. That's analogous to profit, in that it is the money left over from revenues after all the bills are paid.
Perhaps, Quebec made more in profit than it actually made.
Unlikely.
But the financial statements also report an income from operations of $2.249 billion.
So if Cleary is right, then the Upper Churchill is responsible for 88% of Hydro Quebec's net income. That doesn't seem right since the Upper Churchill, as large as it is, doesn't constitute 88% of Hydro Quebec's generating capacity.
Something tells me Cleary's numbers are not correct.
But let's take it a step further; Cleary claims Newfoundland and Labrador earned $34 million from the Upper Churchill. The 2004 recall power purchase agreement with Quebec on a $130 megawatt block of power yields the province about $46 million each year over its five-year term. That isn't counting the revenues that flow from the sale of the rest of the Upper Churchill's 5, 800 megawatts of power to Quebec.
Clearly, something is missing in Cleary's numbers.
This doesn't mean the Upper Churchill contract is a fine and wonderful thing. Rather Cleary's column points yet again to the fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations that are the bedrock of so much discussions of the Upper Churchill contract. Since that contract is the fuel for so much political rhetoric about ending give-aways of our resources, it doesn't take long for fundamental errors - like Cleary's - to become the basis for public policy goals that are out of whack with what can be realistically achieved.
We wind up with a case of policy GIGO. Computer programmers will recognize that acronym: garbage in, garbage out.
"With that in mind", referred to the idea that Confederation was a giant con job, what I like to call the idea that the fiction yarn Secret Nation was actually a documentary:
There have been whispers of conspiracies and plots, treason and treachery ever since, based on the theory that Newfoundland didn't so much join Canada as was manoeuvred into it.What was also in mind was everything from mainlanders referring to the province as "have-not" to the jokes about "newfies".
The distinct local flavour Cleary mentioned, though, is that GIGO business and the mythology that goes with it.
It is a flavour we can do without.
That is, we can do without it unless we want to keep going back to the rubbish tip for another whiff or, God forbid, another taste of the myths that have hobbled Newfoundland and Labrador and its people for too long.
Fish and oil
People are wondering if the provincial government will try and take an equity position in the fishery, in the same way they are trying to do in the oil and gas sector.
The answer is already in front of us.
In the spectacular - unprecedented? - government assistance given to Bill Barry's efforts to buy chunks of Fishery Products International (FPI) last week, both Premier Danny Williams and fish minister Tom Rideout indicated that their preferred approach would be to have government purchase the fish harvesting quotas currently held by FPI while an unspecified, but fairly obvious, private sector enterprise would lease those assets from the government to operate however many fish plants they want.
The question isn't whether or not the provincial government will take some ownership stake in the fishery in the near future. It's pretty clear that Danny and Tom want to own the fishery indirectly even if they legally don't set quotas.
In order to get the oil and gas analogy correct, the real question is whether or not the provincial government will seek an equity position in the Barry Group's operation of FPI plants comparable to its demand for an ownership stake in the oil and gas operations offshore.
Something tells me they won't. The Premier has already said he has no interest in getting into the fishing business, i.e. the processing business, believing that is best left to the private sector.
So what's the difference between the oil processing business and the fish processing business?
The answer is already in front of us.
In the spectacular - unprecedented? - government assistance given to Bill Barry's efforts to buy chunks of Fishery Products International (FPI) last week, both Premier Danny Williams and fish minister Tom Rideout indicated that their preferred approach would be to have government purchase the fish harvesting quotas currently held by FPI while an unspecified, but fairly obvious, private sector enterprise would lease those assets from the government to operate however many fish plants they want.
The question isn't whether or not the provincial government will take some ownership stake in the fishery in the near future. It's pretty clear that Danny and Tom want to own the fishery indirectly even if they legally don't set quotas.
In order to get the oil and gas analogy correct, the real question is whether or not the provincial government will seek an equity position in the Barry Group's operation of FPI plants comparable to its demand for an ownership stake in the oil and gas operations offshore.
Something tells me they won't. The Premier has already said he has no interest in getting into the fishing business, i.e. the processing business, believing that is best left to the private sector.
So what's the difference between the oil processing business and the fish processing business?
Great minds think alike
Former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector's column in Monday's Globe and Mail tackled the issue of the Harper administration's efforts to control media access to cabinet ministers.
Unfortunately for him, the reaction to the recent case of soldiers killed in Afghanistan was enhanced because of all the other gag orders and control issues out there. Spector's warning might be a bit too late.
Limiting reporting of the return of fallen soldiers, on the other hand, smacks of a government that is nervous about public opinion. While the decision not to fly the flag at half-mast on Parliament Hill is defensible in light of precedent, restricting access to military bases will increase the anxiety of Canadians, many of whom feel we slipped into the Afghanistan war without adequate parliamentary debate or media coverage.The Bond Papers came to a similar conclusion some time ago:
The opposition parties and political cartoonists were licking their chops last week at the prospect of being able to portray Mr. Harper as George Bush-lite. The greater risk for Mr. Harper is that he will re-awaken fears that he harbours a hidden agenda. Heading into an election in which the ballot question will be whether he can be trusted with a majority government, that's a perception that Stephen Harper would be wise not to encourage.
In the short term, though, the gag order also sends a powerfully negative message about the Harper government. Gagging your own team tells the world that you are not in control, that you are afraid. If Stephen Harper and his ministers can't deal with a few scraggly reporters, how in the name of heavens will they cope with the real challenges every prime minister will face?Spector is right about the issue of Afghanistan, but his conclusion applies in a broader sense to the entire Harper ministry. Gag orders and media control smack of insecurity. They speak to a level of nervousness about public opinion, not just on dead soldiers but on virtually every file, that ultimately is a perception of Stephen Harper that the prime minister would not wish to encourage.
Unfortunately for him, the reaction to the recent case of soldiers killed in Afghanistan was enhanced because of all the other gag orders and control issues out there. Spector's warning might be a bit too late.
The scripted zinger for a scripted question
It may be an overly technical point but natural resources minister Ed Byrne sounded just a little too scripted in the House of Assembly at one point on Monday.
Byrne was trying to pull his usual routine of late, trying to convince people that there are no consequences for the local oil and gas sector from the Hebron fiasco. So after a long-winded answer in which Byrne said there are no consequences but if there are, then any slowdowns at Hibernia are due to a lost drill bit and that there can't be any slowdowns since the project doesn't exist at Hibernia South because there is no development application anyway.
Then, Ed threw out this comment:
"But to say or make an allegation, or even to leave an impression that as a result of the breakdown in Hebron discussions now Exxon Mobil and Hibernia South is all off the rails, Mr. Speaker, would be equivalent to Chicken Little saying the sky is falling or Eeyore saying: Oh, hum, we are expecting rain tomorrow."
It's that Eeyore thing that was just a bit much. Now I could take Byrne running all over the place isn't we should remain calm and that all is well. But, for some reason, I just don't think that your average middle-aged man will toss out Eeyore into a conversation as an example of someone who is saying things that aren't true. Doesn't matter how heated the moment.
The Hundred Acre Wood just isn't the sort of place adults go to naturally to illustrate points of high government policy. Sure, being born in the Year of the Tiger, I'll sometimes after striking my head on a low-hanging shelf in my daughter's bedroom, I'll lament that my top isn't made of "da rubber" like Tigger's. But she's eight years old and she'll get it.
But if I am discussing the way this government throws out policy options, I am not really going to tell other adults that it's like they were playing Pooh-sticks.
Byrne's comment sounded an awful lot like a scripted zinger. That is, a line developed by Byrne's staff for use in answer to the highly predictable Opposition questions. Chicken Little is a common enough popular reference. A.A. Milne is not either in the original or the Disney incarnation.
The question Byrne was answering was recycled from before Easter and was, in fact, no better delivered the other day than it was before everyone in the legislature took off for a couple of weeks vacation.
Questions that are badly constructed and badly delivered tend to elicit the sort of nonsensical answers Ed Byrne has been throwing out lately.
Byrne was trying to pull his usual routine of late, trying to convince people that there are no consequences for the local oil and gas sector from the Hebron fiasco. So after a long-winded answer in which Byrne said there are no consequences but if there are, then any slowdowns at Hibernia are due to a lost drill bit and that there can't be any slowdowns since the project doesn't exist at Hibernia South because there is no development application anyway.
Then, Ed threw out this comment:
"But to say or make an allegation, or even to leave an impression that as a result of the breakdown in Hebron discussions now Exxon Mobil and Hibernia South is all off the rails, Mr. Speaker, would be equivalent to Chicken Little saying the sky is falling or Eeyore saying: Oh, hum, we are expecting rain tomorrow."
It's that Eeyore thing that was just a bit much. Now I could take Byrne running all over the place isn't we should remain calm and that all is well. But, for some reason, I just don't think that your average middle-aged man will toss out Eeyore into a conversation as an example of someone who is saying things that aren't true. Doesn't matter how heated the moment.
The Hundred Acre Wood just isn't the sort of place adults go to naturally to illustrate points of high government policy. Sure, being born in the Year of the Tiger, I'll sometimes after striking my head on a low-hanging shelf in my daughter's bedroom, I'll lament that my top isn't made of "da rubber" like Tigger's. But she's eight years old and she'll get it.
But if I am discussing the way this government throws out policy options, I am not really going to tell other adults that it's like they were playing Pooh-sticks.
Byrne's comment sounded an awful lot like a scripted zinger. That is, a line developed by Byrne's staff for use in answer to the highly predictable Opposition questions. Chicken Little is a common enough popular reference. A.A. Milne is not either in the original or the Disney incarnation.
The question Byrne was answering was recycled from before Easter and was, in fact, no better delivered the other day than it was before everyone in the legislature took off for a couple of weeks vacation.
Questions that are badly constructed and badly delivered tend to elicit the sort of nonsensical answers Ed Byrne has been throwing out lately.
30 April 2006
John Kenneth Galbraith, 1908-2006
Internationally acclaimed economist John Kenneth Galbraith has died at the age of 97.
The Canadian-born Galbraith received an honorary doctorate from Memorial University in 1999. Here is a link to his biography that occasion, the oration delivered by Dr, Shane O'Dea and the text of Dr. Galbraith's remarks.
The Canadian-born Galbraith received an honorary doctorate from Memorial University in 1999. Here is a link to his biography that occasion, the oration delivered by Dr, Shane O'Dea and the text of Dr. Galbraith's remarks.
28 April 2006
Remain calm. All is well.
Hebron is but one project in an exciting industry. We have three oil and gas projects that are proceeding, natural gas development in front of us and we'’re excited about the future of the industry.
Natural resources minister Ed Byrne, quoted in The Telegram, Friday, April 28, 2006
There's optimism.There's seeing the glass half full.
Then there's Ed Byrne.
Ed Byrne makes a pollyanna look suicidal.
One step closer and I'll blow my brains out
It's taken a while but the rumblings from some within the Liberal Party have finally emerged as the story that there are plans afoot to dump Jim Bennett as party leader after only a few weeks on the job.
Here's the VOCM version, although Craig Jackson of the Telegram broke the story yesterday.
Okay, so Bennett isn't the sharpest knife in the political drawer. Okay, so he doesn't have a group of close confidants and advisors helping out. Okay, so he doesn't consult much with caucus.
But here's the thing.
The rocket scientists in the Liberal Party who decided the party only needed a few months to get ready for the next election, who did sweet fanny adams to get rid of the party debt over the past two years and who didn't put forward a candidate of their own are likely the same diminutive ersatz Macchiavellis who now cook up this idea to dump Bennett and replace him with someone else all in even less time than the party got Bennett.
It's not like the Party hasn't had its fair share of leaders with little or no election potential or guys who got stuffed in as leader when they couldn't have won the job the proper way.
It's not like anyone on the planet expects the party to do anything of consequence as the Danny machine steamrolls over them in late 2007.
So let Bennett run the place for a while and then deal with whatever problems there are later on.
If nothing else, as David Cochrane has been pointing out over the past couple of days, a leadership review followed by a leadership contest will tap the available cash and likely bankrupt the party financially.
Think, people. Think.
There is plenty to keep everyone occupied over the next few years. The opportunity to make a contest out of 2007 was lost in the time wasted getting to the point where Jim Bennett was the only guy willing to take on the leader's job. The only person, full-stop. It's not like who is leading the Party will make a huge difference in 2007 anyway.
And that is at a time when the current administration is showing just how to run a province by the seat of one's pants. "Making it up as we go along" takes on a whole new meaning when watching Tom Rideout and Danny Williams in running about in complete disarray on files like FPI, Hebron and Abitibi. It would be a political opportunity of historic proportions if the past two years hadn't been spent doing nothing.
So, those strategic geniuses who want to oust Jim Bennett should just suck it up and deal with the problem as it is. The alternative is worse.
And besides, who do these anonymous party insiders have in mind for the job?
Sue?
She's busy doing other things.
Bill?
Been there. Done that. Tossed the brown envelope.
The machinators forget one thing: the last time the Liberal Party held an open audition for the role of leader, Jim Bennett was the only person who showed up.
If they punt Jim Bennett, these self-styled insiders might have to hold a seance to find someone to vote Liberal next election, let alone replace Bennett.
Better these long-time party conspirators devoted their energy to putting some cash in the bank - doing something useful for a change - than carrying on the business of back-biting a guy who at least was willing to take on a job no one else wanted.
Here's the VOCM version, although Craig Jackson of the Telegram broke the story yesterday.
Okay, so Bennett isn't the sharpest knife in the political drawer. Okay, so he doesn't have a group of close confidants and advisors helping out. Okay, so he doesn't consult much with caucus.
But here's the thing.
The rocket scientists in the Liberal Party who decided the party only needed a few months to get ready for the next election, who did sweet fanny adams to get rid of the party debt over the past two years and who didn't put forward a candidate of their own are likely the same diminutive ersatz Macchiavellis who now cook up this idea to dump Bennett and replace him with someone else all in even less time than the party got Bennett.
It's not like the Party hasn't had its fair share of leaders with little or no election potential or guys who got stuffed in as leader when they couldn't have won the job the proper way.
It's not like anyone on the planet expects the party to do anything of consequence as the Danny machine steamrolls over them in late 2007.
So let Bennett run the place for a while and then deal with whatever problems there are later on.
If nothing else, as David Cochrane has been pointing out over the past couple of days, a leadership review followed by a leadership contest will tap the available cash and likely bankrupt the party financially.
Think, people. Think.
There is plenty to keep everyone occupied over the next few years. The opportunity to make a contest out of 2007 was lost in the time wasted getting to the point where Jim Bennett was the only guy willing to take on the leader's job. The only person, full-stop. It's not like who is leading the Party will make a huge difference in 2007 anyway.
And that is at a time when the current administration is showing just how to run a province by the seat of one's pants. "Making it up as we go along" takes on a whole new meaning when watching Tom Rideout and Danny Williams in running about in complete disarray on files like FPI, Hebron and Abitibi. It would be a political opportunity of historic proportions if the past two years hadn't been spent doing nothing.
So, those strategic geniuses who want to oust Jim Bennett should just suck it up and deal with the problem as it is. The alternative is worse.
And besides, who do these anonymous party insiders have in mind for the job?
Sue?
She's busy doing other things.
Bill?
Been there. Done that. Tossed the brown envelope.
The machinators forget one thing: the last time the Liberal Party held an open audition for the role of leader, Jim Bennett was the only person who showed up.
If they punt Jim Bennett, these self-styled insiders might have to hold a seance to find someone to vote Liberal next election, let alone replace Bennett.
Better these long-time party conspirators devoted their energy to putting some cash in the bank - doing something useful for a change - than carrying on the business of back-biting a guy who at least was willing to take on a job no one else wanted.
The depths of PETA's ignorance
In their ongoing efforts to prove how looney they are, PETA recently took a swipe at the Inuit people of Canada who wound up as collateral damage in PETA's campaign against the busby's worn by the five regiments of Foot Guards in the United Kingdom. [Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots, Irish, and Welsh]
Seems PETA didn't know Inuit hunt polar bears when they suggested Inuit were "more likely to hunt Santa's elves" rather than bears.
Apparently too neither PETA nor the members of parliament understood where the bearskins for the busbys comes from. Ministry of Defence officials waded in at the end of the tussle to point out that the bearskins are acquired from a humane population-control policy in various Canadian provinces.
Of course, PETA didn't take notice of the fact that the army has been unable to find a synthetic alternative or that on average a busby last 40 years.
Seems PETA didn't know Inuit hunt polar bears when they suggested Inuit were "more likely to hunt Santa's elves" rather than bears.
Apparently too neither PETA nor the members of parliament understood where the bearskins for the busbys comes from. Ministry of Defence officials waded in at the end of the tussle to point out that the bearskins are acquired from a humane population-control policy in various Canadian provinces.
Of course, PETA didn't take notice of the fact that the army has been unable to find a synthetic alternative or that on average a busby last 40 years.
27 April 2006
Conflict, schmonflict
In a media scrum today, Premier Danny Williams said that finance minister Loyola Sullivan will no longer be part of any cabinet discussions with respect to Fishery Products International and the proposal by Barry Group to take over FPI's assets in the province.
Sullivan's brother is Karl Sullivan, a senior executive with Barry Group.
Apparently, the Premier suddenly noticed the relationship between his finance minister and the Barry Group. It doesn't appear to have been an issue when the government provided Barry group with loan guarantees, when Barry Group stepped into the Harbour Breton schlamozzle or, for that matter when the Premier and his fisheries minister pushed to get Barry's seal oil capsules back on the shelves at Costco.
No word today though on how the province will deal with any financial implications of the FPI mess since the finance minister has removed himself from the files.
But anyway, since the provincial government appears in the mood to address conflicts of interest when dealing with the Barry Group, what about the relationship between
fisheries minister Tom "Toque" Rideout and the same Karl Sullivan, brother of the finance minister?
Karl was chief of staff to Tom Rideout for the 43 days Rideout was premier. He also served Rideout as deputy minister of fisheries back in the 1980s.
Who gives a turbot's fingernails if Karl and Loyola share the same parents when the cabinet minister in charge of the FPI file - Tom Rideout - has a long-standing relationship with one the Barry Group's senior executives?
Maybe it's time for Danny Williams to find a new job for Tom Rideout too.
Sullivan's brother is Karl Sullivan, a senior executive with Barry Group.
Apparently, the Premier suddenly noticed the relationship between his finance minister and the Barry Group. It doesn't appear to have been an issue when the government provided Barry group with loan guarantees, when Barry Group stepped into the Harbour Breton schlamozzle or, for that matter when the Premier and his fisheries minister pushed to get Barry's seal oil capsules back on the shelves at Costco.
No word today though on how the province will deal with any financial implications of the FPI mess since the finance minister has removed himself from the files.
But anyway, since the provincial government appears in the mood to address conflicts of interest when dealing with the Barry Group, what about the relationship between
fisheries minister Tom "Toque" Rideout and the same Karl Sullivan, brother of the finance minister?
Karl was chief of staff to Tom Rideout for the 43 days Rideout was premier. He also served Rideout as deputy minister of fisheries back in the 1980s.
Who gives a turbot's fingernails if Karl and Loyola share the same parents when the cabinet minister in charge of the FPI file - Tom Rideout - has a long-standing relationship with one the Barry Group's senior executives?
Maybe it's time for Danny Williams to find a new job for Tom Rideout too.
The German blog from here
An e-mail today advised that the Bond Papers have been added to a local blog maintained in German.
Wow.
The blog is called Windrose and is written by Pia Banzhaf. As she describes it:
When I answered Pia's original e-mail I mentioned something about her post in which she talked about the laundromat being out of order.
Turns out that had I googled geldautomat I would have seen in a couple of seconds she was talking about an instant-teller in one of her posts. Hopefully she got a good chuckle out of my ignorance...or pretentiousness.
One doesn't need to understand German, though, to appreciate Pia's artistic ability as a photographer. Her site is full of stunning photographs that show her love of, as she put it above, the beauty of lines, shape and colour.
So what brings a young German to Neufundland?
Her blog can be found here and there is a new link in the Top o' the pile section.
Wilkommen, Pia.
Wow.
The blog is called Windrose and is written by Pia Banzhaf. As she describes it:
My blog is a what I'd call a micro-blog with a very small number of readers interested particularly in Newfoundland and Canada. (thirty-ish, I'd say, on a regular day - your international readers would just add a tiny fraction to your regular ones, I would guess.)Now I speak German only if one considers being able to count to nine and grasp the basic German from Raiders of the lost Ark as having any ability at all in a foreign language. I picked up the word for rubber dummy - gummipuppen - from watching The longest day and that one stuck only because of the laughable reaction of the actors playing the Germans in the movie as they heard stories of rubber dummies that had been dropped to appear as though a massive drop of paratroops (fallschirmjaeger) had taken place behind the Normandy beaches on D-day.
There seems to be an infatuation with Canada in many people in Europe, but the news headlines are dominated by the big neighbour to the south, as you can imagine. So, I write a bit about my personal impressions of actually living here, about things I gather from the press about politics and so on. Often I contrast the way similar issues are being dealt with in Canada/Newfoundland and Germany or other European countries, like the immigration/environmental /health care issues. And of course, as you have seen, I love taking photographs, because I enjoy discovering the beauty of the lines, shapes and colours everywhere around us, although I am not as accomplished in photography as I would like to be.
When I answered Pia's original e-mail I mentioned something about her post in which she talked about the laundromat being out of order.
Turns out that had I googled geldautomat I would have seen in a couple of seconds she was talking about an instant-teller in one of her posts. Hopefully she got a good chuckle out of my ignorance...or pretentiousness.
One doesn't need to understand German, though, to appreciate Pia's artistic ability as a photographer. Her site is full of stunning photographs that show her love of, as she put it above, the beauty of lines, shape and colour.
So what brings a young German to Neufundland?
The usual story: The significant other got a hardly resistible offer for work. (Didn't work very well for me though, that's why you would find occasional sarcastic postings about Canadian immigration policy.)The shortcomings of our immigration policy to one side, we are obviously richer for Pia's presence.
Her blog can be found here and there is a new link in the Top o' the pile section.
Wilkommen, Pia.
26 April 2006
Tom Rideout and the Tar-baby
For most of its term, the Williams administration has been treating Fishery Products International as a sort of tar-baby. They dance around and around without wanting to delve into the issue and resolve it.
Premier Danny Williams and fish minister Tom Rideout knew in December, 2005 of the need for an early retirement package for workers due to be laid off by FPI as the company works to deal with its financial mess. FPI officials briefed on the proposed restructuring.
Williams and Rideout did nothing, save for the torqued outburst by the toqued minister about charging the company for doing something he knew full-well his predecessor had approved.
Today, they still have done nothing except dance around an issue they seem incapable of grasping or at least unwilling to touch.
This time the government's merry jig includes a face familiar to the Premier and his fisheries minister and deputy premier. That face is Bill Barry. Most recently, Premier Williams and Tom Rideout poured the weight of the provincial government into putting one of Barry's products back on shelves from which they'd been removed due solely to poor sales.
Speaking to reporters, Rideout said he had received expressions of interest from two companies that want to purchase some of FPI's assets. One of those interested was apparently a company owned by Bill Barry.
The curious thing about this revelation is that Rideout is the one making it. FPI is a publicly traded company currently working to restructure and currently in negotiations with its workers. Rideout may be aware of certain offers but it is highly improper for him to be revealing details of discussions between two companies in public, highly improper indeed.
Given the history of this administration and FPI, one wonders what Rideout is up to.
What we do not need to wonder about, though, is the need to get politics and politicians out of the fishery. FPI's request - repeated yet again - for the government to repeal the FPI Act and put the company firmly in the private sector is one that should be heeded, just as it should have been heeded months and years ago.
The more that politicians muck about with the fishing industry - especially ones who carry with them out-moded ideas from the last time they held the fisheries portfolio - the more likely the rest of us are to get flung into a briar patch.
Premier Danny Williams and fish minister Tom Rideout knew in December, 2005 of the need for an early retirement package for workers due to be laid off by FPI as the company works to deal with its financial mess. FPI officials briefed on the proposed restructuring.
Williams and Rideout did nothing, save for the torqued outburst by the toqued minister about charging the company for doing something he knew full-well his predecessor had approved.Today, they still have done nothing except dance around an issue they seem incapable of grasping or at least unwilling to touch.
This time the government's merry jig includes a face familiar to the Premier and his fisheries minister and deputy premier. That face is Bill Barry. Most recently, Premier Williams and Tom Rideout poured the weight of the provincial government into putting one of Barry's products back on shelves from which they'd been removed due solely to poor sales.
Speaking to reporters, Rideout said he had received expressions of interest from two companies that want to purchase some of FPI's assets. One of those interested was apparently a company owned by Bill Barry.
The curious thing about this revelation is that Rideout is the one making it. FPI is a publicly traded company currently working to restructure and currently in negotiations with its workers. Rideout may be aware of certain offers but it is highly improper for him to be revealing details of discussions between two companies in public, highly improper indeed.
Given the history of this administration and FPI, one wonders what Rideout is up to.
What we do not need to wonder about, though, is the need to get politics and politicians out of the fishery. FPI's request - repeated yet again - for the government to repeal the FPI Act and put the company firmly in the private sector is one that should be heeded, just as it should have been heeded months and years ago.
The more that politicians muck about with the fishing industry - especially ones who carry with them out-moded ideas from the last time they held the fisheries portfolio - the more likely the rest of us are to get flung into a briar patch.
Dignified vs....something else
To add to the comments on changes to the federal government's website, consider the following.
The main web portal for the Government of the United States is located at firstgov.gov.
Note that it is devoid of partisan advertising since it is...the government website.
For those unschooled in the art of subtle but meaningful distinctions, i.e. the current administration in Ottawa, government is not the same as partisan.
In other words, just because the Republicans happen to be sitting in the White House, the entire United States federal government does not suddenly sprout elephants on it everywhere.
That's because American partisans, like more sophisticated Canadian politicos, realize that their party merely forms an administration in a government that isn't theirs to do with as they please.
The symbols and image of that government and the country are not things to be shagged about with. The President is still the President, after all. He walks like one and, more often than not acts like one. Try catching George showing up to a heads of government meeting in a hunting vest. You don't have to like the guy's politics, but he does know how to comport himself appropriately.
Then take a trip to the White House site. Now here we might reasonably expect to see the odd pachyderm; but we don't. Not a one. There is George Bush and plenty of him, but the site is low keyed and dignified. Again, that's because it is a government website, not the home of iheartgeorge.com.
Now visit the new home of the Government of Canada website.
And the prime minister's site.
The word dignified is not the first word that comes to mind here.
Nor is government.
But partisan leaps up there pretty fast. Notice the similarities between the Conservative Party's own site and new home for Steve Harper's leftover campaign photos.
To add to the contrast though, take a look at the Grand Old Party's political website ... clean and professional looking. It doesn't seem like it was designed by someone who last week built a site for a used car dealer and next week will be building a site to lure men into purchasing a monthly membership in a site where women do unusual things with parts of their anatomy.
The new Canadian government site is garish. Tawdry. Cheap.
Low-rent, as in using a line from our national anthem as an advertising tagline for the country.
Like we were missing a slogan or a catchy jingle to help us stand out in the crowded online world of porn hucksters and the guys who promise they have a miracle cure for brewer's droop that also works as a good car wax.
Imagine going to firstgov.gov and seeing this one:
United States of America
"and the rockets' red glare"
Somehow, there's no no way I could imagine that the Government of the United State's website - that is the Internet presence of the government of all Americans irrespective of race, creed, colour or partisan affiliation - could be turned into an assault on the world's eyeballs by a bunch of second-rate pitchmen.
But we have it Canada.
Another word that springs to mind about harpersthepm.ca is insecurity. It's a word that seems to come to mind quite often with Harper as the prime minister. Insecure. The media control issues, the gag orders, the flag business and now this website with Steve's picture every and the fact he's the prime minister on every page.
The Conservatives - or maybe just their boss - don't feel confident in running the country. So, they engage in petty displays of authority and, as in the case of the website redesign, take an opportunity to remind the world that Harper is the Prime Minister. That's Stephen Harper, the prime Minister. The guy with the five items on his agenda. The Stephen Harper agenda for a Stephen Harper Canada.
And in case you didn't notice, that was Stephen Harper. You know. The Prime Minister.
of Canada.
This is not a government administration in perpetual campaign mode, as some have suggested. These are guys who act like they don't think they belong where they are. So they need to keep reminding us, or, more accurately reminding themselves.
And that's the thing.
Even for those of us who didn't vote for Harper's crew, even for those of us who worked so they wouldn't get elected, some of us figured they would change a few things for the good. We figured there was a good chance they'd accomplish something - that they had a plan and by God-bless-Canada, they'd work to put it in place. Fresh-faced and eager, they'd work their butts off.
They'd do something.
We never expected what they would do is start mucking around with Canada's national symbols and treat the government of our country like it was the plaything the Liberals supposedly used it as when they were in power.
Colour me surprised.
Colour me embarrassed.
And for all those people who keep screaming that Stephen Harper is trying to be like George Bush:
We should be so lucky.
The main web portal for the Government of the United States is located at firstgov.gov.
Note that it is devoid of partisan advertising since it is...the government website.
For those unschooled in the art of subtle but meaningful distinctions, i.e. the current administration in Ottawa, government is not the same as partisan.
In other words, just because the Republicans happen to be sitting in the White House, the entire United States federal government does not suddenly sprout elephants on it everywhere.
That's because American partisans, like more sophisticated Canadian politicos, realize that their party merely forms an administration in a government that isn't theirs to do with as they please.
The symbols and image of that government and the country are not things to be shagged about with. The President is still the President, after all. He walks like one and, more often than not acts like one. Try catching George showing up to a heads of government meeting in a hunting vest. You don't have to like the guy's politics, but he does know how to comport himself appropriately.
Then take a trip to the White House site. Now here we might reasonably expect to see the odd pachyderm; but we don't. Not a one. There is George Bush and plenty of him, but the site is low keyed and dignified. Again, that's because it is a government website, not the home of iheartgeorge.com.
Now visit the new home of the Government of Canada website.
And the prime minister's site.
The word dignified is not the first word that comes to mind here.
Nor is government.
But partisan leaps up there pretty fast. Notice the similarities between the Conservative Party's own site and new home for Steve Harper's leftover campaign photos.
To add to the contrast though, take a look at the Grand Old Party's political website ... clean and professional looking. It doesn't seem like it was designed by someone who last week built a site for a used car dealer and next week will be building a site to lure men into purchasing a monthly membership in a site where women do unusual things with parts of their anatomy.
The new Canadian government site is garish. Tawdry. Cheap.
Low-rent, as in using a line from our national anthem as an advertising tagline for the country.
Like we were missing a slogan or a catchy jingle to help us stand out in the crowded online world of porn hucksters and the guys who promise they have a miracle cure for brewer's droop that also works as a good car wax.
Imagine going to firstgov.gov and seeing this one:
United States of America
"and the rockets' red glare"
Somehow, there's no no way I could imagine that the Government of the United State's website - that is the Internet presence of the government of all Americans irrespective of race, creed, colour or partisan affiliation - could be turned into an assault on the world's eyeballs by a bunch of second-rate pitchmen.
But we have it Canada.
Another word that springs to mind about harpersthepm.ca is insecurity. It's a word that seems to come to mind quite often with Harper as the prime minister. Insecure. The media control issues, the gag orders, the flag business and now this website with Steve's picture every and the fact he's the prime minister on every page.
The Conservatives - or maybe just their boss - don't feel confident in running the country. So, they engage in petty displays of authority and, as in the case of the website redesign, take an opportunity to remind the world that Harper is the Prime Minister. That's Stephen Harper, the prime Minister. The guy with the five items on his agenda. The Stephen Harper agenda for a Stephen Harper Canada.
And in case you didn't notice, that was Stephen Harper. You know. The Prime Minister.
of Canada.
This is not a government administration in perpetual campaign mode, as some have suggested. These are guys who act like they don't think they belong where they are. So they need to keep reminding us, or, more accurately reminding themselves.
And that's the thing.
Even for those of us who didn't vote for Harper's crew, even for those of us who worked so they wouldn't get elected, some of us figured they would change a few things for the good. We figured there was a good chance they'd accomplish something - that they had a plan and by God-bless-Canada, they'd work to put it in place. Fresh-faced and eager, they'd work their butts off.
They'd do something.
We never expected what they would do is start mucking around with Canada's national symbols and treat the government of our country like it was the plaything the Liberals supposedly used it as when they were in power.
Colour me surprised.
Colour me embarrassed.
And for all those people who keep screaming that Stephen Harper is trying to be like George Bush:
We should be so lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)