Great horny toads!

Premier Danny Williams [Left: not exactly as illustrated.] doesn't like any critical comment, as Bernard Lord has learned.

Even the innocuous remarks by the former Tory premier of New Brunswick got Danny to come out, guns blazing.

So what does a combative Premier do?

He launches another verbal war; which is what Lord was scolding Williams for in the first place.

How quickly we forget

As we look forward to another report from Auditor General John "Baubles" Noseworthy on spending in the House of Assembly and the fibre fiasco, let's cast our minds back to February 2006 and some of his interesting comments on financial management within the Williams' administration.

Interesting too that at around the same time, the provincial estimates were being compiled showing that spending in the House of Assembly was exactly on budget for every single line item.

Odd, that.

And when you are done with that, consider the ongoing antics at City hall and remember the candidacy of one Simon Lono. The Mayor of St. John's dissed his comments on financial administration at City Hall, the folly called Mile One, the abysmal state of infrastructure in the city and just about everything else going at the downtown bunker.

Next time, Simon.

Fibre fact-checker needed

CBC Newfoundland and Labrador is carrying a story on the provincial government's conemtplation of expanding broadband access to Labrador.

Yes, it's important.

Yes, it's expensive - upwards of $80 million, according to Trevor Taylor's comments to CBC.

But it isn't like there isn't already a plan for it.

Check the link to a November 2005 news release in which former innovation minister Kathy Dunderdale announced government would be hiring a consultant to map out an information strategy. They never did; if they did, the person has never been heard of again.

Anyway, the oddly titled "Big Backgrounder" contains a breakout of projects under the federal government's Broadband and Rural and Northern Development (BRAND) project. Two Labrador projects are listed with a total project cost of over $5.0 million, financed 100% by the Government of Canada.

Trevor Taylor's department is listed as having commited exactly zilch to the project.

Nada.

Bupkis.

BRAND is a project in which the province dribbles teeny bits of cash and the feds flood.

So now, Trevor Taylor is announcing further study of extending broadband coverage to Labrador, which will, as he predicts, require provincial funding.

Trevor needs a fact-checker.

Thank you CBC

With one single hire, CBC has crippled the ego-fest known as Out of the Fog.

Officially a light entertainment show, it pretended to cover serious news. You can't do that if there is an official editoral policy that says government ministers get the kid gloves, the Premier gets an ass-kissing and everyone else gets the shaft.

Hard to be objective when The Boss is family, but at least they could make an effort to hide the bias.

Meanwhile, if Krysta's got hard news potential or hard news aspirations, she can realise it if she takes advice from the experienced news people around her at CBC. The shameless on-air boot-licking she practiced at Rogers just won't fly anywhere else.

I'd tell her the same thing if the new show was at NTV.

Let's see how it goes.

As for CBC news, Here and Now does not need more light filler. Let Krysta occupy the afternoon slot unless you need to push audience her way. But keep her appearances to a minimum; Here and Now has enough of the softer, background stuff.

Here and Now is doing better than when it retruned to the hour format but overall it needs to get its old edge back. Finding that balance between edge and everything else is difficult.

Let's just say that more Krysta wouldn't be a whetstone.

Separated at birth? Two fish guys

Maybe it goes with the job to tell me to take it or leave it.

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Loyola Hearn to Gander airport authority:

"If the people of Gander want it, and if they don't, well then there's not much we can do."...

"Do you want to buy time or don't you? And we're waiting for an answer."





Minister of Natural Resources John Efford to Premier Danny Williams, on the Atlantic Accord:

"Let me say it, and let me say it clear: the deal is done. Do you want it, Mr. Sullivan? Do you want it, Mr. Williams? There are no more changes."

Connie staffer ID'ed as Williams' diplomacy advisor

Bravo, Aaron Hynes.

We finally know who has been giving the local Tories some bad advice on relationship management.

From da Globe:

**Whizzing back by reply e-mail an hour later, Mr. Hynes, who was a Tory candidate in Newfoundland in the last election, parried with the remark: "That's all we care about. Canadians. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the complexities of this decision. . . . You're a foreign jackass." Responded the money manager: "I'm not sure that this is how Mr. Lauzon wants to be represented." He then sent the e-mail exchange to a number of Canadian energy companies, adding dryly: "I believe his office is not serving in your best interests. As a note I am a large shareholder in all of your companies."

The final e-mail instalment? Mr. Hynes wrote to the four oil and gas companies: "If any of you Canadians have questions or concerns, we will be more than happy to direct them to the [Finance] Minister's office for a thorough reply. However, I am not here to be denigrated or intimidated by self-important non-Canadians."**

Monkey tossing for England: Placentia school "compensation"

Notably absent from an announcement today in Placentia was a representative of Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, the outfit that - according to natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale - is paying "compensation" to Placentia for building the nickel smelter/refinery in nearby Long Harbour instead of nearer-by Argentia.

But here's the thing. VBNC has been providing money just like the stuff Dunderdale mentioned today to a host of communities, including Placentia and Dunville.

The "agreement" announced by Dunderdale today consist of a payment in lieu of taxes to the Placentia town council, a small grant to the town to build a fire hall, upgrading lights at the Dunville ballpark (already committed in 2005, incidentally), and a general commitment to support local business opportunities.

That's basically the sort of thing VBNC has done or would be expected to do anyway as part of maintaining sound relationships with residents of the largest communities close to the new site at Long Harbour.

There's nothing in this announcement - not a single thing - that looks like anything other than sound business practice.

It certainly isn't "compensation" since, as we noted already, VBNC doesn't really have anything to compensate anyone for.

Dunderdale's release looks more like a case of political monkey-tossing than "compensation".

Except, of course for the provincial government's sudden commitment to build a new school in Placentia.

And that's the really big announcement here.

The government’s commitment to the people of Placentia was also clearly demonstrated today with the announcement of approval to build a new school for Grades 7-12. "I know that people of the Placentia area have been seeking a new school for some time. Government recognized that it was time to replace Laval High School. To that end, we have allocated funds to begin planning the new facility," said Minister [Joan]Burke.

It's a good decision and one that will support the workers at Long Harbour, many of whom are likely to already live in Placentia or who are more likely to locate there rather than in a smaller community somewhere else in the Long Harbour area.

Too bad the government's publicity department had to frame the whole thing around an something that has really been government's fabrication. Instead, they could have just announced the school, included VBNC's work as a good corporate citizen and heralded construction of a massive industrial enterprise at nearby Long Harbour.

Of course, doing that would mean the Premier and his ministers would have to acknowledge - even implicitly - that the agreement he trashed regularly before he was in government has actually delivered the only industrial construction project of his administration thus far.

He killed off the other biggie.

Rather than do that, the whole operation of government, and this release, become nothing more than another exercise in monkey tossing.

Shuttle to fly over North Atlantic

The next shuttle launch is scheduled for December 7 using a launch angle that it will take it over the North Atlantic.

So why isn't Danny Williams screaming about potential threats to offshore oil rigs?

Could it be that the Titan fiasco showed just exactly how hysterical concerns were that the rigs would be hit?

Yeah. Regular Bond Papers readers were never worried in the first place.

Plus ca change: Dunderdale tender blunder

For some reason the provincial government has taken to issuing news releases to challenge questions from the opposition during Question period in the legislature.

On Tuesday, it was transportation minister John Hickey who was caught in an advanced stage of pinocchiosis over federal funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway. He supposedly told someone he had a signed contract. As we have all learned this would not be even close to true since the feds are waiting on the province to get a work plan in place.

Today, it was natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale. The blunder-plagued minister was trying to explain why the Bull Arm Corporation cancelled a tender and then re-tendered.

The Liberal opposition claimed the first tender was cancelled when a local Liberal came in with the lowest bid. They argued the project was redefined so that someone else - in this case the future local Tory candidate's campaign manager could get a piece. The future candidate, by the by, is Joan Cleary; Bond Papers discussed her appointment to head the Bull Arm Corporation some time ago.

But in defending the tender, Dunderdale actually provides us with a pretty convincing example of a complete cock-up. Whether it was politically motivated - as the Opposition suggests - or just a case of mismanagement and incompetence, the whole tender should never have been handled the way it was. Around here, Bond Papers would contend it is evidence that - as we noted last November - Joan Cleary isn't qualified for the job she currently holds.

Here's why.

The original tender at Bull Arm was for the complete replacement of the existing security shack. That is a pretty straightforward project involving labour and materials together as one unit. One can logically conclude that if the first tender was for complete replacement, Bull Arm management had made a determination that the building needed complete replacement. It's an important piece of work, even if the shack is relatively small.

While Bull Arm management may have had a cost estimate in mind, they ran a tender process and a low tender duly arrived. Notice that Dunderdale does not say how much Bull Arm originally expected to see as the bids; she does claim, though, that the prices were such that Bull Arm decided to cancel the entire tender and , presumably, do nothing in the meantime.

And that's where it gets hinky. If the existing security shack was in such a state that it needed to be replaced, there simply isn't any reason to cancel the tender and not do anything about it. This approach suggests the original tender was bogus.

According to Dunderdale, Bull Arm only went to a second tender once some harsh weather caused damage to the shack. Nice try as excuses go, but if the original tender had been let or if the project had been re-tendered right away, Bull Arm Corp would likely have avoided the situation caused by weather. There would be no emergency since proper action was taken from the outset.

Instead Bull Arm Corp now had an emergency on its hands, albeit one that evidently resulted from its own poor management practices.

Rather than go to tender - as normally required under the Public Tender Act - now called the situation an emergency. For some completely unfathomable reason, Bull Arm split the project into two tenders: one for materials and one for labour and then went to three specific bidders for quotes.

Under the Public Tender Act, that is permissible - in a genuine emergency. But the legislation's exemption for emergencies is intended to cover real emergencies, not ones caused by dubious management decisions.

Interestingly enough, the original low bidder didn't get the work and the whole project was completed for over $50,000 less than the original tender's lowest bidder. We don't know if the whole shack was replaced, as originally intended, or if the thing was patched up and repaired. We'll never know since the people involved in the process would never make public all the documents and records to justify the situation.

Instead, we should be suspicious of the facts as described by the minister. On the face of it, the minister describes incompetent management of a relatively small project. On top of that the minister provides excuses for the mismanagement by claiming the proper process was followed. Clearly it wasn't: the cancellation of the original tender suggests something was amiss.

And if that weren't bad enough, we see once again the most familiar of all excuses trotted out by the Williams administration when it is accused of something: the rules allow it.

As Offal News put it last month, in another story related to Bull Arm Corp:

That does not mean it's right, correct, proper or ethical; he merely means it's legal. Legal is a long way from appropriate.

In the case of the security shack, it doesn't matter if Joan Cleary was involved in the decision or not, or whether the inning bidder was her former campaign manager or even that the low bidder on the cancelled tender call was a Liberal.

What Dunderdale has described is a classic example of shoddy management that led to damage to government property, followed by a clever - but all-too obvious - abuse of the Public Tender Act to divert attention away from poor management. They failed to exercise due diligence, to use a phrase the former InTRD minister herself was fond of abusing.

To make it worse, Dunderdale, as minister responsible for Bull Arm, is effectively endorsing the blunders made by Bull Arm Corp as well as condoning the abuse of the spirit of the public tender statute.

We were all told to expect better from our government three years ago, indeed to expect better from this government.

The case of the Bull Arm shack shows just how little changed in local politics in October 2003.

Who will fight for you?

It's like Danny Williams never left the legal and monopoly cable business.

First, it was a fibre deal that even he doesn't understand.

Next it will be cabinet ministers announcing "compensation" wrestled from some corporate wrongdoer.

Wait, a minute.

What's this?

Kathy Dunderdale and Joan Burke will be in Placentia on Thursday (psst, Thursday is the 30th, not the 29th) "to announce compensation for the area from Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company for the loss of the commercial processing facility at Argentia, as well as school infrastructure plans for the Placentia area".

Compensation from VBNC for the "loss" of a commercial processor?

Hmmm.

I don't see anything from VBNC saying they'd pay compensation. Their contractual obligations are merely to build a smelter/refinery in the province and they are doing that. At Long Harbour. Argentia and Placentia couldn't lose what they never actually had locked up.

So is this just a poorly written news release or did Danny and his team of crackies wrestle some kind of cash from VBNC? One news outlet is reporting it already as VBNC shelling out. If the cash was from VBNC, then the company should be getting the credit or at least sharing it.

Maybe it's just the tail end of a polling period and someone is getting desperate to goose the numbers.

So who will run in Kilbride?

With Ed Byrne's resignation as member for Kilbride, effective January 1, 2006, the question now comes as to who will carry party banners in the district.

The district has had some strong representation over the past decades in the form of both Bob Aylward and latterly Byrne, both Tories.

For the New Democrats and Liberals, the question of a candidate is wide open. The Liberals must contest the seat with a strong candidate. Even if they come in second, they will have to put on a solid performance to hang on to any credibility.

No names have surfaced for either party.

On the Tory side, Bond Papers has suggested - somewhat facetiously - that Danny will be pushing Leslie Galway, currently business deputy minister. We'll see what happens.

Another name has cropped up as being interested, but Bond Papers won't through it out until there is some confirmation. This guy has the advantage of being a hockey player which would automatically put him in Danny's good books.

Unlike Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, there isn't a high profile candidate in play yet.

Let's see what happens.

CANARIE in Trev's credibility coalmine

Earnest innovation minister Trevor Taylor is fighting a losing credibility battle.

No matter how hard he tries, someone keeps putting out information that undermines Taylor's arguments that the Persona deal is a good investment of public money and had nothing to do whatsoever with helping out political friends.

Even Trevor can't keep out of the contradictions act...

Like, f'rinstance, last week in the House, on 22 November, Taylor said that one third of the cost of the national network connection for Memorial University to participate in a research computer network - one third of the cost for that - had gone into the line between St. John's and Halifax.

Memorial University is the Newfoundland hub for a series of projects, like CANARIE that ships data around among researchers, albeit not along the public Internet per se.

But notice that comment: one third the cost.

Flip ahead to this week and in the course of debate, Taylor said the cost of CANARIE (paid for by the federal government apparently) at MUN was something around $400,000 annually. Public Internet costs were about the same.

Ok.

The budget for CANARIE's CA*Net4 service for 2006 is $22 million. Now even an old artsman like your humble e-scribbler can tell that $400,000 is not 33% of $22 million.

Maybe Taylor misspoke in the heat of debate.

Maybe we misunderstood him.

Maybe, his comments are - to be exact - wrong.

Like the Premier's claim, backed by his ministers, that this Persona deal will put Memorial University on the research map.

Apparently it isn't connected to any computers now, not even the Internet, if you listen to the Premier.

But of course it is.

With a connection that shunts data at 1 gigabit per second.

That little tidbit is important if you recall one of the Premier's justifications for the Persona deal was the need for people at the university and elsewhere to ship data in one second, versus 16 minutes via dial-up.

Premier Danny Williams, Hansard, 21 November 2006:

The previous speeds that can be talked to, you would have to look at about sixteen minutes for a conversation to take place on a dial-up modem. On high-speed, it can take place in one second. So, I would say a word on a dial-up and I wait sixteen and two-third minutes for an answer from the research analyst who is on the other end. When you put this in place, we can talk simultaneously....

The Premier - or should we say Gunny MisInformation Highway - is either freeze-dried or been doin' hard time.

Ain't been no dial-up round the university for centuries, man.

Oh yeah. and that's not the only time where Trev said one thing and Gunny Highway said another.

What will the savings be for Memorial on its public Internet service? Taylor pegged the annual costs right now - using 2800 baud modems Danny? - at $400,000.

According to Taylor last week in the House, the savings would be 15% annually.

According to Danny Williams last week in the House the savings would be 50% per year.

That's a pretty big discrepancy. And it isn't a Hansard transcription error. They double check these pesky detail-type thingies.

It gets even worse when you realise that the Premier's number is based solely on a verbal comment by someone from Persona, duly documented as such by EWA-Canada in its hasty assessment of the Persona deal.

That 50% comment and the entire $400 million benefit Premier Dan has claimed will flow from this deal has never been subjected to any independent scrutiny. The original estimate - and the Premier's massive benefits number - were pulled from the same bodily orifice.

The credibility canary laying dead at government's feet should stop us from mining this little deal before it goes any farther.

Aliant Animus

A snippet from the files:

March 10, 2006

Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says Aliant's decision to become an income trust will mean the loss of corporate tax revenues for the province. Some reports suggest the four Atlantic provinces could lose as much as 49 million dollars. Under an income trust, taxes are paid by shareholders who could live anywhere. Sullivan says he knows how much the province will lose, but he can't disclose the figure publicly. Sullivan says they don't know yet when the income loss will be felt.

A check with some other sources suggests that the GRAP cable deal may have been kicking around the Confederation Building but it didn't get to cabinet before Rain Man Sullivan made these comments.

Nope.

It might have been a few weeks later and it might be sheer coincidence but the correlation is interesting.

Maybe there are some cabinet meeting notes - only to be released decades from now - that document the Premier's endless rantings about the evil Aliant empire and how it must be destroyed.

Maybe, there is a reason some people report seeing sheets and sheets of drywall moved to the 8th Floor after hours and only garbage bags with broken plaster coming out. (Lots of ceilings to replace as The Furor's head goes through them more often than usual these days, methinks.)

Don't underestimate the power of commitment to a petty insult to an old monopolist. Go back over the explanations offered by the provincial cabinet, notice the lack of concrete details being used to support the $15 million in spending, notice the curious timelines and then consider the Sullivan comment.

It all starts to make sense.

and The Lover in Spanish is El Amador

What means this word "Quebecois"?

From Paul Wells at Macleans, comes this transcript of a q & a with reporters involving Lawrence Cannon and Marjory LeBreton that demonstrates M. Cannon has some difficulty understanding his own point. Like his problem with understanding what is a "federal spending power." Cannon even manages to mangle the explanation in both official languages, virtually simultaneously.

While normally we'd just link, let's give the whole thing and hope Paul is too busy moving his book that he will forgive your humble e-scribbler. [BTW, buy the book.]

Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois

Good figuring this crap out, ladies and gentlemen of Canada:

Question: Why did you use the word Québécois in English? I think we're all wondering why did you use the word Québécois in English and not Quebecer? And my question, especially for Ms. LeBreton, and I guess that's why people are suspicious. Is that a reference to some sort of ethnic identity of what it is to be (inaudible)?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I'm an English-speaking Canadian and I refer to -- I call -- I say Québécois. I believe -- I believe that in the country and certainly we've seen evidence over the past few days as cabinet ministers have been around the country there's a wide degree of acceptance for the prime minister's leadership on this issue.

Question: (Inaudible) with all due respect people (inaudible).

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I know Anglophone Quebecers who call themselves Québécois so you know —

Question: They call themselves Quebecers. I'm sorry, with due respect, I live in Quebec and English people talk to themselves about Quebecers, not Québécois. Why did you use this French word in an English motion? Explain to us the rationale for that. There's a word in English for that and please explain to us why you're not using it.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, écoutez, c'est bien clair là, bien clair la motion qui a été présentée par le Bloc québécois parlait de Québécois et de Québécoises dont ne référait pas à autre chose que des Québécois et des Québécoises.

Question: Why in English?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois. Alors il faudrait que vous demandiez à monsieur Duceppe parce que nous on sait —

(...)

Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là, Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là, après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.

Question: Je ne suis pas une descendante de monsieur Champlain et tous ceux qui n'ont pas des noms canadiens-français ne sont pas des Québécois selon votre définition.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, pas du tout, madame Buzzetti.

Question: Il y a plein de gens qui sont arrivés (inaudible).

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé. D'une part faire reconnaître par l'Assemblée nationale l'intégrité du territoire et d'autre part dire que les Québécois ou les Quebecers comme vous dites font partie de ce territoire-là c'est faux parce qu'il y a des gens qui fondamentalement ont opté pour le Canada et c'est ce que nous reconnaissons ce soir. Quand on a demandé au Bloc québécois d'accepter cette chose-là c'est ce qu'ils acceptent tacitement, que les Québécois font partie de la nation canadienne dans un effort d'unité nationale et c'est ce qu'on reconnaît.

Question: (Inaudible) Montrealers why they're not Québécois.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that.

Question: Well, you said that it doesn't — you said it doesn't apply to people that aren't French.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that they're not Québécois. What I'm saying here, and the reference that the Bloc Québécois has made is that they've made the Francophone pure laine. That's the intention. The intention is to be able to divide. We are taking the same words and we are saying no. On two separate occasions - and I'm repeating myself - on four provincial elections Quebecers have said no, we are voting for a federalist government, we are voting no to your proposal, we are part and parcel of Canadian unity and that's what we are indicating here. We're not playing semantics with the words. We are saying that that is a formal decision that was taken by Quebecers years ago and here's the first, first group of sovereingtists that are admitting this fact of life. Mr. Duceppe got up in the House the other day and you heard him talking about il faut reconnaître la réalité. On reconnaît la réalité. Les Québécois vous ont dit non à deux occasions. Et maintenant les Québécois vous ont dit — non seulement ils vous ont dit non, parce que la proposition ne se sépare pas, les Québécois vous ont dit formellement depuis qu'on est ici on chemine à l'intérieur du Canada. On est non seulement partie du processus, we are also making the country and that's what they've been saying to us.

What mean this...how you say... "Quebecois"?

Nation-hood is, it seems, a moveable feast of meanings.

And in Quebec, with predictable accuracy, media are portraying the results of a recent polls as meaning that the country rejects Quebec once more.

When you're in a hole, stop digging

A few days ago, Trevor Taylor admitted government handled communications on the fibre deal badly.

Then someone in the Premier's publicity department must have taken offense at the idea.

So the message shifted to the latest version of the story being used by The Katzenjammer Kids.

Offal News puts it in perspective nicely.

Trevor: put down the shovel.

Tory Broadband Timelines

Just to help keep track of the fibre story, following is a timeline of broadband-related announcements since October 2003. Some additional comments related to the GRAP deal announced on 02 November come from comments made by the Premier or innovation minister Trevor Taylor since then.

A few points leap out. Further information would clarify some of the discrepancies or unexplained gaps.

1. This project may be a lot younger than we have been told. If the Persona proposal was made to government 18 months before it was approved, it seems to have been largely ignored until June/July 2006. It was then met with a flurry of activity, rejected twice in the space of two months and then lay idle until the Aliant fire. EWA noted the short time-span it was given in which to assess the proposal.

According to Trevor Taylor in the House of Assembly, there were only eight meetings, in total on the project over 18 months that involved some representatives of the companies making the pitch. The Premier never met with anyone on the proposal, according to Taylor, nor did Taylor's predecessor Kathy Dunderdale.

Taylor himself acknowledges having met once with Persona president Dean Macdonald on the proposal and twice with Persona's chief operating officer Paul Hatcher.

In addition, government officials met three times with Macdonald, four times with Hatcher and once with representatives of MTS Allstream.

Even allowing for Taylor having a faulty memory this is not a large number of meetings over 18 months; some of the meetings may be duplicates (i.e. did Taylor meet with Macdonald and Hatcher at the same time and along with other officials?) It is extremely odd that Dunderdale did not meet at all with any of the proponents despite having this proposal in her department for over a year. As well, it is extremely unusual that no action took place on this proposal until after Dunderdale was moved to another department.

The subsequent communications cock-ups - acknowledged by Taylor and the lack of specific benefits documented by third parties would be explained by a proposal that either was submitted and approved quickly or that was left laying about and hastily approved.

Note that the estimate of 50% savings used by the Premier to arrive at the $400 million figure is identified by EWA as being a verbal estimate by Persona. It has not been verified.

Add it all up and one can only conclude either that the proposal was not received by the provincial government until some time in mid-2006 (contrary to government claims) or that it was received, ignored for over a year and then hastily (sloppily?) reviewed and approved in less than four months. Either way, the implications do not speak highly of government's management processes.

2. Provincial and federal financial involvement in the project is larger than revealed. The $30 million project referred to by Persona's Paul Hatcher after the Aliant fire appears to be the joint federal/provincial/Persona initiative to expand broadband access under the CDLI program. As such, the provincial government has actually committed a total of $20 million to this, while the federal government has added $5.0 million to the $82 million total.

While Hatcher's comments seemed to indicate Persona had invested $30 million of its own, the company's actual involvement was on this portion was $19.9 million.

3. How convenient! The flurry of comment critical of Aliant seems to be convenient and involves a number of public individuals closely associated with the current provincial administration.

4. The missing strategy. The consultant RFP announced in November 2005 would have provided the strategic basis for any future broadband initiatives. What happened to it?

The Timeline

A. 31 March 2004: Budget 2004 includes $5.0 million for the department of Education's initiative to expand broadband access in schools. Another $1.2 million under Innovation, Trade and Rural Development (InTRD) to be used to leverage federal funding.

B. 15 June 2004: $50,000 from InTRD to help EXCITE Corp leverage funds from the federal BRAND initiative to expand broadband availability in Grand Falls-Windsor area.

C. 20 July 2004: Education issues request for proposals seeking a corporate match of $10 million funding from the federal and provincial governments to expand broadband in schools. RFP closes 30 April 2004.

D. 15 June 2004/09 November 2004: InTRD announcement, Witless Bay. $4.0 million to expand broadband to 19 communities in Irish Loop region. Of the $4.0 million cost, 63% provided by Government of Canada. InTRD provided $285,000. [Note: This money was announced in June by the province and at a second announcement in November. The southern route of the GRAP deal covers a portion of the Irish Loop project. The only communities in the southern GRAP route not covered by existing broadband expansion initiatives are on the south coast. ]

E. 02 July 2004: Unspecified level of provincial government support for SmartLabrador operations.

E.1. 22 September 2004: Premier Danny Williams announces appointment of Dean Macdonald and Ken Marshall to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board of directors.

F. 31 May 2005: Business minister and Premier Danny Williams announces Business Advisory Board. Members include Paul Hatcher and Dean Macdonald.

G. March-May 2005: Persona submits proposal for broadband connection to mainland, subsequently to involve Government, Rogers, Allstream and Persona. [Note: The timeframe on this is not exact. In several interviews and in the House of Assembly since 02 Nov 06, innovation minister Trevor Taylor referred to the proposal having been submitted about 18 months before it was approved.]

H. ??? 2005: Premier's chief of staff writes Minister InTRD (Kathy Dunderdale) assigning responsibility for the Persona proposal to InTRD. [Note: Based on comment from Taylor in House of Assembly. This suggests that the proposal was originally made to or received by the Premier either in capacity as Premier or as Minister of Business.]

H.1 15 September 2005: $29.9 million announced by Government of Canada ($5.0 million), Government of Newfoundland and Labrador ($5.0 million) and Persona ($19.9 million), representing the results of RFP issued 20 July 2004.

I. 10 November 2005: Innovation minister Kathy Dunderdale announces "that the provincial government is reviewing all government telecommunications requirements with the intention of creating a province-wide advanced computer network." Announcement includes reference to national call for proposals for a consultant to "recommend an advanced network model that meets government's existing and anticipated future technology needs."

No results of this process are ever announced.

J. 21 June 2006: Electronic Warfare Associates contracted to provide assessment of GRAP/Persona proposal. [Note: This comes from a comment by EWA in the pages released by Taylor in the House of Assembly. Date on documents is 21 June 2006.]

J.1. 05 July 2006: Cabinet shuffle. Taylor appointed innovation minister; Dunderdale appointed natural resources minister; Kevin O'Brien replaces Danny Williams as business minister.

K. Late June or early July 2006: Premier Danny Williams rejects proposal based on concerns about connection between Premier and Persona senior officials. [Note: Both Williams and Taylor made reference to the proposal twice being rejected over issues of how the relationship between the Premier and some proponents would be perceived. Initially, Taylor indicated cabinet had rejected the proposal twice. On 14 Nov 06, the Premier claimed responsibility for these two decisions. The date estimates for K. And L. (below) come from comments by Taylor in answer to questions in the House of Assembly.]

L. Late July or early August 2006: Second rejection. [See note above]

M. 20 October 2006: Fire at Aliant causes temporary loss of telephone service.

N. 23-24 October 2006: Public criticism of Aliant including Premier Williams, St. John's mayor Andy Wells, emergency measures boss Fred Hollett and city commissioner Ron Penney.

O. 26 October 2006: Cabinet approves GRAP proposal. [Note: Confirmed in House of Assembly by Trevor Taylor. Premier Williams gave several interviews the day before indicating cabinet would be reviewing the proposal. Existence of the proposal was made public by Persona immediately after the Aliant fire and generally coincidental with the public criticism by the Premier, Mayor Wells and city commissioner Penney.]

P. 02 November 2006: GRAP deal announced by innovation minister Taylor and business minister Kevin O'Brien.

Chong's good sense

It wasn't in resigning from Harper's cabinet today.

Nope.

Former Connie cabinet minister Michael Chong is married to Caroline Joan Davidson, a descendant of William Whiteway. He had the good sense to fall in love with - and marry - a woman from the most sensible part of the country.

For mainland readers, Whiteway is a former prime minister of Newfoundland and a staunch Confederate. He was defeated as a Confederate candidate in the 1869 general election, but was returned to the House of Assembly in 1873, representing Trinity.

In 1875, Whiteway sponsored a bill to fund a survey for a cross-island railway.

Whiteway formed an administration in 1878 and won a general election that year. He was re-elected in 1882 but Whiteway's premiership was dogged by concerns about his railway-building project. He left office in 1885 in the wake of the so-called Harbour Grace Affray.

Sir Robert Bond, later prime minister of Newfoundland, was first elected to the legislature in 1882 as a Whiteway supporter.

Whiteway was re-elected in 1889, and formed an administration with Bond as Colonial Secretary. While he was ousted in 1894, Whiteway returned to the prime ministership in 1895. His administrations were marked by controversy over railway financing and the 1892 fire that devastated St. John's.

His morning headlines

Premier Danny is on the Wet Coast today to deliver a speech to the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce on the joys of oil.

He was greeted this morning to the following story in the Vancouver Sun, on the heavy snowfall, traffic snarls and a power outage in parts of greater Van.

Note the speech is sponsored by one of the province's greatest business tax losses in recent years.

Cannon-ball stunned: "What is a federal spending power?"

Federal transport minister Lawrence Cannon was his inarticulate self on CTV's Question Period.
Among his memorable comments was this one on federal spending power:

One of the biggest impediments to making this country work functionally, as the fathers of confederation had thought, is to be able to thwart or curb or better control federal spending power, because what is a federal spending power?

Something Cannon doesn't understand at all, obviously.

Let's leave aside for a moment Cannonball's bizarre constitutional history lesson. Try as one might, one would have a hard time coming up with a lengthy treatise from say - William Carson or Sir John A. - ranting at length about how the federal government was the source of all fiscal evil through its overwhelming spending powers.

One can find several really good essays by Pierre Trudeau in the 1950s and 1960s, but something suggests Cannonball is not a big fan of reading Trudeau.

To get back to the subject, the idea to restrict federal spending is an interesting one, if for no other reason than so many provincial premier's are really addicted to federal cash. Sure they like to puff and posture and, in some cases, their minions will scream about this being Danny-land. Cannon's proposal is like calling for a ban on illicit drugs in a downtown crack house. The addicts aren't likely to be much in favour of such a suggestion.

And yes, there is a good reason to curb the tendency of federal governments, like say the Mulroney one, to introduce programs in a provincial area, develop a dependence on it and then - in good form - frick off back to Ottawa. On the retreat of course, said feds cancel the funding leaving the provinces to deal with both the financial demand and/or the political piss-off that results.

But, as we have already shown on several occasions, many of those same premiers who talk about sovereignty and independence or a whole bunch of other things have absolutely no interest in giving up federal transfers.

To the contrary, some of them - like the head of Danny-land - use federal cash as their standard solution to every single provincial demand. So effective has Premier Dan been at this that in a scant three years in office he has set back 10 years of progress towards reducing provincial dependence on federal hand-outs.

But we digress.

The Harper administration's proposal to reduce federal spending in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction is a laudable one.

It won't work since all but a couple of provinces are unwilling to go along with it in any form.

Harper likely knows that; otherwise he'd have sent someone else out to talk about it, someone other than the almost laughable Lawrence Cannon.