Despite his vehement defence of having the public treasury cover transportation minister John Hickey's legal bills in the battle with former premier Roger Grimes, Premier Danny Williams today told VOCM Open Line that Hickey would be footing the bill himself.
Many in the province - heck most people - were taken aback by the sudden change of direction.
Late in the day, Hickey turned up to tell CBC Radio that "I've thought it through and I decided that I wanted to change course here.... I'm going to pick up whatever legal cost that's going to be associated with this particular issue."
Later in the day still, Paul Oram, the Premier's tried vainly to explain to Back Talk host Bill Rowe what the heck the whole dispute was about. Rowe, a former politician and lawyer, tried in vain to get Oram to state specifically what remarks Grimes should apologise for.
Oram went down several roads, always making the same unsubstantiated claim likely contained in the talking points from the Premier's publicity department. At every juncture, Rowe shut him down with simple, obvious questions related specifically to the case.
To embarrass the hapless politician even more, Rowe insulted him at several points, essentially begging Oram to take offense and threaten to sue Rowe. Each time, Oram declined, thereby confirming that his initial point was impossible to defend. Of course that means that the Premier's point on the whole affray is nonsense as well.
Memo to the Premier: Paul Oram deserves a cabinet seat solely for his ability to defend the indefensible, repeatedly, despite the savaging of his own credibility in the process.
14 February 2007
Williams slags Bond: the audio record
1. An audio clip of Premier Danny Williams scrum on Tuesday, from CBC Radio Noon. [The relevant part is at around 12:25 on your counter.]
2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]
2. Your humble e-scribbler responds. An interview with Ann Budgell on blogging and ethics. [Off the top of the show.]
The value of criticism
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill, 1874-1965
Meeker on media
Communications consultant Geoff Meeker has joined the online revolution with a new blog, Meeker on media.
As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".
Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.
His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.
Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.
Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.
Check him out.
You won't be disappointed.
As Geoff describes it, Meeker on media "offers insight and analysis on the media scene in Newfoundland and Labrador, with a sprinkling of national and international commentary. This blog was preceded by the award-winning Media Spotlight newspaper column in The Express, which ran from 2002 to 2006. A sampling of columns that remain relevant or interesting have been archived...".
Geoff waded into the Hickey-Grimes affray and included some comments on Premier Williams remarks aimed at some of us in the online comment community.
His post for today draws attention to a speech next week by David Cochrane, CBC's provincial affairs reporter. Cochrane's has some strong opinions about the business community and resource issues and from the description David gave to Geoff, the speech should be an interesting set of observations on major resource development.
Interestingly, Cochrane's luncheon speech at the Board of Trade is up against a speech by Max Ruelokke to a NOIA luncheon.
Geoff always has something provocative to say about the business he came from and which he continues to deal with as a consultant.
Check him out.
You won't be disappointed.
13 February 2007
Canada West Foundation backs Harper on Equalization
Canada West Foundation issued a paper on Monday praising the inclusion of 50% of natural resources revenues in Equalization calculations as an "interesting compromise" on the issue.
"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.
Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the abstract:
"Equalization and the Fiscal Imbalance: Options for Moving Forward" is co-authored by Ken Boessenkool and Evan Wilson. The paper suggests ways to address the so-called fiscal imbalance.
Bond Papers readers will recall that Boessenkool is the author of several papers on Equalization that advocated, among other things, the complete removal of non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula. Boessenkool is also a former senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the abstract:
The federal government has said that it wants to address the fiscal imbalance in the upcoming budget. Broadly speaking, this means dealing with fiscal arrangements between, and clarifying roles of, the federal and provincial governments, and fixing the equalization program. This paper does three things to stimulate debate on possible options for reform. First it discusses three broad policy pillars that together constitute a consistent approach to fiscal federalism. These pillars are: 1) "equalization as glue," which argues for the importance of equalization for our federation; 2) "after equalization, equal transfers per capita," which argues that programs outside equalization should treat all Canadians equally; and 3) "re-balancing the federation," which argues for clarifying federal and provincial roles and responsibilities.The Canada West Foundation paper contains a number of recommendations, many of which the authors acknowledge would be difficult if not impossible to implement.
The paper then discusses political and economic constraints facing the government as it seeks to address the fiscal imbalance. These include the current inefficiencies of the equalization program, cost challenges faced by the federal government, the political importance of Quebec and Ontario, and the influence of promises made previously by the Conservative government. Finally, the paper provides some reform options grouped into three categories: 1) the really difficult; 2) the really, really difficult; and 3) the nearly impossible.
The paper lists options for both fixing equalization and addressing other federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. When it comes to addressing the fiscal imbalance, there are many possible paths. The real challenge for the current government is to choose a path that results in a coherent system of fiscal federalism while addressing very real political and fiscal constraints. The paper does not put such a package together—it leaves this task to the current government. It does, however, present ideas that widen the menu of options currently being discussed.
A fundamental right in any democracy
From the Bill of Rights 1689:
Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.
In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;The elected representatives of the people enjoy a right of free speech in British parliamentary democracy for a reason. It prevents them from being intimidated by outside or inside forces.
Parliament itself, as reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights, must hold to account the Crown and the executive.
In any established western democracy, members of the legislature enjoy some measure of immunity from prosecution and a virtually untrammelled right of free speech.
Stupid is...?
Transportation minister John Hickey is suing former premier Roger Grimes for defamation over comments Grimes made about Hickey's double-billing of expenses to the legislature.
Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.
Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.
Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.
If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.
On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.
The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.
Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.
And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.
Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.
Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.
Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.
On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.
The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.
Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.
That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.
The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.
Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.
Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.
In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.
But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.
When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.
To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.
The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.
The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.
By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.
In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.
No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.
Hickey has admitted the double-billing - and in one instance a triple bill - both by paying back the money involved and by acknowledging that he and his staff members made unspecified mistakes in filing the claims.
Grimes pointed out that the first line of defence against inappropriate billing of expenses is the signature by a claimant - in this case, Hickey - on a form containing the details of the expense and some form of documentation that the expense was legitimate. Grimes has said many things about the implication of Hickey's actions and his defense and that is the nub of Hickey's claim of defamation.
Leaving aside the details of the double-billing and Grimes' comments for a moment, let's take a look at the legal action that is now resulting.
If Roger Grimes did nothing else after moving to the opposition benches in 2003, he demonstrated his ability to induce apoplexy in Premier Danny Williams. Grimes' mere presence in the House was enough to cause Williams to turn red in the face and launch into a variety of attacks on the former premier, some substantive and some - as is Danny Williams' wont - distinctly personal.
On several occasions since retiring from politics, Grimes has made public comments about the current administration. His remarks, in fact the mere fact Grimes spoke at all, was sufficient to cause the Premier and his supporters no measure of anxiety.
The comments on Hickey are no exception. Take a look at the remarks left by various pseudonymous individuals on a vocm.com poll on the issue. Given the current administration's practice of organizing responses to these things, it is a reasonable assumption that a majority of the comments left reflect the views of the Premier's political supporters.
Grimes still gets under Danny's exceedingly thin skin.
And that was the whole point of Grimes' comments in the first place.
Even if Roger Grimes loses the Hickey lawsuit and winds up issuing an apology and paying costs and damages, he has already succeeded in his political purpose.
Moreover, Hickey's lawsuit guarantees that Grimes will succeed beyond his wildest dreams.
Hickey's admitted mistakes will now continue to be the subject of media attention for months to come. His double-billing will be in front of the public on a regular basis at least until the election and possibly after.
On top of that, Hickey's action - possibly at the insistence of the Premier himself - demolishes whatever effect the Premier's communications tactic for Hickey was intended to have in the first place.
The whole idea of pulling Hickey back into cabinet, daring the police to lay charges, paying back the excessive claims and then claim vindication once charges were not laid, was to get the matter out of the public eye as quickly as possible.
Williams' political strategy here - inseparable from the communications tactics - was also to draw an immediate distinction between Hickey and the other five members of the legislature who overbilled its accounts. Recall that Williams said - initially through at least one media leak - that Hickey's case was different from the others because the amounts were smaller and the whole matter could be chalked up to the mess in the legislature's financial administration.
That was said - you will recall - when the details of the overspending were known to the Premier's Office but not to general public, and likely not to the reporter or reporters who got the Blackberry messages from the 8th floor on what the line the Premier would be taking when he spoke.
The whole thing was built around a pretty simply understanding that the public tends to forget incidents such as these after a short period of time. For the time it remained in their eyesight, they can be persuaded of a point of view by the repetition of the same messages from multiple, seemingly independent sources.
Hickey's lawsuit demolishes that little strategy as well. If Hickey had not launched his suit, the whole matter would be forgotten even today. By-elections, the pending budget, just about anything would have knocked Hickey's mistakes from the public eye.
Now they will be reminded regularly until the suit is finished its wanderings through the courts.
In a wider sense we see here enough to question the wisdom of whatever passes for strategic thinking in the provincial government these days. It's pretty dumb to give ones political opponents a rod with which to beat ones back. It's pretty dumb to undermine your own cause in the process.
But then again, such blunders are consistent with the fundamental strategic mistake Danny Williams made in his response to the House of Assembly scandal in the first place.
When the Premier and his cabinet set up the repeat Auditor General's probe and the compensation panel under Chief Justice Derek Green, they created a series of events which would bring the entire spending scandal forcefully back into the public eye right up until the October general election.
To see the folly of the Williams approach, one need only look at the public reaction to the bonus money revealed recently by the Auditor General in his annual report on government spending. Although the Premier knew of the money three years ago - and approved it by silence - and knew of the Auditor General's report before Christmas, his first strategy was to defend.
The public reaction was bitter, perhaps more than the Premier could have guessed. The Premier moved to his Plan B, namely to order the money repaid but only after his government took two days of public flogging. The Premier complained about the impact the scandal was having on his ability to government, just as he did before Christmas when the Hickey business was revealed initially, but the damage was done.
The so-called dribs and drabs of information are exactly the result of the system Danny Williams established. The Premier reaps what he sowed based on the tactical goal of limiting damage to his administration through the control of information release, rather than on debriding the wound quickly and allowing recovery to take place.
By their very nature, micro-managers are tactical thinkers. That is, they focus on the individual details, rather than looking at the bigger picture. It shows in their actions, if not at the outset, then as an issue unfolds.
In the House of Assembly scandal, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the folly of purely tactical thinking. In the Hickey matter, we can see yet another excellent example of the weakness in trying to make tactics a substitute for strategy.
No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, Roger Grimes has won this encounter already. In launching the suit, John Hickey may well have handed Grimes an eloquent defence that few will ignore, even if a judge rules against the former premier.
12 February 2007
Dwight wins, Danny loses
Every Tory except John Hickey and Jack Byrne came off the benches to try and win the Humber Valley by-election, but in the end, Deer Lake pharmacist Dwight Ball squeeked out an 18 vote victory.
The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.
The next by-election will come in the Labrador West district. The seat will be vacated in mid-February by incumbent Randy Collins, who is leaving politics for a job in Toronto. For member of the House of Assembly Perry Canning is reported to be considering a run for his old seat on behalf of the Liberals.
Maine, NB cooperate on electricity, NL likely behind development curve
Maine Governor John Baldacci and New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham signed a memorandum of understanding on Friday to explore increased co-operation between the state and the province on electricity distribution.
Gov. Baldacci noted that both Maine and New Brunswick produce surplus electricity much of it coming from environmentally friendly sources like wind energy. Maine has also been looking at alternatives to an agreement covering New England states that the Maine Public Utilities Commission believes will cost Maine residents US$616 million over the next five years. As a result, Maine has begun to look at alternative energy sources to ensure Maine residents are not subsidizing excessive energy consumption in other states.
The memorandum commits the two jurisdictions to explore over the next two years options on establishing a common market for electricity, improvements to transmission facilities and interconnections and generally to examine areas of co-operation on electricity generation and distribution. While both jurisdictions produce more power than is consumed in the jurisdictions, both have peak demand times when power must be imported.
The Maine-New Brunswick agreement casts doubts about the meaning and value of a recent announcement by the Newfoundland and Labrador government on the Lower Churchill.
The day before the Maine-New Brunswick agreement, Premier Danny Williams announced that his province's hydroelectricity Crown corporation had filed an application with New Brunswick's electricity regulator for long-term transmission service.
The Newfoundland and Labrador announcement is essentially exploratory in nature, since the Lower Churchill project has not been approved for construction. As Premier Williams acknowledged to news media, his government is not currently in discussion with any potential purchasers of Lower Churchill power since the costs of the project have not been finalized.
By contrast, Maine and New Brunswick are exploring options over the next to years that would lead to freer energy flow between the two jurisdictions. Even according to official timelines, Lower Churchill will not be sanctioned before 2009 and no power is forecast to flow until 2015 at the earliest. Maine's requirements are immediate and New Brunswick and Quebec have the capacity to meet those needs well before 2015.
Cost of Lower Churchill power might also place it out of competition for New England needs. Some estimates put the cost of installing subsea cabling and other transmission systems to New Brunswick in excess of $2.0 billion. That's in addition to the cost of building the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating complexes.
There is some reason to believe the so-called Anglo-Saxon route for Lower Churchill power would be unprofitable. Premier Williams told reports last week that he was considering selling power into New England under a deferred revenue arrangement. That's likely code for selling at a loss.
Text of MOU:
Gov. Baldacci noted that both Maine and New Brunswick produce surplus electricity much of it coming from environmentally friendly sources like wind energy. Maine has also been looking at alternatives to an agreement covering New England states that the Maine Public Utilities Commission believes will cost Maine residents US$616 million over the next five years. As a result, Maine has begun to look at alternative energy sources to ensure Maine residents are not subsidizing excessive energy consumption in other states.
The memorandum commits the two jurisdictions to explore over the next two years options on establishing a common market for electricity, improvements to transmission facilities and interconnections and generally to examine areas of co-operation on electricity generation and distribution. While both jurisdictions produce more power than is consumed in the jurisdictions, both have peak demand times when power must be imported.
The Maine-New Brunswick agreement casts doubts about the meaning and value of a recent announcement by the Newfoundland and Labrador government on the Lower Churchill.
The day before the Maine-New Brunswick agreement, Premier Danny Williams announced that his province's hydroelectricity Crown corporation had filed an application with New Brunswick's electricity regulator for long-term transmission service.
The Newfoundland and Labrador announcement is essentially exploratory in nature, since the Lower Churchill project has not been approved for construction. As Premier Williams acknowledged to news media, his government is not currently in discussion with any potential purchasers of Lower Churchill power since the costs of the project have not been finalized.
By contrast, Maine and New Brunswick are exploring options over the next to years that would lead to freer energy flow between the two jurisdictions. Even according to official timelines, Lower Churchill will not be sanctioned before 2009 and no power is forecast to flow until 2015 at the earliest. Maine's requirements are immediate and New Brunswick and Quebec have the capacity to meet those needs well before 2015.
Cost of Lower Churchill power might also place it out of competition for New England needs. Some estimates put the cost of installing subsea cabling and other transmission systems to New Brunswick in excess of $2.0 billion. That's in addition to the cost of building the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating complexes.
There is some reason to believe the so-called Anglo-Saxon route for Lower Churchill power would be unprofitable. Premier Williams told reports last week that he was considering selling power into New England under a deferred revenue arrangement. That's likely code for selling at a loss.
Text of MOU:
Memorandum of Understanding Between The Province of New Brunswick And The State of Maine To Enhance The Mutual Benefits Of the Maine/New Brunswick Electrical Interconnections
WHEREAS, The State of Maine (“Maine”) shares electrical interconnections with the Province of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”);
Maine also shares electrical interconnections with other New England states;
New Brunswick also shares electrical interconnections with the Maritime Provinces and Quebec;
New Brunswick and Maine each have located within their respective borders adequate and at most times abundant generation capacity;
New Brunswick and Maine export significant quantities of generation to southern New England for the benefit of all consumers;
New Brunswick and Maine each have abundant natural resources from which renewable energy, such as wind and tidal energy, can be harvested to generate electrical energy;
Maine and New Brunswick have each adopted policies to promote the development of renewable resources;
The northeastern United States needs new supplies of electrical energy, including renewables;
Maine and New Brunswick wish to expand opportunities for the mutual development and export of new electric generation capacity resources;
Maine and New Brunswick wish to increase the opportunities to transmit energy between the State and Province and to their neighbors in Canada and the United States;
Maine and New Brunswick wish to improve the efficiency of their respective electric systems and the interconnections between them to benefit consumers and the environment; and New Brunswick and Maine acknowledge the significance of climate change and recognize the importance of emphasizing the development and deployment of low emission electricity generation in the future.
NOW THEREFORE,
I, Shawn Graham, Premier of the Province of New Brunswick, and I, John Elias Baldacci, Governor of the State of Maine, do hereby enter into this “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Province of New Brunswick and The State of Maine To Enhance The Mutual Benefits Of the Maine/New Brunswick Electrical Interconnections” and do hereby agree as hereinafter set forth.
Maine and New Brunswick agree to explore expansions of generation capacity, including renewables, and transmission opportunities by agreeing to jointly undertake the following tasks:
1. Study the feasibility of expanding generation capacity and transmission infrastructure to increase electrical flows across borders;
2. Identify processes and systems to provide transparency and efficiency in Maine and New Brunswick markets;
3. Study the feasibility of developing common market rules that could be applied in Maine and New Brunswick;
4. Explore the potential benefits and technical and legal impediments to the common provisioning of control area services (including balancing, dispatch and reserve sharing);
5. Explore the tariff and governance structures required for a regional transmission organization for Maine and New Brunswick; and
6. Examine the opportunities for compatible greenhouse gas emissions reduction regimes in the electricity sector.
Maine and New Brunswick agree to dedicate sufficient resources from their respective state and provincial agencies for the completion of the tasks described herein. Maine and New Brunswick agree to appoint one person from each government to serve as each state’s or province’s, as applicable, point of contact (the “Joint Representatives”).
The tasks are to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 work will overview the tasks, will assess priorities and possibilities, and will identify common principles (the “Principles”) to guide additional work and any future implementation. The Joint Representatives shall deliver to their respective governments a report on the Phase 1 activities no later than June 1, 2007.
Upon completion of Phase 1, and agreement on the Principles, Maine and New Brunswick agree to proceed to Phase 2. It will be guided by the Principles and will complete detailed assessments of all tasks. The Joint Representatives shall present a final Phase 2 report to their respective governments no later than January 1, 2008.
Upon completion of the tasks identified above, Maine and New Brunswick agree to consider entering into a further agreement to implement mutually beneficial actions. Upon mutual consent, this further agreement may include other states or provinces.
Signed and delivered this 9th day of February, 2007.
Premier Graham Official Signature Block
Governor Baldacci Official Signature Block
[Source: Maine Governor's Office]
11 February 2007
Abitibi shedding power plants
Canadian Press reports that Abitibi Consolidated is transferring some of its electricity production to a new company owned 75% by the paper giant and 25% by a Quebec financial institution. The deal will yeild gross proceeds to ACI of slightly less than $300 million, according to an Abitibi news release.
Industry analyst Paul Quinn notes, however, that the move could jeopardize Abitibi's low-cost power generation, which might, in turn, affect paper pricing and profitability.
He doubts that more than 50% of existing assets would be transferred to the new company, despite company claims that it is looking at moving more and more power assets to the new company.
Industry analyst Paul Quinn notes, however, that the move could jeopardize Abitibi's low-cost power generation, which might, in turn, affect paper pricing and profitability.
He doubts that more than 50% of existing assets would be transferred to the new company, despite company claims that it is looking at moving more and more power assets to the new company.
Fish crisis hitting Europeans, too
From Associated Press, this article on trends in Europe to save fish stocks.
One interesting comment from the article notes that during the 1980s, Canadian fishing interests ignored warning signs that fish stocks on the Grand Banks were in trouble, just as many European fishing countries are doing even today in other places.
One of their number continues today to blame everyone but himself and his colleagues for the cod collapse and refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of Canadian fishing interests in driving overfishing within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
They never learn, it seems.
One interesting comment from the article notes that during the 1980s, Canadian fishing interests ignored warning signs that fish stocks on the Grand Banks were in trouble, just as many European fishing countries are doing even today in other places.
One of their number continues today to blame everyone but himself and his colleagues for the cod collapse and refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of Canadian fishing interests in driving overfishing within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
They never learn, it seems.
No job creation = outmigration
The provincial government's economics and statistics agency is reporting that 4,849 people left Newfoundland and Labrador in the third quarter of 2006.
Overall, the province's population declined by 4,584 between October 1 2005 and October 1, 2006 going from slightly over 513,000 to slightly under 509,000.
In January 2007, Bond Papers published a chart [Above. Source: Bond Papers] comparing outmigration by quarter.
The third quarter of 2006 was the highest quarterly period of outmigration for the province since 1993.
Outmigration; typically caused in Newfoundland and Labrador by a lack of jobs, not by, as Danny Williams claimed recently, by young people having big debts coming out of their education. Young people in Alberta with huge education debts don't head for Nova Scotia. Nope. They stay at home where the big jobs are.
Take a look at this chart on migration by level of education, taken from a slide presentation your humble e-scribbler sat through about a decade ago. You don't need to blow the thing up - although you can by clicking on it - to see that pink line. It represents people with university degrees. In each of the four periods, starting with the five years between 1976 and 1981, the pink people have left the province in droves substantially beyond other educational cohorts.
Their leaving was not stimulated by the crushing load of debt they carried. In relative terms, debt in the early period of that slide was lighter than student debt today. In the later periods it might have been on par - relative to salaries.
In just three years, the Newfoundland and Labrador economy has gone from leading the nation to heading for the bottom of the pile. Economic growth in Newfoundland and Labrador will be pedestrian come 2008.
Just like it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
The huge difference between now and then is that then there simply weren't the opportunities. We dreamed about opportunities as we loaded up the car to head to Ontario or British Columbia or Alberta where there were jobs. We made some good deals along the way, when there were deals to be had. We walked away from a few too, like with Quebec in the early 1990s.
In 2006, we had opportunities; solid opportunities with good financial deals tagged along. The stuff we used to dream about. And then someone started shutting everything down, Hebron and Hibernia South.
Deliberately.
Opportunities get missed, like with Labrador West and Consolidated Thompson.
So, outmigration heads back up to levels not seen since the collapse of the cod fishery.
Should we be surprised?
Overall, the province's population declined by 4,584 between October 1 2005 and October 1, 2006 going from slightly over 513,000 to slightly under 509,000.
In January 2007, Bond Papers published a chart [Above. Source: Bond Papers] comparing outmigration by quarter.The third quarter of 2006 was the highest quarterly period of outmigration for the province since 1993.
Outmigration; typically caused in Newfoundland and Labrador by a lack of jobs, not by, as Danny Williams claimed recently, by young people having big debts coming out of their education. Young people in Alberta with huge education debts don't head for Nova Scotia. Nope. They stay at home where the big jobs are.
Take a look at this chart on migration by level of education, taken from a slide presentation your humble e-scribbler sat through about a decade ago. You don't need to blow the thing up - although you can by clicking on it - to see that pink line. It represents people with university degrees. In each of the four periods, starting with the five years between 1976 and 1981, the pink people have left the province in droves substantially beyond other educational cohorts.Their leaving was not stimulated by the crushing load of debt they carried. In relative terms, debt in the early period of that slide was lighter than student debt today. In the later periods it might have been on par - relative to salaries.
In just three years, the Newfoundland and Labrador economy has gone from leading the nation to heading for the bottom of the pile. Economic growth in Newfoundland and Labrador will be pedestrian come 2008.
Just like it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
The huge difference between now and then is that then there simply weren't the opportunities. We dreamed about opportunities as we loaded up the car to head to Ontario or British Columbia or Alberta where there were jobs. We made some good deals along the way, when there were deals to be had. We walked away from a few too, like with Quebec in the early 1990s.
In 2006, we had opportunities; solid opportunities with good financial deals tagged along. The stuff we used to dream about. And then someone started shutting everything down, Hebron and Hibernia South.
Deliberately.
Opportunities get missed, like with Labrador West and Consolidated Thompson.
So, outmigration heads back up to levels not seen since the collapse of the cod fishery.
Should we be surprised?
Be media savvy
On Sunday mornings, CBC Radio One has been running an excellent series on political spin and the news media.
You can find the programs web page here, along with archived interviews and audio files for the hour-long episodes. The Ep 4 one is here.
Episode 4 is on political spin, leaks and the planting of stories as a means of influencing news coverage. Interestingly, one of the chief spin practitioners interviewed is a former journalist who later went to work for Mike Harris. There is also a great interview with a guy who was a respected journalist and a respected communications guy and who is now the respected senator Jim Munson.
Of course, local news media aren't spun by politicians. Heavens no. It's not like you'd ever hear local reporters say phrases are that are almost identical to words that will later come from a politician's mouth.
Like that Goudie and Hickey were different from the "others" because the amounts were small and the whole thing was just sloppy administration at the House of Assembly.
Or that the New Democrats will be or already are the real opposition party in the province.
Local reporters being spun by politicians?
How could you even think such a thing?
Next thing you know, you'll be saying that the Confed Building sends callers to talk shows with talking points to support government's spin agenda.
Seriously though, in the interests of becoming much more media savvy, in order to learn how the sausages are indeed made far too frequently, give Spin Cycles a listen.
_________________________
Update: And when you're done with that, take a gander at Simon Lono's take on spin.
You can find the programs web page here, along with archived interviews and audio files for the hour-long episodes. The Ep 4 one is here.
Episode 4 is on political spin, leaks and the planting of stories as a means of influencing news coverage. Interestingly, one of the chief spin practitioners interviewed is a former journalist who later went to work for Mike Harris. There is also a great interview with a guy who was a respected journalist and a respected communications guy and who is now the respected senator Jim Munson.
Of course, local news media aren't spun by politicians. Heavens no. It's not like you'd ever hear local reporters say phrases are that are almost identical to words that will later come from a politician's mouth.
Like that Goudie and Hickey were different from the "others" because the amounts were small and the whole thing was just sloppy administration at the House of Assembly.
Or that the New Democrats will be or already are the real opposition party in the province.
Local reporters being spun by politicians?
How could you even think such a thing?
Next thing you know, you'll be saying that the Confed Building sends callers to talk shows with talking points to support government's spin agenda.
Seriously though, in the interests of becoming much more media savvy, in order to learn how the sausages are indeed made far too frequently, give Spin Cycles a listen.
_________________________
Update: And when you're done with that, take a gander at Simon Lono's take on spin.
10 February 2007
FLQ encore?
From la presse, word that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating communiques purporting to come from the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ).
In the new stories, RCMP have reportedly questioned members of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, a nationalist association, as well as other well-known nationalists.
Radio-Canada reports that police have turned up at places of work and stopped individuals on the street as part of their investigation.
As Canadian Press reports, the letters, delivered in mid-November and mid-January threaten bomb attacks against a variety of public infrastructure sites such as bridges and railroads, as well as in the supposedly anglophone "cities" of Beaconsfield, Baie d'Urfe and Mont-Royal.
(h/t to indiescribe)
The story was reported by cbc.ca and other English-language media in January.
Some information on the military aspects of Operations ESSAY and GINGER can be found here, in an article published in Parameters by Dr. Sean Maloney.
In the new stories, RCMP have reportedly questioned members of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, a nationalist association, as well as other well-known nationalists.
Radio-Canada reports that police have turned up at places of work and stopped individuals on the street as part of their investigation.
As Canadian Press reports, the letters, delivered in mid-November and mid-January threaten bomb attacks against a variety of public infrastructure sites such as bridges and railroads, as well as in the supposedly anglophone "cities" of Beaconsfield, Baie d'Urfe and Mont-Royal.
(h/t to indiescribe)
The story was reported by cbc.ca and other English-language media in January.
Some information on the military aspects of Operations ESSAY and GINGER can be found here, in an article published in Parameters by Dr. Sean Maloney.
Analyst: NL economy from top to bottom of pile by '08
Laurentian Bank Securities' analysis of provincial economies forecasts that Newfoundland and Labrador will experience 3.5% real economic growth in 2007 - third largest growth in the country - but fall to last place among the provinces in 2008.
The cause: a lack of major economic development. Projects that were in development have all been cancelled. None of the others proposed are certain or are not close to development.
The analysis, extracted below for Newfoundland and Labrador, is simple and concise. It also corresponds to observations made previously by Bond Papers.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, economic growth in Newfoundland & Labrador was rock-solid. Manufacturing, retail, construction and transportation sectors benefited from massive investment in the resource sector. Unfortunately, the labour-intense construction phase of massive projects ended last year, leading to adverse impacts on the economy: the province was virtually at the bottom of the barrel for growth in retail sales and housing starts. Also, the 111,000 barrels of oil extracted in 2006 was unchanged from 2005 (see chart). Problems with the gas compression system at the Hibernia oilfield and longer than-anticipated shutdowns at the Terra Nova oilfield were offset by the first full year of extraction at the White Rose oilfield. One area of strength was the mining sector, thanks to the start-up of nickel extraction at the Voisey’s Bay mining site. Altogether, we estimate the economy expanded at a respectable pace of 2.5% in 2006.
Canada’s most easterly province is likely to be the leader in the Maritimes this year, with real output growth quickening to 3.5%. It is important to notice that this acceleration is primarily coming from the oil industry, assuming activities at the Hibernia and Terra Nova oilfields resume as planned. Besides the oil sector, the rest of the economy is expected to expand slowly in 2007. In 2008, total oil production should edge down slightly given that reserves are declining at the Terra Nova oilfield. As a result, real output growth is anticipated to ease to 1.7%.
New projects to light N&L’s economic future?
The province needs to find new capital projects to feed both the labour market and the economy. One good news is that two dwells drilled has led to the discovery of an extra 190 million barrels of recoverable oil resources at the White Rose oilfield. However, this discovery won’t lead to massive investment. In fact, none of the major investment projects proposed lately are fully certain to go ahead yet. In mid-January, the Newfoundland & Labrador government declined the proposal from a group of oil companies looking to expand the Hibernia oilfield. And, back in the spring of 2006, the province and the same group of oil companies were unable to find a deal to develop the Hebron oilfield. No agreement has been reached for a number of reasons. On one hand, the provincial government is not willing to accept new oilfields development without reaping more benefits for its residents. This is understandable. Standards of living of Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans – measured by per capita real output or per capita real disposable income – is well below the national average. It is also more difficult to find a job in this province than anywhere else in the country, amid an elevated jobless rate of about 15%. It is not surprising then to find out that the labour force had stalled in the last two years and that a growing number of residents are moving to Western Canada, lure by job opportunities. On the other hand, the oil industry wants to make sure that their private investment in the province will be profitable in the long run.
The bottom line is that the economic future of the province is highly tied on both parties’ abilities to find a consensus about the potential development of resource projects. If a deal is reach, the benefits are likely to be felt beyond 2008 and not alter meaningfully our 2007-08 forecast. The potential development of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric resource is another project that could provide a fresh impetus to growth.
Shift from deficits to a respectable surplus
On the fiscal front, the provincial government has successfully turned the boat around and recorded a surplus of $199 million in the fiscal year 2005-06. This is quite an improvement compared to the $489-million deficit reported the year before. The government forecasts a $6 million surplus for fiscal 2006-07. Looking forward, the fiscal outlook could depend heavily on the outcome of a new deal on equalization payments. The latter count for about one of every six dollars in revenues in Newfoundland & Labrador. The exclusion (inclusion) of royalties revenues in the 50,000 formula will be good (bad) news for oil-rich province.
The cause: a lack of major economic development. Projects that were in development have all been cancelled. None of the others proposed are certain or are not close to development.
The analysis, extracted below for Newfoundland and Labrador, is simple and concise. It also corresponds to observations made previously by Bond Papers.
Newfoundland & Labrador to rank third in real GDP growth in 2007 …but last in 2008
In the 1990s and early 2000s, economic growth in Newfoundland & Labrador was rock-solid. Manufacturing, retail, construction and transportation sectors benefited from massive investment in the resource sector. Unfortunately, the labour-intense construction phase of massive projects ended last year, leading to adverse impacts on the economy: the province was virtually at the bottom of the barrel for growth in retail sales and housing starts. Also, the 111,000 barrels of oil extracted in 2006 was unchanged from 2005 (see chart). Problems with the gas compression system at the Hibernia oilfield and longer than-anticipated shutdowns at the Terra Nova oilfield were offset by the first full year of extraction at the White Rose oilfield. One area of strength was the mining sector, thanks to the start-up of nickel extraction at the Voisey’s Bay mining site. Altogether, we estimate the economy expanded at a respectable pace of 2.5% in 2006.
Canada’s most easterly province is likely to be the leader in the Maritimes this year, with real output growth quickening to 3.5%. It is important to notice that this acceleration is primarily coming from the oil industry, assuming activities at the Hibernia and Terra Nova oilfields resume as planned. Besides the oil sector, the rest of the economy is expected to expand slowly in 2007. In 2008, total oil production should edge down slightly given that reserves are declining at the Terra Nova oilfield. As a result, real output growth is anticipated to ease to 1.7%.
New projects to light N&L’s economic future?
The province needs to find new capital projects to feed both the labour market and the economy. One good news is that two dwells drilled has led to the discovery of an extra 190 million barrels of recoverable oil resources at the White Rose oilfield. However, this discovery won’t lead to massive investment. In fact, none of the major investment projects proposed lately are fully certain to go ahead yet. In mid-January, the Newfoundland & Labrador government declined the proposal from a group of oil companies looking to expand the Hibernia oilfield. And, back in the spring of 2006, the province and the same group of oil companies were unable to find a deal to develop the Hebron oilfield. No agreement has been reached for a number of reasons. On one hand, the provincial government is not willing to accept new oilfields development without reaping more benefits for its residents. This is understandable. Standards of living of Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans – measured by per capita real output or per capita real disposable income – is well below the national average. It is also more difficult to find a job in this province than anywhere else in the country, amid an elevated jobless rate of about 15%. It is not surprising then to find out that the labour force had stalled in the last two years and that a growing number of residents are moving to Western Canada, lure by job opportunities. On the other hand, the oil industry wants to make sure that their private investment in the province will be profitable in the long run.
The bottom line is that the economic future of the province is highly tied on both parties’ abilities to find a consensus about the potential development of resource projects. If a deal is reach, the benefits are likely to be felt beyond 2008 and not alter meaningfully our 2007-08 forecast. The potential development of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric resource is another project that could provide a fresh impetus to growth.
Shift from deficits to a respectable surplus
On the fiscal front, the provincial government has successfully turned the boat around and recorded a surplus of $199 million in the fiscal year 2005-06. This is quite an improvement compared to the $489-million deficit reported the year before. The government forecasts a $6 million surplus for fiscal 2006-07. Looking forward, the fiscal outlook could depend heavily on the outcome of a new deal on equalization payments. The latter count for about one of every six dollars in revenues in Newfoundland & Labrador. The exclusion (inclusion) of royalties revenues in the 50,000 formula will be good (bad) news for oil-rich province.
Some rejected campaign slogans
As the three major political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador get ready for the fall general election, their advertising consultants are busily working to come up with slogans that capture the mood of the times.
Some rejected slogans, found inside an empty Mary Brown's snack box recently, along with notes on why some were rejected:
1. We're in the money!
2. Ready for a better tomorrow.
3. My way or the highway.
4. Danny 2: A Newer Approach
5. The buck stops here!
6. Ross for Boss. (Note: Put this one aside for 2011. [initialled] JC])
7. Do the right thing.
Some rejected slogans, found inside an empty Mary Brown's snack box recently, along with notes on why some were rejected:
1. We're in the money!
2. Ready for a better tomorrow.
3. My way or the highway.
4. Danny 2: A Newer Approach
5. The buck stops here!
6. Ross for Boss. (Note: Put this one aside for 2011. [initialled] JC])
7. Do the right thing.
09 February 2007
For the record: Danny Williams' 2001 speech to Nova Scotia Tories
Shortly after taking power in 2003, the provincial Progressive Conservatives stripped their party website of any documents from their time in opposition.
The reasons are inexplicable.
The site could have been re-arranged but older, important document still retrieved via google. Could have been, that is, if the Tory webmaster hadn't also blocked access to the old stuff.
Never fear, gentle reader. Some of us saved files for just such an eventuality.
In light of recent events, it is useful to go back and look at what Danny Williams said to a bunch of Nova Scotia Tories in 2001. Williams had just recently been elected leader. Some of his recollections of what had happened just prior to that might not be entirely in accordance with the historical fact, but in the six years that Danny Williams has been in elected politics, some of us have come to understand the Premier's penchant formaking things up as he goes along inaccuracy.
A few things to note:
1. The then-newbie politician apparently spent 25% of his working day listening to radio call-in shows. The practice continues but now draws in public servants.
2. The obviously visceral hatred evident for the federal government, which Williams equates with "Liberals".
3. In light of the campaign to increase federal transfer payments through Equalization and offshore revenue side-deals, the oddity of this statement: "We don't want handouts. We want our pride back. We want to be independent and self-sufficient."
4. The numerous historical fallacies - a polite word for falsehood - like the bit about the federal "manipulation" on the Upper Churchill deal or pre-Confederation Newfoundland "owning" adjacent ocean resources.
Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to your annual fundraiser this evening. Unfortunately, my wife, Maureen, could not join me as she is attending a graduation party for the son of a close family friend.
I want you to know that I feel very much at home here tonight. Both Maureen and I remember fondly the day 30 years ago as newlyweds when we jumped into our beaten-up '61 Valiant Station Wagon and headed for Dal where I obtained my Canadian Law Degree. Our memories of student poverty are treasured. In particular, I vividly remember one lunchtime in Dartmouth when we were trying to scrape together the price of two snack packs of Kentucky Fried Chicken by hauling out the seats of the car to get some loose change to make up the shortfall. The Colonel hasn't tasted as good since.
But my fondness for this province is not just personal. It is also cultural. We have a history and values that go back centuries before Confederation. The bonds that unite us are far stronger than the few differences that could divide us. We have common goals, common interests, common challenges, common vulnerabilities, common opportunities and of course a common boundary. But we have been more than just neighbours sharing adjoining properties. We have been partners sharing enterprises, resources and people. We hold kinship in thousands of families throughout both our provinces. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like myself have received quality education in your province and are alumni of Nova Scotia Universities and Colleges. So when I say that I feel at home, I mean it. Our Atlantic Canadian family is a strong bond that unites us all.
So you may ask yourself why am I here tonight. By way of quick background, just a year ago I was a very happy man. I had a good law practice, a successful business, some free time for my family and a chance to play the odd game of golf. But then the Leader of the P.C. Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ed Byrne, resigned and, in the absence of a strong successor, I decided that the province needed a change in leadership and direction - and I threw my hat into the ring. As a result, I sold my business to avoid conflict of interest. My practice is drying up because people think I'm too busy, and I now spend at least 25 per cent of my time listening to our open line shows and less time with family. In the last seven months, I have campaigned in the fall federal election - and also in two winter by-elections on the Great Northern Peninsula, both of which we won. I have had a leadership convention in April, and I now find myself running in a by-election in Corner Brook to obtain a seat in the legislature. I didn't realize how good I had it! Premier, no one will ever convince me that the role of a politician or a party leader is an easy one. As CEO of a private company, you are top dog - but in politics some days you are the dog and some days you are the hydrant.
But it does have its light moments. One supporter told me at the convention that the Liberals in Newfoundland should erect a sign in Port aux Basques that the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off indefinitely.
And another voter who wanted change in the Northern Peninsula told me that politicians and diapers have something in common: they both have to be changed regularly, for the same reason.
But all jokes aside, I am truly enjoying the experience and challenge of political life. Like Premier Hamm, I did not seek the position for something to do to fill the leisure hours. I have sought this position because I love my province, because I see some things that are desperately wrong that need fixing, because I think I bring a background to the table that can make a difference and because I cannot rest until I have tried.
The more that I see, the more nauseous and angry that I get. The way that our people and our region have been treated by one arrogant federal Liberal government after another is disgusting. The legacy that the late Prime Minister Trudeau and Jean Chrétien will leave in Atlantic Canada is one of dependence on Mother Ottawa, which has been orchestrated for political motives for the sole purpose of maintaining power. No wonder the West is alienated and Québec has threatened separation. Canadians - and Atlantic Canadians, in particular - realize the importance of dignity and self-respect while Ottawa prefers that we negotiate from a position of weakness on our hands and knees. We must heed the words of J.F.K. who said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
Our fellow Canadians must wonder why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are always angry, always complaining about the inequity of the Upper Churchill, when we receive unemployment and TAGS benefits from Ottawa together with generous transfer payments.
We don't want handouts. We want our pride back. We want to be independent and self-sufficient. We have already lost 30 years of profits from the Upper Churchill representing tens of billions of dollars. If we had just ten years of profit from the remainder of that contract at today's prices, our province would be debt-free. Instead, Ottawa saves that money by paying less to Québec.
Last year, over $2 billion worth of oil left our shores - and, after the federal clawback, we netted $12 million. Our mining industry last year produced over $1 billion, and we netted $4 million after federal clawback.
If Voisey's Bay is developed, we will net approximately $6 million after clawback on over a billion dollars worth of nickel production.
So on those three items alone with $4.5 billion dollars of annual production we would net $22 million dollars on royalties after federal clawback of 70% and 80%.
Not to mention the gross mismanagement of our cod fishery by the federal government, resulting in its destruction; the bartering of our fishery rights for favoured access to international markets; and federal manipulation in favour of Québec on our hydroelectric power.
That is why we are angry, we just want a fair share. Comments like "fish have no home" from Trudeau, the philosopher king, might make good soundbites, but they portray arrogance and contempt for a hard-working people who have been deprived of their heritage.
In Atlantic Canada, we are resource-rich but economically poor. We do not benefit as we should from our resource bounty, and part of the reason is that we gave up ownership and control of some of our most important resources when we joined Confederation. Prior to that, we were a sovereign country and we owned the sea's resources. We brought with us the fish in the ocean and the oil and gas in the adjacent ocean shelf, and God knows what else might be discovered in years to come with new technology.
By contrast, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved out of federal lands in 1905. The federal government of that day gave those new provinces ownership and control of the oil and gas in those former federal lands. They could own them and manage them as they saw fit. Alberta, in particular, has turned those resources into colossal wealth for the people of that province. There is no Alberta Accord to allow Albertans a limited share of the benefits from their natural resources. As a result, they hope to pay down $5 billion this year on their debt.
What is the difference between the wealth beneath Alberta's soil and the wealth beneath the sea adjacent to our coasts? Why have we been treated differently merely because our resources are located underwater rather than underground?
I believe that this distinction cannot be justified. I believe it is fundamentally wrong. I believe the situation is discriminatory and goes a long way to keeping our Atlantic provinces in positions of fiscal and economic subservience.
Our offshore resources belong to Canada simply because we are provinces of Canada. They are there because we are there. They go where we go. If we left Canada, the economic zone would go with us. There is no dispute about that. Why then should there be any dispute about the claim to the right of ownership of those economic resources within Canada? Joe Clark's government acknowledged our ownership and control over oil and gas resources offshore in 1979, but Trudeau rejected it in 1980. It was the Mulroney government in 1985 that gave us the Atlantic Accord.
Ours is a strong case of basic fairness and fundamental justice. Jean Chrétien knows this because he was Trudeau's Minister of Energy and intricately involved in the original negotiations. He should be ashamed of himself for the way that he has treated our provinces. Unfortunately, because of relatively low population numbers and the consequent low number of seats in the House of Commons, the Senate and the federal Cabinet, our voice is not heard loudly enough in Ottawa when we try to state our case. All too often, a muted voice is mistaken for a whining voice, if it is heard at all. Atlantic Canadians should never give up the fight to have clear ownership of resources in our economic zone restored to us. Don't ever forget that we collectively constitute four provinces of this country despite our population.
I am proud to say that one Premier in particular in this region has been fighting back and setting the example - and that Premier is John Hamm. Thank Heavens for Premier Hamm! Our province, with its string of silent compliant Liberal Premiers, owes John Hamm a debt of gratitude for fighting on their behalf. But it's time we joined forces and fought together. It's time to form a united power block in this region. With Ontario controlling the Commons, with Québec frequently setting the national agenda and with the West now uniting to ensure their particular perspective is heard, we cannot afford not to act in concert. Circumstances necessitate it. If we want to get our fair share of benefits and to influence public policy in this country, we must band together.
Provincial Liberal Governments in Atlantic Canada have put party ahead of province at the expense of the people they were elected to govern. By contrast, the Progressive Conservative approach is based on the premise that sacrificing the concerns of part of the country for the good of the whole of the country only leaves the country weaker, not stronger.
A blue tide is sweeping the Atlantic region. It has swept over the Maritimes and it is rolling in Newfoundland and Labrador, because our people are tired of poor representation. After a general election, all four Atlantic provinces will be Tory blue - and we must work together to get action.
His fellow Premier Ralph Klein has come out in favour of Premier Hamm's Campaign for Fairness. He feels that a better deal with Ottawa over the lucrative and ever-expanding royalties from vast reserves in the North Atlantic would benefit all Canadians and help the Atlantic provinces get back on their feet. Just this week, Jeffrey Simpson's column in The Globe and Mail drew attention to Premier Hamm’s campaign and the unfairness of clawback. And the Commentary in The National Post on Thursday past was entitled "The Cruel Hand of Equalization". The author agreed with Premier Klein that all Canadians would benefit by removing the shackles from Atlantic Canada and shifting from dependence on Ottawa to greater self-reliance. The perverse incentives of equalization only prevent sound, long-term development.
With developments in the U.S. energy plan and high energy prices, the time is right for the Atlantic provinces to revisit these issues and demand fairness.
Mr. Roland Martin, a former deputy Minister of Finance in Newfoundland and Labrador who now lives in Nova Scotia, recently published the first significant analysis of federal equalization payments since the program was introduced over 40 years ago. He says Ottawa should do three things to help the economies of the Atlantic provinces and reduce their dependence over the long term.
First, he says, Ottawa should take oil and gas out of the equalization formula so there will be no clawback of revenues from offshore royalties and taxes. Second, Ottawa should return to a ten-province standard for calculating entitlement to equalization instead of the current five-province standard. A ten-province standard would treat provinces equally in terms of their capacity to raise revenues, and would provide more equalization revenues to the Atlantic provinces.
Thirdly, Mr. Martin calls for a needs component in the equalization formula that will compensate, to some degree, for the higher costs of such public services as transportation, health and education in our province.
There is now a huge disconnect between the wealth generated by our resources and the net value we derive from them as provinces of Canada.
Ottawa, not Newfoundland and Labrador, is the big beneficiary.
This inability to gain any significant advantage from our resource wealth goes a long way to explaining the stark contrast between reported GDP growth and the actual economic and revenue benefits that accrue to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Newfoundland and Labrador leads the nation in GDP growth and has been at or near the top for several years.
For every one of those years, Newfoundland and Labrador has also led the nation in unemployment and outmigration and trailed every other province in the nation in its ability to raise revenues to pay for essential public services, despite having some of the highest taxes in the nation.
Our dilemma is compounded by Ottawa's retreat from the federal principles of comparable public services for comparable fiscal effort. Those principles distinguished Canada among the nations of the world for much of the post-war period. But we are much less a sharing, caring nation today.
Mr. Martin, in his own paper on equalization, described the widening gap in taxation levels among provinces as "a rapidly evolving threat to the nation's political, social, and economic survival".
All of us in Atlantic Canada are suffering as a result of Ottawa's greater tolerance for inequalities in Canada.
We can no longer count on transfers from Ottawa to help pay for essential public services up to national standards.
From now on, this region will be more reliant on it own resources than at any time in the last half-century.
It is urgent that we find ways together to adjust to these new realities.
And it is urgent that we work together to impress upon Ottawa the need to give us the time to make those adjustments - to end our dependence on Ottawa in a planned way, without creating an even-wider gap between this region and the rest of the country.
I believe that we need our own Atlantic Accord and we can achieve greater self-sufficiency by working together as a region. Ontario looks after Ontario. Québec has its own agenda. The western provinces are a force in their own right and have succeeded in capturing national attention to their issues.
So far, Atlantic Canada has been irrelevant in the debate about the values of our nation and its future. Thanks to Premier Hamm, people are standing up and taking notice.
There is much work to be done.
There is a fight to be won.
Capitulation is not an option.
We owe it to our children and their children to preserve and find new creative ways to build a stronger, prosperous and self-reliant society.
The fight is well underway in Nova Scotia.
It has begun with the Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We will fight as a united team, and I firmly believe that we will win.
The reasons are inexplicable.
The site could have been re-arranged but older, important document still retrieved via google. Could have been, that is, if the Tory webmaster hadn't also blocked access to the old stuff.
Never fear, gentle reader. Some of us saved files for just such an eventuality.
In light of recent events, it is useful to go back and look at what Danny Williams said to a bunch of Nova Scotia Tories in 2001. Williams had just recently been elected leader. Some of his recollections of what had happened just prior to that might not be entirely in accordance with the historical fact, but in the six years that Danny Williams has been in elected politics, some of us have come to understand the Premier's penchant for
A few things to note:
1. The then-newbie politician apparently spent 25% of his working day listening to radio call-in shows. The practice continues but now draws in public servants.
2. The obviously visceral hatred evident for the federal government, which Williams equates with "Liberals".
3. In light of the campaign to increase federal transfer payments through Equalization and offshore revenue side-deals, the oddity of this statement: "We don't want handouts. We want our pride back. We want to be independent and self-sufficient."
4. The numerous historical fallacies - a polite word for falsehood - like the bit about the federal "manipulation" on the Upper Churchill deal or pre-Confederation Newfoundland "owning" adjacent ocean resources.
Williams sees cooperation
among Atlantic provinces as
the key to battling Ottawa
among Atlantic provinces as
the key to battling Ottawa
Notes for a Speech by Danny Williams,
Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party Leader,
at the Nova Scotia Annual Premier's Dinner
Halifax, NS, Saturday, June 2, 2001
Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party Leader,
at the Nova Scotia Annual Premier's Dinner
Halifax, NS, Saturday, June 2, 2001
This text may vary from the delivered version
Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to your annual fundraiser this evening. Unfortunately, my wife, Maureen, could not join me as she is attending a graduation party for the son of a close family friend.
I want you to know that I feel very much at home here tonight. Both Maureen and I remember fondly the day 30 years ago as newlyweds when we jumped into our beaten-up '61 Valiant Station Wagon and headed for Dal where I obtained my Canadian Law Degree. Our memories of student poverty are treasured. In particular, I vividly remember one lunchtime in Dartmouth when we were trying to scrape together the price of two snack packs of Kentucky Fried Chicken by hauling out the seats of the car to get some loose change to make up the shortfall. The Colonel hasn't tasted as good since.
But my fondness for this province is not just personal. It is also cultural. We have a history and values that go back centuries before Confederation. The bonds that unite us are far stronger than the few differences that could divide us. We have common goals, common interests, common challenges, common vulnerabilities, common opportunities and of course a common boundary. But we have been more than just neighbours sharing adjoining properties. We have been partners sharing enterprises, resources and people. We hold kinship in thousands of families throughout both our provinces. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like myself have received quality education in your province and are alumni of Nova Scotia Universities and Colleges. So when I say that I feel at home, I mean it. Our Atlantic Canadian family is a strong bond that unites us all.
So you may ask yourself why am I here tonight. By way of quick background, just a year ago I was a very happy man. I had a good law practice, a successful business, some free time for my family and a chance to play the odd game of golf. But then the Leader of the P.C. Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ed Byrne, resigned and, in the absence of a strong successor, I decided that the province needed a change in leadership and direction - and I threw my hat into the ring. As a result, I sold my business to avoid conflict of interest. My practice is drying up because people think I'm too busy, and I now spend at least 25 per cent of my time listening to our open line shows and less time with family. In the last seven months, I have campaigned in the fall federal election - and also in two winter by-elections on the Great Northern Peninsula, both of which we won. I have had a leadership convention in April, and I now find myself running in a by-election in Corner Brook to obtain a seat in the legislature. I didn't realize how good I had it! Premier, no one will ever convince me that the role of a politician or a party leader is an easy one. As CEO of a private company, you are top dog - but in politics some days you are the dog and some days you are the hydrant.
But it does have its light moments. One supporter told me at the convention that the Liberals in Newfoundland should erect a sign in Port aux Basques that the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off indefinitely.
And another voter who wanted change in the Northern Peninsula told me that politicians and diapers have something in common: they both have to be changed regularly, for the same reason.
But all jokes aside, I am truly enjoying the experience and challenge of political life. Like Premier Hamm, I did not seek the position for something to do to fill the leisure hours. I have sought this position because I love my province, because I see some things that are desperately wrong that need fixing, because I think I bring a background to the table that can make a difference and because I cannot rest until I have tried.
The more that I see, the more nauseous and angry that I get. The way that our people and our region have been treated by one arrogant federal Liberal government after another is disgusting. The legacy that the late Prime Minister Trudeau and Jean Chrétien will leave in Atlantic Canada is one of dependence on Mother Ottawa, which has been orchestrated for political motives for the sole purpose of maintaining power. No wonder the West is alienated and Québec has threatened separation. Canadians - and Atlantic Canadians, in particular - realize the importance of dignity and self-respect while Ottawa prefers that we negotiate from a position of weakness on our hands and knees. We must heed the words of J.F.K. who said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
Our fellow Canadians must wonder why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are always angry, always complaining about the inequity of the Upper Churchill, when we receive unemployment and TAGS benefits from Ottawa together with generous transfer payments.
We don't want handouts. We want our pride back. We want to be independent and self-sufficient. We have already lost 30 years of profits from the Upper Churchill representing tens of billions of dollars. If we had just ten years of profit from the remainder of that contract at today's prices, our province would be debt-free. Instead, Ottawa saves that money by paying less to Québec.
Last year, over $2 billion worth of oil left our shores - and, after the federal clawback, we netted $12 million. Our mining industry last year produced over $1 billion, and we netted $4 million after federal clawback.
If Voisey's Bay is developed, we will net approximately $6 million after clawback on over a billion dollars worth of nickel production.
So on those three items alone with $4.5 billion dollars of annual production we would net $22 million dollars on royalties after federal clawback of 70% and 80%.
Not to mention the gross mismanagement of our cod fishery by the federal government, resulting in its destruction; the bartering of our fishery rights for favoured access to international markets; and federal manipulation in favour of Québec on our hydroelectric power.
That is why we are angry, we just want a fair share. Comments like "fish have no home" from Trudeau, the philosopher king, might make good soundbites, but they portray arrogance and contempt for a hard-working people who have been deprived of their heritage.
In Atlantic Canada, we are resource-rich but economically poor. We do not benefit as we should from our resource bounty, and part of the reason is that we gave up ownership and control of some of our most important resources when we joined Confederation. Prior to that, we were a sovereign country and we owned the sea's resources. We brought with us the fish in the ocean and the oil and gas in the adjacent ocean shelf, and God knows what else might be discovered in years to come with new technology.
By contrast, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved out of federal lands in 1905. The federal government of that day gave those new provinces ownership and control of the oil and gas in those former federal lands. They could own them and manage them as they saw fit. Alberta, in particular, has turned those resources into colossal wealth for the people of that province. There is no Alberta Accord to allow Albertans a limited share of the benefits from their natural resources. As a result, they hope to pay down $5 billion this year on their debt.
What is the difference between the wealth beneath Alberta's soil and the wealth beneath the sea adjacent to our coasts? Why have we been treated differently merely because our resources are located underwater rather than underground?
I believe that this distinction cannot be justified. I believe it is fundamentally wrong. I believe the situation is discriminatory and goes a long way to keeping our Atlantic provinces in positions of fiscal and economic subservience.
Our offshore resources belong to Canada simply because we are provinces of Canada. They are there because we are there. They go where we go. If we left Canada, the economic zone would go with us. There is no dispute about that. Why then should there be any dispute about the claim to the right of ownership of those economic resources within Canada? Joe Clark's government acknowledged our ownership and control over oil and gas resources offshore in 1979, but Trudeau rejected it in 1980. It was the Mulroney government in 1985 that gave us the Atlantic Accord.
Ours is a strong case of basic fairness and fundamental justice. Jean Chrétien knows this because he was Trudeau's Minister of Energy and intricately involved in the original negotiations. He should be ashamed of himself for the way that he has treated our provinces. Unfortunately, because of relatively low population numbers and the consequent low number of seats in the House of Commons, the Senate and the federal Cabinet, our voice is not heard loudly enough in Ottawa when we try to state our case. All too often, a muted voice is mistaken for a whining voice, if it is heard at all. Atlantic Canadians should never give up the fight to have clear ownership of resources in our economic zone restored to us. Don't ever forget that we collectively constitute four provinces of this country despite our population.
I am proud to say that one Premier in particular in this region has been fighting back and setting the example - and that Premier is John Hamm. Thank Heavens for Premier Hamm! Our province, with its string of silent compliant Liberal Premiers, owes John Hamm a debt of gratitude for fighting on their behalf. But it's time we joined forces and fought together. It's time to form a united power block in this region. With Ontario controlling the Commons, with Québec frequently setting the national agenda and with the West now uniting to ensure their particular perspective is heard, we cannot afford not to act in concert. Circumstances necessitate it. If we want to get our fair share of benefits and to influence public policy in this country, we must band together.
Provincial Liberal Governments in Atlantic Canada have put party ahead of province at the expense of the people they were elected to govern. By contrast, the Progressive Conservative approach is based on the premise that sacrificing the concerns of part of the country for the good of the whole of the country only leaves the country weaker, not stronger.
A blue tide is sweeping the Atlantic region. It has swept over the Maritimes and it is rolling in Newfoundland and Labrador, because our people are tired of poor representation. After a general election, all four Atlantic provinces will be Tory blue - and we must work together to get action.
His fellow Premier Ralph Klein has come out in favour of Premier Hamm's Campaign for Fairness. He feels that a better deal with Ottawa over the lucrative and ever-expanding royalties from vast reserves in the North Atlantic would benefit all Canadians and help the Atlantic provinces get back on their feet. Just this week, Jeffrey Simpson's column in The Globe and Mail drew attention to Premier Hamm’s campaign and the unfairness of clawback. And the Commentary in The National Post on Thursday past was entitled "The Cruel Hand of Equalization". The author agreed with Premier Klein that all Canadians would benefit by removing the shackles from Atlantic Canada and shifting from dependence on Ottawa to greater self-reliance. The perverse incentives of equalization only prevent sound, long-term development.
With developments in the U.S. energy plan and high energy prices, the time is right for the Atlantic provinces to revisit these issues and demand fairness.
Mr. Roland Martin, a former deputy Minister of Finance in Newfoundland and Labrador who now lives in Nova Scotia, recently published the first significant analysis of federal equalization payments since the program was introduced over 40 years ago. He says Ottawa should do three things to help the economies of the Atlantic provinces and reduce their dependence over the long term.
First, he says, Ottawa should take oil and gas out of the equalization formula so there will be no clawback of revenues from offshore royalties and taxes. Second, Ottawa should return to a ten-province standard for calculating entitlement to equalization instead of the current five-province standard. A ten-province standard would treat provinces equally in terms of their capacity to raise revenues, and would provide more equalization revenues to the Atlantic provinces.
Thirdly, Mr. Martin calls for a needs component in the equalization formula that will compensate, to some degree, for the higher costs of such public services as transportation, health and education in our province.
There is now a huge disconnect between the wealth generated by our resources and the net value we derive from them as provinces of Canada.
Ottawa, not Newfoundland and Labrador, is the big beneficiary.
This inability to gain any significant advantage from our resource wealth goes a long way to explaining the stark contrast between reported GDP growth and the actual economic and revenue benefits that accrue to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Newfoundland and Labrador leads the nation in GDP growth and has been at or near the top for several years.
For every one of those years, Newfoundland and Labrador has also led the nation in unemployment and outmigration and trailed every other province in the nation in its ability to raise revenues to pay for essential public services, despite having some of the highest taxes in the nation.
Our dilemma is compounded by Ottawa's retreat from the federal principles of comparable public services for comparable fiscal effort. Those principles distinguished Canada among the nations of the world for much of the post-war period. But we are much less a sharing, caring nation today.
Mr. Martin, in his own paper on equalization, described the widening gap in taxation levels among provinces as "a rapidly evolving threat to the nation's political, social, and economic survival".
All of us in Atlantic Canada are suffering as a result of Ottawa's greater tolerance for inequalities in Canada.
We can no longer count on transfers from Ottawa to help pay for essential public services up to national standards.
From now on, this region will be more reliant on it own resources than at any time in the last half-century.
It is urgent that we find ways together to adjust to these new realities.
And it is urgent that we work together to impress upon Ottawa the need to give us the time to make those adjustments - to end our dependence on Ottawa in a planned way, without creating an even-wider gap between this region and the rest of the country.
I believe that we need our own Atlantic Accord and we can achieve greater self-sufficiency by working together as a region. Ontario looks after Ontario. Québec has its own agenda. The western provinces are a force in their own right and have succeeded in capturing national attention to their issues.
So far, Atlantic Canada has been irrelevant in the debate about the values of our nation and its future. Thanks to Premier Hamm, people are standing up and taking notice.
There is much work to be done.
There is a fight to be won.
Capitulation is not an option.
We owe it to our children and their children to preserve and find new creative ways to build a stronger, prosperous and self-reliant society.
The fight is well underway in Nova Scotia.
It has begun with the Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We will fight as a united team, and I firmly believe that we will win.
No charges for Hickey; defamation suit possible
According to news reports, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary will not be laying charges against transportation minister John Hickey [Right. Photo: cbc.ca] following an investigation of his double-billing for legislature expenses.Hickey did double-bill the legislature for everything from donations to community groups to an apparently exorbitant monthly rental fee for a laptop computer.
If the computer had been purchased outright, the cost to the Crown would have been considerably less than a year's worth of payments at the rate indicated in the duplicate claims.
Hickey was initially relieved of cabinet duties but restored to cabinet by Premier Danny Williams shortly afterward in a move virtually unprecedented in parliamentary history.
It is customary to preserve the integrity of government by removing from cabinet any minister under criminal ivnestigation.
Hickey [Left. Double Photo: cbc.ca] told reporters: "I am completely vindicated."Well, yes, there is vindication, at least to the extent that there was no criminal wrong-doing.
But Hickey most definitely did double-bill, and he has admitted to unspecified "mistakes". presumably that includes a situation in which two, and in one instance three claims, were filed for the same expense.
Like all newbie government members deployed as part of the government's communications strategy on the legislature scandal, Hickey lays the blame for the double-billing on the legislature's financial staff...presumably for not noticing that Hickey had in fact submitted duplicate claims for service not once, not twice, but 20 separate times. The duplicate claims were submitted in Fiscal Years 2003, 2004 and 2005. Hickey was first elected to the legislature in October 2003.
Hickey is also demanding an unqualified apology from former Premier Roger Grimes who stated publicly at the time, and as he repeated for news media today that he would "repeat every word that I've said publicly about how incompetent and dumb and stupid and sloppy that somebody like Mr. Hickey
[Right. Hat-trick Photo: cbc.ca] would have to be to double-bill the government some 30-odd times and then pay the money back...".Details of Hickey's double-billing can found in Auditor general John Noseworthy's report.
Among the billings were claims submitted twice for a chamber of commerce luncheon in November 2003. The first claim, along with the original invoice for $50.00 was submitted with a payment date of December 4, 2003. The claim was submitted a second time with a copy of the original invoice. Payment for the second claim was made in February 2004.
One of the most curious claims was a triplicate submission for an ad in the souvenir booklet for the 2004 Labrador Canoe Regatta. The first claim for $125, supported by an invoice apparently dated 22 July 04, was paid by the legislature on August 25, 2004. The second claim for the same ad was submitted with an invoice apparently dated in September 2004, was paid on October 6. A third claim - for the same ad - was submitted with a copy of a cancelled cheque apparently dated Aug 4. It was paid on February 4, 2005. None of the Auditor General's reports contains the actual date on which each claim was submitted.
Rather than sue Grimes, it would be far cheaper - not to mention genuinely open, transparent and accountable - for Hickey to hold a news conference, bring along his claims and explain what happened.
Otherwise, the public purse could be burdened completely needlessly by Hickey's legal fees.
Of course, if he had just kept track of what he was submitting, the whole thing would never have happened in the first place.
Then again, if Hickey [Left. Not exactly as illustrated] hadn't claimed to have a signed road construction contract on his desk last fall, he never would have been caught in an embarrassing fact malfunction under questioning in the legislature.
Lorne Calvert to Harper: you shoulda let income trusts suck my treasury dry
While the federal government's decision on income trusts may have violated an election promise, failing to act in the way it did would have caused phenomenal revenue loss for both the federal and provincial governments.
That's the sort of simple background that makes Lorne Calvert's comments in St. John's on Friday undeniably bizarre.
Calvert told a local business luncheon:
If keeping the original promise would have produced financial problems for both orders of government, then it was sensible to break the promise. By the same token, then, if the second promise on resources and Equalization would cause as many problems as it fixes, then it's only sensible to trash the second promise as well.
On another point, the Canadian Press story linked above contains a glaring factual error:
The O'Brien expert panel recommended excluding 50% of all resource revenues from the calculation. Premier Danny Williams originally proposed including all revenues in the calculation of Equalization entitlements. He now seeks their total inclusion, apparently.
Under no circumstances are the revenues in some form of jeopardy that requires them to be protected. This is a totally false presentation, the lie of which is confirmed by the admission in the Atlantic Accord (2005) that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sets, collects and retains 100% of provincial government revenues from offshore oil production.
That's the sort of simple background that makes Lorne Calvert's comments in St. John's on Friday undeniably bizarre.
Calvert told a local business luncheon:
"Whether you agree or disagree with the income trust decision - and it was clearly walking away from a promised commitment - he's at high jeopardy if he does that anymore," Calvert said after delivering a speech to the St. John's Board of Trade.That sounds like Calvert would have been happy if the feds had left income trusts alone, just for the sake of keeping a promise. If Calvert was merely saying that Harper couldn't afford to break another promise, one must wonder at Calvert's logic.
If keeping the original promise would have produced financial problems for both orders of government, then it was sensible to break the promise. By the same token, then, if the second promise on resources and Equalization would cause as many problems as it fixes, then it's only sensible to trash the second promise as well.
On another point, the Canadian Press story linked above contains a glaring factual error:
Newfoundland's offshore oil revenues are protected by the Atlantic Accord, but Williams has expressed fears that Harper is leaning towards including them in a new formula.Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore revenues are included entirely in the current Equalization formula. They are included for the purposes of determining the province's fiscal capacity and therefore, its entitlement to the Equalization top-up.
The O'Brien expert panel recommended excluding 50% of all resource revenues from the calculation. Premier Danny Williams originally proposed including all revenues in the calculation of Equalization entitlements. He now seeks their total inclusion, apparently.
Under no circumstances are the revenues in some form of jeopardy that requires them to be protected. This is a totally false presentation, the lie of which is confirmed by the admission in the Atlantic Accord (2005) that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sets, collects and retains 100% of provincial government revenues from offshore oil production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)