Fortis expands to British Columbia natural gas

In a deal announced on Monday, St. John's-based Fortis Inc. will acquire the British Columbia natural gas distribution service Terasen Inc. from the American company Kinder Morgan. The deal is reportedly worth $3.7 billion in cash and debt.

Edited extract from the news release:

The natural gas distribution business of Terasen, referred to as Terasen Gas, is one of the largest natural gas distribution utilities in Canada. Terasen Gas is the principal natural gas distribution utility in British Columbia, serving approximately 900,000 customers or 95% of natural gas customers in the province. Terasen Gas owns and operates 44,100 kilometres of natural gas distribution pipelines and 4,300 kilometres of natural gas transmission pipelines. Its service territory includes the populous lower mainland, Vancouver Island, and the southern interior of the province. As of September 30, 2006, Terasen Gas had an aggregate of $3.6 billion of assets, an aggregate rate base approaching $3.0 billion and approximately 1,200 employees. The company is regulated by the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

"These are high-quality utility assets located in a region with strong economic growth," says Stan Marshall, left, president and chief executive officer, Fortis Inc. "Through our FortisBC electric utility operations, we are very familiar with the regulatory environment and energy markets in British Columbia."

"Our expansion into the natural gas distribution business adds a third business segment and doubles the regulated rate base of Fortis to approximately $6.0 billion. The acquisition is expected to be immediately accretive to earnings per common share," explains Marshall.

Dependence on federal income support: Newfoundland and Labrador

While there is a general understanding that individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador receive significant income support from the federal government, the chart above puts it into a perspective that is nothing short of chilling.

Employment insurance currently accounts for eight percent of typical personal income in the province. That's the highest level in Canada.

While the increase in per capita employment insurance (EI) payments to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians begins to rise noticeably in the mid-1970s, the rate skyrockets after the creation of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone and the consequent expansion of the highly seasonal fish processing industry. That occurred in 1977.

Curiously, as fish stocks depleted, the per capita EI amounts climb dramatically until the imposition of the cod moratorium in 1992.

After a period of decline in the 1990s (exclusive of TAGS and NCARP payments), the rates of employment insurance per capita climbed again in 1999. It continues to climb. This coincides with the end of federal support payments specifically made in relation to the cod moratorium (NCARP/TAGS). It also coincides with a provincial government policy which saw plants shift production to species such as shrimp.


Update:


The same figures, given in constant dollars, compared with the national average.

"...everyone is upset with us, so we must be doing a good job!"

Speaking Points for Max Ruelokke, Chair and CEO, C-NLOPB

NOIA Luncheon, February 21, 2007

[Note: May not be exactly as delivered. Thanks to Max Ruelokke and Sean Kelly for providing these notes.]

• Thanks for the invitation, it feels great to be in this group where we have many shared experiences of helping to grow this industry. I must say, I felt equally at home last month in addressing the offshore workforce on Terra Nova and the Henry Goodrich.

IMPORTANCE OF OIL AND GAS WEEK:

• The C-NLOPB commissioned Corporate Research Associates in autumn 2005 to assess how much people know about the offshore oil and gas industry and about us. Here are some of the things we found out from the survey:

• Actual impact: GDP; 3200 workers directly employed. Perceived impact: Stats from Survey - 61% of people who were surveyed had no idea of the number employed, the majority of those who responded thought it was less than 2,000.

• Actual Impact: Spending since the Hibernia discovery - $ 19 B. Perceived impact: 68% had no idea, of those who did respond, the average estimate was $1.5 B.

• Offshore Industry has many components, all with a role to play:

- NOIA and its impact
- Offshore Workforce
- Operators, individually and via CAPP [Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.]
- Governments
- Finally, C-NLOPB

WHO WE ARE

• 21% of people surveyed felt we were responsible for regulating the O&G industry, compared to 42% for the Federal Government and 36% for the Provincial Government.

• Established in 1985 to administer the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts. [Federal and Provincial]


• Key mandates:

Safety
Resource management
Environmental protection
Industrial benefits

• The Board, in many ways, serves all stakeholders in the industry, sometimes satisfying none! A good example of that is the current situation where Government appears to be upset with us and our recent decision, while at the same time we are still in the appeal period of a recent court decision in a case where we were taken to court by HMDC [Hibernia Management and Development Corporation] and Petro-Canada who claimed we were imposing an unfair requirement to spend within the Province on them.

• A former Board member once mused that “.. it seems as though everyone is upset with us, so we must be doing a good job!”

• But seriously, let’s take a look at the Board:

• Seven members: Federal appointees: Hal Stanley, Lorne Spracklin and Herb Clarke; Provincial Appointees: Fred Way, Dr. Joan Whelan, Andy Wells and myself as Chairman and CEO.

• How the Board works: Decisions are made by Board Members, by the Executive, or by either or both of the Chief Safety Officer and the Chief Conservation Officer. Fundamental Decisions involving: Rights Issuance, Extraordinary Powers, Development Plans are subject to the approval of Ministers,

• All the above are based on sound staff work by the Board’s 60 employees, who are really the heart and soul of the Board. They are highly qualified, with 89% holding formal post-secondary degrees or diplomas, with 86% having been educated in Newfoundland and Labrador. More that half of them have professional designations in engineering, geoscience, finance, human resources and public relations. They are highly skilled, dedicated, and respected by their peers in industry. There is a great blend of experience and youth, and Fred Way and I as the two full-time Board members are truly blessed to work with them.

• The basis of all the Board’s decisions is its mandate to manage our offshore resources to ensure that all purposes of the Accord are taken into consideration and a balanced decision reached. Allow me to read these brief purposes:

• (Purposes are on page 1 of the Atlantic Accord Memorandum, a pdf file on our website under “Publications”)

• You can see that keeping these all in balance can be a challenge. For this reason, the Board does not, can not and will not make political decisions. Board members are appointed by Governments to manage our offshore oil and gas resources, not elected to govern. We (or rather, most of us) wouldn’t have it any other way!

• An example of a Board decision which will have a major positive impact on the province is our R&D/E&T guidelines decision. As you will all know, we are managing the exploitation of a fixed, finite, non-renewable resource. How then do we ensure that the positive impact on our Province and Country will be felt long after the resource is depleted?

• The Board considered this and concluded that it would require those who are extracting this resource should make significant investments into research and development and education and training in our province. It was decided that an annual percentage, equal to that expended in Canada by the oil industry generally, as determined by Statistics Canada from industry sources, would be applied as a levy against production operations here. At current production rates and oil prices, this will result in the expenditure of approximately $20 M annually. Several operators challenged this decision in court, but last month the courts decided in our favour. There is still the possibility of an appeal, but we are cautiously optimistic of the outcome.

• These funds will have a long-lasting positive impact on our society, and I would encourage all those who are interested in further details to contact our office and specifically Frank Smyth, our Manager of Industrial Benefits and Regulatory Coordination, who is here today .

• Thank you for your courtesy and attention, and I hope these few remarks have been helpful in explaining who we are, what we do, and how and why we do it. If there are questions I’d be pleased to answer them.

Doing job worth news release

Intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer issued a news release today to let everyone know he had a bunch of meetings in Ottawa with federal ministers.

Nothing new happened, except that they met.

In polling season, that's enough, apparently, but it sure isn't news.

What an appalling waste of one of this administration's more competent ministers.

Why unions don't work

That got your attention, didn't it?

Well it's either why they don't work or Kathy Dunderdale's google-search aide is now working for the National Union of Public and General Employees [NUPGE].

Check out this piece trying to rally support against the idea of Atlantica, a trade deal aimed at increasing co-operation between the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.

The date on the piece is today.

NUPGE says that the idea is being pushed by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. That's true, but others are interested.

NUPGE says that AIMS is headed by Brian Crowley.

Problem.

Not at the moment. Crowley is off in Ottawa giving advice to Stephen Harper. Maybe the NUPGE writer didn't see Brian on the OCTRANSPO route they probably share. Crowley's move was widely reported and is found here, at the AIMS website.

It happened in November, over three months ago.

NUPGE lists the board of directors.

Second problem.

It's out of date. To be fair, NUPGE likely got this information from the AIMS website and that's where the problem rests. AIMS lists Derrick Rowe as chief executive of Fishery Products International, a job he gave up over a year ago.

Third problem?

Well, it's the overall approach. NUPGE's tirade against Atlantica is long on ideology and short on details. AIMS gets slagged, for example, because it has complained about the very large government to private sector ratio in Atlantic Canada. Lots of people do and with good reason: as taxpayers, we all pay for the general inefficiency of the bureaucracy and the burden of carrying around higher costs than we actually need to do the job.

The general rant against free trade that forms the basis of the piece has been around for 20 years. Fewer people accept it as the evidence of free trade mounts. There are ups and downs, depending on whether you are working in the Hershey factory in Smith's Falls or if you're the Mexican worker who is getting a job upgrade.

We could get into a long rant about the need for unions, especially those in eastern Canada, to update their slogan books, but that's for another time. Like the hunter-gatherers' union, FFAW, that stands as both a giant anachronism, a conflict of interest that works against its members best interests, and, as the recent experience with FPI shows, part of the cabal of business and government interests working together - even if inadvertently - to break up Fishery Products International, all the while blaming it on someone else.

In the meantime, take a quick look at NUPGE's little piece. Then go read the stuff at AIMS and make up your mind.

Maybe when you're done, you can give some thought to why people seem happy with international free trade (ok. NUPGE isn't, I know.) but want to grab the nearest pitchfork when someone promotes inter-provincial free trade.

Defining a fair share of oil and gas revenue

Wade Locke's presentation to a Harris Centre public meeting last November is now available through Newfoundland Quarterly as a five page article.

To start with, Locke notes the vagueness of the "fair share" position:

While it is feasible to calculate the level of benefits currently received by the province, especially those flowing to the provincial treasury, and also possible to estimate how those benefits evolve over time as the industry grows and matures, it is not at all obvious to determine with any degree of precision, what would constitute a "fair share" of those benefits from the perspective of Newfoundland and Labrador. Moreover, many individuals arguing for a "fair share" of benefits fail to specify explicitly the benefits benchmark that needs to be surpassed.

That pretty much describes the provincial government's approach: there is a claim but no definition. That's exactly the same way the provincial government approached the idea of principal beneficiary, oil revenues and transfer payments from Ottawa.

Then there is Locke's consideration of the value of timely development:

With all four fields being developed to their potential, provincial revenue from the oil and gas sector would peak at $1.4 billion in 2012, generate more than $1.0 billion to the provincial treasury for another 12 years [beyond that] and yield in excess of $500 million per year for at least another eight years. ...

However, at this point the following caveat is important to bear in mind: these tremendous impacts may never be realized. They are contingent on Hibernia South and the Hebron project proceeding. If these developments do not proceed, then the revenue from the oil and gas industry will fall from $23 billion to $9 billion. In other words, while enhanced prosperity is within our grasp, there is a real risk it may not be realized. Furthermore, this risk is directly affected by decisions that are within the control of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. [Emphasis added]

That makes it pretty clear: no Hebron and Hibernia South and benefits drop dramatically. Elsewhere in the article, Locke makes it clear that leaving the oil in the ground runs the risk of drastically diminishing benefits compared to what would accrue from timely development.

Locke noted in his presentation that oil revenues account for more than 18% of the provincial government's total annual revenue. However, Locke doesn't point out that if one looks at own source revenues, i.e. the provincial government's direct revenues, not including transfers from Ottawa, offshore revenues account for about 26% of the government's haul.

Locke's presentation was specifically aimed at the "fair share" question. Putting Hebron and Hibernia South in the slings (White Rose expansion may suffer the same fate) has an impact on the province's fair share, as Locke notes.

Those cancellations also have an impact on other economic issues. As noted previously, the provincial government's own economic forecasts put the province into a period of stagnation (near zero growth) or recession for 2008 and 2009. The primary cause of that downturn is the lack of development offshore.

Province forecasts economic slowdown

While you won't hear it mentioned by the Premier, cabinet ministers or the administration's other spokespeople, the provincial government's own economic analysis division is forecasting an economic slowdown in the province over the next two years.

The Economy, 2006, delivered with the budget in the spring of 2006 forecast a shrinkage in the economy in 2008 and 2009. Real gross domestic product (GDP) was forecast to shrink by 1.5% each year.

Economic Review 2006, issued at the mid-way point in the current fiscal year, revised the estimates and provided projections for both nominal and real GDP. Both categories are forecast to see either negligible growth of less than one percent or a shrinkage of 1.5%.

Both documents pointed to oil production and mining output, including Voisey's Bay, as the major drivers of the economic growth into 2007.

Voisey's Bay is a deal criticized heavily by the current administration while in opposition.

Background on legislature allowances

It took eight months, but someone finally put together an excellent backgrounder on the House of Assembly remuneration for legislators and the history of their allowances and other indemnities.

Rob Antle has it in Saturday's Telegram.

Insipid sameness, as some pretentious columnist called what's in the Telegram, turns out to be the sort of robust journalism the equally pretentious paper that prints her column just can't seem to produce. Can't produce, no matter how many times its editor claims to be doing just that.

Gimme insipid any day, if the alternative is pretentious blather.

If one article wasn't enough, there's also an excellent article by Antle in the Lifestyles section that describes the circumstances surrounding the changes to the internal economy commission legislation in 2000.

Antle gives us as much detail as we could expect in these two articles and there can be no excuses for people accepting the simplistic version of events tossed out from politicians anymore.

Still, there are four points Antle hasn't tackled in these pieces.

First, there's the curious saga of ejecting the Auditor General from the legislature in 2000. Antle notes "[Danny] Williams, leader of the PC party, was against it [barring the Auditor General from the legislature's accounts], but was not a member of the IEC."

That's true. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the commission; nor is the Premier. But in both cases some of the most senior members of the cabinet and the opposition caucus sit on the legislature's executive committee. Their job is to reflect the views of their caucus members and ultimately their respective bosses. It shouldn't matter that Danny didn't sit on the IEC; if he had a grip at all on his caucus he ought to have been able to handle this differently. That's especially the case of point supposedly so central to Williams' pledge of accountability and transparency.

Skip ahead to April 2004 and the Internal Economy Commission allowed the Auditor General to review the legislature's books once again. Williams takes credit for the move, but he wasn't on the commission as Premier any more than he was as Leader Op.

There's much more to this story that hasn't been told. It may never be told, but the version presented, even by Antle, doesn't explain how Williams could triumph at one point - supposedly - despite having failed earlier.

Antle doesn't explain the May 2004 bonus which Williams knew about at the time it was issued and, implicitly sanctioned. He couldn't be powerful at one moment and impotent the next without some better explanation than the one offered so far. Actually there hasn't been an explanation of this local version of the magic, reversing bullet.

Second, Antle notes changes made to the legislature's administration after April 2004. He points to cuts in allowances. Sadly, he doesn't explain how it could be that while members' allowances were cut, overspending on the budget line item that covers those allowances ballooned. According to the government's official, audited financial statements the legislature overspent its allowance line item by a total of almost $1.0 million in FY 2004 and FY 2005. The Auditor General's reports to date have only accounted for about $200,000 of that amount.

Third, Antle says that "Auditors found a 'significant spike' in overspending after the decision to bar them in 2000." The Auditor General may claim there was a spike in that year, but the Public Accounts - audited by John Noseworthy's staff and that of his predecessor Beth Marshall - showed a consistent pattern of overspending in the allowances line item from 1998 to 2005.

As the red line shows in the table above, the spike in spending occurred before the AG was barred, i.e. in FY 1999, tamped down for two fiscal years - after the AG was blocked - and then started its upward trend in 2003. That upward trend continued in 2004 and grew higher in 2005 in plain view of the Auditor General.

The yellow line in the table above represents the amounts identified by the Auditor General. His numbers may confirm his own theory, but the facts contained in the Public Accounts say something completely different. Sometimes people see what they look for, rather than what was. The "what was" may raise other questions that some would find uncomfortable.

The fourth point Antle hasn't touched is about the comptroller general. The version of events offered by both the current administration and the Auditor General is that the government's chief financial officer could not see what was going on in the legislature since the claims his office received in order to generate payments did not contain receipts.

This defies even a layman's reading of the Financial Administration Act, let alone beggar's the belief of anyone even passingly familiar with how things work inside Confederation Building's East Block.

Simply put, there's no way to run over a line item in the budget - especially by the $3.2 million total shown in the Public Accounts - without the guy who writes the cheques knowing about it. If he knew, then others knew or ought to have known.

Antle's last comment is well taken: "To appreciate why those changes are necessary, it’s important to remember how they were done in the past."

The difficulty is that even after his yeoman service in two fine articles, there are still crucial pieces of information missing.

It would seem that the only way to get to the bottom of the whole matter is through a properly constituted public inquiry.

Egyptian blogger jailed

From Associated Press:

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt, Feb. 22 -- An Egyptian blogger was convicted Thursday and sentenced to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egypt's president, sending a chill through fellow Internet writers who fear a government crackdown.

Abdel Kareem Nabil, a 22-year-old former student at Egypt's Al-Azhar University, had been a vocal secularist and sharp critic of conservative Muslims in his blog. He often lashed out at Al-Azhar -- the most prominent religious centre in Sunni Islam -- calling it "the university of terrorism" and accusing it of encouraging extremism.

Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil, 22, centre, is escorted by police officers from a police van and towards a court house in Alexandria, Egypt Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007. The Egyptian blogger was convicted of insulting Islam and President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced to four years in prison on Thursday in Egypt's first prosecution of a blogger. (AP Photo)

Roger Grimes and the Lower Churchill

1. From The Independent, a story buried in the print edition last week but given prominence on the website.

Former premier Roger Grimes says when -- or if -- Danny Williams signs a deal to develop the lower Churchill, it will be "almost identical" to the one Grimes nearly signed with Quebec in 2002. He says the project remains undeveloped because of political games played by Danny Williams' administration.

"My assessment of it, quite frankly, is this: if Danny Williams ever does a lower Churchill deal," Grimes tells The Independent, "he'll do the deal I had on the table, or very close to it, because it is the only one that makes any economic sense."

There's another story this week featuring an interview with Dean MacDonald. It won't be online until Wednesday, but as soon as your humble e-scribbler can grab a copy, there'll be a post.

2. As a backdrop to all this, read for yourself the draft agreement Roger, Dean and Danny are talking about.

Combat medicine

From CBC Newfoundland and Labrador, this profile of Lieutenant Commander Bob Farrell, a Canadian Forces medical officer recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. [Note: ram file]

Let's do the Time Warp

Let's take a little trip through the Magic Time Machine of Hansard, back to March 12, 2002.

Danny Williams, then Leader of the Opposition was in full flight, debating Bill 65, an act to amend the Fishery Products International Act.

Mr. Williams:...It did not have to happen. We have a black eye now on the business reputation of this Province. People do not like heavy-handed intervention. They do not like it, and that is what happened in the business community. The national media are looking at it and they now see our intervention as heavy-handed. If it had happened back in April of last year, back in May of last year, there would have been no problem.

The hon. Member for Lewisporte talked about his concern about a privitive clause. We all share that concern. There should be no need for a privitive clause. There should be no need to hide behind your mistakes, so that people who have a right to sue you can rightfully sue you. We have done it; it is out there. You have this unique legislation that talks about privity, so you cannot sue us because we made mistakes. That is wrong. That could have been prevented. The legal opinion that you had last spring said that you could change that legislation for public policy reasons, and you did not do it. [Emphasis added]

Black eye on the business reputation of the province?

Think Fishery Products International after Danny Williams came to power. Think Hebron and threats to take out ExxonMobil. Think Abitibi and the threats to expropriate.

Privitive clause?

No need to hide behind your mistakes?

Think Max Ruelokke and Danny Williams' argument that the courts had no right to review government's decisions, or to be accurate their persistent failure to act as the law directed.

Something suggests Don Burridge was carrying a brief he did not write on that one.

But you know, when you go back to what Danny said then and what happened later...

It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep control

...

It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You're there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
You're spaced out on sensation, like you're under sedation
Let's do the Time Warp again!

Man, that was fun. We'll have to do the time warp again, really soon.

More like a small gene pool

The local New Democrats are still a little miffed that Karen Oldford decided to run for the Liberals in Labrador West instead of the party of Tommy Douglas.

"I'm quite disgusted.… I've never heard of this stuff happening before," said Nancy Riche, responding to Karen Oldford's decision to run for the Liberals in the March 13 byelection in Labrador West.

NDP president Nancy Riche said she is appalled that the Liberals competed for a candidate her party had lined up to run in Labrador West. NDP president Nancy Riche said she is appalled that the Liberals competed for a candidate her party had lined up to run in Labrador West.

"It really speaks to principles [and] lack of principles and ethics, I think."

That's a quote from the CBC story.

As much as Nancy Riche is a solid commentator and a savvy political operative, this comment suggests the early stages of late onset pinocchiosis.

Now that we have a bit more information, the whole thing sounds like typical daily life in the small gene pool known as Newfoundland and Labrador politics.

I used to be commonplace to see the same person being courted by at least two parties at the same time. That was back before the ice sheet retreated and Pangaea split up; you know back when your humble e-scribbler was actively involved in politics.

Young readers will be excused for googling Pangaea to see who played lead guitar.

In the run up to the 1989 Cucumber Battle between Tom "Shakeylegs" Rideout, right, and Clyde "Unconscionable" Wells, there was one candidate who was fiercely pursued by both Grit and Tory suitors. In the end, the candidate elected to go Tory figuring that Rideout would win. It was a fair bet and had the candidate chosen correctly, well, a cabinet seat was waiting either way. That wasn't part of the inducement; it's just a natural conclusion given who the individual is.

Trevor Taylor ran as a Dipper, if memory serves. Ditto Wally Noel, the former King of Pleasantville who could easily knock off the singularly unimpressive natural resources minister even if he ran again even for the Radical Looney A-ha-ha Party.

Floor crossing is an old sport in this province after an election. Sometimes people start out working with one party only to see the error of their ways and switching to another team.

If Nancy really wants to find the culprit in this little drama, she can look to Jack who hit the road after 16 years as head of the local NDP having done nothing obvious in the meantime to give the part a reasonable shot at being the official opposition, let alone take government.

As good as she is at partisan politics, Nancy couldn't hope to undo a decade and a half of inertia in a handful of weeks.

Province wants assets for free?

Fish minister Tom Rideout confirmed Wednesday that any sale of Fishery Products International Limited must include transfer of FPI's most valuable asset - fishing quotas - to the provincial government.

Rideout gave no indication the provincial government was prepared to purchase the quota or any other assets. His comments suggest that the provincial government will use its power under the Fishery Products International Act to obtain the quotas for free. Under the Act, any sale of FPI assets must be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

As CBC News reports, the provincial government acquired fishing quotas as part of a deal to keep the Arnold's Cove fish plant from closing.

A 2005 review by the province's auditor general found substantive problems with the Arnold's Cove deal.

Auditor General John Noseworthy reported that the provincial government provided $3.5 million in financial assistance to Icewater Seafoods Inc. contrary to government policy that prohibits direct financial assistance and loan guarantees to primary fish processors.

Noseworthy said the allocations were acquired by Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation (NIDC) in order to avoid concerns raised by the federal government over transfering quotas to the provincial government directly. As part of this transaction, the provincial government, through NIDC, "received a groundfish quota from High Liner Foods Incorporated comprised of allocations for [nine] groundfish species totaling 3,676 metric tonnes for 2004-05. In addition, the company agreed to pay NIDC a minimum annual lease fee of $50,000 relating to this quota."

Noseworthy concluded the provincial government violated the Financial Administration Act by advnacing money from the Department of Finance to NIDC. Noseworthy said the pre-commitment "would not meet the requirement in the Financial Administration Act for 'an agreement to be entered into for the provision of goods or services to be delivered in a subsequent fiscal year.'"

Noseworthy said that while Ice Water Seafoods was required to pay $50,000 annually to lease the quotas, that amount did not cover the carrying costs of the $3.5 million, estimated at $200,000.

While the deal was presented to the public on the basis of retaining control over the right to fish in waters adjacent to the province, Noseworthy said that Icewater subsequently transferred 72 tonnes of its allocation to a Nova Scotia interest for processing in that province. An additional 300 tonnes was transferred from Icewater to an unnamed Newfoundland and Labrador processor.

While the provincial government invested $3.5 million in Icewater, there is no indication the provincial government is planning any investment in a future operator of FPI assets. However, acquiring a business interest with no capital investment is similar to a fear being expressed about the province's oil patch and the upcoming energy plan.

In a December 19, 2006 article in the Financial Post, bureau chief Claudia Cattaneo said "[t]he province is expected to unveil an energy plan early in the new year that will bring back government ownership and control of oil and gas resources in Canada for the first time since the 1980 National Energy Program. One the greatest fears is that the plan will mandate equity ownership in oil projects by the province without contributing capital...."

Sanford Limited acknowledges purchase offer

Sanford Limited, the New Zealand fishing enterprise with slightly less than a 15% interest in Fishery Products International Limited confirmed for New Zealand media in late January that it had received unspecified offers for "most of its Canadian business" held through FPIL.

Managing director Eric Barratt is reported to have indicated that while the outcome of the offers was unknown, the offer(s) would not be detrimental to the carrying value of the company's investment.

Sanford recently disposed of its Argentinian assets. Barratt told the Dominion Post that several offers were being considered for FPIL, but that selling out of overseas fisheries was not part of Sanford's international structure.

In May 2006, Bond Papers reported on Sanford's 2005 annual report. At the time, the company directors noted that they were prohibited by Newfoundland and Labrador law from increasing their investment in the company. Increasing their investment would have shown Sanford's confidence in the medium- to long-term viability of FPI under its current ownership and management.

As well, Sanford was compelled to write down the value of its shares, which had been booked at CDN$11.00 per share, due to persistent trading of FPI shares at less than CDN$6.00 per share.

The Minister for High Dudgeon

Recreation minister Tom Hedderson "takes great offense" at allegations surrounding the selection of Corner Brook as the site for the next Newfoundland and Labrador summer games. He also finds the allegation "contemptible."

"It is very upsetting to me that completely unfounded allegations of political interference by the Opposition may have taken some of the good feelings of pride and expectation that the people of Corner Brook and all of the athletes across Newfoundland and Labrador who will be there in 2008 should be feeling right now," said Minister Hedderson. "I urge all involved in the planning and preparation for these games to ignore the senseless innuendo taking place for crass political gain."

For some reason that is completely unfathomable to normal human beings, politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador seem to feel that their emotional condition qualifies as news.

It doesn't.

Just about every paragraph of this news release is an expression of some form over emotion in reaction to the idea that a member of the opposition might make an allegation that maybe the awarding of the games wasn't kosher, that it might be politically motivated. There are few facts, if any, except that Corner Brook last hosted the games in 1986, while Harbour Grace hosted the games in 1992. The original release was much better in explaining the rationale behind selecting Corner Brook.

What we have here is a highly predictable news release from the Liberal member for the Harbour Grace-Carbonear district. It actually isn't worthy of a response.

If there was a reply, one might expect the minister to merely state the reasons offered in the original release, note the number of strong bids received and wish the bidders better luck the next time around.

What we get instead is more just more of the melodrama that passes for politics in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier loves to express his anger, his frustration or his pride in this that or something else. Now his ministers have caught the same political disease.

Now to be fair, not so long ago, the Liberals used to do exactly the same sort of thing. It was silly then. It is even sillier now, especially considering that this administration was elected on the pledge that they were bringing a new approach to government. Some of us thought that the foolishness would go; little did we know that what Danny Williams' team they really meant was that they would raise silliness to a new height.

Harbour Grace-Carbonear didn't get the games. Too bad. Suck it up and move on. The opposition member alleges political interference. Wow: that's original. The minister is irked. Who really gives a sweet you know what.

The risk being run here is that people who are already tuning out political news out of disgust at the House of Assembly debacle will just become convinced that politics in general consists mostly of people being sooky. Forget the important issues the province is facing: let's just yak about what - in the bigger scheme of things - is simply irrelevant.

Given Tom Hedderson's comments today, it would be hard to blame them for changing the channel, or in the case of these two legislators, changing the incumbent next time out.

Arse-lickers of Satan

Another blow for bad ideas

Nova Scotia maintains barriers to inter-provincial free trade in beer.

Beer.

That's positively un-Canadian, for cryin' out loud.

Restrictions on beer?

Another blow is struck for the cause of provincialism.

Protectionism isn't a new thing for Nova Scotia, of course, but one can only wonder why the province insists on repeating the mistakes of the past and others, closer to home, continue to advocate the same counter-productive approaches from the murky past.

Getting rid of $1.32 levy per case would be selling the farm, there, Rodney?

Get a life.

It's surprising that some politicians in Atlantic Canada didn't try to make the East Germans an offer on The Wall. You know, seeing as how they aren't using it any more. What a waste of all that good concrete, not to mention the guard dogs and land mines.

Dipper moves to Libs

The New Democrats are claiming that the provincial Liberals "poached" their candidate in Labrador West.

of course, candidates aren't like fish. You can't poach them if they aren't poachable.

Ending parliamentary immunity: as easy as pie

Last week, Premier Danny Williams stated his unequivocal support for allowing anyone to sue parliamentarians in Newfoundland and Labrador for comments made in the legislature.

If the Williams administration decided to act on the Premier's comments, it would be remarkably easy to achieve the goal. In this, the first of two articles, Bond Papers will briefly discuss the notion of privileges and immunities and how they apply in the House of Assembly. In the second article, we will examine the implications of removing parliamentary privilege and immunity as it relates to free speech.

It is important to note that Premier Williams made the comments in response to a reporter's question during a scrum:

Let's change it. From my perspective, I think the legislature should have the exact same accountability [ i.e. being sued for defamation]. That's a democratic practice that goes way, way beyond me. But from my perspective, I'd be prepared to be held accountable...those laws get changed [sic]...or anybody else in the House has to be held accountable for what they say. I have no problem with that.

Like all Westminster style parliaments, the House of Assembly and its members enjoy certain privileges and immunities. Privilege exists for several reasons, one of which is the constitutional separation of powers. The notion is embodied in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689, "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."

This notion has been reaffirmed by courts in Canada. In New Brunswick Broadcasting v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), a case heard on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993, the majority held that:

Our democratic government consists of several branches: the Crown, as represented by the Governor General and the provincial counterparts of that office; the legislative body; the executive; and the courts. It is fundamental to the working of government as a whole that all these parts play their proper role. It is equally fundamental that no one of them overstep its bounds, that each show proper deference for the legitimate sphere of activity of the other.

Freedom of speech is also widely held to be an important right of legislators for the wider public interest it serves. Members of the legislature are entitled to make whatever statements they wish in dealing with a public issue. The same privilege extends to those called before the legislature or its committees as witnesses. All may speak freely and openly without fear and without concern that comments out to be proven true before they are made.

As in all Westminster parliaments, the House of Assembly is master of its own privileges and immunities. Term 7 of the Terms of Union revived the Newfoundland constitution as it existed in February 1934. That constitution included several aspects, including the fundamental power of the legislature to decide its own internal business.

The Terms of Union also provide that the Canadian constitution applies to Newfoundland and Labrador except as varied in the Terms. This general provision not only reinforces the inherent privileges and immunities of the legislature but also provides that the provincial legislatures can establish their own procedures free of interference of the courts. This notion is affirmed in New Brunswick Broadcasting (1993).

The House of Assembly established in section 19 of the House of Assembly Act that the legislature and its members enjoy the privileges, immunities and powers of the federal House of Commons.

The privilege - including free speech - is established easily.

It can also be removed as easily.

If the Williams administration wished to remove privilege and immunity related to free speech for the House of Assembly, it need only introduce an amendment to section 19 of the House of Assembly Act. Given that the administration enjoys the support of a majority of members, it is likely the measure would pass and receive Royal Assent. Only a majority of 50% plus one of members in the legislature at the time would be needed for the measure to proceed through each of the three stages a bill goes through.

Privilege may be a part of the constitution, but it is a portion which applies only to the legislature. As such a simple majority of members may remove a constitutional provision dating back at least to the 16th century.