"The worst betrayal of all was the barefaced failure to tell the truth on the issue of equalization and the Atlantic accord," he told Liberal MP Geoff Regan's nomination meeting.
16 April 2007
Goodale calls Harper move "betrayal" of NL and NS
From Canadian Press.
Vote early. Vote often
Angus Reid's on-line survey.
Sign up.
Get to vote on questions like "Is Andy Wells doing a good job as mayor?".
Watch the results currently answering that question in the negative, 55% to 45%.
Sign up.
Get to vote on questions like "Is Andy Wells doing a good job as mayor?".
Watch the results currently answering that question in the negative, 55% to 45%.
15 April 2007
Mario Dumont: a constitutional fantasyland
From ctv.ca:
M. Dumont peddles the same old fantasies that others have tried before. It would seem his version of something he calls autonomism is just the same old stuff we have heard before the Parti Quebecois and others.
Perhaps we should call it automatonism since that is what the federal government would likely be reduced to, a mindless follower of the dictates of one or all the provincial premiers.
And purely for local automatonists, a flashback to Morningside and a 38 minute discussion during the last effort to foist on the country the mythology of Quebec being outside the constitution.
Quebec's new Opposition leader says he's ready to begin major talks that would facilitate the signing of the 1982 Canadian Constitution.Is Quebec now in some sort of constitutional limbo?
M. Dumont peddles the same old fantasies that others have tried before. It would seem his version of something he calls autonomism is just the same old stuff we have heard before the Parti Quebecois and others.
Perhaps we should call it automatonism since that is what the federal government would likely be reduced to, a mindless follower of the dictates of one or all the provincial premiers.
And purely for local automatonists, a flashback to Morningside and a 38 minute discussion during the last effort to foist on the country the mythology of Quebec being outside the constitution.
The change Locke found
In Wade Locke's original analysis, he used the assumption that Equalization offsets provided for in the 2005 offshore revenue agreement and enabled by the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, S.C. 2005, c. 30, c. 85, would continue as originally intended.
Under that Act as it currently stands, the additional offset is calculated based on the difference between what the provincial government received in Equalization under the formula in use at the time.
The Equalization changes contained in the 2007 budget gave the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador an option of which Equalization formula would apply.
However, s.84 of the budget implementation Act (C-52) makes a significant change to the 2005 implementation Act by imposing a definition of the Equalization system in use at the time to mean the O'Brien formula.
As a result, even in a year in which the province used the existing Equalization system (100% of resource revenues included), the additional offsets would be reduced since the O'Brien formula already offsets half of resource revenues.
Additionally, the use of the O'Brien formula, which includes a cap on payments, the proposed changes in the budget implementation legislation would change the meaning of s. 22 of the 2005 implementation Act. Under the current meaning of that legislation, no additional offset payment would be received if the provincial government did not receive an Equalization payment.
In the operation of the Equalization system and the offsets agreements as currently in effect, no payment would be paid if the province did not qualify for Equalization. However, under the O'Brien formula, the province may qualify for Equalization, but receive no payment in years where a combination of all revenues (own source plus Equalization plus Equalization offsets) exceeds the per capita fiscal capacity of the lowest non-recipient province.
Given the amendments contained in Bill C-52, Newfoundland and Labrador would actually receive no offsets at all in any year where its Equalization payment were reduced to zero as a result of the O'Brien cap.
There is no obvious reason for making this change. If the federal government wanted to give effect to both the 2005 agreement and the 2007 budget - allowing for choices - Bill C-52 would necessitate only modest changes, if any, to the implementation acts for 1985 Atlantic Accord and the 2005 agreement.
Under that Act as it currently stands, the additional offset is calculated based on the difference between what the provincial government received in Equalization under the formula in use at the time.
The Equalization changes contained in the 2007 budget gave the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador an option of which Equalization formula would apply.
However, s.84 of the budget implementation Act (C-52) makes a significant change to the 2005 implementation Act by imposing a definition of the Equalization system in use at the time to mean the O'Brien formula.
84. The definition “fiscal equalization payment” in section 18 of the Act is replaced by
the following:
“fiscal equalization payment” means (a) for the purposes of section 22, the fiscal equalization payment that would be received by the Province for a fiscal year if the amount of that payment were determined in accordance with section 3.2 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, without regard to section 3.4 of that Act; and,
(b) for the purposes of sections 24 to 26, the fiscal equalization payment that would be received by the Province for a fiscal year under Part I of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act if the Province’s total per capita fiscal capacity were the amount determined by the formula
A + B + (C / F)
where
A, B, C and F have the same meaning as in the definition "total per capita fiscal capacity" in subsection 3.5(1) of that Act.
As a result, even in a year in which the province used the existing Equalization system (100% of resource revenues included), the additional offsets would be reduced since the O'Brien formula already offsets half of resource revenues.
Additionally, the use of the O'Brien formula, which includes a cap on payments, the proposed changes in the budget implementation legislation would change the meaning of s. 22 of the 2005 implementation Act. Under the current meaning of that legislation, no additional offset payment would be received if the provincial government did not receive an Equalization payment.
In the operation of the Equalization system and the offsets agreements as currently in effect, no payment would be paid if the province did not qualify for Equalization. However, under the O'Brien formula, the province may qualify for Equalization, but receive no payment in years where a combination of all revenues (own source plus Equalization plus Equalization offsets) exceeds the per capita fiscal capacity of the lowest non-recipient province.
Given the amendments contained in Bill C-52, Newfoundland and Labrador would actually receive no offsets at all in any year where its Equalization payment were reduced to zero as a result of the O'Brien cap.
There is no obvious reason for making this change. If the federal government wanted to give effect to both the 2005 agreement and the 2007 budget - allowing for choices - Bill C-52 would necessitate only modest changes, if any, to the implementation acts for 1985 Atlantic Accord and the 2005 agreement.
14 April 2007
National Poetry month
A few suggestions:
1. The Poems of Ewan McTeagle.
2. Wilfred Owen
3. Celia, Celia, by Adrian Mitchell:
1. The Poems of Ewan McTeagle.
2. Wilfred Owen
3. Celia, Celia, by Adrian Mitchell:
When I am sad and weary4. Healy Willan, Canadian composer, organist and devoted limerick afficionado:
When I think all hope has gone
When I walk along High Holborn
I think of you with nothing on
There once was a man from East Sheen
Whose musical ear was not keen.
He said, "It is odd,
But I cannot tell 'God
Save the Weasel' from 'Pop! Goes the Queen'"
Soldiering on
An unidentified soldier salutes the remains of two comrades as they are loaded on Canadian Forces aircraft bringing them back to Canada.The soldier is from an unspecified community in Conception Bay, Newfoundland.
Evolution's bitch
Scientists have discovered similarities between Tyrannosaurus Rex DNA and that of a modern chicken.
From world-dominating predator to a lunch meat for kids all in a few million years.
T. Rex: Darwin's bitch.
Darwin's other bitches?
Guys who fancy themselves the next Mike Holmes just because they saw it on television.
From world-dominating predator to a lunch meat for kids all in a few million years.
T. Rex: Darwin's bitch.
Darwin's other bitches?
Guys who fancy themselves the next Mike Holmes just because they saw it on television.
Upping rates better than less for longer
A panel reviewing parental and maternity benefits is recommending that the claim period be extended.
How about just changing the amount paid instead?
Currently parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance program are pegged at the same rate as EI, that is 55% of previous salary.
The panel also recommended changing the rates. Good for them.
That's a simple initiative most parents would readily accept, even if the benefit period remained limited to one year.
How about just changing the amount paid instead?
Currently parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance program are pegged at the same rate as EI, that is 55% of previous salary.
The panel also recommended changing the rates. Good for them.
That's a simple initiative most parents would readily accept, even if the benefit period remained limited to one year.
13 April 2007
Premature gasket-blowing
From Tom Marshall, minister of finance:
As Offal puts it:
Wade Locke's latest analysis is interesting for two reasons.
First, it suggests that there is an interpretation of eligibility for Equalization offsets which is different from the one used in his original presentation. More will follow on that in a separate post.
Specifically, Locke quotes this section of an e-mail from an unnamed senior federal finance official:
What Locke has done here is identified a potential issue. It is far from proven conclusively. As well, the provincial government appears to have blown a gasket before conducting its own review. Tom Marshall stated in a number of interviews that his officials were still seeking clarification on the issue, he had endeavoured to have the issue clarified with his federal counterpart and that provincial justice officials were reviewing the federal legislation. In one interview it appeared that Marshall was entirely unaware of this issue until Locke brought it to his attention sometime before Locke's news release today.
The one thing that can be concluded from this entire episode over the past 24 hours is that federal-provincial relations are at an all time low state. Marshall's inflammatory news release, done with the full approval of the Premier presumably, will not help resolve this matter successfully.
Claiming to be misled is one thing, if you have evidence and can prove it. Flaming the federal government - or anyone, for that matter - without substantive evidence is grossly unprofessional.
Dr. Locke has provided an invaluable public service with his analysis. Would that the politicians acted with the same professionalism he has displayed.
The Honourable Tom Marshall, Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, today confirmed that the federal government has misled the Provincial Government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding the true implications of the new equalization program as outlined in its 2007 Budget.However, as Simon Lono points out at Offal News, there is something odd about Marshall's release in that it provides no provincial government calculations. Indeed, the provincial government has thus far provided not a shred of information or analysis to back its original contentions on Equalization. Ditto for the federal government, represented in this case by federal fish minister Loyola Hearn.
As Offal puts it:
You would think the Hearn would release numbers of his own to defend the federal position. He does not. Instead he's reduced to a weak claim that no province will be harmed.Apparently not.
But does he actually have any real idea whether the province will be harmed? Apparently not.
As for Marshall, he's definitely on the warpath now. And you can expect the Premier to be leading the barbarians at the federal gate as soon as he gets home.
But didn't Marshall already know that Locke's numbers were off in the first place?
Wade Locke's latest analysis is interesting for two reasons.
First, it suggests that there is an interpretation of eligibility for Equalization offsets which is different from the one used in his original presentation. More will follow on that in a separate post.
Specifically, Locke quotes this section of an e-mail from an unnamed senior federal finance official:
In effect, NL would be eligible to receive Equalization and offsets as long as long its own-source per capita fiscal capacity (including non-resource yields and 100% of resource revenues) is not equal to or greater than the own-source per capita fiscal capacity of the non-receiving province with the lowest per capita fiscal capacity. [Italics in original]On the face of it, this section does not contradict what appears to be the intention of the 2005 offshore deal or the 2007 federal budget as announced.
What Locke has done here is identified a potential issue. It is far from proven conclusively. As well, the provincial government appears to have blown a gasket before conducting its own review. Tom Marshall stated in a number of interviews that his officials were still seeking clarification on the issue, he had endeavoured to have the issue clarified with his federal counterpart and that provincial justice officials were reviewing the federal legislation. In one interview it appeared that Marshall was entirely unaware of this issue until Locke brought it to his attention sometime before Locke's news release today.
The one thing that can be concluded from this entire episode over the past 24 hours is that federal-provincial relations are at an all time low state. Marshall's inflammatory news release, done with the full approval of the Premier presumably, will not help resolve this matter successfully.
Claiming to be misled is one thing, if you have evidence and can prove it. Flaming the federal government - or anyone, for that matter - without substantive evidence is grossly unprofessional.
Dr. Locke has provided an invaluable public service with his analysis. Would that the politicians acted with the same professionalism he has displayed.
Wade Locke's latest analysis
Wade Locke has graciously provided his latest news release, which is reproduced below in its entirety:
Updated Estimates of
Table 1: Updated Estimates Based on Accord Eligibility Criterion Contained in the Budget Implementation Act for the Impacts of the Equalization Options on the NL Treasury from the 2007 Federal Budget - 2007/08 to 2019/20
| | Status Quo | 50% w Cap (original estimate) | 50% w Cap (updated estimate) |
| Period 2007/08 – 2011/12 | |||
| Oil Revenue | $7.30 B | $7.30 B | $7.30 B |
| Accord Payments | $2.51 B | $2.37 B | $1.72 B |
| Equalization | $0.59 B | $0.76 B | $0.76 B |
| Combined | $10.40 B | $10.43 B | $9.78 B |
| Period 2012/13 – 2019/20 | |||
| Oil Revenue | $7.37 B | $7.37 B | $7.37 B |
| Accord Payments | $0.0 B | $4.96 B | $0.0 B |
| Equalization | $0.76 B | $0.0 B | $0.35 B |
| Combined | $8.13 B | $12.33 B | $7.72 B |
| Period 2007/08 – 2019/20 | |||
| Oil Revenue | $14.67 B | $14.67 B | $14.67 B |
| Accord Payments | $2.51 B | $7.34 B | $1.72 B |
| Equalization | $1.35 B | $0.76 B | $1.11 B |
| Combined | $18.53 B | $22.76 B | $17.50 B |
On
Given the sensitivity and the emotion surrounding this particular issue, I feel it is important to document how things have evolved to this point. This should enable others to judge the credibility of the approach and the results derived there from.
In any empirical assessment, it is necessary to make assumptions about how elements of each province’s fiscal capacity are expected to evolve over time. The assumptions used in the Locke analysis are clearly specified in the original presentation and interested individuals are referred to www.arts.mun.ca/arts to view the original presentation. While different assumptions will yield different specific results, they are unlikely to change the basic finding listed in Table 1. However, I would encourage both officials in Finance
The crucial assumption utilized in the original presentation was the eligibility criterion for payments under the Atlantic Accord. Specifically, the original analysis assumed that, under the 50% option,
The specific questions asked and the responses received were:
Question #1: In calculating the accord under the new arrangement, is it the case that NL receives the accord if it qualifies for equalization on the new arrangement prior to the cap being imposed? In other words, while the cap can remove all equalization payments, but before that happens, the province could qualify to receive equalization pre-cap and as such be eligible to receive the accord. Is that correct?
Question #2: In calculating the accord under the new arrangement, it is my interpretation that the province is entitled to receive the accord so long as it qualifies for equalization before the cap is imposed, rather than after. Is that correct?
Response #2: The legislation before the House proposes that under the new arrangement, the test for determining whether or not NL qualifies for the 2005 Accord is whether or not it would receive Equalization payments under the base O’Brien formula – that is, 50% inclusion of resources plus the cap. If it receives EQ under that formula, then the next steps are taken to determine how much. In this case, the offsets are determined before the cap is applied.
At that point, I had asked for the specific legislation so that I could review it myself. I received it the next day after my presentation and reviewed it on Easter weekend. However, between 4:40 pm (the time of the email) and 7:00 pm (the scheduled start of the presentation) it was impossible to re-analyze the data with the alternate eligibility assumption. Instead, I modified the original presentation to flag the crucial assumption about Accord eligibility. I, as well, indicated in the presentation that if the eligibility assumption was changed, then the estimates under the 50% option would have to be modified, not realizing the extent of the change that would be required.
Economics: the dismal science
Wade Locke has adjusted his assumptions.
Now he says that what was originally a big gain for the province is in fact a loss.
Yes, the 50% exclusion now goes from being a six billion dollar gain for Newfoundland and Labrador over the status quo becomes a one billion net loss.
That's with a change in the assumptions, or more specifically, as CBC's David Cochrane described it, a reading of the budget implementation legislation. He referred to a "stricter" interpretation of what it would take for the province to qualify for Equalization in the future and there
fore how the offshore offsets deals would be affected.
Some quickie observations, before getting Locke's revised views:
1. Economics is a dismal science. After all, if adjusting some assumptions produces a variation of $7.0 billion - your entire Equalization and offsets work, incidentally - then you have some basic problems. Makes you wonder what it would take to have the Danny Williams option turn into a pig.
2. For all the big numbers, remove $14.7 billion. Locke includes offshore revenue in each of projections, for some inexplicable reason. Lop out that specific figure and you'll see the specific effects of Equalization changes and the offsets. That is assuming that Locke's assumptions on any given point are valid. That's not a sarcastic comment; it's a caveat.
3. The cap in the original 2005 deal obviously exists in one way or another. No matter how you look at it the cap built into the original deals - qualifying for Equalization or not - is still active. The real question Locke seems to be grappling with is when that cap cuts in.
4. Yes, there is a cap in the original deal. The offsets only flow as long as the province qualifies for the Equalization hand-out.
And for the record both for Mainland readers and the locals, Danny Williams' original goal in 2004 - not the one he settled for in January 2005 - was for a doubling of oil and gas revenues in perpetuity.
5. The original 2005 deal did not deliver as promised. Said it before. Say it again.
6. Wade Locke still hasn't assessed the other Harper option that still exists, i.e. 100% exclusion of non-renewables with a cap. Too bad Locke is apparently hauling ass out of the debate now that he's stirred it up. Maybe he got some angry phone calls from Florida or wherever the Premier is.
To be complete though, Locke should have assessed that variation since it is on the table.
And if 100% exclusion of non-renewables is such a good idea, then maybe applying the cap is better than what we have now.
At least according to the latest numbers, based on the latest assumptions.
7. Danny Williams had numbers like the ones Locke released initially. On March 26, Danny told CBC radio's Jeff Gilhooley that in all likelihood the province would shift to the 50% exclusion option within a year or two, i.e. by 2009, based on the government's analysis.
Now he says that what was originally a big gain for the province is in fact a loss.
Yes, the 50% exclusion now goes from being a six billion dollar gain for Newfoundland and Labrador over the status quo becomes a one billion net loss.
That's with a change in the assumptions, or more specifically, as CBC's David Cochrane described it, a reading of the budget implementation legislation. He referred to a "stricter" interpretation of what it would take for the province to qualify for Equalization in the future and there
fore how the offshore offsets deals would be affected.
Some quickie observations, before getting Locke's revised views:
1. Economics is a dismal science. After all, if adjusting some assumptions produces a variation of $7.0 billion - your entire Equalization and offsets work, incidentally - then you have some basic problems. Makes you wonder what it would take to have the Danny Williams option turn into a pig.
2. For all the big numbers, remove $14.7 billion. Locke includes offshore revenue in each of projections, for some inexplicable reason. Lop out that specific figure and you'll see the specific effects of Equalization changes and the offsets. That is assuming that Locke's assumptions on any given point are valid. That's not a sarcastic comment; it's a caveat.
3. The cap in the original 2005 deal obviously exists in one way or another. No matter how you look at it the cap built into the original deals - qualifying for Equalization or not - is still active. The real question Locke seems to be grappling with is when that cap cuts in.
4. Yes, there is a cap in the original deal. The offsets only flow as long as the province qualifies for the Equalization hand-out.
And for the record both for Mainland readers and the locals, Danny Williams' original goal in 2004 - not the one he settled for in January 2005 - was for a doubling of oil and gas revenues in perpetuity.
5. The original 2005 deal did not deliver as promised. Said it before. Say it again.
6. Wade Locke still hasn't assessed the other Harper option that still exists, i.e. 100% exclusion of non-renewables with a cap. Too bad Locke is apparently hauling ass out of the debate now that he's stirred it up. Maybe he got some angry phone calls from Florida or wherever the Premier is.
To be complete though, Locke should have assessed that variation since it is on the table.
And if 100% exclusion of non-renewables is such a good idea, then maybe applying the cap is better than what we have now.
At least according to the latest numbers, based on the latest assumptions.
7. Danny Williams had numbers like the ones Locke released initially. On March 26, Danny told CBC radio's Jeff Gilhooley that in all likelihood the province would shift to the 50% exclusion option within a year or two, i.e. by 2009, based on the government's analysis.
12 April 2007
When is a promise not a promise?
Well, according to the man at right, it all depends on who makes the promise.
When this man (left) - call him The Boss - makes a pledge, in writing no less, and on several occasions to reporters, it really shouldn't be taken at face value.The Boss may be a lawyer and the legal issues involved - including longstanding provincial government policy - may be well known, but well, even if he says absolutely "I will do it", that really isn't something you can take to the bank.
And even in making the explanation that the promise made by The Boss really isn't a promise, the guy doing the Noddy impersonation manages to trip himself up.The Boss did do a deal on trees, Noddy says. But he can't do what he appears to have committed to do in that typewritten thing that appears to contain a promise but in reality contains nothing at all.
Because somehow making a deal - entirely within provincial jurisdiction - on animals would somehow magically involve the federal government making a decision but at the same time making a deal on trees, also entirely within provincial jurisdiction, can somehow be done without involving people other than The Boss and his associate, Noddy.
Confused?
So is Noddy.
Obviously.
At least, Stephen Harper did something half-decent in place of what he promised.
The Boss hasn't even tried.
Excuses from a guy in a funny hat don't count.
From the Secret Nation
Video of a meeting of the Popular People's Front for the Defence of Newfoundland. Labrador,(Officials):
11 April 2007
Names of latest fatalities released
The Canadian Forces has released the names of two Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan:
-30-
OTTAWA – The names of the two Canadian soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on April 11, 2007 are as follows:
Master Corporal Allan Stewart, The Royal Canadian Dragoons, based in Petawawa, Ont.; and,
Trooper Patrick James Pentland, The Royal Canadian Dragoons, based in Petawawa, Ont.
These two soldiers were killed and two others were injured, one seriously, when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle earlier today. The incident occurred shortly before 8 p.m. Kandahar time, approximately 38 km west of Kandahar City. The soldiers had been assisting another vehicle that had been struck by a roadside bomb earlier in the day, one soldier suffered only minor injuries in this earlier attack.
This brings to eight the number of soldiers killed in the past four days by improvised explosive devices (IEDs). According to some news reports, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of IEDs.
"Starting about a week ago we have been finding IEDs on all the roads around here pretty much every single day," said Maj. Steve Graham of the Royal Canadian Dragoons.
"The fact there has been a spike of IEDs tells me that the places we are going and things we have been doing are starting to hit closer to the areas the Taliban have been working in."
Roadside bombs, random rocket attacks and suicide bombers are the main dangers Canadian troops face so far this year in their efforts to bring security to Kandahar province.
The job of finding and disposing of IEDs is dangerous as this story from the Globe attests.
-30-
How much is enough? Part Two
St. John's mayor Andy Wells backs Premier Danny Williams unequivocally on whatever policies Williams espouses.
No surprise there, since Williams gave Wells the best part-time job he'll ever have.
Of course, Wells can't explain the Williams policies any better than the Premier can himself.
To wit:
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador already has a seat at the table when the big decisions get made.
In fact, as the provincial government has demonstrated at Hebron and Hibernia South, there isn't anyone else sitting at the table.
Nobody else is even in the room.
That's because, under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the provincial government sets royalties for the offshore. If it doesn't get the deal it wants, there's no project.
Similarly, as in Hibernia South, the government can simply sit back and veto a project, despite having failed to exercise any diligence in collecting information before a decision was required.
What is Mr. Wells talking about? He evidently doesn't know and therefore no one else can figure it out either.
The Accord establishes that the provincial government already has extensive control over the offshore. Some might even call it unreasonable control given that the provincial government can apparently neglect its responsibilities for over a year on Hibernia South and then simply veto the project on the flimsiest of excuses.
As for information, Mr. Wells could easily consult with the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at the offshore board. They already know far more than Mr. Wells or his advisors could know about any aspect of the industry.
What's Mr. Wells talking about? It isn't clear again that even he knows.
Bond Papers has discussed it extensively. It centres on a simple matter of conflict of interest.
But, let us assume that the cost of the thing was an issue.
The so-called equity position was described by the premier as having a total net value to the provincial treasury of a mere $1.5 billion over the 20 year anticipated lifespan of the project. Put that against the estimated provincial revenues of $10 billion.
The premier also said that the tax concessions sought by the companies had a total cost to the treasury of $400 million. Total. Not annual. Total.
The premier said this amount negated the value of the rest of the deal.
Aside from the problems with math evident in the premier's comments - $400 million is less than $1.5 billion - it is difficult to imagine how that sum could obliterate all the benefits of having what Mr. Wells describes as a seat at the table where the big decisions are made, of having information and a "reasonable" level of control.
Leaving even all that aside, though, perhaps Mr. Wells could explain to us how much the Premier offered to pay and how he proposed to pay for it, given that the provincial treasury is stretched a bit thin.
What is Mr. Wells talking about here? Again, one suspects that even he doesn't know.
If - by some chance - he does, then perhaps Mr. Wells would be good enough to enlighten the rest of us.
Otherwise, all we have in this Telegram story is another example of Mr. Wells saying one thing now, when he said something different before.
When the provincial government moved taxpayers out of his jurisdiction to other parts of the province, Mr. Wells thought the idea silly. The prospect of fat federal job s being transferred to his jurisdiction last year had him signing a different tune.
In 1997, six months engineering work was a monumental loss to the province. Now, the loss of innumerable high-paid jobs and the larger value of continuity resulting from the Hebron and Hibernia South projects, is simply the short-term pain for some undefined long-term gain.
What we actually have here is most likely the pain - short- and long-term from Williams' decisions and the equally large pain of Wells' vague comments.
No surprise there, since Williams gave Wells the best part-time job he'll ever have.
Of course, Wells can't explain the Williams policies any better than the Premier can himself.
To wit:
Wells says a seat at the owners' table of major offshore projects is the only way to get an inside view of the industry.Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has all the rights of the resource owner to set royalties and to approve or disapprove of projects.
"It's important that we have a presence at the table when the big decisions are being made."
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador already has a seat at the table when the big decisions get made.
In fact, as the provincial government has demonstrated at Hebron and Hibernia South, there isn't anyone else sitting at the table.
Nobody else is even in the room.
That's because, under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the provincial government sets royalties for the offshore. If it doesn't get the deal it wants, there's no project.
Similarly, as in Hibernia South, the government can simply sit back and veto a project, despite having failed to exercise any diligence in collecting information before a decision was required.
What is Mr. Wells talking about? He evidently doesn't know and therefore no one else can figure it out either.
"You've got to fundamentally establish your right to a reasonable measure of control over the industry. I want to see a situation where we do have the information and we do have the presence and we do have the right - that's what this is fundamentally all about."Mr. Wells really does need to read the 1985 Accord, perhaps for the first time. He certainly needs to listen to the briefings offered up to board members at the offshore regulatory board.
The Accord establishes that the provincial government already has extensive control over the offshore. Some might even call it unreasonable control given that the provincial government can apparently neglect its responsibilities for over a year on Hibernia South and then simply veto the project on the flimsiest of excuses.
As for information, Mr. Wells could easily consult with the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at the offshore board. They already know far more than Mr. Wells or his advisors could know about any aspect of the industry.
What's Mr. Wells talking about? It isn't clear again that even he knows.
"I consider it fundamental that this issue of equity - the 4.9 per cent - be satisfactorily addressed. I don't understand the companies' reluctance with respect to this issue, particularly considering the premier's not asking for it for free."If Mr. Wells does not understand the position taken by the oil companies perhaps he might take some time to enlighten himself on the matter. It has been well-covered in the news media and company officials are quite willing to make their position known.
Bond Papers has discussed it extensively. It centres on a simple matter of conflict of interest.
But, let us assume that the cost of the thing was an issue.
The so-called equity position was described by the premier as having a total net value to the provincial treasury of a mere $1.5 billion over the 20 year anticipated lifespan of the project. Put that against the estimated provincial revenues of $10 billion.
The premier also said that the tax concessions sought by the companies had a total cost to the treasury of $400 million. Total. Not annual. Total.
The premier said this amount negated the value of the rest of the deal.
Aside from the problems with math evident in the premier's comments - $400 million is less than $1.5 billion - it is difficult to imagine how that sum could obliterate all the benefits of having what Mr. Wells describes as a seat at the table where the big decisions are made, of having information and a "reasonable" level of control.
Leaving even all that aside, though, perhaps Mr. Wells could explain to us how much the Premier offered to pay and how he proposed to pay for it, given that the provincial treasury is stretched a bit thin.
What is Mr. Wells talking about here? Again, one suspects that even he doesn't know.
If - by some chance - he does, then perhaps Mr. Wells would be good enough to enlighten the rest of us.
Otherwise, all we have in this Telegram story is another example of Mr. Wells saying one thing now, when he said something different before.
When the provincial government moved taxpayers out of his jurisdiction to other parts of the province, Mr. Wells thought the idea silly. The prospect of fat federal job s being transferred to his jurisdiction last year had him signing a different tune.
In 1997, six months engineering work was a monumental loss to the province. Now, the loss of innumerable high-paid jobs and the larger value of continuity resulting from the Hebron and Hibernia South projects, is simply the short-term pain for some undefined long-term gain.
What we actually have here is most likely the pain - short- and long-term from Williams' decisions and the equally large pain of Wells' vague comments.
-30-
An abuse of public money
Hiring a separatist to handle a dirty little partisan job speaks volumes about the administration that set up the latest witch-hunt.
This matter has been investigated thoroughly by an impartial and competent official.
What was announced today is an abuse of public funds.
Update: The federal public works minister apparently picked Daniel Paille from a list he drew up of people he considered qualified.
Qualified to do what, exactly, aside from do a dirty little job at public expense?
No competition.
Imagine.
Update Update: And just when it couldn't get worse for M. O'Brien and les autres Harperites - Paul Wells.
This matter has been investigated thoroughly by an impartial and competent official.
What was announced today is an abuse of public funds.
Update: The federal public works minister apparently picked Daniel Paille from a list he drew up of people he considered qualified.
Qualified to do what, exactly, aside from do a dirty little job at public expense?
No competition.
Imagine.
Update Update: And just when it couldn't get worse for M. O'Brien and les autres Harperites - Paul Wells.
-30-
This just in...
Stronach's leaving politics.
In her statement today, Stronach reportedly said "I first met Liam O'Brien when I entered politics and he was a wannabe Louis Tully. I wasn't impressed then and I have grown less impressed over time. "
For his part, O'Brien just demonstrates yet again the ethically bankrupt - let alone sexist - nature of political commentary in some quarters.
Yep.
You guessed it.
He calls her a whore.
Incidentally, there's a comments section, in case you are in the mood.
The word you are thinking of has an "r" as the second letter.
In her statement today, Stronach reportedly said "I first met Liam O'Brien when I entered politics and he was a wannabe Louis Tully. I wasn't impressed then and I have grown less impressed over time. "
For his part, O'Brien just demonstrates yet again the ethically bankrupt - let alone sexist - nature of political commentary in some quarters.
Yep.
You guessed it.
He calls her a whore.
Incidentally, there's a comments section, in case you are in the mood.
The word you are thinking of has an "r" as the second letter.
QC or NL? Another one
In all important aspects of national politics, guile, compromise and a subtle kind of blackmail decided their course and determined their alliances. They appeared to discount all political or social ideologies, save nationalism. For the mass of the people the words Tory and Grit, Conservative and Liberal, referred neither to political ideologies nor to administrative techniques. They were regarded only as meaningless labels, affixed to alternatives whicb permitted the auctioneering of one's support; they had no more meaning than bleu or rouge, which eventually replaced them in popular speech. [They] on the whole never voted for political or economic ideologies, but only for the man or group which stood for their ethnic rights...
In such a mental climate, sound democratic politics could hardly be expected to prevail, even in strictly provincial or local affairs where racial issues were not involved....
Pierre Eliot Trudeau, "Some obstacles to democracy in Quebec",
in Federalism and the French Canadians, Toronto: Macmillan, 1968, p. 107.
in Federalism and the French Canadians, Toronto: Macmillan, 1968, p. 107.
Consider that description of Quebec politics not so very long ago in comparison to this and this.
The entire premise of the famous letters to the federal leaders through two successive federal elections was to determine which of the federal parties was prepared to promise the best deal for this province in exchange for local votes.
Leave aside for a moment that Danny Williams characterization of Stephen Harper's letter in 2006 was not consistent with the letter itself. Just consider that the entire premise of letter - just as with the Premier's comment's on the FPI income trust - was based on the "auctioneering of one's support."
In such a climate, sound democratic politics can hardly be expected to prevail.
Indeed.
The entire premise of the famous letters to the federal leaders through two successive federal elections was to determine which of the federal parties was prepared to promise the best deal for this province in exchange for local votes.
Leave aside for a moment that Danny Williams characterization of Stephen Harper's letter in 2006 was not consistent with the letter itself. Just consider that the entire premise of letter - just as with the Premier's comment's on the FPI income trust - was based on the "auctioneering of one's support."
In such a climate, sound democratic politics can hardly be expected to prevail.
Indeed.
-30-
Note to Stephane: Let's find Denis a new job
Denis Coderre needs a new job.
Creating a ghetto for aboriginal soldiers, sailors and airmen/women is not a good idea no matter how Denis tries to doll it up.
Aside from revealing a general ignorance of the Canadian Forces and how it operates, Coderre's suggest demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the diversity of Canada's First Nations people.
Two major gaffes since January suggest that Coderre is as gainfully employed as the guy whose ministry he is shadowing.
Creating a ghetto for aboriginal soldiers, sailors and airmen/women is not a good idea no matter how Denis tries to doll it up.
Aside from revealing a general ignorance of the Canadian Forces and how it operates, Coderre's suggest demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the diversity of Canada's First Nations people.
Two major gaffes since January suggest that Coderre is as gainfully employed as the guy whose ministry he is shadowing.
-30-
10 April 2007
Change versus more of the same: Stronach on competitiveness
From the Tuesday National Post, Belinda Stronach [Photo:belinda.ca] writes
They should be the major ballot questions in Newfoundland and Labrador this October.
Who really cares if a particular politician or party wins all the seats and scores high in the polls?
None of that is about "jobs, jobs, jobs".
Then again, it turned out that the last provincial election wasn't about "jobs, jobs, jobs" either.
It's time for a real change.
Being competitive globally involves education, job skills, infrastructure, innovation, technology and regulation. It is an integrated package. Competitiveness is the result of a political philosophy that sets the balance between government and the private sector.
...
Competitiveness, jobs and national prosperity need to be the principal ballot questions for the next federal election. Whoever can best ensure our quality of life through economic growth deserves to govern. We have the priorities backwards. Other issues such as government accountability, lowering the GST and same-sex marriage rights are secondary to making Canada competitive for the future. Without that, there won't be money for anything else.
They should be the major ballot questions in Newfoundland and Labrador this October.Who really cares if a particular politician or party wins all the seats and scores high in the polls?
None of that is about "jobs, jobs, jobs".
Then again, it turned out that the last provincial election wasn't about "jobs, jobs, jobs" either.
It's time for a real change.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)