22 April 2007
NS improves offshore competitiveness
The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has introduced a new exploration license at a lower cost but with a shorter term.
An improbable feast
Geoff Meeker has an interesting post on the difference between the food pictured in commercial fast food advertising and what you actually get at the Arby's, Wendy's or PKF.
As Geoff points out, advertisers use food dressers to primp, spritz and do just about anything else to make the food look pretty much the opposite of what you get when you open the wrapper.
Of course, that just leads one to thinking of what another dresser has accomplished with her demonic arts, right.
Then, there's what you get when you open the greasy paper wrapper, left.
As Geoff points out, advertisers use food dressers to primp, spritz and do just about anything else to make the food look pretty much the opposite of what you get when you open the wrapper.
Of course, that just leads one to thinking of what another dresser has accomplished with her demonic arts, right.
Then, there's what you get when you open the greasy paper wrapper, left.
Dion: a man of integrity
From Canadian Press, via the Globe:
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is pledging to foster a relationship of co-operation with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, who has a history of high-profile feuds with Ottawa.Mr. Dion and Mr. Williams met Saturday in St. John's and discussed several issues, including equalization and the province's fisheries, after which Mr. Williams said Mr. Dion is a man he can trust.
The pair said they hadn't intended to reach any formal agreements, but rather open a dialogue that would continue if Mr. Dion is elected prime minister.
"We conclude with the most valuable gain that two human beings may have — mutual trust," Mr. Dion told a news conference following the meeting.
21 April 2007
A veritable GPS to the butts of the politically powerful
From the Telegram, Bill Rowe demonstrates once again that he is good at nothing else if not sucking up to autocrats.
Hence his successful service in both the Smallwood and Williams administrations, where he probably spoke truth to power daily using the vocabulary worthy of a Rhodes scholar:
"Yes, Mr. Premier, I do believe the obscurating clouds have now been successfully dissipated and the glorious solar orb is now once more emitting its miraculous benefit at full luminosity safe ensconced from between your nether cheeks".
Rowe endorses the idea of Sir Danny the Good leading a band of seven virtuous sons (and daughters) of The Cause on a Quest for the Holy Grail of More Hand-outs from Ottawa.
Rowe nominates Danny for the lead role. He genuflects so strenuously in doing so (even in writing) that one fears Rowe will poke out an eye or two if he does not calm down.
Andy Wells is cast as, one expects, Sir Lancelot. In true suck-arse fashion, Rowe credits Andy Wells - the other amigo in the little band - for calling this band the Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador. Since Rowe long since abandoned the party he once led - up to a sorry encounter with some brown envelopes - he likely forgets that credit for inventing the most ludicrous idea in Newfoundland political history since A.B. Morine as minister of justice goes to:
Roger Grimes. A Liberal leader who - unlike Rowe - can say more of his political career than Brian Tobin used to hand out envelopes for him.
Rowe himself?
Likely Bedevere from the Monty Python incarnation of the fairy tale: "and that my Liege is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped...".
That's about the only way one can explain not only the farcical Bloc but lines like this, which Rowe types with all earnestness:
Right.
Even the much-vaunted Bloc, which for all the praise it gets from people like Rowe has produced exactly what for Quebec from the Government of Canada...
Zip?
Nada?
Bupkis?
And outside of a few chuckles, that - s.f.a. - is what Bill's latest column is worth.
If the Bloc's 57 or 60 or whatever number they've achieved cannot produce one ounce of influence on anyone outside Quebec, then there is simply no means by which seven could do more.
Power rests in the cabinet, and particularly in the first minister's office. The Blocheads will never see the inside of either, and that is why a Bloc, whether from Quebec, Prince Edward Island or Dannystan would be as useless as, well, writing a book commentary without having read the book.
How odd that Rowe, who has shown himself to be a reliable compass needle for local political butt-lickers, could not figure out the location of the same power source in Ottawa.
Bill's needle is off on this Bloc one.
But, as it did 40 years ago, it still faithfully indicates the motherlode of Newfoundland political magnetism.
Hence his successful service in both the Smallwood and Williams administrations, where he probably spoke truth to power daily using the vocabulary worthy of a Rhodes scholar:
"Yes, Mr. Premier, I do believe the obscurating clouds have now been successfully dissipated and the glorious solar orb is now once more emitting its miraculous benefit at full luminosity safe ensconced from between your nether cheeks".
Rowe endorses the idea of Sir Danny the Good leading a band of seven virtuous sons (and daughters) of The Cause on a Quest for the Holy Grail of More Hand-outs from Ottawa.
Rowe nominates Danny for the lead role. He genuflects so strenuously in doing so (even in writing) that one fears Rowe will poke out an eye or two if he does not calm down.
Andy Wells is cast as, one expects, Sir Lancelot. In true suck-arse fashion, Rowe credits Andy Wells - the other amigo in the little band - for calling this band the Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador. Since Rowe long since abandoned the party he once led - up to a sorry encounter with some brown envelopes - he likely forgets that credit for inventing the most ludicrous idea in Newfoundland political history since A.B. Morine as minister of justice goes to:
Roger Grimes. A Liberal leader who - unlike Rowe - can say more of his political career than Brian Tobin used to hand out envelopes for him.
Rowe himself?
Likely Bedevere from the Monty Python incarnation of the fairy tale: "and that my Liege is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped...".
That's about the only way one can explain not only the farcical Bloc but lines like this, which Rowe types with all earnestness:
It would be a double whammy. One, Danny could punish Harper for his treachery by helping to deny him a majority government. Two, like Quebec, we’d have a solid group of MPs pulling on the same oar, dedicated solely to this province’s best interests.Deny Harper a majority government.
Right.
Even the much-vaunted Bloc, which for all the praise it gets from people like Rowe has produced exactly what for Quebec from the Government of Canada...
Zip?
Nada?
Bupkis?
And outside of a few chuckles, that - s.f.a. - is what Bill's latest column is worth.
If the Bloc's 57 or 60 or whatever number they've achieved cannot produce one ounce of influence on anyone outside Quebec, then there is simply no means by which seven could do more.
Power rests in the cabinet, and particularly in the first minister's office. The Blocheads will never see the inside of either, and that is why a Bloc, whether from Quebec, Prince Edward Island or Dannystan would be as useless as, well, writing a book commentary without having read the book.
How odd that Rowe, who has shown himself to be a reliable compass needle for local political butt-lickers, could not figure out the location of the same power source in Ottawa.
Bill's needle is off on this Bloc one.
But, as it did 40 years ago, it still faithfully indicates the motherlode of Newfoundland political magnetism.
Fed changes to Accord cause worry
From the Saturday Telegram, Rob Antle's story on federal changes to the Atlantic Accord (1985). Antle quotes Ron Penney, a member of the provincial negotiating team 20-odd years ago.That's Penney, standing second from right in the photo.
“If they’re going to unilaterally change a provision of the Atlantic Accord with respect to the equalization phase-out, then what’s to prevent the federal government from changing other fundamental provisions of the Atlantic Accord?” Penney said.
And like you haven't heard this argument before.
20 April 2007
Danny loves Loyola
This 1989 clip from CBC coverage of the 1989 provincial Tory leadership convention shows Danny Williams speaking with Deanne Fleet about, of all things, the prospects of Loyola Hearn winning the convention. [The guy who posted it disabled embedding.]
Yes.
The Danny Williams.
Backing the Loyola Hearn.
With all his heart and soul.
If memory serves, one of the commentators - Greg Stamp - wound up working for the eventual winner Tom Rideout.
He asks Williams if he had any regrets at not running. In the pre-campaign days, Williams had criticized the nomination process saying the whole thing wasn't as open as it should have been, in his view. There was some apparent friction between Williams and Rideout.
How times have changed in so many ways.
Yes.
The Danny Williams.
Backing the Loyola Hearn.
With all his heart and soul.
If memory serves, one of the commentators - Greg Stamp - wound up working for the eventual winner Tom Rideout.
He asks Williams if he had any regrets at not running. In the pre-campaign days, Williams had criticized the nomination process saying the whole thing wasn't as open as it should have been, in his view. There was some apparent friction between Williams and Rideout.
How times have changed in so many ways.
Too damn sexy
This didn't take long for someone to pump out.
Personally, I was thinking more Marie Antoinette, but it still works.
The guy who threw this together should have really played up Sandra Buckler's comments about the stylist being nice, carrying bags and holding open doors. What a patronising load of rubbish.
Personally, I was thinking more Marie Antoinette, but it still works.
The guy who threw this together should have really played up Sandra Buckler's comments about the stylist being nice, carrying bags and holding open doors. What a patronising load of rubbish.
Husky to expand Terra Nova presence
From Oil Week:
Husky Energy Ltd. (TSX:HSE) plans an active year of expansions and acquisitions, from bumping up its stake in the offshore Terra Nova project, to increasing upgrader and refinery capacity, the oil and gas producer said Thursday.
Husky, which held its annual shareholders meeting in Calgary on Thursday, said it would be growing its ownership stake in the offshore Newfoundland project by increasing its working interest in developing fields, rather than buying other partners‘ portions.
Excerpts of Charest's instructions to the new cabinet
From le soleil, something for the provincial government to ponder (once they've had it translated):
9 - M. le Ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune :
Vous aiderez le secteur forestier à sortir renforcé de la crise actuelle. Après l'annonce de la construction du projet hydroélectrique Eastmain 1-A Rupert, vous mettrez en chantier le projet La Romaine, sur le Basse-Nord. Vous poursuivrez le développement des énergies vertes et alternatives dont l'éolien dans le respect des populations locales. Et vous agirez de manière à ce que l'essor du secteur minier génère le maximum de retombées et d'emplois dans nos régions. En plus de ces fonctions, vous serez ministre responsable des régions du Bas-Saint-Laurent, de la Côte-Nord et du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.
10 - M. le ministre du Développement économique, de l'Innovation et de l'Exportation, ministre responsable de l'Accord sur le commerce intérieur et ministre du Tourisme : Votre priorité est la prospérité du Québec. Vous augmenterez la création d'emplois dans les régions. Vous ferez en sorte que le secteur manufacturier puisse mieux s'adapter à la concurrence internationale. Vos maîtres mots seront "productivité" et "innovation". Le tourisme est un secteur économique de première importance et un levier de diversification pour les régions. Vous ferez la promotion de la destination Québec en toute saison. En plus de ces fonctions, vous serez ministre responsable de la métropole. Notre gouvernement travaillera en étroite collaboration avec les leaders politiques, économiques et sociaux de Montréal. (...)
Hearn hits back
Federal fish minister Loyola Hearn delivered a luncheon speech on Friday in which he took a few strips off the provincial government, in return for the strips Premier Danny Williams took off Hearn's hide a few days ago.Hearn, seen at right at a function some months ago, seemed to be either pointing fingers at the Premier or, perhaps, inviting the feisty Mr. Williams to see what happens when he pulled Hearn's finger.
There is nothing uglier than a fight within a family.
Regular Bond readers will recall the cat fight last year, left [not exactly as illustrated], over Premier's scheme to install Andy Wells as head of the offshore regulatory board. That, too, had all the earmarks of a fight a la Crystal and Alexis.Incidentally, Hearn's remarks as quoted by the CBC story kinked above as well as other reports on the speech, will seem familiar to Bond Papers' readers. Several federal departments are regular Bond readers but that is likely nothing more than a coincidence.
One thing is certain from today: John Crosbie had some good advice for both Williams and Hearn. Premier Williams should consider Mr. Hearn a potential asset in trying to deal with the current dispute on a diplomatic level. Crosbie knows exactly how much can be accomplished by a federal regional minister on behalf of the province.
He's done it before throughout disputes between St. John's and Ottawa during both the Brian Peckford and Clyde Wells administrations. The relationship between a premier and a regional minister doesn't always have to be amicable.
Heavens knows that Wells and Crosbie often had a few choice words for each other both publicly and - to tell tales out of school - in private. Let's just say that soundproof doors aren't quite so soundproof when two strong-willed politicians are involved in what can euphemistically be termed a difference of opinion. Through it all, though, they still met and they still took each others' telephone calls.
Can the same be said of the current situation?
Maybe Crosbie has another clue to a fundamental change that needs to happen.
If not, then Hearn's comment today on fighting it out in an election might be the only way to resolve matters. Perhaps Mr. Williams would consider running as an independent Progressive Conservative in the next federal election, potentially leading - as did Lucien Bouchard - a nationalist bloquiste party.
Williams could even take Hearn on directly, that is if Hearn will be running next time out. As much as your humble e-scribbler would not like to see that blood letting on his own front lawn, that contest might just get all the testosterone out of the air and let people start building productive relationships again.
No need for Canadian Tire to stock up on mounds of absorbent pads just yet, though. Current word from Ottawa is that there won't be an election until sometime in 2008.
In the meantime, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are likely to hear the family next door in a knock-down, drag-out on the front lawn for months to come.
*sigh*
-30-
Your serial government at work
There's a northern "strategic plan" for Labrador.
Labrador is north, so that bit is redundant.
Well, unless the plan is for northern Labrador.
Anyway...
As the news release notes, this "plan" fulfils a commitment from the 2005 throne speech. That means it has taken two full years to generate this document.
That's a pretty long time, especially considering that things like a wind power project and Lower Churchill development have already started in the case of the latter, or been postponed (the former) while this plan was being developed.
So what's the thrust of the document? Well, there is the obligatory commitment to sweeping goals of making things "better". There is plenty of cash committed here and that likely is the real purpose of the document: spending in an election year.
Other than that, most of the initiatives in the plan are already in train or are the sorts of things that one might expect, like building schools where needed and improving access to health care.
There is a curious one under natural resource development:
In this specific case, the technical options for developing gas offshore Labrador could be explored and likely would be explored - if they have not been explored already - by the license holders.
It is curious that the Hydro corporation will be studying these options. But it is even more curious that studying the options requires federal funding through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA). Surely Hydro has enough retained earnings to fund the study.
Beyond that, though and aside from all the good things to happen in Labrador, this document bears all the marks of something completed over two years ago. Note the number of phrases which project ore shipments and employments levels...for 2006. In early 2007, those projections should be easy since the year is past. Hindsight is always more accurate than foresight.
This is your serial government at work.
Not only does it take two years to complete a "strategy", but the strategy contains no concrete measurable goals to judge success. Major strategic decisions on everything from a new hydroelectric project, delay of a wind power project and decisions on new mine developments in western Labrador are all taken before the "strategy" is in place. On top of that, document is actually held up through the bureaucratic process to the point where it is announced fully two years after it started.
Surely it would have been nice to develop an actual strategy, one that lays out the guiding principles for its various components like health care and resource development.
Surely it would have been nice to have those principles before decisions are made.
Labrador is north, so that bit is redundant.
Well, unless the plan is for northern Labrador.
Anyway...
As the news release notes, this "plan" fulfils a commitment from the 2005 throne speech. That means it has taken two full years to generate this document.
That's a pretty long time, especially considering that things like a wind power project and Lower Churchill development have already started in the case of the latter, or been postponed (the former) while this plan was being developed.
So what's the thrust of the document? Well, there is the obligatory commitment to sweeping goals of making things "better". There is plenty of cash committed here and that likely is the real purpose of the document: spending in an election year.
Other than that, most of the initiatives in the plan are already in train or are the sorts of things that one might expect, like building schools where needed and improving access to health care.
There is a curious one under natural resource development:
Support Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to conduct an ACOA funded assessment of technical options for natural gas developments off Labrador...If Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is going to get into oil and gas development, then that could be a good thing. It could be - conditional language - since we don't know what Hydro's role will look like or what the financial implications are.
In this specific case, the technical options for developing gas offshore Labrador could be explored and likely would be explored - if they have not been explored already - by the license holders.
It is curious that the Hydro corporation will be studying these options. But it is even more curious that studying the options requires federal funding through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA). Surely Hydro has enough retained earnings to fund the study.
Beyond that, though and aside from all the good things to happen in Labrador, this document bears all the marks of something completed over two years ago. Note the number of phrases which project ore shipments and employments levels...for 2006. In early 2007, those projections should be easy since the year is past. Hindsight is always more accurate than foresight.
This is your serial government at work.
Not only does it take two years to complete a "strategy", but the strategy contains no concrete measurable goals to judge success. Major strategic decisions on everything from a new hydroelectric project, delay of a wind power project and decisions on new mine developments in western Labrador are all taken before the "strategy" is in place. On top of that, document is actually held up through the bureaucratic process to the point where it is announced fully two years after it started.
Surely it would have been nice to develop an actual strategy, one that lays out the guiding principles for its various components like health care and resource development.
Surely it would have been nice to have those principles before decisions are made.
-30-
The Imperial Prime Minister
Apparently requires a psychic, luggage-carrying dresser.
Steve joins Tsarina Alexander, Nancy Reagan, Marie Antoinette and others not actually holding power yet spending public money on nonsense.
Let them eat cake, indeed.
Steve joins Tsarina Alexander, Nancy Reagan, Marie Antoinette and others not actually holding power yet spending public money on nonsense.
Let them eat cake, indeed.
19 April 2007
Did Danny consent?
Over at Offal News, Simon Lono has another take on the implications of the federal government's Equalization changes.
Lono makes the point that by changing the Atlantic Accord (1985), the current federal administration has raised troubling questions about any agreement between a provincial and the Government of Canada.
He's right.
But there's a couple of curious things about the Atlantic Accord (1985) Lono did touch on.
Let's add those in right now.
Under s. 64 of the agreement, the province may request that the entire deal be entrenched in the Constitution.
That simply reinforces Lono's content on the importance of the Accord. It isn't just any other piece of legislation that can be amended easily by one or the other party. The Atlantic Accord (1985) is about as close to a constitutional document as you can get and either party would tamper with it at its peril.
Beyond at though, there's another clause that bears on the current issue Lono raises.
So did Premier Danny Williams consent?
If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to the changes contained in Bill C-52, then the Premier's current public posture is sheer crap. He could not have been misled since the provincial government would have been fully aware of the proposed amendments and would have had to agree to them before they were tabled in the House of Commons.
Assuming - and that's dangerous with this administration given the Hibernia South experience - that they exercised appropriate due diligence, government officials and any external consultants they hired would have assessed the implications of the changes.
Now in his scrum, Williams was clear to accuse the feds of misleading his government, but he focused the bulk of his comments on misleading a private citizen. He spent considerable time accusing the finance department of misleading the public and Wade Locke.
Now if Williams misspoke in saying he had been misled, and instead meant to focus on what happened with the public, then Williams may well have consented to the changes. He just failed to us that. If that's the case then Danny Williams is as guilty of misleading the public as anyone else.
The feds are right in that scenario: Danny is just looking for a headline. He's looking to manufacture a crisis for what many are now speculating is coming: a referendum on separation. His confrontational approach to federal-provincial relations would certainly be consistent with that interpretation. It would also fit if the same guy giving him long-term strategic advice is the same political putz who thought it was a great idea to rip down Canadian flags. Overall, it fits with Williams' record of vicious anti-Ottawa rhetoric.
Now if the feds didn't tell anyone what was going on, then Williams has a legal case to overturn at least one set of changes to C-52. Then Williams is right.
But something says that if he had such an unequivocal case, Williams would be launching a lawsuit pretty freakin' quick. In that context, C-52 is such an incontrovertible breach of such an important agreement that every court in the land would smack Harper and Flaherty between the eyes in unequivocal terms.
All someone has to do is ask the feds and the province.
Oh yes, and ask for any documents demonstrating whichever scenario is correct. Danny Williams told us all the provincial premier's supported his 2005 deal. We still haven't seen any proof of that.
Lono makes the point that by changing the Atlantic Accord (1985), the current federal administration has raised troubling questions about any agreement between a provincial and the Government of Canada.
He's right.
But there's a couple of curious things about the Atlantic Accord (1985) Lono did touch on.
Let's add those in right now.
Under s. 64 of the agreement, the province may request that the entire deal be entrenched in the Constitution.
64. The Government of Canada agrees that should the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador achieve the requisite support among the other provinces for the constitutional entrenchment of the Accord that it would introduce a mutually agreeable resolution into Parliament.No provincial administration has made such a request. Frankly, there's no public indication any provincial government ever tried to secure such entrenchment.
That simply reinforces Lono's content on the importance of the Accord. It isn't just any other piece of legislation that can be amended easily by one or the other party. The Atlantic Accord (1985) is about as close to a constitutional document as you can get and either party would tamper with it at its peril.
Beyond at though, there's another clause that bears on the current issue Lono raises.
60. Except by mutual consent, neither government will introduce amendments to the legislation or regulations implementing the Accord.That sentence makes it pretty clear that if the federal government is altering the offset provisions of the 1985 agreement, they would need provincial consent to do so.
So did Premier Danny Williams consent?
If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to the changes contained in Bill C-52, then the Premier's current public posture is sheer crap. He could not have been misled since the provincial government would have been fully aware of the proposed amendments and would have had to agree to them before they were tabled in the House of Commons.
Assuming - and that's dangerous with this administration given the Hibernia South experience - that they exercised appropriate due diligence, government officials and any external consultants they hired would have assessed the implications of the changes.
Now in his scrum, Williams was clear to accuse the feds of misleading his government, but he focused the bulk of his comments on misleading a private citizen. He spent considerable time accusing the finance department of misleading the public and Wade Locke.
Now if Williams misspoke in saying he had been misled, and instead meant to focus on what happened with the public, then Williams may well have consented to the changes. He just failed to us that. If that's the case then Danny Williams is as guilty of misleading the public as anyone else.
The feds are right in that scenario: Danny is just looking for a headline. He's looking to manufacture a crisis for what many are now speculating is coming: a referendum on separation. His confrontational approach to federal-provincial relations would certainly be consistent with that interpretation. It would also fit if the same guy giving him long-term strategic advice is the same political putz who thought it was a great idea to rip down Canadian flags. Overall, it fits with Williams' record of vicious anti-Ottawa rhetoric.
Now if the feds didn't tell anyone what was going on, then Williams has a legal case to overturn at least one set of changes to C-52. Then Williams is right.
But something says that if he had such an unequivocal case, Williams would be launching a lawsuit pretty freakin' quick. In that context, C-52 is such an incontrovertible breach of such an important agreement that every court in the land would smack Harper and Flaherty between the eyes in unequivocal terms.
All someone has to do is ask the feds and the province.
Oh yes, and ask for any documents demonstrating whichever scenario is correct. Danny Williams told us all the provincial premier's supported his 2005 deal. We still haven't seen any proof of that.
-30-
Two degrees of separation
Fox News brunette Coulter-wannabe, Rachel Marsden.
Check out the links on the left of her bio page.
Yep. Fight the Seal Hunt.
Look up though and find a link to Canada Free Press. CFP is an eclectic collection of commentary from across a wide spectrum.
One of CFP's regular contributors is this guy, from Newfoundland and Labrador. One of his recent columns was this piece on the failure of the seal hunt protestors' restaurant boycott.
There's absolutely no connection between the two of these people except that by some coincidence that has nothing to do with anything but fluke, some Fox News entertainer with anti-seal hunt inclinations winds up promoting to her American audience a Canadian site with at least one writer who has some pretty strong views in another direction.
There is the Internet in a nutshell.
Check out the links on the left of her bio page.
Yep. Fight the Seal Hunt.
Look up though and find a link to Canada Free Press. CFP is an eclectic collection of commentary from across a wide spectrum.
One of CFP's regular contributors is this guy, from Newfoundland and Labrador. One of his recent columns was this piece on the failure of the seal hunt protestors' restaurant boycott.
There's absolutely no connection between the two of these people except that by some coincidence that has nothing to do with anything but fluke, some Fox News entertainer with anti-seal hunt inclinations winds up promoting to her American audience a Canadian site with at least one writer who has some pretty strong views in another direction.
There is the Internet in a nutshell.
Brown and browned off
Give credit for the title to CBC television's supperhour news and the banter between the anchors after a segment on Premier Danny Williams' comments on Wednesday about the ongoing racket with Ottawa about Equalization and offsets.
Williams was back in the province today after spending a couple of weeks someplace sunny.
Brown he is, thanks to a tan.
Browned off?
Well, that's a local expression for being annoyed or upset.
In a scrum with reporters on Wednesday, Williams called for finance minister Jim Flaherty to resign. Williams also tore strips off federal fish minister Loyola Hearn - the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador - as well as Conservative members of parliament Fabian Manning and Norm Doyle.
One of the consistent problems for anyone trying to figure out the whole issue is what the federal government has actually done. Skim through the initial budget documents and one would have a hard time finding any reference to a cap being applied to both the 1985 Atlantic Accord and to the 2005 offset agreement. What you will find is the following reference to Equalization:
It appears that Memorial University economist Wade Locke worked on the same assumption for his initial analysis, even after extensive discussions with federal officials. Danny Williams certainly appears to have taken that meaning from the federal budget. He told a CBC radio audience on March 26 that the province would likely opt for the O'Brien formula by 2009. That would be consistent with Locke's assessment, made public two weeks after Williams made those comments
It seems as well that federal fisheries minister Loyola Hearn had a similar impression. He assured Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that once they saw the details, their initial fears would be allayed. That was what he said on March 22. As recently as last Friday, he said much the same thing. Hearn is a smart old politician and he is just too smart to fall into the sort of trap that his predecessor John Efford built for himself and then jumped into.
That perspective on the offset agreements changed on Monday with Jim Flaherty's admission that in fact the federal government would be unilaterally applying caps to the agreements. Of course, in the process, Flaherty had to savage a few facts, but that seems to be a common feature of public life these days.
Taken altogether, it's easy to understand Danny Williams' latest anger. He's right, by the way: Flaherty jerked everybody around. The federal finance leprechaun has been too cute by half. Williams hasn't pointed it out - and he likely won't, but the changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord have far more serious implications than anything else.
That deal is not just a simple piece of legislation to be changed at a whim. It represents the basis on which Newfoundland and Labrador derives all its oil and gas benefits. The federal legislation enables a landmark agreement in federal-provincial relations and the offset benefits - temporary and declining are a part of the package of financial benefits it contains. The Equalization offsets were intended to provide additional cash to Newfoundland and Labrador on a temporary basis to allow for economic infrastructure development that, frankly, hasn't really been possible until recently.
Williams winds up with a few of problems as he looks at the current federal-provincial mess.
Biggest among them is that he simply has absolutely no means of communicating seriously with the federal government. His last potential allies - the three Conservative MPs - are all dirt under his feet. Williams started the whole mess with Harper at least last October in Gander, and as much as he insists he did the right thing, kicking the Prime Minister in the crotch - publicly - isn't designed to win any friends.
And friends are needed in politics. Even if people aren't friends, you at least need them to not be enemies. Politics is about the art of the deal, about maximizing gains inside a realistic set of options. It's not about Mr. Right, to steal a phrase. Sometimes it's about Mr. Right for Now. Perfect isn't ever possible, but there are plenty of really good possibilities short of perfection. you can cut those deals - good, beneficial deals - on a range of issues if your head is screwed on properly.
But if all you do is set fire to their underwear, the odds of winning people over is slim. When you take to their Stanfield's with a flamethrower, well don't be surprised if they don't invite you over to dinner to meet the kids and the rest of the family. Be surprised if they don't look for a restraining order.
On another level, though, Williams' fundamental argument isn't designed to win converts from among the non-converts. We've said it before. For the federal government and for mainlanders generally, we need to explaining what is in it for them. The Premier hasn't been able to do that, at all.
The weakness of the whole Equalization argument about clawbacks - as fraudulent as it is - takes away the one selling point: we make money; you make money. Instead, them making money becomes a crime. They - the undifferentiated foreign exploiting demons - take what is ours and, according to Williams, by God he will get it back by force if necessary. Any wonder people have tuned out?
Of course, it really doesn't help when your finance minister rejects deficit and debt fighting all the while you are holding out a big debt as one of the big reasons you need federal hand-outs.
Danny Williams lamented recently that mainlanders don't seem to understand how prosperity here benefits there, wherever there is.
Well, the real test of his abilities as a Great Negotiator and a politician will be in how he tackles that challenge.
It's his job to explain the point. He can do it.
The question is will he.
Doing an endless repetition of one of his first interviews - three freakin' years later - just isn't cutting it so far.
Williams was back in the province today after spending a couple of weeks someplace sunny.
Brown he is, thanks to a tan.
Browned off?
Well, that's a local expression for being annoyed or upset.
In a scrum with reporters on Wednesday, Williams called for finance minister Jim Flaherty to resign. Williams also tore strips off federal fish minister Loyola Hearn - the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador - as well as Conservative members of parliament Fabian Manning and Norm Doyle.
One of the consistent problems for anyone trying to figure out the whole issue is what the federal government has actually done. Skim through the initial budget documents and one would have a hard time finding any reference to a cap being applied to both the 1985 Atlantic Accord and to the 2005 offset agreement. What you will find is the following reference to Equalization:
A fiscal capacity cap to ensure that Equalization payments do not unfairly bring a receiving province’s overall fiscal capacity to a level higher than that of any non-receiving province.Many people in Newfoundland and Labrador - your humble e-scribbler included - took this to mean that the existing offset agreements, both of which are tied to Equalization and are limited in duration, would still operate until such time as Newfoundland and Labrador exceeded the national per capita fiscal capacity as determined by whatever Equalization formula is in effect.
It appears that Memorial University economist Wade Locke worked on the same assumption for his initial analysis, even after extensive discussions with federal officials. Danny Williams certainly appears to have taken that meaning from the federal budget. He told a CBC radio audience on March 26 that the province would likely opt for the O'Brien formula by 2009. That would be consistent with Locke's assessment, made public two weeks after Williams made those comments
It seems as well that federal fisheries minister Loyola Hearn had a similar impression. He assured Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that once they saw the details, their initial fears would be allayed. That was what he said on March 22. As recently as last Friday, he said much the same thing. Hearn is a smart old politician and he is just too smart to fall into the sort of trap that his predecessor John Efford built for himself and then jumped into.
That perspective on the offset agreements changed on Monday with Jim Flaherty's admission that in fact the federal government would be unilaterally applying caps to the agreements. Of course, in the process, Flaherty had to savage a few facts, but that seems to be a common feature of public life these days.
Taken altogether, it's easy to understand Danny Williams' latest anger. He's right, by the way: Flaherty jerked everybody around. The federal finance leprechaun has been too cute by half. Williams hasn't pointed it out - and he likely won't, but the changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord have far more serious implications than anything else.
That deal is not just a simple piece of legislation to be changed at a whim. It represents the basis on which Newfoundland and Labrador derives all its oil and gas benefits. The federal legislation enables a landmark agreement in federal-provincial relations and the offset benefits - temporary and declining are a part of the package of financial benefits it contains. The Equalization offsets were intended to provide additional cash to Newfoundland and Labrador on a temporary basis to allow for economic infrastructure development that, frankly, hasn't really been possible until recently.
Williams winds up with a few of problems as he looks at the current federal-provincial mess.
Biggest among them is that he simply has absolutely no means of communicating seriously with the federal government. His last potential allies - the three Conservative MPs - are all dirt under his feet. Williams started the whole mess with Harper at least last October in Gander, and as much as he insists he did the right thing, kicking the Prime Minister in the crotch - publicly - isn't designed to win any friends.
And friends are needed in politics. Even if people aren't friends, you at least need them to not be enemies. Politics is about the art of the deal, about maximizing gains inside a realistic set of options. It's not about Mr. Right, to steal a phrase. Sometimes it's about Mr. Right for Now. Perfect isn't ever possible, but there are plenty of really good possibilities short of perfection. you can cut those deals - good, beneficial deals - on a range of issues if your head is screwed on properly.
But if all you do is set fire to their underwear, the odds of winning people over is slim. When you take to their Stanfield's with a flamethrower, well don't be surprised if they don't invite you over to dinner to meet the kids and the rest of the family. Be surprised if they don't look for a restraining order.
On another level, though, Williams' fundamental argument isn't designed to win converts from among the non-converts. We've said it before. For the federal government and for mainlanders generally, we need to explaining what is in it for them. The Premier hasn't been able to do that, at all.
The weakness of the whole Equalization argument about clawbacks - as fraudulent as it is - takes away the one selling point: we make money; you make money. Instead, them making money becomes a crime. They - the undifferentiated foreign exploiting demons - take what is ours and, according to Williams, by God he will get it back by force if necessary. Any wonder people have tuned out?
Of course, it really doesn't help when your finance minister rejects deficit and debt fighting all the while you are holding out a big debt as one of the big reasons you need federal hand-outs.
Danny Williams lamented recently that mainlanders don't seem to understand how prosperity here benefits there, wherever there is.
Well, the real test of his abilities as a Great Negotiator and a politician will be in how he tackles that challenge.
It's his job to explain the point. He can do it.
The question is will he.
Doing an endless repetition of one of his first interviews - three freakin' years later - just isn't cutting it so far.
18 April 2007
Spend 'em if ya got 'em
At a time when the provincial government is screaming that it needs federal handouts to deal with a huge public debt, finance minister Tom Marshall defends fiscally irresponsible budgeting.
The Offal News take.
The Offal News take.
17 April 2007
The North-South connexion
From Walrus magazine, a four-pager on growing economic ties between Canadian provinces and American states.
All three of these transnational political groupings represent a new chapter in North American governance, with both Canada and the blue states bringing powerful assets to the partnership. Canada’s vast energy reserves (including hydro, natural gas, oil from the Alberta tar sands, and, potentially, Newfoundland’s offshore reserves, as well as wind power across the Prairies) provide the kind of energy security that is essential to make transnational political regions semi-autonomous.
-30-
Conoco Canada boss looking at expanded presence
ConocoPhillip's new chief executive officer in Canada is interested in developing the company's Canadian assets.
Of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, Kevin Meyers said:
Meyers warned though: "You do worry when government starts to take away that advantage it has."
Like in Newfoundland and Labrador, one wonders.
Meyers should understand the political climate on Canada's Eastern Front. His last post was running Conoco's operations in Russia under Vladimir Putin.
Of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, Kevin Meyers said:
"There are a multitude of options out there [to reduce greenhouse gas emissions]. A lot of them will require technologies to be developed, so we are looking for greenhouse gas policies that are cognizant of this." Newfoundland: The company wants to explore in the Laurentian Basin off Newfoundland, but won't move forward until the province sets fiscal terms for natural gas production, likely in conjunction of Premier Danny Williams' long-awaited energy policy, expected this spring. "Do we want to drill? Yes. It is difficult for us to come forward with any public plans about drilling exploration wells in the Laurentian Basin until we have an understanding of what the fiscal regime is going to be," Mr. Meyers said.Meyers told the National Post that Canada is an attractive investment prospect since its stable political and fiscal climate offsets many of the challenges of developing oil and gas fields which, as Meyers describes it "can be marginal in nature. They are always in the cutting edge of cost and service or supply, but that stability of fiscal regime helps offset that.
Meyers warned though: "You do worry when government starts to take away that advantage it has."
Like in Newfoundland and Labrador, one wonders.
Meyers should understand the political climate on Canada's Eastern Front. His last post was running Conoco's operations in Russia under Vladimir Putin.
-30-
The future of rural Newfoundland
Craig Westcott's latest commentary for CBC radio [ram file] and Merv Wiseman's reaction. [ram file].
Westcott was his usual bold self. He called for government to stop paying lip service to problems, to stop "conning people" into believing that some bureaucratic plan built on a theatre festival will save things.
He notes that the salvation of rural Newfoundland would be creating a pool of skilled workers. Out of those educated young people will come the source of new ideas or people who can change and adapt more readily than their forebears.
Wiseman is an excellent proponent of the reactionary approach, rooted in the old rural development movement that infiltrated the economic development boards and turned them, in too many cases, from producers of results based on local opportunities to producers of government grant applications for further studies into the magical properties of another blueberry festival or golf course.
Wiseman essentially spouts buzzwords like innovation as if throwing up a few whalebones and calling it a museum actually gets at the core of the issue. He misses entirely the educational and demographic challenges that are already here in many parts of the province.
A clue to his headspace? Wiseman refers to the consequences of Newfoundland dieing, not rural Newfoundland but Newfoundland, as if what was in the mythical idyllic past is all that ever was and ever can be.
His major thrust was that Westcott was being too negative. That's it. Too negative. As if smiling and denying would suffice for anything except convincing people that you were in need of therapy.
There was nothing in Wiseman's comments to deal with the substance of the issue, namely the changes that will come - some inevitably - in the mythical entity Wiseman and Westcott call rural Newfoundland.
At least Westcott did that with his comments on education. Rather than seeking to hang on to as much of what was and is, Westcott talked about the simple foundation for adaptability. He pointed correctly to the value of education in building successful economies - and societies - in a host of places from Iceland to Asia.
Education was a key idea component in development ideas 15 years ago. More scholar for the dollar, as then education minister Phil Warren called it. Education reform in the early 1990s was about giving our young people the tools they need to build their own lives and with that their province and the future.
By the late 1990s though, and continuing today, education decisions were often about keeping schools in communities with fewer an fewer children as a symbol of the community's future. Keeping more and more teachers teaching fewer and fewer children with resource spread around such that the overall quality of education stayed about the same.
More dollar. Less scholar.
And Merv Wiseman? Well, he never really had any concrete, positive actions to show what is going on.
If they are out there and Wiseman had talked about them, he'd have been far more convincing than accusing Westcott of patronizing people.
Patronizing them is what the old rural development crowd do all the time with their talk. And if that's all they have, then Newfoundland and Labrador generally, not just the rural bits, is doomed.
Westcott was his usual bold self. He called for government to stop paying lip service to problems, to stop "conning people" into believing that some bureaucratic plan built on a theatre festival will save things.
He notes that the salvation of rural Newfoundland would be creating a pool of skilled workers. Out of those educated young people will come the source of new ideas or people who can change and adapt more readily than their forebears.
Wiseman is an excellent proponent of the reactionary approach, rooted in the old rural development movement that infiltrated the economic development boards and turned them, in too many cases, from producers of results based on local opportunities to producers of government grant applications for further studies into the magical properties of another blueberry festival or golf course.
Wiseman essentially spouts buzzwords like innovation as if throwing up a few whalebones and calling it a museum actually gets at the core of the issue. He misses entirely the educational and demographic challenges that are already here in many parts of the province.
A clue to his headspace? Wiseman refers to the consequences of Newfoundland dieing, not rural Newfoundland but Newfoundland, as if what was in the mythical idyllic past is all that ever was and ever can be.
His major thrust was that Westcott was being too negative. That's it. Too negative. As if smiling and denying would suffice for anything except convincing people that you were in need of therapy.
There was nothing in Wiseman's comments to deal with the substance of the issue, namely the changes that will come - some inevitably - in the mythical entity Wiseman and Westcott call rural Newfoundland.
At least Westcott did that with his comments on education. Rather than seeking to hang on to as much of what was and is, Westcott talked about the simple foundation for adaptability. He pointed correctly to the value of education in building successful economies - and societies - in a host of places from Iceland to Asia.
Education was a key idea component in development ideas 15 years ago. More scholar for the dollar, as then education minister Phil Warren called it. Education reform in the early 1990s was about giving our young people the tools they need to build their own lives and with that their province and the future.
By the late 1990s though, and continuing today, education decisions were often about keeping schools in communities with fewer an fewer children as a symbol of the community's future. Keeping more and more teachers teaching fewer and fewer children with resource spread around such that the overall quality of education stayed about the same.
More dollar. Less scholar.
And Merv Wiseman? Well, he never really had any concrete, positive actions to show what is going on.
If they are out there and Wiseman had talked about them, he'd have been far more convincing than accusing Westcott of patronizing people.
Patronizing them is what the old rural development crowd do all the time with their talk. And if that's all they have, then Newfoundland and Labrador generally, not just the rural bits, is doomed.
Facts do matter
Except to this man, apparently.From federal finance minister Jim Flaherty's latest Equalization news release:
To do so [not to alter two federal-provincial agreements unilaterally] would give Newfoundland and Labrador access to Equalization payments above all the other Equalization provinces even though its fiscal capacity is higher than Ontario's and British Columbia's, which receive no Equalization payments.If Newfoundland and Labrador's own-source fiscal capacity exceeds the national standard for Equalization, then the province doesn't qualify for either Equalization or for Equalization offsets contained in the 2005 agreement between Prime Minister Paul Martin and Premier Danny Williams:
5. If in any fiscal year in the period 2006-07 to 2011-12 the province does not qualify for receipt of an Equalization payment, no additional offset payment in respect of clause 4 will be made for that fiscal year beyond the payment specified in the existing Atlantic Accord.The federal Equalization formula currently used and the O'Brien formula contained in Flaherty's 2007 budget set the standard used to determine if a province qualifies for Equalization.
That standard in both cases is below the fiscal capacity of Ontario (the lowest non-recipient province) by several hundred dollars per person.
Yes, facts do matter, Jim.They just don't matter to the current federal administration.
Obviously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)