After months of insisting that provincial law prevented cabinet from releasing cabinet documents to the Auditor General, cabinet has decided to give Auditor General John Noseworthy access to documents relevant to his review of a controversial fibreoptic cable deal between government and a private sector consortium.
No explanation for the change is included in the CBC story linked above, but the decision by cabinet is consistent with an idea advanced by Bond Papers before Christmas (first link above) that the Ag could be given access based on cabinet discretion.
26 April 2007
The new Oldest Living Father of Confederation
One story for home. One for away.
It must be like a hockey team with a white shirt for home games and a dark one for away, except this one has a white shirt for both, depending on your perspective.
At home, Danny Williams is a fearless champion of Newfoundland nationalism. White shirt.
In Winnipeg, he's a fearless Canadian fighting the Newfoundland separatists. A different white shirt.
No joking.
From the Canadian Press post-throne speech coverage:
Uh huh.
Riiiiiight.
Update: There's a related story on cbc.ca/nl.
It must be like a hockey team with a white shirt for home games and a dark one for away, except this one has a white shirt for both, depending on your perspective.
At home, Danny Williams is a fearless champion of Newfoundland nationalism. White shirt.
In Winnipeg, he's a fearless Canadian fighting the Newfoundland separatists. A different white shirt.
No joking.
From the Canadian Press post-throne speech coverage:
Premier Danny Williams says he's trying to quell separatist feelings within Newfoundland and Labrador, despite a throne speech that suggested the province should push for more autonomy from Ottawa."The fans of sovereignty are here. If anything, I've been trying to dampen those fires as much as I can," Williams said yesterday.
"Dampen those fires as much as I can"?
Uh huh.
Riiiiiight.
Update: There's a related story on cbc.ca/nl.
-30-
Reasons there's no spring election, number whatever
Sucky poll results.
Strategic Counsel's numbers for the Globe: CPC 36/LPC 30/NDP 13/BQ 39.
And that's on the heels of the Decima results as reported by Canadian Press. The Conservatives at 30 are virtually tied with the Liberals, showing at 29. Decima's poll a month ago showed the federal Conservatives at 39%.
Strategic Counsel's numbers for the Globe: CPC 36/LPC 30/NDP 13/BQ 39.
And that's on the heels of the Decima results as reported by Canadian Press. The Conservatives at 30 are virtually tied with the Liberals, showing at 29. Decima's poll a month ago showed the federal Conservatives at 39%.
25 April 2007
Details, please
Ministerial statements like this one are much more persuasive if they include concrete examples of accomplishments.
As it is, we just have a bunch of irrelevant numbers and a cabinet minister patting himself on the back.
This statement looks like every other release or statement on the same project: unconvincing.
Anyone can write down a number, set an arbitrary and unverifiable number and the en later claim to have made steady progress by simply printing different numbers.
Just because it comes in a government news release doesn't mean that it is inherently credible.
As it is, we just have a bunch of irrelevant numbers and a cabinet minister patting himself on the back.
This statement looks like every other release or statement on the same project: unconvincing.
Anyone can write down a number, set an arbitrary and unverifiable number and the en later claim to have made steady progress by simply printing different numbers.
Just because it comes in a government news release doesn't mean that it is inherently credible.
Terra Nova back in the cash
High oil prices mean that the Terra Nova oilfield has recovered recent refurbishment costs on the production platform and is now pumping higher royalties into provincial coffers, six weeks ahead of schedule.
The provincial government now receives 30% of the price of each barrel of oil produced under the royalty regime established with the provincial government.
Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sets royalty and other revenue rate for the offshore. It receives and retains 100% of the amount it sets. in addition, the provincial government continues to receive federal transfers for a fixed period under terms set out in the 1985 Accord and in a 2005 add-on deal between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada.
The provincial government now receives 30% of the price of each barrel of oil produced under the royalty regime established with the provincial government.
Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sets royalty and other revenue rate for the offshore. It receives and retains 100% of the amount it sets. in addition, the provincial government continues to receive federal transfers for a fixed period under terms set out in the 1985 Accord and in a 2005 add-on deal between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada.
Why there won't be a federal election this spring
1. Canada's New Government apparently has trouble with fax machines.
2. There is a brewing Afghanistan controversy that will hurt everywhere, but especially in Quebec.
2. There is a brewing Afghanistan controversy that will hurt everywhere, but especially in Quebec.
24 April 2007
The Newfoundland Nationalist orthodoxy
Given the nationalist rhetoric permeating the latest provincial throne speech, it might be useful to examine the writings of another Newfoundland nationalist.
The following piece appeared in the St. John's Telegram in 1998 under the title "Confederation orthodoxy". It's author, John Fitzgerald, today serves as the provincial representative in Ottawa, or as it might seem to some "our man in a Blue Line cab."
While his doctoral thesis was on the Roman Catholic church in Newfoundland in the middle of the 19th century, Fitzgerald's master's thesis was titled The Confederation of Newfoundland with Canada, 1946-1949. His interpretation has been criticised by other historians, but it did serve as the inspiration for the entertaining but fictional movie Secret nation.
The film contended that Confederation was the result of a giant plot involving foreign powers that included falsifying the final referendum result. Fitzgerald's account below does not come to that conclusion, but there is no doubt that he leans heavily on a peculiar interpretation of selected information to attack what he views as Confederate mythology. It is all to common for self-proclaimed myth debunkers to propagate a few myths of their own and Fitzgerald is no exception. He recites neatly the townie anti-Confederate catechism.
For that reason, and given Fitzgerald's current position as a senior advisor to the Premier, here is Fitzgerald's 1998 view:
The following piece appeared in the St. John's Telegram in 1998 under the title "Confederation orthodoxy". It's author, John Fitzgerald, today serves as the provincial representative in Ottawa, or as it might seem to some "our man in a Blue Line cab."
While his doctoral thesis was on the Roman Catholic church in Newfoundland in the middle of the 19th century, Fitzgerald's master's thesis was titled The Confederation of Newfoundland with Canada, 1946-1949. His interpretation has been criticised by other historians, but it did serve as the inspiration for the entertaining but fictional movie Secret nation.
The film contended that Confederation was the result of a giant plot involving foreign powers that included falsifying the final referendum result. Fitzgerald's account below does not come to that conclusion, but there is no doubt that he leans heavily on a peculiar interpretation of selected information to attack what he views as Confederate mythology. It is all to common for self-proclaimed myth debunkers to propagate a few myths of their own and Fitzgerald is no exception. He recites neatly the townie anti-Confederate catechism.
For that reason, and given Fitzgerald's current position as a senior advisor to the Premier, here is Fitzgerald's 1998 view:
Confederation orthodoxy
John Fitzgerald
The Telegram
St. John's, NL
April 6, 1998
Page 6
The Telegram editorial of April 1, celebrating 49 years of Confederation as a "qualified success," claimed that Newfoundland would have been much worse off as an independent country than as a Canadian province, and that without Ottawa, Newfoundland might return to the "grinding poverty" of the 1930s. This is the same tired orthodoxy that The Telegram and Smallwood preached in 1948: Newfoundland would not survive without Confederation.
Newfoundland very likely could have prospered without Confederation. For nine of the 10 years before Confederation Newfoundland had a balanced budget. On the eve of Confederation, Newfoundland had two-per-cent unemployment and a per-capita debt which was one-tenth of Canada's. On the eve of Confederation, Newfoundland had an accumulated surplus on current account of $43 million and $12 million in interest-free loans to Britain. In 1998 dollars this would be close to $1 billion. Was this prosperity temporary? No. Newfoundland changed forever in the 1940s. If the absence of a House of Assembly at the time prevented Newfoundlanders from knowing it or doing anything about it, then Canada certainly did know the wealth and value of Newfoundland.
Confederation may have been an qualified success for Canada, but not so for Newfoundland. Canada feared that Newfoundland could have used its resources to survive and prosper independently. The Ottawa mandarins realized that Confederation would help extract the Americans from their bases in Newfoundland. Newfoundland also had two of the largest airports in the world, situated on the Great Circle air route.
Canada wanted them, and acquired them with Confederation. It then used the control of the airports and landing rights to force its own way into American markets which had previously excluded Canada. In 1946, Newfoundland had an estimated 300 million tons of iron ore in Labrador, which Canada was interested in exploiting. (In March 1996 the IOC blasted the one billionth ton of iron ore out of Labrador, while Newfoundland still collects revenues under the 1944 royalty regime established by the Commission of Government which allows Newfoundland five per cent of what the IOC tells us their profits are.) Ottawa knew that controlling Newfoundland's fisheries would eliminate Newfoundland from competing with Nova Scotia for markets for its fish. (Could Newfoundland have managed its cod stocks any worse than Canada has?)
On Oct. 17, 1946, the Canadian High Commissioner in Newfound land, Scott Macdonald, wrote Ottawa about the benefits Newfoundland would bring to Canada. Newfoundland had "very considerable mineral and forest resources as well as easy access to the finest fishing grounds in the world." Confederation "would solve, permanently, all questions of post-war military and civil aviation rights which are at present terminable after March 31, 1949, on 12 months' notice. It would make possible a common jurisdiction over North Atlantic fisheries. ..."
And would Newfoundland return to poverty? Not likely. "Moreover," Macdonald wrote, "(Newfoundland) is richer by the investment of at least $100 million by Canada and at least $300 million by the United States primarily for defence but much of which was spent on roads, wharfs (sic), telephone lines, warehouses, similar buildings, radio ranges, airfields, the training of Newfoundlanders in various technical jobs, etc. and has redounded to the general development of the country." In Macdonald's view, Newfoundland thus had the infrastructure to sustain prosperity.
For Canada, Newfoundland's Confederation was not about the welfare state or about helping Newfoundlanders "out of poverty" (for which, The Globe and Mail tells us, we must be eternally grateful). Rather, it was about acquiring valuable resources, eliminating competition, acquiring very valuable aspects of Newfoundland's sovereignty, and doing it all rather deeply [cheaply?]. After all, Smallwood's Confederation campaigns only cost CD Howe and the Liberal Party of Canada a cool half-million bucks.
-30-
Destiny, nationalism and a Speech from the Throne
Following is an extract from remarks by Premier Danny Williams in the House of Assembly following the throne speech.
The words are taken almost directly from the throne speech since, as convention dictates, it is the Premier who writes the speech.
Both for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and for their fellow Canadians across Canada, the speech is an interesting clue to the thinking of the feisty first minister.
For example, note that in his speech, as in the throne speech, Williams refers to something called "Ottawa", as if it were a foreign capital.
Some people should also take note of a particular sentence, that "we cannot rely upon those elected to offices outside of this Province to deliver what is in our own best interest." This sentence, repeated in the throne speech and in the news release issued on Tuesday afternoon, should give pause to Stephane Dion, with whom the Premier met on Saturday.
It should surely give pause to all those incumbents federal members of parliament from this province and those likely candidates for it means clearly that Danny Williams does not and will not trust you. These words mean, unequivocally, that elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not to be trusted merely because they represent the people of the province somewhere other than in the House of Assembly controlled utterly by the current provincial administration.
Scott? Walter? Paul? Peter? Siobhan? Fabian? Gerry? Loyola?
One wonders if they get the point.
Note as well, in the second last paragraph the number of claims that have no substance behind them. The current revenue wave which alone produced the economic miracle Williams claims credit for came as a direct result of the Atlantic Accord (1985).
This landmark in federal-provincial relations was achieved as a direct result of agreement between two strong governments and on the federal side is a direct consequence of efforts by John Crosbie. The negotiations were lengthy and difficult. The deal came close to failing but in the end, through the determination of both the federal and provincial governments, an historic agreement was achieved.
In the current context, a modern John Crosbie would likely get not a lick of support from Danny Williams merely because he was "elected to federal office outside the province". The truth is, that as a direct result of both the federal government and a capable federal minister from this province, Newfoundland and Labrador has never before been in such a position of strength. Nationalists will find that a bitter pill to swallow but it is far closer to reality that anything uttered by the Premier on the matter today.
In the current though, that agreement may be in some jeopardy. The federal government is seeking to amend the deal in direct violation of section 60 of the 1985 Accord. The provincial government - who should be guarding the Accord vigilantly - apparently did not notice that section and still ignores it some three weeks after finance minister Tom Marshall said that provincial lawyers were checking to see if the federal government could unilaterally amend the 1985 Accord.
Instead, the Premier makes much of the "broken promise". Should the federal government succeed in amending the Accord unilaterally, the joint management rights and/or the very revenues on which the Danny Williams miracle has taken place - not the added hand-outs, but the provincially determined direct revenues - might be in jeopardy.
Flowery rhetoric is a fine thing. Quoting William Jennings Bryan on destiny is a fine thing, but perhaps adapting another Bryan quote would be more useful in describing the Premier's speech(es): it seems to me it would be too exacting to confine the Premier to the facts; if he is not allowed to get away from the facts, what has he to deal with?
What does he have indeed?
__________________
Hansard, 24 April, 2007:
The words are taken almost directly from the throne speech since, as convention dictates, it is the Premier who writes the speech.
Both for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and for their fellow Canadians across Canada, the speech is an interesting clue to the thinking of the feisty first minister.
For example, note that in his speech, as in the throne speech, Williams refers to something called "Ottawa", as if it were a foreign capital.
Some people should also take note of a particular sentence, that "we cannot rely upon those elected to offices outside of this Province to deliver what is in our own best interest." This sentence, repeated in the throne speech and in the news release issued on Tuesday afternoon, should give pause to Stephane Dion, with whom the Premier met on Saturday.
It should surely give pause to all those incumbents federal members of parliament from this province and those likely candidates for it means clearly that Danny Williams does not and will not trust you. These words mean, unequivocally, that elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not to be trusted merely because they represent the people of the province somewhere other than in the House of Assembly controlled utterly by the current provincial administration.
Scott? Walter? Paul? Peter? Siobhan? Fabian? Gerry? Loyola?
One wonders if they get the point.
Note as well, in the second last paragraph the number of claims that have no substance behind them. The current revenue wave which alone produced the economic miracle Williams claims credit for came as a direct result of the Atlantic Accord (1985).
This landmark in federal-provincial relations was achieved as a direct result of agreement between two strong governments and on the federal side is a direct consequence of efforts by John Crosbie. The negotiations were lengthy and difficult. The deal came close to failing but in the end, through the determination of both the federal and provincial governments, an historic agreement was achieved.
In the current context, a modern John Crosbie would likely get not a lick of support from Danny Williams merely because he was "elected to federal office outside the province". The truth is, that as a direct result of both the federal government and a capable federal minister from this province, Newfoundland and Labrador has never before been in such a position of strength. Nationalists will find that a bitter pill to swallow but it is far closer to reality that anything uttered by the Premier on the matter today.
In the current though, that agreement may be in some jeopardy. The federal government is seeking to amend the deal in direct violation of section 60 of the 1985 Accord. The provincial government - who should be guarding the Accord vigilantly - apparently did not notice that section and still ignores it some three weeks after finance minister Tom Marshall said that provincial lawyers were checking to see if the federal government could unilaterally amend the 1985 Accord.
Instead, the Premier makes much of the "broken promise". Should the federal government succeed in amending the Accord unilaterally, the joint management rights and/or the very revenues on which the Danny Williams miracle has taken place - not the added hand-outs, but the provincially determined direct revenues - might be in jeopardy.
Flowery rhetoric is a fine thing. Quoting William Jennings Bryan on destiny is a fine thing, but perhaps adapting another Bryan quote would be more useful in describing the Premier's speech(es): it seems to me it would be too exacting to confine the Premier to the facts; if he is not allowed to get away from the facts, what has he to deal with?
What does he have indeed?
__________________
Hansard, 24 April, 2007:
We are not prepared to tolerate a future of relying on others economically or having others manipulate us into selling ourselves short on resource benefits because we have all seen where that leads. Our people have learned that the best way to achieve self-reliance economically is to achieve self-reliance politically, by taking charge of our future as a people. I do not mean this in any separatist way. People should not read anything into that, because we are all strong nationalists and we are proud Canadians.
Political self-reliance simply means that we cannot rely upon those elected to offices outside of this Province to deliver what is in our own best interest. We must achieve that on our own. Self-reliance will not come by depending on others to achieve it for us. That is a lesson we have learned year after year, generation after generation. So we will harness the desire among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to cultivate greater political, financial and moral autonomy vis-a-vis Ottawa. As a distinct people and as equal partners, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal together, we will write a new future for Newfoundland and Labrador; a future of our own design, where mutual understanding, justice, equality, fairness and co-operation are the order of the day.
As the Throne Speech states, we will define our own future. We will strengthen our financial autonomy and our fiscal capacity to meet our own obligations by diversifying and growing our own economy; by reducing Newfoundland and Labrador’s burden of debt on our children; by pursuing a fair, fiscal balance between levels of government and by reducing our dependence on equalization payments.
We now have the ability to aspire to something better for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the natural resources. We have the human resources and the opportunities that will enable us to achieve self-reliance on our own steam and on our own terms. Even though the federal government will not assist in the way they promised, we will continue to put the resource revenues we are permitted to keep to work for our people.
The truth is, that despite the federal government, never before have we been in a position of such strength. Revenues are strong. Our fiscal position is strong. Our record of expenditure growth has been responsible and strategic. Our standing before our credit rating agencies has never been better. Our resource portfolio is increasingly strong and very attractive to investors, and our collective political will as a people has never been stronger.
We have the financial leverage to accomplish things that are in our Province’s best interest and the fiscal means to stand firm before those who are pressuring us to sell ourselves short. We are negotiating from a position of strength. We can afford to say no to bad deals and hold out for agreements that will result in long-term gain for our Province, not just short-term band-aid solutions, Mr. Speaker.
-30-
The agenda revealed: Throne Speech 2007
We as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aspire, not to perpetual subservience, but to self-sufficiency. Our people are not content to tolerate a future of relying on others economically. However, our people have now also learned that we will achieve self-reliance economically only by taking charge of our future as a people. To that end, My Government will harness the desire among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to cultivate greater cultural, financial and moral autonomy vis-Ã -vis Ottawa. Our priority is the well-being of successive generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, including those who live here now and those we welcome to join us from all over the world. My Government will affirm Newfoundland and Labrador’s status as a distinct people, not uniform in lineage but multi-cultural, one nation inclusive of many nations living in harmony together. [Emphasis added]The goal is autonomy.
What that means and how to get there are not clearly defined.
From the Throne Speech
A curious claim given that on Hebron there are no talks and the province has yet to sign off on White Rose expansion. Hibernia South is still mired in "talks":
As for Hebron, maybe the truthiness of the statement depends on what ones' definition of "soon" is.
In Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas sector, massive energy opportunities are matched by My Government’s confidence that further activity will soon be occurring at Hibernia South, White Rose and Hebron-Ben Nevis as exploration proceeds in other basins. My Government also launched industry consultations to develop an offshore natural gas royalty regime that will provide clarity to industry. This should facilitate the development of our immense natural gas resource potential in a manner that provides a fair return to industry and the people of this province.Maybe White Rose will get the nod, giving credence to John Lau's claims of having a great relationship with Danny Williams.
As for Hebron, maybe the truthiness of the statement depends on what ones' definition of "soon" is.
Raude heads south
Having finished at Great Barrisway F-66 in the Orphan basin, the drill rig Eirik Raude is off to the Gulf of Mexico to complete a drilling program there on behalf of ExxonMobil.
Before leaving Newfoundland waters, the rig will stop at Marystown where it will undergo inspections and recertification, a process required for drill rigs every five years.
The Eirik Raude is likely to return to the Orphan Basin in 2008 or 2009 to continue exploration. The Great Barrisway hole was drilled in 2,350 metres of water, deeper than any other well drilled so far offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Initial estimates were that the exploration well would cost $140 million based on an estimated four months drilling. As completed, the well took seven months.
On top of the harsh ocean environment offshore Newfoundland, the water depth in the Orphan Basin calls for cutting edge technology. Pressures at the depths involved can be as much as 200 times the atmospheric pressure at the ocean surface.
Great Barrisway F-66's water depth rivals those in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron's Jack 2 field in the Gulf of Mexico was discovered at a water depth of 2100 metres and 6100 metres below the sea floor.
Before leaving Newfoundland waters, the rig will stop at Marystown where it will undergo inspections and recertification, a process required for drill rigs every five years.
The Eirik Raude is likely to return to the Orphan Basin in 2008 or 2009 to continue exploration. The Great Barrisway hole was drilled in 2,350 metres of water, deeper than any other well drilled so far offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Initial estimates were that the exploration well would cost $140 million based on an estimated four months drilling. As completed, the well took seven months.
On top of the harsh ocean environment offshore Newfoundland, the water depth in the Orphan Basin calls for cutting edge technology. Pressures at the depths involved can be as much as 200 times the atmospheric pressure at the ocean surface.
Great Barrisway F-66's water depth rivals those in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron's Jack 2 field in the Gulf of Mexico was discovered at a water depth of 2100 metres and 6100 metres below the sea floor.
But drilling to such depths provides many daunting engineering challenges.
Such equipment, for example, must be built to handle tremendous weight.
"The way the drilling process works is that you put sections of pipe together one at a time as you run [the pipe] through the water and down into the earth," Hadden said. [Steve Hadden, senior vice president of exploration and production at Devon Energy in Oklahoma City, quoted in the National Geographic story linked above.]
"You keep adding to the drill string until you reach the total depth of the well. So [in this case] you've got a 30,000-foot-long [9,144-meter-long] string of pipe hanging off a floating rig," he added.
"You can imagine the weight requirements, and you have to have the ability to lift it to the surface to change the drill bit."
Twenty thousand feet (6,096 meters) of the large diameter pipe that encases the drill hole tops the scales at over a million pounds (453,000 kilograms).
The enormous pressures found in deep wells are another major hazard.
Too much pressure can make it difficult to control the drill bit. Or the pressure could collapse the hole altogether.
Drillers must therefore use seismic readings while drilling to predict how high pressures will be at future depths in order to keep the hole viable.
Danny and John get along well
From the Tuesday National Post, this article on the strong, positive relationship between Premier Danny Williams and Husky Energy's John Lau.
There are strong signals that Danny Williams is looking to change the perception of his policies if not the substance of the way he approaches relationships. In the confrontation with the federal government over Equalization, Williams has repeatedly stated he is not seeking confrontation for the sake of having a racket. He said much the same thing over the weekend following a meeting with federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion.
Ultimately, that's both factually accurate - he isn't really fighting for the sake of fighting - and a sign that Williams understands what is needed to foster mutually beneficial relationships. As Michael Harris said of Brian Peckford a quarter century ago, "dogma is no substitute for dialogue, and compromise no synonym for weakness."
At Husky's annual meeting last week, for example, the Hong Kong-born accountant gushed that the premier has been "very helpful" to Husky and that his company, in return, is eager to "work with the government and share the upside."The relationship between the Premier and the oil man stands out in light of other stories that there is tension between the Premier and the industry.
When asked about the secret of his relationship with Mr. Williams, Mr. Lau said Husky and the province are so transparent with each other it's resulted in a level of trust that is unusual "between a corporation and the government."The real clue to what makes this relationship work actually comes later in the piece. it has to do with the individual styles of the two men.
"We understand what the government wants, and the government understands what we want. We have no hidden agenda," Mr. Lau said, giving credit to his team in the province, led by East Coast vice-president Ruud Zoon.
Husky would not be averse to having the government as an equity partner as long as it doesn't affect its bottom line, Mr. Lau added.
Some argue it's also a matter of style. Despite their vastly different backgrounds, the two leaders have kindred spirits: both see themselves as outsiders who don't get enough recognition, are highly successful, built organizations in their own image, are hands-own and hard to work for.Fundamentally, though, Husky Energy is following a pretty standard approach to any relationship: the company is trying to find common ground, bearing in mind that whatever it might consider, including an equity position for the province, is governed by the corporate bottom line.
There are strong signals that Danny Williams is looking to change the perception of his policies if not the substance of the way he approaches relationships. In the confrontation with the federal government over Equalization, Williams has repeatedly stated he is not seeking confrontation for the sake of having a racket. He said much the same thing over the weekend following a meeting with federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion.
Ultimately, that's both factually accurate - he isn't really fighting for the sake of fighting - and a sign that Williams understands what is needed to foster mutually beneficial relationships. As Michael Harris said of Brian Peckford a quarter century ago, "dogma is no substitute for dialogue, and compromise no synonym for weakness."
23 April 2007
Danny loves Loyola, Update
A video featuring Danny Williams supporting Loyola Hearn in the 1989 provincial Progressive Conservative Party leadership contest is picking up more attention with each passing day.
The video is posted on youtube.com.
When Bond Papers posted the link on Friday, the total viewers was 91. That number hit 241 by mid-day Monday. The video was featured on CBC's Here and Now supperhour news show on Monday evening and as of 10: 45 Pm Monday night the hit counter had reached 369.
The video is posted on youtube.com.
When Bond Papers posted the link on Friday, the total viewers was 91. That number hit 241 by mid-day Monday. The video was featured on CBC's Here and Now supperhour news show on Monday evening and as of 10: 45 Pm Monday night the hit counter had reached 369.
The politics of outrage runs aground
From today's Globe?
Nope.
Try February 23, 1983.
Following is a Michael Harris piece that originally appeared in the Globe and Mail in the aftermath of the first court case on offshore ownership (the one the nationalists like to forget).
The odd thing is that it doesn't take much adjustment to have this story apply equally well today. A feisty Premier, given to fighting anyone, anywhere, anytime in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, and yet finding himself coming up short.
So to speak.
So for your reading enjoyment is this blast from the past, titled in the original as this post. Don't be confused by some of the references, by the way. Almost a quarter of a century ago, Jim Hodder was a Liberal member of the legislature. Hodder crossed the floor not long after this article appeared. He's like Tom Rideout, at least in that respect.
Leo Barry went on to lead the Liberal Party and was later appointed a justice of the Supreme Court. Brian Peckford is in British Columbia advising people out there about starting an oil and gas industry.
______________________________
For three years now, Premier Brian Peckford has practiced the politics of outrage on a range of arguably outrageous disputes in which Newfoundland has become embroiled.
In the two most celebrated quarrels - with Quebec over Labrador hydro-power and Ottawa over offshore resources - his strategy has been identical. Mr. Peckford has developed a quasi-moral position and then gone on to defend it with messianic zeal. ''Pre-conditions'' has become the buzz word when negotiating with Newfoundland. And if the notion of preconditions precluded meaningful negotiations, that was a problem for the other guy. Newfoundland would soldier on and eventually triumph because Newfoundland was in the right.
As political strategy, the approach has been a howling success - so far. Newfoundlanders unabashedly admire their battling Premier. So much so that the opposition Liberals were almost wiped out in last year's emotional provincial election. Securely wrapped in the provincial flag, Mr. Peckford rules his caucus with an iron hand and the House of Assembly with an iron tongue, much as Joey Smallwood did in his political prime.
But as a means of realizing Mr. Peckford's stated public policy goals, the feisty, inflexible approach has been an abject failure. The Upper Churchill Power Contract remains in full, ruinous force, depriving Newfoundland of $750-million a year to which the province feels entitled. And the vast oil resources off the province's southeast coast remain undeveloped.
Worse, politics as the art of being right has shifted both disputes to a forum where politicians are powerless to influence the outcome - the courts.
The stark reality of what that can mean was demonstrated last week when the Newfoundland Court of Appeal ruled that Ottawa owns resources on the continental shelf off Newfoundland. In a single stroke, the Newfoundland Petroleum Directorate became a legal fiction, the province's oil and gas regulations lost their force, and Mr. Peckford's bargaining position with Ottawa suffered a devastating blow. Ironically, Mr. Peckford must now appeal for his justice to the very court he has consistently described as the tribunal of central Canadians, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Predictably, the political opposition has argued that such epic blundering with the province's long-term future requires the supreme penalty - in the wake of last week's decision, Liberal MHA James Hodder has demanded Mr. Peckford's resignation. But the reaction of fellow Tories, particularly Newfoundland's former energy minister Leo Barry, is of far greater significance.
Mr. Barry has become the first Conservative to publicly criticize Brian Peckford since he became Premier in 1979. Two years ago, the Yale-trained lawyer and author of Newfoundland's oil and gas regulations resigned from the Peckford Cabinet over differences with the Premier on how offshore negotiations with Ottawa should be conducted. Now Mr. Barry is pointing out, ever so delicately, that the ownership question should never have been referred to the Newfoundland court in the first place and that the Newfoundland Government acted ''precipitously'' in so doing.
What makes Mr. Barry's comments all the more significant is the fact that he espouses the same goals as the Premier. Like Mr. Peckford, he too believes Newfoundland is entitled to ownership of offshore resources. But unlike the Premier, his formula for achieving ownership hinged on keeping negotiations with the federal side going and, if a deal couldn't be struck, waiting for a change of governments in Ottawa.
His reasoning was simple. Having already offered Newfoundland 100 per cent ownership of offshore resources in 1980, a Conservative government in Ottawa would have a hard time reneging on that offer if returned to power at some time in the future.
Against the backdrop of his defeat in the Newfoundland courts, and criticism from an prestigious member of his own caucus, Brian Peckford continues to talk tough. But his words are less important now than what happens in the Supreme Court of Canada in the coming weeks.
If the high court upholds the position taken by the provincial Supreme Court, as many legal observers believe it will, the Rowdyman of Newfoundland public life will have learned a harsh political lesson: dogma is no substitute for dialogue, and compromise no synonym for weakness.
Nope.
Try February 23, 1983.
Following is a Michael Harris piece that originally appeared in the Globe and Mail in the aftermath of the first court case on offshore ownership (the one the nationalists like to forget).
The odd thing is that it doesn't take much adjustment to have this story apply equally well today. A feisty Premier, given to fighting anyone, anywhere, anytime in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, and yet finding himself coming up short.
So to speak.
So for your reading enjoyment is this blast from the past, titled in the original as this post. Don't be confused by some of the references, by the way. Almost a quarter of a century ago, Jim Hodder was a Liberal member of the legislature. Hodder crossed the floor not long after this article appeared. He's like Tom Rideout, at least in that respect.
Leo Barry went on to lead the Liberal Party and was later appointed a justice of the Supreme Court. Brian Peckford is in British Columbia advising people out there about starting an oil and gas industry.
______________________________
"One cannot reasonably demand that discussions take place on the basis that it would constitute only additional obligations for one party and only benefits for the other."There is a caveat to Rene Levesque's otherwise self-evident assessment of what constitutes meaningful negotiations - it is not applicable when dealing with Newfoundland.- Rene Levesque to Brian Peckford on the
Upper Churchill Power question,
April 29, 1980.
For three years now, Premier Brian Peckford has practiced the politics of outrage on a range of arguably outrageous disputes in which Newfoundland has become embroiled.
In the two most celebrated quarrels - with Quebec over Labrador hydro-power and Ottawa over offshore resources - his strategy has been identical. Mr. Peckford has developed a quasi-moral position and then gone on to defend it with messianic zeal. ''Pre-conditions'' has become the buzz word when negotiating with Newfoundland. And if the notion of preconditions precluded meaningful negotiations, that was a problem for the other guy. Newfoundland would soldier on and eventually triumph because Newfoundland was in the right.
As political strategy, the approach has been a howling success - so far. Newfoundlanders unabashedly admire their battling Premier. So much so that the opposition Liberals were almost wiped out in last year's emotional provincial election. Securely wrapped in the provincial flag, Mr. Peckford rules his caucus with an iron hand and the House of Assembly with an iron tongue, much as Joey Smallwood did in his political prime.
But as a means of realizing Mr. Peckford's stated public policy goals, the feisty, inflexible approach has been an abject failure. The Upper Churchill Power Contract remains in full, ruinous force, depriving Newfoundland of $750-million a year to which the province feels entitled. And the vast oil resources off the province's southeast coast remain undeveloped.
Worse, politics as the art of being right has shifted both disputes to a forum where politicians are powerless to influence the outcome - the courts.
The stark reality of what that can mean was demonstrated last week when the Newfoundland Court of Appeal ruled that Ottawa owns resources on the continental shelf off Newfoundland. In a single stroke, the Newfoundland Petroleum Directorate became a legal fiction, the province's oil and gas regulations lost their force, and Mr. Peckford's bargaining position with Ottawa suffered a devastating blow. Ironically, Mr. Peckford must now appeal for his justice to the very court he has consistently described as the tribunal of central Canadians, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Predictably, the political opposition has argued that such epic blundering with the province's long-term future requires the supreme penalty - in the wake of last week's decision, Liberal MHA James Hodder has demanded Mr. Peckford's resignation. But the reaction of fellow Tories, particularly Newfoundland's former energy minister Leo Barry, is of far greater significance.
Mr. Barry has become the first Conservative to publicly criticize Brian Peckford since he became Premier in 1979. Two years ago, the Yale-trained lawyer and author of Newfoundland's oil and gas regulations resigned from the Peckford Cabinet over differences with the Premier on how offshore negotiations with Ottawa should be conducted. Now Mr. Barry is pointing out, ever so delicately, that the ownership question should never have been referred to the Newfoundland court in the first place and that the Newfoundland Government acted ''precipitously'' in so doing.
What makes Mr. Barry's comments all the more significant is the fact that he espouses the same goals as the Premier. Like Mr. Peckford, he too believes Newfoundland is entitled to ownership of offshore resources. But unlike the Premier, his formula for achieving ownership hinged on keeping negotiations with the federal side going and, if a deal couldn't be struck, waiting for a change of governments in Ottawa.
His reasoning was simple. Having already offered Newfoundland 100 per cent ownership of offshore resources in 1980, a Conservative government in Ottawa would have a hard time reneging on that offer if returned to power at some time in the future.
Against the backdrop of his defeat in the Newfoundland courts, and criticism from an prestigious member of his own caucus, Brian Peckford continues to talk tough. But his words are less important now than what happens in the Supreme Court of Canada in the coming weeks.
If the high court upholds the position taken by the provincial Supreme Court, as many legal observers believe it will, the Rowdyman of Newfoundland public life will have learned a harsh political lesson: dogma is no substitute for dialogue, and compromise no synonym for weakness.
Promise made, Promise MIA
From the much bally-hooed Blue Book from 2003:
* Approximately 40% of all government expenditures goes towards salaries and employee benefits. Over the next five years, approximately 25% of the public service will be eligible for retirement. A Progressive Conservative government will use this five-year period to reduce the size of the public sector through attrition.
...
* Strengthening the Public Tender Act. All government departments and agencies will be required to comply with a strengthened Public Tender Act with an aim to strengthening competition and eliminating costly lawsuits that occur as a result of violations to the Act.
...
* A Progressive Conservative government will restore the House of Assembly to it rightful place as the "People's House". Our aim is to create a system of government in which power is shared with the legislature and the people, instead of being concentrated in the office of the premier and cabinet. [Emphasis added.]
...
* The appointment of a special committee of the legislature that will ensure proper scrutiny and public discussion of federal proposals in areas of provincial concern.
And speaking of electoral reform...
There's the case of Rob Anders, as viewed by the National Post's Don Mills.
The eastern banana republic
When the cabinet seizes control of what is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, you get an announcement that the government is appointing a "staunch Tory" to be chief electoral officer.
The root of the current problem goes back to the House of Assembly scandal when the Premier, not the Speaker, seized control of the issue and started to manage the whole thing from the Premier's Office. Contrary to his public protestations, the Premier has been running the show ever since.
In the current situation, if for some reason the House doesn't approve him, the staunch Tory will continue to serve in an acting capacity.
Why wasn't this supposedly non-partisan position recruited through a non-partisan process through the House of Assembly?
And by what authority will the "staunch Tory" get to keep his job even if the legislature finds him unsuitable?
Chuck Furey's appointment was bad enough.
This announcement completely destroys any pretense that the government is accountable to the House of Assembly in any manner whatsoever.
What's say we just skip the fall election and save a bundle of cash using the Yeltsin solution.
After all, when a "staunch Tory" is appointed by a Tory government to a supposedly non-partisan position overseeing an election, it really doesn't take much imagination to figure out that the whole democracy thing has become a sick joke.
The root of the current problem goes back to the House of Assembly scandal when the Premier, not the Speaker, seized control of the issue and started to manage the whole thing from the Premier's Office. Contrary to his public protestations, the Premier has been running the show ever since.
In the current situation, if for some reason the House doesn't approve him, the staunch Tory will continue to serve in an acting capacity.
Why wasn't this supposedly non-partisan position recruited through a non-partisan process through the House of Assembly?
And by what authority will the "staunch Tory" get to keep his job even if the legislature finds him unsuitable?
Chuck Furey's appointment was bad enough.
This announcement completely destroys any pretense that the government is accountable to the House of Assembly in any manner whatsoever.
What's say we just skip the fall election and save a bundle of cash using the Yeltsin solution.
After all, when a "staunch Tory" is appointed by a Tory government to a supposedly non-partisan position overseeing an election, it really doesn't take much imagination to figure out that the whole democracy thing has become a sick joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)