Ya got yer Leandre Bergeron, your Pierre Bourgeault, and the other sovereignists.
Who would be the Newfoundland and Labrador equivalents?
Any suggestions, serious or otherwise are welcome.
-srbp-
The real political division in society is between authoritarians and libertarians.
"We're in this situation essentially because of the FPI Act," Risley told CBC News on Monday, after the Newfoundland and Labrador government gave its blessing to FPI's plans to sell most of its plants, vessels and quotas to two competitors: St. John's-based Ocean Choice International and Nova Scotia's High Liner Foods.
Risley said his original plan — to merge FPI with his own, Nova Scotia-based company, Clearwater Fine Foods — would have turned FPI into a powerhouse.
The plan was blocked by the then-Liberal government and the Risley-led board has had strained relations with the governing Progressive Conservatives since they took office in 2003.
"FPI would have become one of the premier seafood companies in the world instead of now effectively ceasing to exist," Risley said.
"What we've tried to do is make sure that there wasn't a quick flip on this, and that this wasn't perceived or was a sham for some takeover by John Risley or anybody else, at the end of the day," Williams said.Maybe this worry about flipping was the reason the provincial government rejected the first buyer, the Barry Group.
Williams told reporters that the agreement announced Monday actually worked out to be better for the province than its original demand.The provincial government has been engaged in an ongoing war with the former FPI board of directors. It took over 18 months to review a capitalization plan and only approved after the plan - to turn an asset into an income trust - had become functionally useless. The war has been marked by frequent - and apparently unfounded - accusations that the former board members were looking to break up FPI and acquire the assets for their own fishing companies.
"We in fact feel that we actually strengthened it," Williams said."I'm not just saying that, you know, to try and basically accommodate for the fact that we didn't get the quotas at the end of the day, but the federal government wasn't prepared to pass the quotas over [so] we got into a negotiation with them and [we] feel that we ended up better off, quite frankly."
The Honourable Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Honourable Tom Rideout, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, today announced that the Provincial Government has reached two separate Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Ocean Choice International (OCI) Incorporated and High Liner Foods Incorporated for the sale of various FPI assets. The MOUs also outline the terms and conditions that will accompany the successful completion of those transactions and provide the necessary protections for the province’s interests. The sale remains conditional upon the signing of final binding legal agreements between both companies and FPI, which is expected in the coming weeks. The Provincial Government will also approve the sale of The Seafood Company, a primarily independent business unit located in the United Kingdom, which will be sold to interests in Europe.One of the consequences of this deal is that the lucrative marketing arm of Fishery Products International will be sold to a Nova Scotia-based company. Another marketing asset based in the United Kingdom - which would have been a useful way to market local shellfish in the European Union will be sold to European interests.
"Since 2001, it is clear that FPI has pursued a business strategy that has been incompatible with the public policy objectives of the Provincial Government [sic] and communities that depend on the company," said Minister Rideout. "The agreements we are announcing today hold the promise of finally rectifying that situation, and our approval of this sale is reflective of this government’s confidence in the industry to move forward in a productive way that will serve the best interests of all stakeholders."Time will tell if the second part of that statement is true. Certainly, the first bit - about the business strategy - is bordering on the completely nonsensical. Rideout has never indicated what the provincial government's public policy objectives are.
Alcan last week rejected a $US27 billion ($33 billion) hostile offer from its US rival, Alcoa, which would create the world's largest aluminium company, and indicated it was in talks with unnamed "third parties".
The Herald understands that several potential suitors, including Rio and BHP, have expressed interest in opening discussions with Alcan's board. Some, including Rio, have already hired investment banks to provide advice on a possible bid.
One major difference between Murkowski and Palin plans is that while both approaches offer tax and royalty incentives for the producers, those proposed by Murkowski were more far-reaching and more controversial with the public and the Legislature.In-kind would mean the state government would actually receive quantities of natural gas which it could then dispose of as it wanted.
Murkowski would have had a 45-year freeze on natural gas production taxes and a 30-year freeze on oil production taxes. Palin proposes a 10-year freeze on gas taxes only. The producing companies say this isn't enough, and it is a key obstacle for them in participating with a pipeline licensed under AGIA.
Murkowski would have solved a big problem producers have regarding uncertainties in state royalty administration, and particularly the state's ability under the current leases to switch between in-value and in-kind royalty-taking at six- to nine-month intervals. Murkowski's plan would have had the state take its gas in-kind for the duration of the 45-year contract.
One other difference between the Murkowski and Palin plans is that the former governor would have had the state invest in the pipeline and own as much as 20 percent. The idea behind this is that if the state takes its gas in-kind for a long period, it would, as a pipeline owner, be shipping its own gas and earning profits from that rather than paying another pipeline owner to ship state gas. Murkowski proposed investing about $4 billion in the project for a one-fifth share.
Palin would have no such equity ownership, but instead proposes a $500 million state grant to the pipeline license holder to subsidize early planning and engineering work. The state would get no equity or other repayment from the grant.
The act is the bane of Mayor Andy Wells. "A lot of the content of the act is junk," Mr. Wells said.[Telegram Photo: Joe Gibbons]
The auditor general (currently John Noseworthy) - whose reports annually shed an embarrassing light on the provincial government - could turn his attention to city hall if he wanted.
But Wells said there is no need, because the city already has an external audit process which produces reports annually.
Overall, though, there’s one clear point that has to be made: there’s a major difference between disagreeing with someone’s questions, and disagreeing with their right to make them.
There are obviously people who disagree with my point of view — they’re welcome to their positions. The fact is, this newspaper will be printing their letters to the editor long after I’m no longer writing columns.
Disagree with my arguments — perhaps I’ll disagree right back.
But once we get to the point that all dissent is suddenly proof of disdain — or worse, proof of disloyalty to some cause — then we’re in real trouble.
And believe me, there is more written and said now about the fact that some people in our province shouldn’t be allowed to make their positions known than there has been in years.
Unanimous and constant backing of our provincial government? Let’s be careful what we wish for.